P
- Status
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
S
SVP
Guest
This information should be considered hearsay as there has been no formal announcement of Professor Thompson’s resignation. This same information was posted on Byzcath.org and pulled by its administrator.
These past 3 posts by UngCertez and Patchunky have shown a startling LACK of Christian charity!
Thank You,
Steve P
P
Patchunky
Guest
And how will the new ruling from Rome about the translations effect it as well???
The new ruling is due in February if I’m not mistaken…
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
Fr. Anthony pulled it untill he talked with two Archeparchial priests, and now it is back up over at Byz. Forum.This information should be considered hearsay as there has been no formal announcement of Professor Thompson’s resignation. This same information was posted on Byzcath.org and pulled by its administrator.
These past 3 posts by UngCertez and Patchunky have shown a startling LACK of Christian charity!
Thank You,
Steve P
Ung
P
Patchunky
Guest
Hey Ung!
Got the matches, I’ve got the kolbass outta the freezer… got a big bag of marshmallows…
have you talked with J yet??
B from U was talking to J earlier…
S
SVP
Guest
It is shameful how a Christian bulletin board as Byzcath can condone such a wanton display of insinuation and disrespect for a person regardless of how one feels toward thier professional work! For that matter it would be shameful for Catholic Answers not to confront this very personal attack on J. Micheal Thompson by several posters here effectivly derailing the thread turning it into a personal rant.
J
jj2011
Guest
What’s the new ruling about translations?
P
Patchunky
Guest
From what I’ve been told, Rome is not all that happy with the gender neutral translation.
They’re also not that happy with the English usage that was used for the translation.
They want to go back to original approved translation from 1942 which was never implimented.
S
SVP
Guest
Any names as to who “they” are who are making this decision?
S
SVP
Guest
The music was less the problem than our Hierarchs tweaking with the translation. Prof. Thompson had become a convenient lightning rod for those who dislike the translation because they also see “new” music with it. The music is FAR more faithful to the historical tradition of the Ruthenian church than the material from Levkulic or Vernoski. Their approach followed the 1965 (Dec. 1964) mandate by the bishops “keep the music simple” (yes that was the mandate!) as a result much of the flow of the MUSIC was altered considerably from the Church Slavonic melodies currently in use.
Most likely, the desire to keep the music tradition (as the RDL books restored) will remain if there is a change to the translation.
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
I find it interesting that many parishes in the Archeparchy never bought the new RDL books. For example, Protection of the Mother of God parish, Johnstown PA. Fr. Balta has spent over $500,000 on renovations, but has yet to order the new pew books. This is one of the largest parishes in the South-Central Pennsylvania and the pastor is the Protopresbyter. This tells me that the RDL may very well be recalled by Rome.
Ung
Ung
D
dvdjs
Guest
UC: Suffice it to say that you are simply wrong on your facts about St. Mary’s Pokrov in Johnstown. (I personally spoke to Msgr. Balta on thus very issue last December.) So your inferences are ill-conceived.
I don’t know what Rome will do, but after a long century here - working our way from under the authority of Latin bishops, to obtaining our own bishops, becoming an archeparcy, then sui juris church - I hope, that our hierarchs will politely but firmly tell Rome to see to its own liturgy, and leaves ours to us.
Any idea of that primacy need not imply supremacy will go out the window if Rome gives mandates. The very idea that our liturgy should be written and prescribed by the Vatican is utterly absurd. We certainly should, and have, cooperated with Rome in the promulgation of the RDL; anything more would be a gross intrusion into the affiars of a sui juris chruch and would have terrible consequences for relations with EC churches, let alone rapprochement with the EO churches.
D
Diak
Guest
Regardless of lack of personal interest in the legalalisms, the Church does have due process even for such a manifestation of a decision of informed conscience as a change of churches sui iuris for spiritual benefit. Unlike the Orthodox, the Catholic Church to my knowledge does not judge as any evil for such a thing rightly conducted according to Her laws; nor do I think stating the existence of the process and order for doing so is “highlighting” but rather the recognition of not only simple fact, but also may in the long run be helpful for all souls to know and understand all of their options.
Likewise I know of many situations both in the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy where a change was welcomed and was a spiritual blessing for the soul in question. Let’s look at one prominent case within the BCC - in the case of Bishop +John Kudrick - born BCC Greek Catholic, receiving a transfer to the Latins as a TOR Franciscan (a Latin congregation, not the Byzantine one), and later receiving a transfer back and now a Greek Catholic bishop.
The monikers of “religious consumerism” and “jurisdiction hopping” are external judgements (and not defined by the user(s)), far too vague and do not always seem to respect the individual prayer and reflection, perhaps the spiritual turmoil, at work within the soul.
Likewise, as in the case of Bishop John, I believe there is an entirely improper analogue with your reference to divorce.
D
Diak
Guest
Were we just discussing disobedience? And what about those clergy who still long for the Rome Ordo?
D
dvdjs
Guest
There are many things that Rome could do consistent with a role of primacy versus supremacy. So we will see what happens.
I only hope that matters are handled in a manner appropriate to the interaction of Vatican dicasteries and the Metropolitan of sui juris church. Does the former have any busines commanding obedience from the latter?
The case of a bishop and his clergy is more obvious, ISTM.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Which is what I said, concluding:
I am nost sure what reinforcement that you feel Bishop John needs. Or what signposts you feel need to be called to his attention. But I think that the discussion of a personal case, as distinct from general guidelines, should be done with that person.
D
Diak
Guest
To return to a general statement:
It would seem according to your own statements there are still at best “problems”. I do not see any such thing in the specific case I cited, moving from a rather nondescript overgeneralization to an actual example where it was of apparent genuine benefit to the larger Church, and certainly to the Metropolia (eis polla eti, Despota). If you do not see the result of this case as a benefit, please elaborate, or continue to identify “still problems”.
D
Diak
Guest
What “case” specifically are you referring to?
D
dvdjs
Guest
I am not referring to a any specific “case”, so “case” was not a good word choice. I should have said that the “situation” or the “nature of the interaction” between bishop and his cleargy is clearly very different than that of a vatican dicastery and the metropolitan of a sui juris church.
- Status