Priesthood Authority And Righteousness

[3DOP]

saemo

The doctrines remain the same as they always have. Which is highly important to me, more important than anything. If that weren't important to me, I'd be Episcopalian (seriously). I'm not interested in any church fired up by "some guy".  (Sorry Rory, that includes SSPX.) I'm interested in the Church founded by Christ, during His ministry.

 

3DOP

No worries saemo. I am certain that you have good will toward me in saying that and I am glad that you wouldn't let some form of sentimentalism get in the way of sharing your convictions. I believe you ARE sorry. Many orthodox Catholics who are afraid to support the SSPX are very sorry that they are afraid, because if they only had a clear conscience about it, they would be happy to support the Society and receive the Sacraments in their chapels. (I am not saying that is the reason YOU are sorry.) Also, please believe in my good will toward you and the catechumens who you have helped prepare for baptism tonight. May God bless you and them. I rejoice in their reception into the One Holy Church. Your joy at directly participating in their new life in Christ is shared vicariously by all Catholics.  

 

You and I can choose to bypass dozens of "Catholic" parishes where we are dissatisfied with the teaching that is taking place. Mgr. Lefebvre had intended to quietly retire in the late 60's when he was approached by young men who were discerning calls to the priesthood but felt a similar need to "bypass" dozens of seminaries where they were dissatisfied with the teaching that took place. Was this non-Catholic of them? They urged him repeatedly to help them know what they should do and he recognized their sincere godly wishes. The canonical erection of the Society of St. Pius X and its first seminary is well-documented and undisputed. I will not enter into the debate about whether it was legally suppressed. Abp. Lefebvre was "some guy" who never left the Catholic Church, formally or informally. If the seminarians who go to the seminaries he founded can be accused of leaving the Church because they want an orthodox formation, then maybe your situation needs evaluated too saemo. Fortunately, you and I have the luxury of forming a judgment that we don't want to attend most parishes. We can do this without concern that the agents of Hell will go to Rome with vicious lies about why we don't go to our parish churches.

 

The problem Marcel Lefebvre had was his prominence as an Archbishop. Jealousies arose because the seminary he founded was now forming more and more young men for the priesthood the same way he had founded churches and seminaries in Africa throughout the 40's and 50's. The other French bishops were incensed that the seminary of this "dinosaur" was teeming with young men while their own seminaries were emptying. They succeeded in deceiving important figures in Rome about the work of Lefebvre for Tradition because it was an embarrassment to their aspirations for church reform along lines that were anything but Traditional. Today, we see the fruitlessness of the efforts of those hateful French bishops of the 70's, as their successors today are forced to close church after church while the diocesan priests of formerly Catholic France, mother of Sts Francis deSales, Margaret Alocoque, Joan of Arc, Louis IX, the Cure of Ars, Vincent dePaul, and literally dozens of other saints, die without being replaced.

 

Its ironic but the Society is accused of rejecting Vatican II when the Society seminaries are among a tiny minority in the Church that adhere to the laws laid down by the Council for seminary formation. Young men who want to be formed, according to the traditional norms of the Second Vatican Council can't very often go to their own diocesan seminaries. Just as you feel like your faith needs nurtured at an orthodox parish outside your neighborhood, so candidates for seminary often feel like their faith needs nurtured at an orthodox seminary outside their diocese, even if it had been slanderously labelled, a "wildcat seminary". The enemies of God even convinced Paul VI that the seminarians of the Society took an oath against the pope! Disciplines still followed after that preposterous charge was put to rest, but it was impossible for Abp. Lefebvre to believe after that that the pope would actually discipline him for the work he was doing. He was sure that if the Pope actually knew the good that was going on in Society seminaries, and the evil that abounded elsewhere in the poor Church, he would approve. If ill-informed Roman authorities told you that you have to go your neighborhood parish, would you obey, saemo? Would you perceive that your duty in such an instance was to place yourself and perhaps your family in a situation where the faith is denied or at least ignored? Perhaps you would feel yourself so obliged? I'll close with a few words about duty. 

 

I sponsored a friend into the Church in 2002, in the Novus Ordo. He dutifully went to his parish church for a while. Duty with purpose leaves one energized. Without purpose, without beauty, without seeing an end to the dissipation and sheer boredom it leaves in the soul, duty alone is lifeless. Not surprisingly, he stopped going. The great Evelyn Waugh, best known as the author of the Catholic masterpiece Brideshead Revisited, died, perhaps mercifully, of a heart attack after Mass on Easter Sunday, the 10th of April, 1966. The last extant letter he wrote was on March 30th of that year:

Easter used to mean so much to me. Before Pope John and his Council---they destroyed the beauty of the liturgy. I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the Faith doggedly without joy. Church going is a pure duty parade. I shall not live to see it restored...  

 

 

---The Letters of Evelyn Waugh, edited by Mark Amory, Penguin Books 1982, p. 639

 

There are true enemies of the Catholic faith in places of authority in the Catholic Church. Their influence is why you and I don't want go to most parishes. These wolves are content so long as believing Catholics don't raise much fuss. As long as we pretend that they are true Catholics just because they usurped a high office they don't mind us much. The strategy of God's enemies is to make those with a sense of Catholic faith think it is their duty to obey them in everything, even when it seems like they are doing and saying things contrary to our sense of faith. They hope that by this means, by a "duty parade", that if they don't starve Catholic mothers and fathers to death with their banal liturgies and puerile sermons, the parents will die without being able to communicate the love and joy which should permeate the celebration of our beautiful religion. This way, none of the children, seeing the joyless, duty-driven religion of the parents, will in their turn become faithful parents of our faithful Catholic grandchildren. Much less does a "duty parade" rouse the young to vocations. The duty parade is sterile.

 

It is my judgment at this time that the bishops, priests, brothers, sisters, and seminarians of the Society of St. Pius X are determined that it is their duty to NOT join the "duty parade". For their obedience to the reasonable, unchangeable, and apostolic principles of eternal Rome, they are misrepresented, vilified, and despised as non-Catholics by the same wolves who Pope Benedict acknowledged as pests in the Church. Regardless of the wolves within, the SSPX leadership know the promises of God are revealed for the entire Church, not their little band of brothers. They see that the enemy is trying to crucify the Bride as he crucified the Groom. I am not SSPX although I am obviously a supporter for now. I am Catholic and don't want to die without trying to fight to see the Catholic Church recovered from such ghastly disfigurement as Mr. Waugh perceived already in 1966. I believe in the restoration of her former glory. I am Catholic forever, well aware that the SSPX has no promises of perpetuity as the Church does. If and when the Society of St. Pius X turns from the vision of its venerable and Roman Catholic founder, I will stop supporting the SSPX, but never to become anything but what I perceive to be most honoring to the One, Holy, Catholic Church founded upon the Apostles, so help me God. 

 

3DOP

Edited April 19, 2014 by 3DOP

[saemo]

saemo

The doctrines remain the same as they always have. Which is highly important to me, more important than anything. If that weren't important to me, I'd be Episcopalian (seriously). I'm not interested in any church fired up by "some guy". (Sorry Rory, that includes SSPX.) I'm interested in the Church founded by Christ, during His ministry.

3DOP

No worries saemo. I am certain that you have good will toward me in saying that and I am glad that you wouldn't let some form of sentimentalism get in the way of sharing your convictions. I believe you ARE sorry. Many orthodox Catholics who are afraid to support the SSPX are very sorry that they are afraid, because if they only had a clear conscience about it, they would be happy to support the Society and receive the Sacraments in their chapels. (I am not saying that is the reason YOU are sorry.) Also, please believe in my good will toward you and the catechumens who you have helped prepare for baptism tonight. May God bless you and them. I rejoice in their reception into the One Holy Church. Your joy at directly participating in their new life in Christ is shared vicariously by all Catholics.

You and I can choose to bypass dozens of "Catholic" parishes where we are dissatisfied with the teaching that is taking place. Mgr. Lefebvre had intended to quietly retire in the late 60's when he was approached by young men who were discerning calls to the priesthood but felt a similar need to "bypass" dozens of seminaries where they were dissatisfied with the teaching that took place. Was this non-Catholic of them? They urged him repeatedly to help them know what they should do and he recognized their sincere godly wishes. The canonical erection of the Society of St. Pius X and its first seminary is well-documented and undisputed. I will not enter into the debate about whether it was legally suppressed. Abp. Lefebvre was "some guy" who never left the Catholic Church, formally or informally. If the seminarians who go to the seminaries he founded can be accused of leaving the Church because they want an orthodox formation, then maybe your situation needs evaluated too saemo. Fortunately, you and I have the luxury of forming a judgment that we don't want to attend most parishes. We can do this without concern that the agents of Hell will go to Rome with vicious lies about why we don't go to our parish churches.

The problem Marcel Lefebvre had was his prominence as an Archbishop. Jealousies arose because the seminary he founded was now forming more and more young men for the priesthood the same way he had founded churches and seminaries in Africa throughout the 40's and 50's. The other French bishops were incensed that the seminary of this "dinosaur" was teeming with young men while their own seminaries were emptying. They succeeded in deceiving important figures in Rome about the work of Lefebvre for Tradition because it was an embarrassment to their aspirations for church reform along lines that were anything but Traditional. Today, we see the fruitlessness of the efforts of those hateful French bishops of the 70's, as their successors today are forced to close church after church while the diocesan priests of formerly Catholic France, mother of Sts Francis deSales, Margaret Alocoque, Joan of Arc, Louis IX, the Cure of Ars, Vincent dePaul, and literally dozens of other saints, die without being replaced.

Its ironic but the Society is accused of rejecting Vatican II when the Society seminaries are among a tiny minority in the Church that adhere to the laws laid down by the Council for seminary formation. Young men who want to be formed, according to the traditional norms of the Second Vatican Council can't very often go to their own diocesan seminaries. Just as you feel like your faith needs nurtured at an orthodox parish outside your neighborhood, so candidates for seminary often feel like their faith needs nurtured at an orthodox seminary outside their diocese, even if it had been slanderously labelled, a "wildcat seminary". The enemies of God even convinced Paul VI that the seminarians of the Society took an oath against the pope! Disciplines still followed after that preposterous charge was put to rest, but it was impossible for Abp. Lefebvre to believe after that that the pope would actually discipline him for the work he was doing. He was sure that if the Pope actually knew the good that was going on in Society seminaries, and the evil that abounded elsewhere in the poor Church, he would approve. If ill-informed Roman authorities told you that you have to go your neighborhood parish, would you obey, saemo? Would you perceive that your duty in such an instance was to place yourself and perhaps your family in a situation where the faith is denied or at least ignored? Perhaps you would feel yourself so obliged? I'll close with a few words about duty.

I sponsored a friend into the Church in 2002, in the Novus Ordo. He dutifully went to his parish church for a while. Duty with purpose leaves one energized. Without purpose, without beauty, without seeing an end to the dissipation and sheer boredom it leaves in the soul, duty alone is lifeless. Not surprisingly, he stopped going. The great Evelyn Waugh, best known as the author of the Catholic masterpiece Brideshead Revisited, died, perhaps mercifully, of a heart attack after Mass on Easter Sunday, the 10th of April, 1966. The last extant letter he wrote was on March 30th of that year:

---The Letters of Evelyn Waugh, edited by Mark Amory, Penguin Books 1982, p. 639

There are true enemies of the Catholic faith in places of authority in the Catholic Church. Their influence is why you and I don't want go to most parishes. These wolves are content so long as believing Catholics don't raise much fuss. As long as we pretend that they are true Catholics just because they usurped a high office they don't mind us much. The strategy of God's enemies is to make those with a sense of Catholic faith think it is their duty to obey them in everything, even when it seems like they are doing and saying things contrary to our sense of faith. They hope that by this means, by a "duty parade", that if they don't starve Catholic mothers and fathers to death with their banal liturgies and puerile sermons, the parents will die without being able to communicate the love and joy which should permeate the celebration of our beautiful religion. This way, none of the children, seeing the joyless, duty-driven religion of the parents, will in their turn become faithful parents of our faithful Catholic grandchildren. Much less does a "duty parade" rouse the young to vocations. The duty parade is sterile.

It is my judgment at this time that the bishops, priests, brothers, sisters, and seminarians of the Society of St. Pius X are determined that it is their duty to NOT join the "duty parade". For their obedience to the reasonable, unchangeable, and apostolic principles of eternal Rome, they are misrepresented, vilified, and despised as non-Catholics by the same wolves who Pope Benedict acknowledged as pests in the Church. Regardless of the wolves within, the SSPX leadership know the promises of God are revealed for the entire Church, not their little band of brothers. They see that the enemy is trying to crucify the Bride as he crucified the Groom. I am not SSPX although I am obviously a supporter for now. I am Catholic and don't want to die without trying to fight to see the Catholic Church recovered from such ghastly disfigurement as Mr. Waugh perceived already in 1966. I believe in the restoration of her former glory. I am Catholic forever, well aware that the SSPX has no promises of perpetuity as the Church does. If and when the Society of St. Pius X turns from the vision of its venerable and Roman Catholic founder, I will stop supporting the SSPX, but never to become anything but what I perceive to be most honoring to the One, Holy, Catholic Church founded upon the Apostles, so help me God.

3DOP

Thanks Rory. I was thinking along the lines of the Desert Fathers, who when the Church changed to something easier because it was no longer persecuted, went to the desert to live ascetic lives. I see SSPX as similar, except that there is no recognition or blessing from the Church. I see SSPX adherents are invited back, but refuse to come in from the desert. I certainly believe that charismas within the Church are sometimes not recognized, and suppressed. We know this happens, we've seen it before.

Then I think of someone like Dorothy Day, who fearlessly lived as the Spirit called her, yet remained a faithful daughter of the Church.

Egos come from both directions. I'd rather see orthodox adherents in from the desert. We need you in our parishes. I fear you'll stay away too long, and have no way back. At that point, you will be following some guy.

The Protestant temptation is always there. It is the one that says, Christ's Church is so injured by evil men, that He must be looked for elsewhere. It is a temptation of evil itself, as our Lord is ever faithful, and our redemption is in Him. Not in any evil or holy man.

Edited April 20, 2014 by saemo

[3DOP]

I don't want to turn this into a Catholic debate over what has happened post-Vatican II, but I'll just say that from my point-of-view things swung way way way too far to the liberal, modern, protestant side of things and that is most easily observed in the VAST difference in the way the traditional Latin Mass is celebrated and the way that the new Mass is celebrated.  All of the SSPX debate I'll leave for others in a different place

Uh oh. How about others (me)...in the same place???

 

A blessed "Felix Culpa" to you Miserere. Low Mass in the morning for me. (I need to take my Mom).

 

I like that idea of lamb. We always have a ham...but where is the symbolism, in that? Its too late for this year, but I might float that idea. So...all the non-Catholic relatives are coming over. My poor son-in-law, former seminarian, he has a hard time with my family...its a "duty parade" for him! Heh. Every week? No. Once a year won't hurt him will it? Our other good Novus Ordo daughter will be here with her beau too. Good guy. They are involved with what they call Communion and Liberation. I hate the sound of it. You can't keep up with every movement. I dunno. Anyway, I like her guy. 

 

Thanks Rory. I was thinking along the lines of the Desert Fathers, who when the Church changed to something easier because it was no longer persecuted, went to the desert to live ascetic lives. I see SSPX as similar, except that there is no recognition or blessing from the Church. I see SSPX adherents are invited back, but refuse to come in from the desert. I certainly believe that charismas within the Church are sometimes not recognized, and suppressed. We know this happens, we've seen it before.

Then I think of someone like Dorothy Day, who fearlessly lived as the Spirit called her, yet remained a faithful daughter of the Church.

Egos come from both directions. I'd rather see orthodox adherents in from the desert. We need you in our parishes. I fear you'll stay away too long, and have no way back. At that point, you will be following some guy.

The Protestant temptation is always there.

 

Absolutely...pray for us.

[3DOP]

Thanks Rory. I was thinking along the lines of the Desert Fathers, who when the Church changed to something easier because it was no longer persecuted, went to the desert to live ascetic lives. I see SSPX as similar, except that there is no recognition or blessing from the Church. I see SSPX adherents are invited back, but refuse to come in from the desert. I certainly believe that charismas within the Church are sometimes not recognized, and suppressed. We know this happens, we've seen it before.

Then I think of someone like Dorothy Day, who fearlessly lived as the Spirit called her, yet remained a faithful daughter of the Church.

Egos come from both directions. I'd rather see orthodox adherents in from the desert. We need you in our parishes. I fear you'll stay away too long, and have no way back. At that point, you will be following some guy.

The Protestant temptation is always there. It is the one that says, Christ's Church is so injured by evil men, that He must be looked for elsewhere. It is a temptation of evil itself, as our Lord is ever faithful, and our redemption is in Him. Not in any evil or holy man.

I see your edit...and I am still with you...Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

[saemo]

I was involved with Communion and Liberation for a couple of years. It is one of the charismas the Church recognized after Vatican II. Orthodox, aimed mainly at youth, high school and college aged, but also has older adults participating. Pope Benedict XVI participated in a school of communion, and his household was run by Memores Domini. All of his encyclicals have a clear tone of CL in them.

Edited April 20, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

I see your edit...and I am still with you...Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

...and one can masquerade as the other.

[ChristKnight]

I will be off to a lovely Novus Ordo Mass in the morning with my parents and siblings.  Luckily, in the NYC area, we seem to have lots of options for Masses, including Tridentine and Eastern Catholic.  As well, Cardinal Dolan offers a monthly (I think) young adult Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral that apparently has more than 1000 attendees.  I was at St. Patrick's earlier in the week, and it definitely is a little weird being there with all the construction (they're undergoing a massive restoration), plus the usual tourists.  It's also somewhat amusing how they have a sign at the entrance to the Lady Chapel (where Adoration is happening throughout the day, daily) saying "no pictures beyond this point", yet tourists always walk right in and start taking pictures, and a volunteer has to usher them out and gently chastise them.  I always smile a little at that. 

 

 

 

Saemo, I keep thinking, why are you on here when you should be getting ready for the initiation of your candidates tonight?!?!  Then I remember the time difference .

[saemo]

I will be off to a lovely Novus Ordo Mass in the morning with my parents and siblings.  Luckily, in the NYC area, we seem to have lots of options for Masses, including Tridentine and Eastern Catholic.  As well, Cardinal Dolan offers a monthly (I think) young adult Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral that apparently has more than 1000 attendees.  I was at St. Patrick's earlier in the week, and it definitely is a little weird being there with all the construction (they're undergoing a massive restoration), plus the usual tourists.  It's also somewhat amusing how they have a sign at the entrance to the Lady Chapel (where Adoration is happening throughout the day, daily) saying "no pictures beyond this point", yet tourists always walk right in and start taking pictures, and a volunteer has to usher them out and gently chastise them.  I always smile a little at that. 

 

 

 

Saemo, I keep thinking, why are you on here when you should be getting ready for the initiation of your candidates tonight?!?!  Then I remember the time difference .

I was a tourist a few years ago, with my sisters. One who is Mormon the other who remains unaffiliated. We walked by St. Patricks and I soooo wanted to go in, but my sisters have no interest in Catholic churches, so I took pictures of the doors. LOL.

I'll be in NYC next week, for business. Won't be there on Sunday, but hoping to find a daily Mass in the evening, after work.

Yes, we had our retreat for our candidates this morning. Had to maneuver the Salt Lake City Marathon to get there, but it wasn't too inconvenient. Very nice, our Bishop took the time to speak with them, but mainly we contemplated the Joyous Mysteries. They've been fed lunch, and are gifted with a new crucifix for their homes. Break for us all. I'm up from a nap, which is my preparation for a 9-midnight Mass. And I am off now to get ready to go. Happy Easter everyone.

[3DOP]

...and one can masquerade as the other.

 I can't endorse that.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I was a tourist a few years ago, with my sisters. One who is Mormon the other who remains unaffiliated. We walked by St. Patricks and I soooo wanted to go in, but my sisters have no interest in Catholic churches, so I took pictures of the doors. LOL.

I'll be in NYC next week, for business. Won't be there on Sunday, but hoping to find a daily Mass in the evening, after work.

Yes, we had our retreat for our candidates this morning. Had to maneuver the Salt Lake City Marathon to get there, but it wasn't too inconvenient. Very nice, our Bishop took the time to speak with them, but mainly we contemplated the Joyous Mysteries. They've been fed lunch, and are gifted with a new crucifix for their homes. Break for us all. I'm up from a nap, which is my preparation for a 9-midnight Mass. And I am off now to get ready to go. Happy Easter everyone.

I love big Catholic Churches...we have two here in Atlanta, where I worked as an Inspector and police...so I got to go in both. The largest synagogue in Atlanta, the one bombed in the 60's, I went into to inspect and had a powerful spiritual experience...it felt like being in a Temple.

[Spammer]

I don't know of any Mormons who have become Catholic-none- except perhaps one who posts here who was a Catholic and then became lds and I suspect is now Catholic again. But I don't know for sure.

 

I'm one.  I became Catholic in 2008 and a chrismated Orthodox Christian in 2013..  

[Spammer]

3DOP, on 15 Apr 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the Scholastic formula, but they would always affirm that "the host becomes the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself". St. Ignatius of Antioch (very early 2nd Century) is one of the earliest witnesses to "the host becomes the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself".

If you get around to it, a link or two on that would be very helpful.  I am under the impression that the Orthodox view is quite similar to the Roman church, but I don't know.

 

And it would be interesting to see if these views are based on philosophical arguments or mystical experience.  I personally believe in the "real presence" experientially, at times I have experienced the sensation that Christ is "really present" but it is a mystical experience.  For me that makes it just as "real" as anything can be though.  I only know that you exist based on my experience as well.

 

Rory is correct.  We Orthodox reject scholastic formulations but accept that it's Jesus himself who is present in the Eucharist.  We reject transubstantiation but accept transmutation.  We're not so inclined to use philosophy to try to explain the change.  We just accept the fact of the change in faith and leave it at that. The work of infinite divinity is nothing our finite minds can grasp, so using philosophy in this way is inappropriate.  This is also why we refer to the sacraments as Mysteries.  It's probably true to say that the Orthodox East is more mystical and less philosophical than the Latin West, though that's likely true only in a general sense.  There are certainly Orthodox philosophers, just as there are great Catholic mystics.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Spammer

[Spammer]

I think converts to Catholicism probably tend to be more old-world, more conventional, and place more importance on tradition and history. 

 

So if you are of the Mormon personality type you might leave Catholicism, but traditional Mormons will stick with tradition and stay Mormon.  So there might be more of a flow from Catholicism toward Mormonism but not so much in the other direction.

 

That's a totally subjective opinion

 

For me, the crisis of faith came first.  Despite being a sixth generation Mormon, mission, temple marriage, etc., I never did 'feel the spirit' have any kind of spiritual experiences.  I became an atheist and stayed that way for a long time.  In the duration, I couldn't quite put Jesus away.  Something about him continued to pull at me.  I eventually delved into church history and ancient history, then read the early church fathers.  That last effort, especially, is what clinched it for me and convinced me that LDS claims lack merit.  I scheduled an appointment with a priest soon thereafter.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Well I can't argue with you about the Mass.

 

But when we have our cloud discussion on the other side I will tell you all about the incredible puzzle of the Endowment.  It's like symbolic multi-dimensional chess with interacting layers.  Truly amazing.  It makes the "Bible Code" (if it were real) look like child's play.

 

Ain't no way old Joseph thought that one up himself!

 

Better yet, I'll be your escort when someone takes your name through the temple! 

 

I experienced the puzzle of the endowment multiple times before the 1990 changes to the rite.  I find the traditional Latin mass and the Orthodox Divine Liturgy to be far more laden with complex and highly significant symbolism, in addition to a much closer affinity to the rites of first temple Hebrew religion.  But that's just me.  

[Spammer]

What I appreciate about Catholic tradition is the reverence expressed for the Eucharist.  I feel there is something that we can learn and emulate in our own tradition.  

 

When I read the scriptures I can understand why the Catholic Church has taken a literal understanding to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus; however, I reject such a literal response to the Savior. It is not surprise that the concept of remembrance plays a major role for me. I guess it is just easier to understand and does not require a rather complex teaching such as transubstantiation.  

 

St. John Chrysostom is one of my favorites; thank you for sharing.

 

I love St. John Chrysostom.  He authored the Divine Liturgy that is still used as the central rite in most Eastern Christian churches to this day (Byzantine Catholic, Orthodox Christianity of every jurisdiction).  A few times per year we use the liturgy of St. Basil, one of the Cappadocian Fathers.  It's very similar to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, but a bit longer.  

 

I recommend that if anyone has never been to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the same with the traditional Latin Mass, please make a point of experiencing it.  Like the traditional Latin Mass, it has colors, sounds, bells, incense, chanting, icons (but not Latin statues), etc.  The entire liturgy, except the homily, is chanted or sung.  Depending on the jurisdiction, the melodies will differ.  Syriac Orthodox churches employ more middle eastern sounding melodies.  Greek Orthodox churches (and I assume Byzantine Catholics) employ ancient Byzantine melodies, using the eight tones of ancient Greek music.  Russian Orthodox churches (and the other Slavic Orthodox jurisdictions - Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian, etc.) employ Russian melodies.  The Syrian and Byzantine melodies will seem very different and otherworldly.  Russian melodies are a easier on Western ears.  

 

You might also find, depending on how many immigrants attend, the Liturgy sung in the traditional language of the home church.  You might here blended use of an old world tongue (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Arabic, Ukrainian) and English.  Or most of it might be in the old world tongue or most of it might be in English.  It all depends on the proportion of immigrants and how recent they are to the US.  If you want it all in English, visit an Orthodox Church of America parish (OCA).  They're lineage is from Russian Orthodoxy, but it's mostly made of Protestant converts.  It's the exact same Liturgy as all of the other Orthodox churches, but in English using mainly Russian melodies.  

 

The reason for all of this linguistic diversity is that, unlike Rome, Orthodoxy never adopted an official liturgical language.  The Greeks always sought to make things local by translating the scriptures and the Liturgy into local languages.  That explains why Russian characters look Greek.  The Slavs were evangelized over 1000 years ago by Greek missionaries from Constantinople.  Sts. Cyril and Methodius.  The Russians had no written language of their own so St. Cyril invented one for them based on the Greek alphabet.  He then translated the Bible, the Liturgy, and the canons into the Russian written language - Cyrilic.  St. Cyril invented the Cyrillic alphabet for the Russians so they could know about Christ.  Cool, huh?

Edited April 29, 2014 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Thanks for the follow up!

Thanks for that. I believe that. The bread makes his sacrifice present to me right now, in real time as I partake of it. It "is" his flesh as He "is" the light of this world. When I partake, he is in me and I am in Him. We ARE ALL the body of Christ, his arms and hands, his feet, in the same way. We ARE his flesh.

But all this is a mystical "argument", and metaphor. But it is as "real" as language can be, because all language is metaphor. Even the word "flesh" is a metaphor for that part of me that bleeds and gets fat or thin, etc. Bread and wine/water is not the same as skin and blood, and I don't think he is saying that.

 

 Now that is the part I have trouble with and find it difficult to believe despite your assurance that it is not difficult.

 

Thanks for that wonderful quote.

 

But as I see it, he is saying, infinitely better, what I said above about being "blended into that flesh".  I think that is the key phrase to what John intends to say here.  The bread as Christ's body, becomes part of our body and we become part of his mystical Body- we are blended as one being, together as husband and wife are one flesh.  He is the husband of the church and is one body with us, the faithful.  That is VERY scriptural and is even found in LDS scriptures.

 

But I would argue that that is not "transubstantiation" as understood by the Scholastics.  There is no attempt here to make an argument- it is a statement that "This is that"- that the bread IS the body.  That is metaphorical language.  Juliette is the sun.  Jesus is the light of the world.  Jesus is the gate.  Jesus is the way.  Jesus is the living water.  The bread is his body.  The wine/water is his blood.   There is no argument trying to "prove" that Jesus is somehow water, or that Jesus is the sun itself as the light of the world.  We know that is what is meant by the words.  Jesus is not a star at the center of our solar system- there is no argument attempting to show how he is.

 

In fact, the LDS idea of the light of the Sun being the light of Christ is in fact more bold and literal than even the Catholic conception of the light of the world.

 

All these are symbolic metaphors, the way I see it.  But please don't see this as an attack on your beliefs.  I have no problem with Catholics believing that the bread and wine is LITERALLY Christ's body blood soul and divinity.  I just don't believe that.

 

Like Catholics, we Orthodox believe that a real change in the nature of bread and wine occurs. We don't interpret anything in this regard metaphorically.  As I said in a prior post, we reject Scholastic efforts to explain that change but agree that the material substances have truly been transmuted into something different.  It's no longer merely bread and wine.  We don't try to explain it beyond viewing it as a divine mystery and accept that when we receive the Eucharist we are receiving the Lord Himself.  Saying we don't use philosophy to try to explain the nuances doesn't mean the various Orthodox theologians haven't offered various ways to increase understanding of the nature of the change.  What's common among all of the explanations is the idea of incarnation, which is the central idea of the Christian faith.  Just as we believe that the divine Son, who dwells with the Father in Uncreated Light, was Incarnate in the flesh and became man, we believe the Son unites his divine essence with the material of the bread and wine at every Liturgy, a change effected through the Holy Spirit.  The Son thus is literally Incarnate in the bread and wine.  We don't believe that the Eucharist is literally Jesus's flesh and blood, hidden under the accidents of bread and wine.  We do believe that the bread and wine has been divinized through union with the divinity of Christ.  It's no longer merely bread and wine, representative or symbolic of Jesus's body and blood.  It truly is Jesus in His divinity.  It's divine food and drink that divinizes us when we partake of it.  In our belief, it's no metaphor.  That's why the Orthodox, like Catholics, treat every particle of the consecrated bread and wine with extreme reverence and care.  E.g., if any falls on the floor, it's the priests responsibility to get down on his knees and pick all of it up and consume it.  It really is Jesus himself and we don't leave Him down on the floor to be stepped on.  That explains why, when you visit an Orthodox church, you'll see two men flanking the priest when he offers the Eucharist to parishioners.  The two men hold a maroon cloth between them underneath the chalice containing the Eucharist.  The cloth is there to catch any particles that might drop.  When we commune, we step up and hold that cloth up to our chins so that if any falls out it falls onto the cloth.  Like I said, we don't view anything about the change of the bread and wine metaphorically.

 

Naturally, we also think that what we believe about the Eucharist was believed by St. John Chrysostom, the author of the Byzantine rite we use every Sunday, and that's how to correctly understand what he wrote in the quote Rory provided. 

Edited April 29, 2014 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

 

3DOP, on 15 Apr 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

 

Rory is correct.  We Orthodox reject scholastic formulations but accept that it's Jesus himself who is present in the Eucharist.  We reject transubstantiation but accept transmutation.  We're not so inclined to use philosophy to try to explain the change.  We just accept the fact of the change in faith and leave it at that. The work of infinite divinity is nothing our finite minds can grasp, so using philosophy in this way is inappropriate.  This is also why we refer to the sacraments as Mysteries.  It's probably true to say that the Orthodox East is more mystical and less philosophical than the Latin West, though that's likely true only in a general sense.  There are certainly Orthodox philosophers, just as there are great Catholic mystics.

 

Thanks- in my opinion that works far better

[mfbukowski]

For me, the crisis of faith came first.  Despite being a sixth generation Mormon, mission, temple marriage, etc., I never did 'feel the spirit' have any kind of spiritual experiences.  I became an atheist and stayed that way for a long time.  In the duration, I couldn't quite put Jesus away.  Something about him continued to pull at me.  I eventually delved into church history and ancient history, then read the early church fathers.  That last effort, especially, is what clinched it for me and convinced me that LDS claims lack merit.  I scheduled an appointment with a priest soon thereafter.

You are blessed to have found a path that works well for you

[mfbukowski]

Like Catholics, we Orthodox believe that a real change in the nature of bread and wine occurs. We don't interpret anything in this regard metaphorically.  As I said in a prior post, we reject Scholastic efforts to explain that change but agree that the material substances have truly been transmuted into something different.  It's no longer merely bread and wine.  We don't try to explain it beyond viewing it as a divine mystery and accept that when we receive the Eucharist we are receiving the Lord Himself.  Saying we don't use philosophy to try to explain the nuances doesn't mean the various Orthodox theologians haven't offered various ways to increase understanding of the nature of the change.  What's common among all of the explanations is the idea of incarnation, which is the central idea of the Christian faith.  Just as we believe that the divine Son, who dwells with the Father in Uncreated Light, was Incarnate in the flesh and became man, we believe the Son unites his divine essence with the material of the bread and wine at every Liturgy, a change effected through the Holy Spirit.  The Son thus is literally Incarnate in the bread and wine.  We don't believe that the Eucharist is literally Jesus's flesh and blood, hidden under the accidents of bread and wine.  We do believe that the bread and wine has been divinized through union with the divinity of Christ.  It's no longer merely bread and wine, representative or symbolic of Jesus's body and blood.  It truly is Jesus in His divinity.  It's divine food and drink that divinizes us when we partake of it.  In our belief, it's no metaphor.  That's why the Orthodox, like Catholics, treat every particle of the consecrated bread and wine with extreme reverence and care.  E.g., if any falls on the floor, it's the priests responsibility to get down on his knees and pick all of it up and consume it.  It really is Jesus himself and we don't leave Him down on the floor to be stepped on.  That explains why, when you visit an Orthodox church, you'll see two men flanking the priest when he offers the Eucharist to parishioners.  The two men hold a maroon cloth between them underneath the chalice containing the Eucharist.  The cloth is there to catch any particles that might drop.  When we commune, we step up and hold that cloth up to our chins so that if any falls out it falls onto the cloth.  Like I said, we don't view anything about the change of the bread and wine metaphorically.

 

Naturally, we also think that what we believe about the Eucharist was believed by St. John Chrysostom, the author of the Byzantine rite we use every Sunday, and that's how to correctly understand what he wrote in the quote Rory provided. 

That first part is pretty much how I see our sacrament, but for me it is bread spiritually transformed, but still bread.  It is Christ spiritually for me at that moment because I choose to see it that way.

 

But that's the way I am about everything.  I am constantly conscious of infusing my experiences with subjective meaning.  A person might also be seen as Jesus himself, for example, or my home as the temple.  A bird might be a bird or an omen, a message, or the Holy Spirit.

 

For me the transformation is where it only can be - between my ears. 

Edited April 29, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

That first part is pretty much how I see our sacrament, but for me it is bread spiritually transformed, but still bread. It is Christ spiritually for me at that moment because I choose to see it that way.

But that's the way I am about everything. I am constantly conscious of infusing my experiences with subjective meaning. A person might also be seen as Jesus himself, for example, or my home as the temple. A bird might be a bird or an omen, a message, or the Holy Spirit.

For me the transformation is where it only can be - between my ears.

Are you sure you aren't secretly Orthodox? . We believe all matter is spirit-bearing. As anointed priests of Christ, responsible for all creation, we are charged with making that reality manifest with all that we do, beginning with ourselves. The goal is for all things to be permeated with divinity to an ever greater degree through our actions. As divinity is infinite, that process never ends. I think we're perhaps a bit more literal in our belief about divine 'particles' commingling with matter, and we definitely reject any belief in the materiality of spirit, but apart from that, I think we're in agreement. I really like what you said. Edited April 29, 2014 by Spammer

[3DOP]

Spammer, hey.

 

That's very interesting about the way the East has mostly stayed away from a universal tongue. In principle, it makes a lot of sense where there is a venerable language. I have heard that back in the day shortly after Francis Xavier made a lot of inroads into the Far East, and the missionaries were meeting with more and more success, the Jesuits who were perhaps thinking of St. Cyril's success, were working on adapting the liturgy to Chinese (don't ask me what dialect(s)). But Franciscan missionaries who had been relatively successful in the American Southwest argued that Latin had adapted well to the natives in America and there was no reason why the Chinese should have the privilege of a liturgy in their own language. The Franciscans convinced the pope to squelch the Jesuit plan to have a western liturgy adapted to Chinese. That is a story my son-in-law tells from a church history class while he was in seminary.

 

People are mistaken if they think the main thing about the Traditional Mass is the Latin. It isn't. There is reasonable speculation that things might have taken quite a different turn in Chinese history if the Chinese people had been allowed to worship in their own tongue with the language written in their own symbols. Of course, St. Cyril didn't save Russia from Lenin and maybe Mao would have taken over China anyway. But in retrospect, it seems like the decision to follow the Franciscan advice is still having its impact. One wonders...if the Chinese have the Mass in their own language already, would Rome have tried to force the New Mass down their throats?

 

The reason why the New Mass met with less resistance than it might have is because of the "shock" of hearing it in the vernacular. There was understandable excitement about Mass in English for instance. The language thing was a distraction. What went unnoticed is how the prayers became less militant, less urgent, and the saints, angels, and our Blessed Mother are all downplayed, and the notion of sacrifice and the distinctive role of the priest is much less obvious. There is no way, in my opinion, that they could have done what they did, if the language had already been vernacular. What you get is a watered down, less reverent, Catholic Lite Mass that might appeal to a liberal Lutheran or Episcopalian. There is no way that a conservative Catholic likes the prayers of the New Mass better than the prayers of the Old Mass. They might be drawn to the vernacular and I have no problem with that. They also tend, in my opinion, to be hyper-papalistic in that they think he has more authority than even the Western Church has ever taught. That is why they will do backflips to defend the recent popes and that includes defending the New Mass.

 

I am curious, Spammer, I am glad you seem to have a regard for the liturgy of the West, and presumably this is normal among Orthodox. The Catholic Church has even until this time respected the Eastern liturgies, never attempting to monkey around with those that are in communion with Rome. Side note: They even get their own Creed (sans Filioque). Are you aware of any Latin Rite churches that are accepted by the Orthodox as being in communion with them, having accepted the Eastern view of Ecclesiology, and retained the Traditional Latin Mass? I wonder if they would be allowed to retain the Filioque?

 

I have a book, prefaced by Cardinal Ratzinger (the future Benedict XVI), which talks about the way the Church has received the various venerable liturgies and speculating that even the Pope hasn't the authority to abrogate any of the venerable rites in the world. I believe it is partly upon that understanding, that Benedict freed the Old Mass saying it had never been lawfully abrogated although almost the entire Latin Rite hierarchy had worked on that assumption for forty years.

 

Last question...Is the feast of St. Athanasius coming up for you this week too? 

 

Thanks, Rory 

Edited April 29, 2014 by 3DOP

[Spammer]

Spammer, hey.

That's very interesting about the way the East has mostly stayed away from a universal tongue. In principle, it makes a lot of sense where there is a venerable language. I have heard that back in the day shortly after Francis Xavier made a lot of inroads into the Far East, and the missionaries were meeting with more and more success, the Jesuits who were perhaps thinking of St. Cyril's success, were working on adapting the liturgy to Chinese (don't ask me what dialect(s)). But Franciscan missionaries who had been relatively successful in the American Southwest argued that Latin had adapted well to the natives in America and there was no reason why the Chinese should have the privilege of a liturgy in their own language. The Franciscans convinced the pope to squelch the Jesuit plan to have a western liturgy adapted to Chinese. That is a story my son-in-law tells from a church history class while he was in seminary.

People are mistaken if they think the main thing about the Traditional Mass is the Latin. It isn't. There is reasonable speculation that things might have taken quite a different turn in Chinese history if the Chinese people had been allowed to worship in their own tongue with the language written in their own symbols. Of course, St. Cyril didn't save Russia from Lenin and maybe Mao would have taken over China anyway. But in retrospect, it seems like the decision to follow the Franciscan advice is still having its impact. One wonders...if the Chinese have the Mass in their own language already, would Rome have tried to force the New Mass down their throats?

That's really interesting. I didn't know there was once an effort to adapt the liturgy to the Chinese language. We can only guess the effect that would have had if the pope had supported the Jesuit plan. Assuming a new Catholic has been properly catechized, I don't know that it really matters from a spiritual standpoint. Christ is still present in the Eucharist no matter the language of the liturgy. From the standpoint of catechesis, it makes sense that learning about the liturgy offline and hearing the liturgy, and the rich theology contained therein, in your own language would be a far better approach. I, too, wonder about the 'what might have been' for Catholicism in China. There are Chinese Orthodox Christians, with liturgy and scriptures in their own language, but they are few in numbers. It's my understanding that the government fears Russian influence among the faithful. It's a reasonable surmise, as the Russians were responsible for most of the evangelization.

The reason why the New Mass met with less resistance than it might have is because of the "shock" of hearing it in the vernacular. There was understandable excitement about Mass in English for instance. The language thing was a distraction. What went unnoticed is how the prayers became less militant, less urgent, and the saints, angels, and our Blessed Mother are all downplayed, and the notion of sacrifice and the distinctive role of the priest is much less obvious. There is no way, in my opinion, that they could have done what they did, if the language had already been vernacular. What you get is a watered down, less reverent, Catholic Lite Mass that might appeal to a liberal Lutheran or Episcopalian. There is no way that a conservative Catholic likes the prayers of the New Mass better than the prayers of the Old Mass. They might be drawn to the vernacular and I have no problem with that. They also tend, in my opinion, to be hyper-papalistic in that they think he has more authority than even the Western Church has ever taught. That is why they will do backflips to defend the recent popes and that includes defending the New Mass.

One thing I like about Orthodoxy is how relatively unchanged it is. For better or worse, the Church has resisted all calls to modernize the Liturgy to make it 'relevant' to modern people. My view is that it's for the better, as viewing the Liturgy through the lens of whether it can 'meet the people where they are' or 'better reflect the culture of the times' assumes that the Liturgy is a man-made thing whose sole function is to serve changing the spiritual needs of the people, rather than the mode through which we jointly participate in the eternal heavenly worship along with the angels and the Saints. The people's needs do need to be met, but not at the expense of compromising the experience of participating in Divine worship or, worse, converting the Divine worship into entertainment. It seems to me that those who wish for a shorter, edited Divine Liturgy in Orthodoxy or who prefer the New Mass in Catholicism might not understand what the Liturgy is really about. The Divine Liturgy is long, and the divine services in Holy Week are especially long. Our Pascha celebration begins around midnight and lasts around 2.5 to 3 hours. Anytime I find myself feeling bored or wishing things could be shorter or noticing that the choir is off key, I have to remind myself that the Liturgy isn't here for me to give me what I need. I'm here for the Liturgy and to give myself to Christ! Calls to make worship more 'relevant', 'exciting', 'interesting', and 'modern' only reflect the ongoing results of the Fall in the world - it's 'all about me'.

I am curious, Spammer, I am glad you seem to have a regard for the liturgy of the West, and presumably this is normal among Orthodox. The Catholic Church has even until this time respected the Eastern liturgies, never attempting to monkey around with those that are in communion with Rome. Side note: They even get their own Creed (sans Filioque). Are you aware of any Latin Rite churches that are accepted by the Orthodox as being in communion with them, having accepted the Eastern view of Ecclesiology, and retained the Traditional Latin Mass? I wonder if they would be allowed to retain the Filioque?

I have a book, prefaced by Cardinal Ratzinger (the future Benedict XVI), which talks about the way the Church has received the various venerable liturgies and speculating that even the Pope hasn't the authority to abrogate any of the venerable rites in the world. I believe it is partly upon that understanding, that Benedict freed the Old Mass saying it had never been lawfully abrogated although almost the entire Latin Rite hierarchy had worked on that assumption for forty years.

There are Western-Rite Orthodox churches. They do not use the full Latin Rite, are not allowed to include the filioque if they wish to remain in communion with the other Orthodox churches, but do use Latin vestments, furnishings, and iconography. It 'feels' Catholic, though the Liturgy itself is not in Latin. Depending on where you are, the Liturgy can be a modification of the traditional Latin Rite or a modification of the Anglican rite. The melodies and hymns sound much more 'Western' than in Orthodox churches that use the Eastern (Byzantine) Rite. The purpose for inclusion of the Western Rite within Orthodoxy is the universal belief that Catholicism was fully Orthodox before the Schism. The Western Rite is intended as an effort to return pre-Schism Orthodoxy to the West. The Latin and Anglican rites that are adapted are thus 'theologically corrected'.

See http://www.antiochian.org/node/22396

Last question...Is the feast of St. Athanasius coming up for you this week too?

No. The Orthodox calendar of saints is mostly different. We celebrate St. Athanasius' feast day on January 18.

Thanks, Rory

Great questions! For the record, I see the schism between our churches as a great tragedy rooted in bad behavior on both sides. I'm not one of the Orthodox who views the West as irredeemably heretical and unsalvagable. Fortunately, in my experience those kinds of extremists seem to be in the minority. The Orthodox Church officially views Catholic sacraments as fully valid.  That's good enough for me.  It's an utter tragedy that we're not in communion.  I personally don't believe there are spiritual consequences to communing with my fellow Christians in a Catholic Church, though canonically I would be in a lot of trouble. I'm pretty sure a Catholic priest would say the same, though I don't think a Catholic priest would be as bothered as an Orthodox priest would be. Hence, I refrain.  I pray regularly for the reunion of the East and the West.  Have you heard of Vladimir Soloviev?  He was a Russian Orthodox philosopher.  He wrote on East-West relations and how the churches need each other.  He was condemned by the Russian hierarchy for his ecumenism.  I happen to agree with him that we Orthodox need the Bishop of Rome.  It's a running inside joke among us that we couldn't organize a picnic above the parish level if we wanted to.  There's a reason for that, given our tradition of absolute canonical equality among the bishops.  I'm Orthodox because (among other reasons) I see conciliar decision-making as the apostolic model, and accept the need for the Chair of Peter as final arbiter in case of intractable disagreement.  The example of the role of Pope Leo during the Christological controversies illustrates the point well.  Soloviev viewed the Papacy the same way in his assertion that we need Rome.  Where I side with the Orthodox is with our belief that the popes overstepped their bounds and moved beyond the original 'first among equals', conciliar final arbiter model and into monarchy.  I mention this only because it points to what I think must happen before East and West can be reunited.  Both sides must give in.  As it is, I can't see the Orthodox granting the Chair of Peter the tie breaking vote in church councils any time soon.  Nor can I see Rome surrendering claims to absolute supremacy and infallibility.  All I can do is pray and hope for eventual reconciliation.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Spammer

[3DOP]

Wow Spammer...

 

I love love love your last paragraph. I have heard of Soloviev...favorably...but it seems like he wouldn't be totally satisfactory to all of my crowd either. And that might be a good recommendation. I think I could be very happy with his model as you describe it, and maybe that is where God is pushing us all.

[MiserereNobis]

This is an utterly fantastic discussion.  Thank you, Spammer, for sharing your views from the Orthodox point-of-view.  And thank you, Rory, for sharing the traditional Catholic point-of-view.  I want to add more, but that will have to wait until later when I have more time.  Until then, I want to say that I feel like much truth has been said in this discussion.  To use our LDS friends' parlance, I have most certainly felt the Spirit.  The East-West schism is one of the great tragedies of Christianity and I believe that both sides share blame.  It is sad that issues that were only a few degrees apart from each other (to use a compass metaphor) have, after 1000 years, seemingly driven an irreparable wedge between us.  I hope and fervently pray for unification, however God wills it.  If that means we Catholics have overstated the role of the Bishop of Rome, so be it (as long as God wills it).  If it means that Orthodoxy has greatly understated the role of the Bishop of Rome, so be it (as long as God wills it).  I pray for God's will, so that we all may be one.  As a traditionally leaning Catholic, I absolutely believe that we Westerners have much to learn from the Eastern Church's resistance to the modernization of liturgy.  And I am pleased to see, Spammer (and others), that you recognize that our traditional Latin liturgy is a more traditional, Catholic, and efficacious rite than the current one.

 

In closing, thank you once again, LDS friends, for indulging us non-LDS Christians space on your board for these discussions.  You certainly show your Christ-like charity here and I am pleased to be a part of this board.  It is a testament to your devotion to Our Lord's teachings that, when many would show derision and contempt, you show love and respect.

 

+ pax vobiscum +

[mfbukowski]

Are you sure you aren't secretly Orthodox? . We believe all matter is spirit-bearing. As anointed priests of Christ, responsible for all creation, we are charged with making that reality manifest with all that we do, beginning with ourselves. The goal is for all things to be permeated with divinity to an ever greater degree through our actions. As divinity is infinite, that process never ends. I think we're perhaps a bit more literal in our belief about divine 'particles' commingling with matter, and we definitely reject any belief in the materiality of spirit, but apart from that, I think we're in agreement. I really like what you said.

Those are also very LDS notions.  On this device it's kind of hard to link, but we believe that the elements have some degree of intelligence, and they obeyed Jesus's  commands.  We believe spirit is material, but refined matter.  Google the hymn "Peace, Be Still" and read the lyrics

 

Guys like Cleon Skousen have written books on this subject.  Not doctrinal but clearly in the culture.