Primary Reasons for People Becoming Orthodox?

[jam070406]

To start with, an apology: my tone was harsh; I over reacted to a suggestion to relatinize the ECC’s.

To answer the question about my having been to Latin masses: yes. I’ve served the Dominican Latin Mass (in my youth); it was no more reverent than any other Roman Church mass, if even that reverent.

I’ve honestly seen MORE reverence in the OF than the DLM from the people present.

But I’ve seen more reverence in the Byzantine and Coptic parishes I’ve been to, on average, than the Roman parishes at their best.

The worst abuse I can think of is the people who kneel throughout the TLM or DLM, totally tuned out, saying their rosary, ignoring the rubrics completely. They are not present in mind for Christ’s Sacrifice; they are focused upon seeking Mary’s intercession on their behalf. And yet, when the communion line forms, they finally act like part of the mass, for the 5 minutes it takes to go forward, then tune back out. This type of praxis was decried in the 4th century… and by Vatican II as well in the 20th.

This Rosary crowd tends to be drawn in a bit more during the OF, even as they gripe about it, because it is usually in a language they think in. The OF intrudes into their consciousness, and draws them into the Mass, and out of their rosary. (The rosary is perfectly appropriate as a replacement for the Hours… but as a “mode of participation” in the mass? Vatican II says no.)

I nearly left for orthodoxy myself; only the Gospels keep me Catholic… for in timelining the various events following the Resurrection, I noticed that the Russian Orthodox claims don’t mesh with the sequence of events as I perceive them… and John’s Gospel leads me to see the petrine role as special, unique. Only two sees can claim legitimate Petrine origin, and only one can be the true heir of Peter’s role; since Peter turned antioch over to one who remained subject to him, and later remained subject to correction by Pope St. Clement… that rules out Antioch.

I truly feel that the petrine role is that of Archpatriarch; the Assyrians noted that role in the 400’s! The actual comparison is an analogy, mathematically expressed, Popeatriarch:atriarch:Bishop.

I accept that the Byzantine Catholic is Orthodox in Union with Rome. I know several OCA priests who agree, and quietly accept Byzantine Catholics as “orthodox enough.”

What lead me to nearly reject Rome was two fold: (1) The roman Symbolism, which I had to ask about to find out about, since it isn’t taught within the Liturgy itself, wasn’t discussed in my catechism classes, and does not work for me, and, (2) the lack of education of the average Roman Catholic. They are usually not taught about the other churches in the Catholic Communion, nor the other mass forms allowed, nor even why they sit/stand/kneel. Nor have most read the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Nor do they generally know about the great heresies of Arianism, Gnosticism, Iconoclasm, nor Relativism. The information was readily available, but one had to actively LOOK for it.

The Roman Church was, for centuries, very much a church of Rote Ritual, and even, at times, rote repetition. With Vatican I, it started a recovery. With Vatican II, it took a hard look, and realized that the “mass of all time” was not doing the job it should as it was. The abuses of the OF are no worse than the abuses that lead to Trent, or to any other major council of the Roman Church, or even to VII.

And the German Shepherd is working to cull even those abuses.

I have no issue with the TLM or the DLM for those who are truly seeking it. But the OF, done right, is just as reverent as a TLM or DLM done right.

Even now, many Catholics of the Roman Church do not believe that the ECC’s are part of the Catholic Church; officers of my KofC council accused me of apostasy for attending the EC parish, even tho my pastor was the celebrant for their favorite priest’s funeral, vested in byzantine vestments, concelebrating the Roman Mass. They apologized when I sent them to talk to their pastor… who knows why I went east, and how close I came to going Russian Orthodox.

Ignorance abounds in the Roman Church. It’s getting better, not worse, and it’s a long road. But ignorance is far less amongst the ECC’s. In every EC parish I’ve been to, people discus theology and the faith after liturgy during the social. People talk about their faith in a living manner. That’s something I rarely see or hear in roman parishes.

And at times, I wonder if petrine unity is worth the arrogance of the Roman Church’s faithful in their ignorance and intolerance. And when I wonder, I reread St John’s gospel.

I apologize for being harsh as well.

I think about Saints like St. Francis of Assisi (who was called to rebuild his Church) or St. Alphonsus Ligouri or St. John Vianney. These men saw things they didn’t like as well. But they didn’t run. They stood up as examples. There is a crisis in the Church, but for the benefit of souls it’s better for people like you to share what you know with the ignorant people around. To be that living example. It’s hard. But missionaries and monks did it in hostile barbarian territories, so maybe there is hope with 21st century slothful Roman Catholics?

 

[Cecilianus]

The worst abuse I can think of is the people who kneel throughout the TLM or DLM, totally tuned out, saying their rosary, ignoring the rubrics completely. They are not present in mind for Christ’s Sacrifice; they are focused upon seeking Mary’s intercession on their behalf.

Or perhaps they are both “present in mind for Christ’s Sacrifice” AND “focused upon seeking Mary’s intercession on their behalf”? Maybe they are meditating on the Mass while it is offered up by the priest?

And yet, when the communion line forms, they finally act like part of the mass, for the 5 minutes it takes to go forward, then tune back out. This type of praxis was decried in the 4th century… and by Vatican II as well in the 20th.

I agree - only on the authority of Vatican II - that it is ideal the for the congregation to participate

liturgically

by saying and singing certain parts of the Ordinary. But your objection could just as easily be said of Byzantine-rite Catholics, who stand throughout the entire Liturgy while the choir sings their parts for them. How do you know that they’re not meditating on the awesome mystery before them through repetition of the Jesus Prayer? or that there would be anything wrong with that?

I nearly left for orthodoxy myself; only the Gospels keep me Catholic.

I have also felt drawn on occasion to convert to Orthodoxy - due to the apparent loss of not only Catholicism but even religion in any sense whatsoever among the “novus ordo” crowd. But I can’t leave the Church in good conscience - there’s the divinely appointed role of Peter in Matthew, the role of supreme guardian of orthodoxy during the first millennium of the Church, and the intrinsic beauty of the Papacy.

I truly feel that the petrine role is that of Archpatriarch; the Assyrians noted that role in the 400’s! The actual comparison is an analogy, mathematically expressed, Popeatriarch:atriarch:Bishop.

Yes, but this does not denigrate his role as supreme monarch as defined to be de fide by Vatican I and (I think) by Trent.

I accept that the Byzantine Catholic is Orthodox in Union with Rome. I know several OCA priests who agree, and quietly accept Byzantine Catholics as “orthodox enough.”

The Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church. The two hundred and sixteen churches which call themselves the “Orthodox Church” can properly take that name as well due to their fidelity to Tradition (for the most part), the holy icons, and Chalcedonian Christology. A Latin Catholic who accepts fully the teachings of the Faith is “Orthodox in Union with Rome”.

What lead me to nearly reject Rome was two fold: (1) The roman Symbolism, which I had to ask about to find out about, since it isn’t taught within the Liturgy itself, wasn’t discussed in my catechism classes, and does not work for me, and, (2) the lack of education of the average Roman Catholic.

I must profess my bewilderment here. The symbolism of the Roman Tridentine Mass (which is a different liturgy than the Dominican, by the way) is the most symbolic and most precise way of expressing the Faith that I have ever seen. Go to a church that uses the 1962 Missal sometime and you will see what I mean. Lack of education of the average Roman Catholic? It’s horrible - and mostly a post-Vatican II phenomenon.

They are usually not taught about the other churches in the Catholic Communion, nor the other mass forms allowed, nor even why they sit/stand/kneel.

Again, this is a Novus Ordo malady.

Nor have most read the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Nor do they generally know about the great heresies of Arianism, Gnosticism, Iconoclasm, nor Relativism. The information was readily available, but one had to actively LOOK for it.

Another Novus Ordo malady. Traditionalist Catholics emphasize teaching about heresy very strongly - especially the heresies of Relativism and Modernism, which are so prevalent in the world today.

You should have said “the 21 Ecumenical Councils”, since as Catholics we MUST accept them all as Ecumenical Councils and as binding on the faithful.

The Roman Church was, for centuries, very much a church of Rote Ritual, and even, at times, rote repetition. With Vatican I, it started a recovery. With Vatican II, it took a hard look, and realized that the “mass of all time” was not doing the job it should as it was. The abuses of the OF are no worse than the abuses that lead to Trent, or to any other major council of the Roman Church, or even to VII.

I strongly disagree. How many “Masses” have you been to with liturgical dancers, nuns preaching the homily, gay-rights and pro-choice homilies, electric guitars instead of Gregorian Chant, improvisation during the Consecration, and priests who openly tell us that we need to “get over” the notion of transcendence or who publicly encourage Lutherans who are visiting to come receive Communion? Sometimes I almost wonder if it’s a blessing that the whole thing is only 20 minutes long.

I have no issue with the TLM or the DLM for those who are truly seeking it. But the OF, done right, is just as reverent as a TLM or DLM done right.

Done right - absolutely. But how many OF’s can you find that don’t have liturgical abuses (by standards set by the OF GIRM)?

Even now, many Catholics of the Roman Church do not believe that the ECC’s are part of the Catholic Church; officers of my KofC council accused me of apostasy for attending the EC parish, even tho my pastor was the celebrant for their favorite priest’s funeral, vested in byzantine vestments, concelebrating the Roman Mass. They apologized when I sent them to talk to their pastor… who knows why I went east, and how close I came to going Russian Orthodox.

Ignorance abounds in the Roman Church. It’s getting better, not worse, and it’s a long road. But ignorance is far less amongst the ECC’s. In every EC parish I’ve been to, people discus theology and the faith after liturgy during the social. People talk about their faith in a living manner. That’s something I rarely see or hear in roman parishes.

Very true. But the Faith is just as “living” in Traditionalist Roman Catholic parishes today, probably mostly as an awakening from the problems in the new Roman Liturgy (the stronger and more sincere Catholics turn traditional). Perhaps when people decide to READ the documents of Vatican II they might implement them instead of implementing apostasy instead in the name of the “spirit of Vatican II”. But reform is going to be a long road - unless we start having bishops more like the Pope - and that’s why I started going to a Ukrainian church.

 

[marymol]

To start with, an apology: my tone was harsh; I over reacted to a suggestion to relatinize the ECC’s.

I nearly left for orthodoxy myself; only the Gospels keep me Catholic… for in timelining the various events following the Resurrection, I noticed that the Russian Orthodox claims don’t mesh with the sequence of events as I perceive them… and John’s Gospel leads me to see the petrine role as special, unique. Only two sees can claim legitimate Petrine origin, and only one can be the true heir of Peter’s role; since Peter turned antioch over to one who remained subject to him, and later remained subject to correction by Pope St. Clement… that rules out Antioch.

And at times, I wonder if petrine unity is worth the arrogance of the Roman Church’s faithful in their ignorance and intolerance. And when I wonder, I reread St John’s gospel.

Apologies from me too for any percieved yet unintended efforts at ‘latinisations’ ; it was more an effort ,as suggested by the post above, of looking at the need for peacful perseverance with trusting hope till things do work out …

Just realised too that one of the ? unintended effects of Liturgy in languages ( Latin , Syriac ) that most lay persons could not understand was may be that build up of the virtue of trust …so needed in all speheres of life …such as in the case of expectant parents …
( true , vernacular is preferred by most maybe !)

Little build up of resentments on the otherhand , if allowed to accumulate , esp. in this area …unsure what farreaching the consequences may be …and as to those of the East having more interest and talk about matters of faith , could that too not be a double edged sword esp. if the interest is stemming from scrutiny as to how everything was exact to form ( not implying it is )and occasion of grudges and resentments , is it not time for redflags !

Reason for interest in this whole area is at one level trying to see any connection between the sociopolitical events and the heart of the worshipping community - not intending any harshness towards those who have been so afflicted yet may be worthwhile for many world over to learn from …

It is a great gift to the Church that The East does exist and even flourish as an icon of valued traditions and formats of worship that do need to be preserved well ; and good to see honest efforts at many levels to find out how things go errant too and thank God we do have help from historical lessons , esp. Old Testament events too and the resources from councils etc :too .

A special thanks too for procaliming the intent of the standing posture ; realised that I myself had a bit of atleast discomfort about this newer instruct in our Liturgy ; yet today , could rejoice in it , accepting it as a sign of the Risen Lord who shares with us His Risen Glory ; now , not that this reasoning has not been made aware at an intellectual level in the past yet there was something ? may be a bit of grudge ! that was keeping it out at one level !

May He continue to lead us on …

Peace and thanks !

 

[Aramis]

Or perhaps they are both “present in mind for Christ’s Sacrifice” AND “focused upon seeking Mary’s intercession on their behalf”? Maybe they are meditating on the Mass while it is offered up by the priest?

All I need to know is that the practice was condemned in the 4th century, and again in the 20th. It has always been a bad practice. Divided attention is not appropriate.

I agree - only on the authority of Vatican II - that it is ideal the for the congregation to participate by saying and singing certain parts of the Ordinary. But your objection could just as easily be said of Byzantine-rite Catholics, who stand throughout the entire Liturgy while the choir sings their parts for them. How do you know that they’re not meditating on the awesome mystery before them through repetition of the Jesus Prayer? or that there would be anything wrong with that?

Quiet participation with full attention is permitted. Inattention is not; it’s in the literal text of the DLs of Sts John, Basil, Mark, and James: the deacon often reminds the faithful, “Wisdom! Be Attentive!”

Inattention, especially private prayer, has been condemned as inappropriate for centuries.

Yes, but this does not denigrate his role as supreme monarch as defined to be de fide by Vatican I and (I think) by Trent.

Defined only as doctrine, not dogma.

I must profess my bewilderment here. The symbolism of the Roman Tridentine Mass (which is a different liturgy than the Dominican, by the way) is the most symbolic and most precise way of expressing the Faith that I have ever seen.

The symbolism is not in line with modern western culture, and it is not in line with the 7 Ecumenical councils. I’ve seen no authoritative teaching from Rome that the other 14 were ecumenical; that teaching comes from 3rd Plenary Council of Baltimore, not de fide from Rome.

In modern western cultures, we stand when a dignitary enters or stands. We stand when we honor our performers. We stand to attention during the secular hymns of state. Witnesses stood in shock on 9/11, pointing, gasping, then running… they did not, at least on the images I’ve seen, fall to their knees in shock.

Kneeling in Western Society, as in the conciliar definitions of the 4th century, is a position of submission and/or sorrow.

In children, it’s most often a sign of either fear or submission, often both.

Go to a church that uses the 1962 Missal sometime and you will see what I mean. Lack of education of the average Roman Catholic? It’s horrible - and mostly a post-Vatican II phenomenon.

The most ignorant catholics I’ve ever met are in the age range 60+… raised on the Baltimore Catechism and raised with the Latin Mass. Most I’ve spoken to can’t answer why kneeling is a reverent posture, they simply accept that it is. Most don’t kow the reason for the elevation. Many can’t even explain the responses they were expected to make. Sure, they can say them, by rote.

I strongly disagree. How many “Masses” have you been to with liturgical dancers, gay-rights and pro-choice homilies,

None. Zero. NEVER HAVE EVER SEEN ANYTHING OF THIS SORT. EVER.

nuns preaching the homily,

Only during communion services, and once, in a remote town, when a visiting priest was saying the mass, but had been suspended from preaching.

electric guitars instead of Gregorian Chant,

I’ve seen it done reverently. I’ve seen one “rock mass” done. The Bishop put his foot down that they needed to dial it back. All the songs, however, were traditional hymns, mostly back.

I have less issue with Electric guitar played well and reverently than I have with a certain 70yo Organist who plays everything so that the organ is 100dB at the back doors (about 115dB in the front row).

improvisation during the Consecration, and priests who openly tell us that we need to “get over” the notion of transcendence or who publicly encourage Lutherans who are visiting to come receive Communion? Sometimes I almost wonder if it’s a blessing that the whole thing is only 20 minutes long.

Again, I have never encountered such.

Done right - absolutely. But how many OF’s can you find that don’t have liturgical abuses (by standards set by the OF GIRM)?

Most of them in the Archdiocese of Anchorage. A few that violate RS and LA, but all predate those two.

Very true. But the Faith is just as “living” in Traditionalist Roman Catholic parishes today, probably mostly as an awakening from the problems in the new Roman Liturgy (the stronger and more sincere Catholics turn traditional). Perhaps when people decide to READ the documents of Vatican II they might implement them instead of implementing apostasy instead in the name of the “spirit of Vatican II”. But reform is going to be a long road - unless we start having bishops more like the Pope - and that’s why I started going to a Ukrainian church.

I don’t know where you’ve been, but up here, the traditionalist movement is mostly heretics and schismatics, and on CAF, it’s riddled with schismatics, heretics, and sedevaticanists, as well as people, like yourself, who deny the recorded prevalence of liturgical errors pre-V II.

Then again, the OF masses up here tend to be reverent, by the rubrics, and well attended; the TLM-movement has had very little traction. The only Latin routinely offered is the Dominican Latin Mass; Fr. Szymanski said his private masses in the EF, but his public were all very reverent (if not easily understood due to his thick accent) OF masses; He transferred to Seattle, however, where there is a stronger call for Latin Masses.

 

[Sir_Alec]

All I need to know is that the practice was condemned in the 4th century, and again in the 20th. It has always been a bad practice. Divided attention is not appropriate.

Quiet participation with full attention is permitted. Inattention is not; it’s in the literal text of the DLs of Sts John, Basil, Mark, and James: the deacon often reminds the faithful, “Wisdom! Be Attentive!”

Inattention, especially private prayer, has been condemned as inappropriate for centuries.

Defined only as doctrine, not dogma.

The symbolism is not in line with modern western culture, and it is not in line with the 7 Ecumenical councils. I’ve seen no authoritative teaching from Rome that the other 14 were ecumenical; that teaching comes from 3rd Plenary Council of Baltimore, not de fide from Rome.

In modern western cultures, we stand when a dignitary enters or stands. We stand when we honor our performers. We stand to attention during the secular hymns of state. Witnesses stood in shock on 9/11, pointing, gasping, then running… they did not, at least on the images I’ve seen, fall to their knees in shock.

Kneeling in Western Society, as in the conciliar definitions of the 4th century, is a position of submission and/or sorrow.

In children, it’s most often a sign of either fear or submission, often both.

The most ignorant catholics I’ve ever met are in the age range 60+… raised on the Baltimore Catechism and raised with the Latin Mass. Most I’ve spoken to can’t answer why kneeling is a reverent posture, they simply accept that it is. Most don’t kow the reason for the elevation. Many can’t even explain the responses they were expected to make. Sure, they can say them, by rote.

None. Zero. NEVER HAVE EVER SEEN ANYTHING OF THIS SORT. EVER.

Only during communion services, and once, in a remote town, when a visiting priest was saying the mass, but had been suspended from preaching.

I’ve seen it done reverently. I’ve seen one “rock mass” done. The Bishop put his foot down that they needed to dial it back. All the songs, however, were traditional hymns, mostly back.

I have less issue with Electric guitar played well and reverently than I have with a certain 70yo Organist who plays everything so that the organ is 100dB at the back doors (about 115dB in the front row).

Again, I have never encountered such.

Most of them in the Archdiocese of Anchorage. A few that violate RS and LA, but all predate those two.

I don’t know where you’ve been, but up here, the traditionalist movement is mostly heretics and schismatics, and on CAF, it’s riddled with schismatics, heretics, and sedevaticanists, as well as people, like yourself, who deny the recorded prevalence of liturgical errors pre-V II.

Then again, the OF masses up here tend to be reverent, by the rubrics, and well attended; the TLM-movement has had very little traction. The only Latin routinely offered is the Dominican Latin Mass; Fr. Szymanski said his private masses in the EF, but his public were all very reverent (if not easily understood due to his thick accent) OF masses; He transferred to Seattle, however, where there is a stronger call for Latin Masses.

On this thread, you called the Roman Pontiff “arrogant”, mocked kneeling at Mass, condemned people for praying the Rosary during Mass(a practice that Pius XII said could be profitable in uniting oneself with the Holy Sacrifice, and also the practice of many saints and holy people), basically admitted having one foot out of the Catholic Church, etc. etc. etc. So who are you to call anyone else a schismatic or a heretic?

 

[Ghosty]

Then again, the OF masses up here tend to be reverent, by the rubrics, and well attended; the TLM-movement has had very little traction. The only Latin routinely offered is the Dominican Latin Mass; Fr. Szymanski said his private masses in the EF, but his public were all very reverent (if not easily understood due to his thick accent) OF masses; He transferred to Seattle, however, where there is a stronger call for Latin Masses.

A bit off topic, but do you happen to know what parish he transferred to? There is a movement in Seattle to get a canonical Tridentine Latin parish set up, and currently there is a successful mission based out of the Latin Catholic parish down the street from me. I’m just curious where exactly Fr. Szymanski was transferred to, not so much about the EF movement in Seattle (I share pretty much the exact same experience and sentiment as Aramis on that subject).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cecilianus]

Defined only as doctrine, not dogma.

It’s defined in a document called the “First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ” from session IV of Vatican I, so it is defined as dogma. The Dogmatic Constitution affirms the “supreme power possessed by the Roman Pontiff of governing the universal Church” (chapter 3), and “We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful” (ibid.) Before proceeding to define his infallibility, chapter 3 gives the following canon:

If then any shall say that the Roman pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those things which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principial part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all teh Churches and over each and all the pastors of the faithful; let him be anathema.

Vatican I also quotes the Second Council of Lyons:

The holy Roman Church enjoys supreme and full primacy and princedom over the whole Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly acknowledges taht ti has received with the plenitude of power from Our Lord Himself in the person fo Blessed Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is; and as the Apostolic see is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also, if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by its judgment.

and Florence:

The Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church and the fatehr and teacher of all Christians; and that to him in Blessed Peter was delievered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the whole Church.

Finally, here is the definition of papal infallibility, given near the end of the same Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. But if anyone- which may God avert! - presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema.

 

[Cecilianus]

I’ve seen no authoritative teaching from Rome that the other 14 were ecumenical; that teaching comes from 3rd Plenary Council of Baltimore, not de fide from Rome.

I can’t find a dogmatic decree listing which councils were “ecumenical” up to a point in time; my best way to argue my case would be to find references to individual councils where they are called “ecumenical”. All 21 councils commonly regarded as “ecumenical” are regarded as such because of their Papal approbation; they would be just as authoritative even if they were simply local councils which the Pope decided to bind on the whole Church.

To begin with, however, here’s a quotation from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith from session III of Vatican I: “And this salutary providence, which has been constantly displayed by other innumerable benefits, has been most manifestly proved by the abundant good results which Christendom has derived from oecumenical councils, and particularly from that of Trent, although it was held in evil times.”

So Trent is an ecumenical council.

Likewise, Pius XII wrote in paragraph 6 of “Orientales Omnes Ecclesias”, “It follows that the action of the metropolitan Isidore of Kiev and the Russians was in harmony with the most ancient tradition of the Ruthenian Church when, in 1439, at the ecumenical council of Florence he signed the decree which solemnly united the Greek to the Latin Church.”

So Florence is ecumenical.

That’s the best I can do for the moment.

 

[Cecilianus]

The symbolism is not in line with modern western culture.

In modern western cultures, we stand when a dignitary enters or stands. We stand when we honor our performers. We stand to attention during the secular hymns of state. Witnesses stood in shock on 9/11, pointing, gasping, then running… they did not, at least on the images I’ve seen, fall to their knees in shock.

Kneeling in Western Society, as in the conciliar definitions of the 4th century, is a position of submission and/or sorrow.

In children, it’s most often a sign of either fear or submission, often both.

It’s a posture of prayer. People kneel to pray whether they are in church or not - look at the famous painting of Bouguereau’s called “Le Priere”, which modern-day Catholics are widely familiar with (even if they don’t know who painted it or what it is called; Bouguereau painted a good number of such familiar paintings, including the “Madonna of the Angels” at the top left-hand corner of the CAF window.)

I can’t vouch for your experience, but in mine it has always been the natural posture of prayer. It felt funny as a Lutheran to think that I was praying while sitting down.

 

[Cecilianus]

None. Zero. NEVER HAVE EVER SEEN ANYTHING OF THIS SORT. EVER.

Only during communion services, and once, in a remote town, when a visiting priest was saying the mass, but had been suspended from preaching.

I’ve seen it done reverently. I’ve seen one “rock mass” done. The Bishop put his foot down that they needed to dial it back. All the songs, however, were traditional hymns, mostly back.

I have less issue with Electric guitar played well and reverently than I have with a certain 70yo Organist who plays everything so that the organ is 100dB at the back doors (about 115dB in the front row).

Again, I have never encountered such.

Most of them in the Archdiocese of Anchorage. A few that violate RS and LA, but all predate those two.

I don’t know where you’ve been, but up here, the traditionalist movement is mostly heretics and schismatics, and on CAF, it’s riddled with schismatics, heretics, and sedevaticanists, as well as people, like yourself, who deny the recorded prevalence of liturgical errors pre-V II.

Then again, the OF masses up here tend to be reverent, by the rubrics, and well attended; the TLM-movement has had very little traction. The only Latin routinely offered is the Dominican Latin Mass; Fr. Szymanski said his private masses in the EF, but his public were all very reverent (if not easily understood due to his thick accent) OF masses; He transferred to Seattle, however, where there is a stronger call for Latin Masses.

I am glad to see that the Church is not in quite as sorry a shape in Alaska. I’ve seen everything I’ve mentioned, except for liturgical dancing (since I was warned in advance not to go to that particular parish). If you look on traditionalist webpages for lists of the 10 worst parishes in the world, they will invariably include 2 parishes that are particularly notorious: St. Mary’s in Australia, and St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis, Minnesota. St. Joan of Arc is the next-door neighbor to the parish I live in. (It’s - or was last time we ever heard anything about it - a gay-rights parish, with rainbow banners in the sanctuary, rainbow-colored candle, blasphemous icons of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, and its own float in the annual Gay Pride festival, not to mention the attention they get from the local arch-liberal secular newspaper.)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

Yes, but this does not denigrate his role as supreme monarch as defined to be de fide by Vatican I and (I think) by Trent.

Can you please point out where Vatican 1 defined the role of the Pope as “supreme MONARCH?”

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Sorry for my sparse participation of late. It will be so for another month, I’m afraid.

 

[NoWings]

Ignorance abounds in the Roman Church. It’s getting better, not worse, and it’s a long road. But ignorance is far less amongst the ECC’s. In every EC parish I’ve been to, people discus theology and the faith after liturgy during the social. People talk about their faith in a living manner. That’s something I rarely see or hear in roman parishes.

And at times, I wonder if petrine unity is worth the arrogance of the Roman Church’s faithful in their ignorance and intolerance. And when I wonder, I reread St John’s gospel.

If you all will allow me to comment, I think that sloth is most likely a worse enemy than heresy. At least heretics are passionate about what they’re writing about, even if it’s wrong.

Perhaps a good barbarian invasion is needed again. That may sound flippant… I’m thinking out loud. Though, one could consider Muslim advances in Europe to be this very thing, even if it’s not in-your-face aggressive.

I can’t conceive being a part of a faith with a long history of tradition and being content to just go, sit, parrot, and leave. Maybe I’m weird.

 

[Cecilianus]

I can’t conceive being a part of a faith with a long history of tradition and being content to just go, sit, parrot, and leave. Maybe I’m weird.

That makes two of us weirdos, then. Religion is such a powerful, compelling, and beautiful thing that you have to either (1) embrace and love it with your whole heart, (2) reject it as false and get mad for having wasted your life with it, or (3) be unsure and therefore spend your life trying to figure out the truth about such a omniprevalent phenomenon.

In other words, the only attitude I can’t understand is not caring. Or going to Divine Liturgy and being oblivious to the incredible beauty and wonder of it all, as I so often see fellow-parishioners in their teenage years seeming to do.

 

[Cecilianus]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

Can you please point out where Vatican 1 defined the role of the Pope as “supreme MONARCH?”

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Sorry for my sparse participation of late. It will be so for another month, I’m afraid.

Brother Marduk,
Look at post 45 on this thread, which has four quotations from Vatican I which sum up what I mean by “supreme monarch” (“full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church”, “the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the whole Church”, “supreme and full primacy and princedom over the whole Catholic Church”, and “supreme Apostolic authority”). If you take the term “supreme monarch” to mean anything more than that, than we’re just using the term differently.

Pax,

Cecilianus.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

Brother Marduk,
Look at post 45 on this thread, which has four quotations from Vatican I which sum up what I mean by “supreme monarch” (“full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church”, “the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the whole Church”, “supreme and full primacy and princedom over the whole Catholic Church”, and “supreme Apostolic authority”). If you take the term “supreme monarch” to mean anything more than that, than we’re just using the term differently.

I understand there are different definitions of the term “monarch,” but its most popular definition includes the descriptive of “sole” and “absolute.” The Papacy does not include these descriptives in its definition by Vatican 1. If your understanding of “monarch” does NOT include the descriptives of “sole” and “absolute,” then I have no problem with the use of that word.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

I understand there are different definitions of the term “monarch,” but its most popular definition includes the descriptive of “sole” and “absolute.” The Papacy does not include these descriptives in its definition by Vatican 1. If your understanding of “monarch” does NOT include the descriptives of “sole” and “absolute,” then I have no problem with the use of that word.

Blessings,
Marduk

Obviously he is not the sole bishop, and nobody is denying that the bishops as a whole have authority - I’m not going to say any more about this because I’m a little confused regarding the theology of the ordinary vs. extraordinary Magisterium etc. However, I do know that the Ecumenical Councils derive their authority - that is, they are only legitimate - because of the consent of the “rock” upon which the Church is built. To quote St. Theodore Studites (writing to Pope Leo III during the Iconoclast controversy): “They have not feared to hold a heretical council of their own authority, without your permission; whilst they could not hold even an orthodox one without your knowledge, according to ancient custom.”

Hence the Council of Chalcedon is authoritative (“Peter has spoken through Leo!”), while the latrodinium (“robber council”) of Ephesus is not.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

Obviously he is not the sole bishop, and nobody is denying that the bishops as a whole have authority - I’m not going to say any more about this because I’m a little confused regarding the theology of the ordinary vs. extraordinary Magisterium etc. However, I do know that the Ecumenical Councils derive their authority - that is, they are only legitimate - because of the consent of the “rock” upon which the Church is built. To quote St. Theodore Studites (writing to Pope Leo III during the Iconoclast controversy): “They have not feared to hold a heretical council of their own authority, without your permission; whilst they could not hold even an orthodox one without your knowledge, according to ancient custom.”

Hence the Council of Chalcedon is authoritative (“Peter has spoken through Leo!”), while the latrodinium (“robber council”) of Ephesus is not.

I can’t agree with your statement above (highlighted). It is indeed the Pope’s prerogative as head bishop to call, convene or at least acknowledge the convention of a general council of the Church. However, what legitimizes a council AS Ecumenical is not the approbation of the head bishop (i.e., the Pope) alone, but rather the moral unanimity of the BODY of bishops (which, of course, indispensably includes the Pope). It is the collegial action of head and body TOGETHER which legitimizes the authority of any council (whether, local, plenary or universal), not the action of the head alone.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

I can’t agree with your statement above (highlighted). It is indeed the Pope’s prerogative as head bishop to call, convene or at least acknowledge the convention of a general council of the Church. However, what legitimizes a council AS Ecumenical is not the approbation of the head bishop (i.e., the Pope) alone, but rather the moral unanimity of the BODY of bishops (which, of course, indispensably includes the Pope). It is the collegial action of head and body TOGETHER which legitimizes the authority of any council (whether, local, plenary or universal), not the action of the head alone.

Blessings,
Marduk

However, the First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) was purely a local council held in the East without the presence of any of the Western bishops. It only became an ecumenical council when Pope St. Damasus ratified the dogmatic canons as binding on the whole Church.

However, the moral unanimity of the body of bishops is what SHOULD make a council ecumenical. The Fathers of Constantinople 1 shouldn’t have tried holding a council without the Pope being involved.

 

[Frank_J]

Hello,

The first person in this chatroon had a question of why a person raised Roman Catholic would become Eastern Rite Christian in Orthodoxy?

I’m the one that you’re looking for. In short all I can say is just look at what the Roman Catholic is into and you will find your answer. I don’t want to say much because I would be kick off for say that the truth. If given the time and the freedom to say what is on my mind I could tell you what it was like to grow up not sure of ones self as a Christian. VII was a big part of plus hippy Mass would do the rest of the damage to ones faith.

What I will say is; that I very glad that I found truth in Orthodoxy and my home as a Christian. If you were to walk up to me in the street and ask me to convert to RC I would say NO! for I am happy being a Orthodox Christian and can not picture myself any other way.

To me Orthodoxy is the one true faith and the others that I see are just misguided faiths that look for truth.

Have a great day.

 

[Madaglan]

However, the First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) was purely a local council held in the East without the presence of any of the Western bishops. It only became an ecumenical council when Pope St. Damasus ratified the dogmatic canons as binding on the whole Church.

However, the moral unanimity of the body of bishops is what SHOULD make a council ecumenical. The Fathers of Constantinople 1 shouldn’t have tried holding a council without the Pope being involved.

Did the bishops really go into it saying “hence begins Ecumenical Council #2”?