2BizE Posted February 19, 2021 Posted February 19, 2021 20 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Where is Ash wednesday in the NT? It is right next to the versus about Easter. Which we also do a poor job of celebrating compared to the whole of Christianity. We want the world to believe we are Christian, yet we seem to practice like Christians.
2BizE Posted February 19, 2021 Posted February 19, 2021 20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Should they? Should other Christians participate in LDS celebrations? I think Christians should celebrate like Christians. We celebrate Christian holidays like Easter and pagan holidays like Christmas. I don’t think non-lds Christians need to celebrate the unique Mormon holidays like...the prophets birthday, but Mormons should practice Christian holidays.
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 19, 2021 Posted February 19, 2021 (edited) 20 minutes ago, 2BizE said: Mormons should practice Christian holidays. Which ones? When I lived in Indonesia, the Assumption of Mary was a public holiday. Oddly, only some of my fellow Christians seemed to observe that one ... Edited February 19, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan
Robert F. Smith Posted February 19, 2021 Posted February 19, 2021 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Just to try to make sure you understand me correctly, I will say again that anyone who is a member of our Church... which is our Lord's church... is someone I would call a latter-day saint because the term latter-day saint is a term that is used to refer to anyone who is member of our Church. So even if some who are called latter-day saints (or LDS, as an abbreviation) are not sanctified by the blood of our Savior... which I believe is for Him to determine, not me... and even if they do some bad things... for whatever reason, maybe because they don't really know any better... I would still refer to them as latter-day saints or LDS or members of our Lord's true church because that is what those terms signify. That might be fine for those who believe that nominal distinctions are everything, or that the term "Latter-day Saint" carries no more meaning than any other title. I think that it has heavier meaning than that, but you are entitled to disregard such connotations. Free speech and free agency do enter in to make virtually anything O.K.. these days. So feel free, . . .
Ahab Posted February 19, 2021 Posted February 19, 2021 17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: No argument from me here, just an observation that it does sound strange in the ears to hear someone called a saint just because they are a member of a church. A violent murderer on the run from the law, for example, and someone says, "oh him? he's a saint." Huh? "Yeah, he's a Mormon, so he's a saint." Again, you can call members of your church what you want. I'm just giving you an outsider's view. I think it's just another example of LDS definitions of words not matching the traditional Christian definition. I think I can understand that from an outsider's view. And if I didn't have the beliefs I have in the power of our Lord's atonement and the blessings of Church membership I would probably feel the same way you do because it does seem incredible that all it takes is baptism into the Lord's church to enter into that covenant relationship with our Lord whereby he agrees to sanctify us from all of our sins... not just the sins of our past but also any sins we commit after we are baptized. Of course, he still gets to be the one to decide if he will forgive us whenever we sin, and he tells us not to commit any more sins even though he knows most of us still will on occasions even after he has told us not to commit any more sins, but still we are in that covenant relationship with him and all we have to do is repent as well as we can and try to work on not committing any more sins. It's not as if being a saint means never ever committing any more sins after baptism. If that were the case I don't think there would be anyone who was sanctified from all of their sins because there would still be some sins some members were not cleansed from.
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/18/2021 at 7:10 PM, 2BizE said: It is right next to the versus about Easter. Which we also do a poor job of celebrating compared to the whole of Christianity. We want the world to believe we are Christian, yet we seem to practice like Christians. The liturgical holidays do not determine Christianity. Christian churches ran the gamut from staunch supporters of holy days/holidays to observing only a few to not caring much all the way to thinking holidays are a sin. 1
JustAnAustralian Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 29 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The liturgical holidays do not determine Christianity. Christian churches ran the gamut from staunch supporters of holy days/holidays to observing only a few to not caring much all the way to thinking holidays are a sin. There are a lot of observance days to pick from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_movable_Western_Christian_observances and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_movable_Eastern_Christian_observances (and these are just the movable ones).
Bernard Gui Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) On 2/18/2021 at 5:16 PM, 2BizE said: I think Christians should celebrate like Christians. We celebrate Christian holidays like Easter and pagan holidays like Christmas. I don’t think non-lds Christians need to celebrate the unique Mormon holidays like...the prophets birthday, but Mormons should practice Christian holidays. Christians should celebrate the First Vision, the coming forth of the Second Witness of Christ (the Book of Mormon), the great events of the Restoration of the priesthood, gospel, and temple, and the semi-annual published words of living prophets and Apostles of Jesus Christ. What Christians would not desire more acts and words of our Lord Jesus Christ? Edited February 23, 2021 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) On 2/18/2021 at 8:47 AM, MiserereNobis said: Well, if you'd let us in your temples, perhaps we would On a serious note, what LDS celebrations could/should other Christians participate in? Well, for starters, the First Vision when God the Father and Jesus once again came to man on the earth proving the Resurrection of Christ, the miraculous coming forth of the Second Witness of Christ (the Book of Mormon), the great events of the Restoration of the priesthood, ordinances, gospel, and temple, the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, and the semi-annual published words of living prophets and Apostles of Jesus Christ for our time... all consequential events in the history of Christianity and in preparation for the Second Coming of the Lord. What Christian would not welcome more acts and words of our Lord Jesus Christ?If we let you come into the temple (you can of course), will you take and keep the covenants we make there? I would love to be there when you do. Edited February 23, 2021 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) Duplicate Edited February 23, 2021 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) I often attend Christmas Eve mass at the local Polish Catholic Church in honor of my grandfather Piotr. Very beautiful, but not fundamentally different or more spiritual than our Christmas sacrament meeting. Edited February 23, 2021 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) I have also performed as a musician in many Christian services and celebrations as well as LDS. Edited February 23, 2021 by Bernard Gui
MiserereNobis Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Well, for starters, the First Vision when God the Father and Jesus once again came to man on the earth proving the Resurrection of Christ, the miraculous coming forth of the Second Witness of Christ (the Book of Mormon), the great events of the Restoration of the priesthood, ordinances, gospel, and temple, the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, and the semi-annual published words of living prophets and Apostles of Jesus Christ for our time... all consequential events in the history of Christianity and in preparation for the Second Coming of the Lord. Those are distinctly LDS celebrations -- only LDS celebrate those. I was asking if there were any LDS celebrations that all Christians could celebrate. I think there are traditional Christian celebrations that the LDS could celebrate without denying doctrine (as far as I know), such as Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Holy Week, Easter, etc. 57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: What Christian would not welcome more acts and words of our Lord Jesus Christ? I absolutely welcome more words! Of course, they need to be His actual words Do you welcome His additional words and revelations as reported in the Catholic Church from His resurrection up unto the current day? Wikipedia has an introductory list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visions_of_Jesus_and_Mary 57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: If we let you come into the temple (you can of course), will you take and keep the covenants we make there? I would love to be there when you do. Thanks! The problem is that I would have to leave behind so much of my spiritual life to join your church. I can't turn my back on that. 52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I often attend Christmas Eve mass at the local Polish Catholic Church in honor of my grandfather Piotr. Very beautiful, but not fundamentally different or more spiritual than our Christmas sacrament meeting. Have you ever attended a traditional Latin High Mass? If for nothing else, I think you'd appreciate the aesthetics, such as music (Gregorian chant and traditional polyphony), incense, etc. Edited February 23, 2021 by MiserereNobis 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Those are distinctly LDS celebrations -- only LDS celebrate those. I was asking if there were any LDS celebrations that all Christians could celebrate. I think there are traditional Christian celebrations that the LDS could celebrate without denying doctrine (as far as I know), such as Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Holy Week, Easter, etc. It all depends on one’s point of view, of course. LDS are Christians too. Why should we be obligated to observe other Christians’ celebrations? Quote I absolutely welcome more words! Of course, they need to be His actual words And they are, of course. Quote Do you welcome His additional words and revelations as reported in the Catholic Church from His resurrection up unto the current day? Wikipedia has an introductory list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visions_of_Jesus_and_Mary Depends on one’s point of view, of course. From my point of view, probably not. Quote Thanks! The problem is that I would have to leave behind so much of my spiritual life to join your church. I can't turn my back on that. Try it. You might like it. Quote Have you ever attended a traditional Latin High Mass? If for nothing else, I think you'd appreciate the aesthetics, such as music (Gregorian chant and traditional polyphony), incense, etc. Yes. One of my MA classes in music history included extensive study of Gregorian chant and the masterful anonymous and known-composers of Medieval and Renaissance Catholic liturgy and sacred music. I can read Gregorian chant in its original notation. We also attended high mass in a Cistercian monastery. We spent some time with Greek and Russian sacred music. I believe the masses I have attended in the Polish church were high mass. For many years they were called the Polish Catholic Church, but a few years ago they aligned with the RCC, probably because of Pope John Paul. The services are in Polish. Would a Latin mass be superior to that? I sang in the choir (established by my grandfather Piotr) for Easter mass of Our Lady of Mt Carmel RCC in Bayonne NJ. Does that count? Edited February 24, 2021 by Bernard Gui
MiserereNobis Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Yes. One of my MA classes in music history included extensive study of Gregorian chant and the masterful anonymous and known-composers of Medieval and Renaissance Catholic liturgy and sacred music. I can read Gregorian chant in its original notation. We also attended high mass in a Cistercian monastery. We spent some time with Greek and Russian sacred music. I believe the masses I have attended in the Polish church were high mass. For many years they were called the Polish Catholic Church, but a few years ago they aligned with the RCC, probably because of Pope John Paul. The services are in Polish. Would a Latin mass be superior to that? I sang in the choir (established by my grandfather Piotr) for Easter mass of Our Lady of Mt Carmel RCC in Bayonne NJ. Does that count? I figured you had done something musically with the RCC I was part of our Gregorian chant schola for years, as well as the choir. A traditional Latin high Mass would have to be in Latin. If the Mass is not in Latin, then it is the new Mass. Depending on the choices the priest makes, there can be a huge difference in both spirituality and aesthetics.
The Nehor Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 On 2/19/2021 at 7:58 PM, JustAnAustralian said: There are a lot of observance days to pick from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_movable_Western_Christian_observances and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_movable_Eastern_Christian_observances (and these are just the movable ones). Yeah, and if an individual in the Church wants to celebrate them no one will stop them. Trying to get the insititutional church to take them up......not likely.
Bernard Gui Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I figured you had done something musically with the RCC I was part of our Gregorian chant schola for years, as well as the choir. A traditional Latin high Mass would have to be in Latin. If the Mass is not in Latin, then it is the new Mass. Depending on the choices the priest makes, there can be a huge difference in both spirituality and aesthetics. I truly do not understand how saying and singing Mass in Latin is more spiritual or aesthetically more pleasing. I understand the historical objections. From what I have read on the internet, using Latin appears to be optional.......no disrespect intended. Edited February 25, 2021 by Bernard Gui
MiserereNobis Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: I truly do not understand how saying and singing Mass in Latin is more spiritual or aesthetically more pleasing. I understand the historical objections. From what I have read on the internet, using Latin appears to be optional.......no disrespect intended. No disrespect at all! Perhaps I can clarify. I'm glossing over lots of details here to just focus on Mass as most people in the Catholic Church experience it. There are two forms (versions) of Mass allowed. The ordinary form is the most common (hence ordinary). It originated after the 2nd Vatican Council and was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970. This is the Mass that most people know. It allows the priest to make lots of choices, and most (98%?) of priests choose to make choices that make it markedly different from the other form (I'd say they make it more protestant). One of those choices is the language. The ordinary form of the Mass uses Latin as the original language, but it is allowed to be said in the vernacular. Other choices involve things like music (cheesy folk-rock Christian music is allowed), vestments, incense, on and on. In my opinion, these vast majority of the choices made by the priest remove both the spiritual and aesthetic beauty of the Mass. The other form of the Mass is called the extraordinary form, because it doesn't happen often (it is also called the Tridentine Mass, because it was codified by the Council of Trent). However, it is the Mass that the ordinary form replaced. So, when you attend an extraordinary form of the Mass, the rules and rubrics for saying the Mass are from 1962. This is the Mass that is referred to as the traditional Latin Mass. It's traditional, because it predates the ordinary form and retains the traditions of the Catholic Church. It is Latin because it must be said in Latin -- no choice there. It also requires things like Gregorian chant and polyphony with an organ, incense, specific vestments, etc. The rules and rubrics of this Mass try to ensure both spiritual and aesthetic beauty. So, to sum up, a Mass said in the vernacular language is a different form (version) of Mass than one said in Latin, and the differences go far beyond just the language used. Here's an example I used in a different thread. This is a picture from the traditional Latin Mass (the extraordinary form): The priest is elevating the chalice. Notice the beauty of the altar, the vestments. The altar server in the top right has the incense. Here is the same moment in the new mass (ordinary form): We don't need to get into the spiritual issues, but I think you can see the aesthetic differences there. Now, someone might point out that the first picture has a beautiful altar and altar piece. That's true. And you will find this in the chapels that celebrate the traditional Latin Mass -- they continue with traditions of a beautiful altar, stained glass windows, beautiful depictions of the stations of the cross, etc. Those are conspicuously absent in chapels that celebrate the ordinary form of the Mass. The picture I've shared is quite normal. Anyways, I hope this has cleared up what I mean by the traditional Latin Mass being more beautiful. It's not the language (though I could discuss that). It's everything else that happens in that Mass, too, which very rarely happens in the new form of the Mass. 2
3DOP Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 On 2/23/2021 at 10:17 PM, Bernard Gui said: It all depends on one’s point of view, of course. LDS are Christians too. Why should we be obligated to observe other Christians’ celebrations? And they are, of course. Depends on one’s point of view, of course. From my point of view, probably not. Try it. You might like it. Yes. One of my MA classes in music history included extensive study of Gregorian chant and the masterful anonymous and known-composers of Medieval and Renaissance Catholic liturgy and sacred music. I can read Gregorian chant in its original notation. We also attended high mass in a Cistercian monastery. We spent some time with Greek and Russian sacred music. I believe the masses I have attended in the Polish church were high mass. For many years they were called the Polish Catholic Church, but a few years ago they aligned with the RCC, probably because of Pope John Paul. The services are in Polish. Would a Latin mass be superior to that? I sang in the choir (established by my grandfather Piotr) for Easter mass of Our Lady of Mt Carmel RCC in Bayonne NJ. Does that count? If it were practicable as a Traditional Catholic, I would move to Poland with all of my progeny. Yesterday. I have never heard of a branch of Polish Catholicism that was separated from Rome. Even as Novus Ordo Catholics, at home and abroad, Polish Catholicism has retained a robust sense of Traditional Catholic teaching and morality. There is a St. Stanislaus Polish Catholic Church in Portland, OR that I once visited. The reason they identified as Polish was so that anybody attending would know that the Mass would not be in English, which has been the norm in America for over fifty years now. They were in communion with Rome, before and after the Polish Pope. As time goes on, I would expect a conversion to English, as grandparents and parents who spoke the native tongue give way to children who have Mass in English...and "Polish Catholic" in America will have less meaning. Like Miserere, I don't care to pursue the value of a universal dead language at this time. I would be very interested though if you think that you know of some sect in New Jersey and/or elsewhere, consisting of Poles who for some reason split from Rome, but came back because of Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II). The very, very vast majority of Polish Catholics in the last fifty years, and the last thousand or more years(!) have remained faithful to Rome...(an admirable and sometimes heroic trait). 2
Calm Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I truly do not understand how saying and singing Mass in Latin is more spiritual or aesthetically more pleasing. I understand the historical objections. From what I have read on the internet, using Latin appears to be optional.......no disrespect intended. I imagine using Latin instead of our everyday languages is akin to putting aside our street clothes and dressing all in white. It imparts a sense of sacredness. At least I think that is how it would feel for me. 2
The Nehor Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 If using a different language can cause spiritual uplift surely Enochian is a better choice.
Bernard Gui Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: No disrespect at all! Perhaps I can clarify. I'm glossing over lots of details here to just focus on Mass as most people in the Catholic Church experience it. There are two forms (versions) of Mass allowed. The ordinary form is the most common (hence ordinary). It originated after the 2nd Vatican Council and was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970. This is the Mass that most people know. It allows the priest to make lots of choices, and most (98%?) of priests choose to make choices that make it markedly different from the other form (I'd say they make it more protestant). One of those choices is the language. The ordinary form of the Mass uses Latin as the original language, but it is allowed to be said in the vernacular. Other choices involve things like music (cheesy folk-rock Christian music is allowed), vestments, incense, on and on. In my opinion, these vast majority of the choices made by the priest remove both the spiritual and aesthetic beauty of the Mass. The other form of the Mass is called the extraordinary form, because it doesn't happen often (it is also called the Tridentine Mass, because it was codified by the Council of Trent). However, it is the Mass that the ordinary form replaced. So, when you attend an extraordinary form of the Mass, the rules and rubrics for saying the Mass are from 1962. This is the Mass that is referred to as the traditional Latin Mass. It's traditional, because it predates the ordinary form and retains the traditions of the Catholic Church. It is Latin because it must be said in Latin -- no choice there. It also requires things like Gregorian chant and polyphony with an organ, incense, specific vestments, etc. The rules and rubrics of this Mass try to ensure both spiritual and aesthetic beauty. So, to sum up, a Mass said in the vernacular language is a different form (version) of Mass than one said in Latin, and the differences go far beyond just the language used. Here's an example I used in a different thread. This is a picture from the traditional Latin Mass (the extraordinary form): The priest is elevating the chalice. Notice the beauty of the altar, the vestments. The altar server in the top right has the incense. Here is the same moment in the new mass (ordinary form): We don't need to get into the spiritual issues, but I think you can see the aesthetic differences there. Now, someone might point out that the first picture has a beautiful altar and altar piece. That's true. And you will find this in the chapels that celebrate the traditional Latin Mass -- they continue with traditions of a beautiful altar, stained glass windows, beautiful depictions of the stations of the cross, etc. Those are conspicuously absent in chapels that celebrate the ordinary form of the Mass. The picture I've shared is quite normal. Anyways, I hope this has cleared up what I mean by the traditional Latin Mass being more beautiful. It's not the language (though I could discuss that). It's everything else that happens in that Mass, too, which very rarely happens in the new form of the Mass. Thanks. I grew up in New Mexico where we visited many cathedrals and chapels from the time the area was controlled by Spain. Even the most humble adobe building had beautiful interiors. Same with my mission in Central America. I have good friends who are not at all happy with the changes that have been made. One I hope our church never does is replace the organ/keyboard with a "Praise Band." 2
Bernard Gui Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) 14 hours ago, 3DOP said: If it were practicable as a Traditional Catholic, I would move to Poland with all of my progeny. Yesterday. I have never heard of a branch of Polish Catholicism that was separated from Rome. Even as Novus Ordo Catholics, at home and abroad, Polish Catholicism has retained a robust sense of Traditional Catholic teaching and morality. There is a St. Stanislaus Polish Catholic Church in Portland, OR that I once visited. The reason they identified as Polish was so that anybody attending would know that the Mass would not be in English, which has been the norm in America for over fifty years now. They were in communion with Rome, before and after the Polish Pope. As time goes on, I would expect a conversion to English, as grandparents and parents who spoke the native tongue give way to children who have Mass in English...and "Polish Catholic" in America will have less meaning. Like Miserere, I don't care to pursue the value of a universal dead language at this time. I would be very interested though if you think that you know of some sect in New Jersey and/or elsewhere, consisting of Poles who for some reason split from Rome, but came back because of Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II). The very, very vast majority of Polish Catholics in the last fifty years, and the last thousand or more years(!) have remained faithful to Rome...(an admirable and sometimes heroic trait). Thanks for your contribution. I have heard some say that Poland is the most Catholic of all countries, but what do I know? Quote Relations with the Catholic Church improved notably since the 1970s, particularly after the ascension of the Polish-born John Paul II to the papacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_National_Catholic_Church Edited February 25, 2021 by Bernard Gui
Ahab Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I truly do not understand how saying and singing Mass in Latin is more spiritual or aesthetically more pleasing. I understand the historical objections. From what I have read on the internet, using Latin appears to be optional.......no disrespect intended. Have you ever heard it? I think it sounds beautiful. Latin, in general, also referred to as a Gregorian chant. Some musicians I like who use it include Pink Floyd, Enigma, and some group I can't remember the name of but I have their music bouncing around in my head now.
Damien the Leper Posted February 25, 2021 Author Posted February 25, 2021 48 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Thanks. I grew up in New Mexico where we visited many cathedrals and chapels from the time the area was controlled by Spain. Even the most humble adobe building had beautiful interiors. Same with my mission in Central America. I have good friends who are not at all happy with the changes that have been made. One I hope our church never does is replace the organ/keyboard with a "Praise Band." Or replace tribal drums and instruments with organ/keyboard in more indigenous areas.
Recommended Posts