Roman Catholic Q&A

At the Second Church of Odyssey you'll find different ways of expressing your beliefs, finding prayer support or being encouraged through regular devotionals.
User avatar
Sherlock
Solicitor Non Grata
Posts: 3401
Joined: May 2005
Location: Bohemia

Roman Catholic Q&A

Post by Sherlock »

I kind of liked reading some of these Q&A topics from the various denominations out there, so I figured I would start one here. Got a question about Sacraments, Priests/nuns, Mary, Saints, Mass, the Pope, Bishops, relics, Latin words/phrases etc? Ask here and I'll try to answer as best as possible or at least tell you if I don't know the answer. Fair enough?

(As a bit of background, I was raised Catholic from childhood, but half my family is Methodist/Baptist and I was homeschooled using both Protestant and Catholic curriculum. Most of my knowledge re: Catholic doctrine was gained post-High School)).
Last edited by Sherlock on Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
John Chrysostom
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3593
Joined: September 2007

Post by John Chrysostom »

What obstacles do you think there are to an Orthodox/Catholic reunification?
User avatar
Sherlock
Solicitor Non Grata
Posts: 3401
Joined: May 2005
Location: Bohemia

Post by Sherlock »

I think on the issue of Liturgy/rite there is very little obstacle to reunification. I could be wrong, but from my discussions with Eastern Rite Catholics (Maronites, Ruthenians, etc) there seems to be very little distinction between the practices of Eastern Catholics and Greek Orthodox on the Sacramental/Liturgical level. Then again, there are a lot of similarities between the Anglican Mass and the Roman Catholic Mass so I guess the issues boil down to doctrine.

I think there are two issues, one ecclesiastical (Papal primacy/supremacy) and the other doctrinal split that occured post the East-West Schism. However, interestingly, Rome's official position is that the Orthodox are schismatic and not heretical which would appear that it does take the view that the doctrinal issues are not insurmountable. Obviously I am not fully aware of the Orthodox response to this view, but from sources I have seen it appears mixed On one hand, I have heard that the Orthodox believe these doctrinal differences to be of a deeper (heretical?) nature, so there would naturally have to be some reconciliation on that issue before any reunification could be considered. On the other hand, the article I have posted below seems much more optimistic (perhaps overly so) so it is hard to say.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/catholic ... _in_sight/
User avatar
Blitz
Love to love
Posts: 1958
Joined: December 2011

Post by Blitz »

Do you know what the popes name stands for?
Image
Online family
Christian's nephew
Sammy's Bro and moderator between Sammy and Woody and her partner in randomnes
Woody's younger brother and best friend And married to Joy and forgot about it Dolls third cousin
Yes, since my sweetheart lives in the clouds
I must float on them. - Limerick

Blitz....do not flirt when you have a gf already!!!! Gahhhhhh..these tweens need to learn proper gentlemanly behaviour!!!
Blitz: I am a teen
* Black_Ghost buries the two peeps...err chicks...err dude and a chick
'Here lies blitz the dude, and IT the chick.
* IrishTiger is not being buried beside Blitz.
Doll knows everything about her sweet baboo
BECAUSE SHE STALKS HIM
Woody
Check out my blog by order of the king.
http://blitzkrieglight.blogspot.com/
User avatar
John Chrysostom
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3593
Joined: September 2007

Post by John Chrysostom »

Yes I think Papal supremacy, Orthodox agree with primacy, is the big issue; most bishops and priests I know would never accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Where do you stand on the issue of supremacy?

As to the schismatic versus heretical yes that is rather mixed, I was just reading an article about this actually and there is a very strong anti-ecumenical faction within Orthodox. Interesting enough led by Frank Schaeffer, Francis Schaeffer's son, that does call Rome heretical.

As for that article that was the opinion of a Catholic Archbishop and seemed overly optimistic since it called for unity within months, back in 2009. I also think there are some theological issues that still divide us.

For example the issues of penal substitution, transubstantiation, married priests, and the biggest I think; what happens to all the Councils Rome has had since the schism?

On a less theological issue the pillage and rape of Constantinople is still a sore subject for many Orthodox and there is a lot of work to be done there.
User avatar
Sherlock
Solicitor Non Grata
Posts: 3401
Joined: May 2005
Location: Bohemia

Post by Sherlock »

conquestor wrote:Do you know what the popes name stands for?
Well, way back in the wayback machine, Popes would use their given names but the practice of honoring a predecessor eventually led to subsequent Popes using prior Pope's names. Today, Popes will often choose the name of a predecessor that they admired (often giving the lay people a clue to how the new Pope will behave or what issues he will consider most important). For example, most of the Pope Piuses were very anti-modern. Pope Pius X was often called the scourge of the modernists, and he probably took that name because he wished to emulate his predecessors.

There has, however, never been a Peter II.
Ayn Rand wrote:Yes I think Papal supremacy, Orthodox agree with primacy, is the big issue; most bishops and priests I know would never accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Where do you stand on the issue of supremacy?
I would hold that, by definition, the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the Catholic church by nature of it's universality. Also, as the entire structure is made up of a series of jurisdictions with the Pope as it's head, I think it makes sense to retain this authority, lest the colleges of bishops begin making new doctrines without supervision. I think it would be difficult for a group to come under the Catholic umbrella without acknowledging Papal jurisdiction, even though, in practice many Eastern Catholics have very little contact with Rome.

I think the article was too optimistic, as time has shown. I was reading some of the Statements like the Balamand statement in the 1990's, but I will have to read more about the issue and more of these types of Statements to really be able to comment intelligently about it.

For example the issues of penal substitution, transubstantiation, married priests, and the biggest I think; what happens to all the Councils Rome has had since the schism?

I don't think Rome would budge on any of the Dogmatic Councils. I can't speak for non-Dogmatic, ecumenical councils, though Rome has held pretty tightly to Vatican II which technically did not promulgate any new doctrines. I don't think the issue of married priests would present a concern, since the Eastern Catholic Priests are allowed to marry. Should there be a reunification, I would imagine that most of the non-dogmatic issues would be conceded to and the Orthodox would practice them as they do. I have no idea what the outcome would be on the theological issues like transubstantiation. I do know that the Catholics won't budge on the definition, as that goes to the core of doctrine.
Ayn Rand wrote:On a less theological issue the pillage and rape of Constantinople is still a sore subject for many Orthodox and there is a lot of work to be done there.
Given that there have been numerous formal apologies for the Crusades and other events in Catholic history, I don't think this would be the lynch pin or anything like that. I guess both sides would have to agree that they cannot allow historical events in the past by people who are all now dead to influence the decision to reconcile in the future.
User avatar
John Chrysostom
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3593
Joined: September 2007

Post by John Chrysostom »

I think it makes sense to retain this authority, lest the colleges of bishops begin making new doctrines without supervision.
Yet the Orthodox Church has not made new doctrines in the 1,000 years plus since the schism, does that not seem to indicate that the universal jurisdiction is not necessary?

I think the issue of transubstantiation would be the major sticking point since reunification means being in Eucharistic fellowship with each other and we can't have that if we don't agree on the nature of the Eucharist.

I also think the Liturgy might be a sticking point too, would the Catholics be okay with the Orthodox continuing to use the Eastern Liturgy? And in the native language of the worshipers?

Also I think we would run into problems like the Orthodox Church has in America where several different Orthodox churches have a Bishop in the same city, for example here in DC we have a Russian Bishop, a Greek Bishop, and a Orthodox Church of America Bishop. If the Catholics and Orthodox were to reunite we'd be adding a Catholic Bishop too and then we'd get into the whole universal jurisdiction of the Pope again. I mean could we really ever have one Bishop for Orthodox and Catholic churches in a city?
User avatar
Sherlock
Solicitor Non Grata
Posts: 3401
Joined: May 2005
Location: Bohemia

Post by Sherlock »

Ayn Rand wrote:
I think it makes sense to retain this authority, lest the colleges of bishops begin making new doctrines without supervision.
Yet the Orthodox Church has not made new doctrines in the 1,000 years plus since the schism, does that not seem to indicate that the universal jurisdiction is not necessary?
I guess I should be more specific with the terminology and say "development of doctrine" (which can often be used as an excuse to try and change doctrine, even if - in reality - it cannot be changed by definition). I think the structure of the Orthodox Church makes it less likely to lean towards modernism, however I think if the Catholics Church as such began to allow bishops to make doctrinal "interpretations" without the Papal jurisdiction, you would see a lot of schismatic behavior (womens' ordinations, inclusive language etc) getting out of hand. Without getting into the hairy details, I would say that more modern occurences within the Catholic Church specifically have left it weakened to attacks on it's doctrine and that it greatly needs a unified head as well as a centralized source of authority as the past has shown that Catholic bishops, left unchecked, will try to introduce many prohibited practices.

If you look at the Anglicans/Episcopalians you can see how the lack of a unified head has lead to them embracing some very modern practices that probably would have been considered forbidden a hundred years ago. Although they have an older tradition than a lot of Protestant denominations, as well as a unified Liturgy (more or less), they are still relatively unchecked and so the bishops end up changing the doctrines over time.
Ayn Rand wrote:I think the issue of transubstantiation would be the major sticking point since reunification means being in Eucharistic fellowship with each other and we can't have that if we don't agree on the nature of the Eucharist.
I agree.
Ayn Rand wrote:I also think the Liturgy might be a sticking point too, would the Catholics be okay with the Orthodox continuing to use the Eastern Liturgy? And in the native language of the worshipers?
Well, like I said earlier, the Eastern Rite Catholics use a Liturgy that is almost 100% different from the Roman Rite. Also, there has been a recent movement within the Catholic Church to allow for the Latin Mass which is almost exclusively said in Latin, not local languages, so I do not think that this would present a problem. Finally, the Eastern Catholics actually use a totally different Canon than the Roman Catholics do, so in a sense they are like a seperate entity, even though they are technically united under the Magesterial head. For example in the Eastern Rite it is okay to use leavened bread for Communion whereas in the Roman Rite this is considered a Liturgical abuse.
Ayn Rand wrote:Also I think we would run into problems like the Orthodox Church has in America where several different Orthodox churches have a Bishop in the same city, for example here in DC we have a Russian Bishop, a Greek Bishop, and a Orthodox Church of America Bishop. If the Catholics and Orthodox were to reunite we'd be adding a Catholic Bishop too and then we'd get into the whole universal jurisdiction of the Pope again. I mean could we really ever have one Bishop for Orthodox and Catholic churches in a city?
I can't really answer the overlapping jurisdiction question, though I wonder whether in countries like India where you see a lot of Roman Catholics and Syro-Malibar Catholics whether there is also overlapping jurisdiction. It would seem that, if there is, they have found a way to make it work. My guess is that the Eastern Rite Catholics have thier own bishops and the Roman Rite Catholics have their own bishops, though it is possible (albeit unlikely) that they have bi-ritual bishops too. Bi-ritual is really rare though. My guess is that if the Orthodox were unified, they would be given what Rome calls a personal prelature which means that they would report directly to Rome and would not be subject to the local diocese jurisdiction. The organization Opus Dei is an example of this.
User avatar
John Chrysostom
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3593
Joined: September 2007

Post by John Chrysostom »

I totally agree about the Protestant denominations. I think however the strength of the localized, non-universal authority of the Orthodox is that they are able to more effectively deal with the schismatic behavior at the local levels. Because each Bishop is not just by himself but belongs to a Synod and so are able to keep each other accountable. Where as the Pope however pure his doctrine may be can not possible exercise that same level of accountability for every Bishop.

Hmm personal prelature seems very alien to Orthodoxy and I'm not sure that would work. I really think it would take total forfeiture of universal jurisdiction on the part of the Pope for the unification to work. Now that being said in now way would that mean giving up primacy or status of universal arbiter for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
User avatar
Sherlock
Solicitor Non Grata
Posts: 3401
Joined: May 2005
Location: Bohemia

Post by Sherlock »

Oh ok, that makes sense. No, the Pope does not excersice accountability, that is actually supposed to be the job of the Priests and laypeople to bring issues to the bishops who then are supposed to take care of it. It should only go to Rome if it cannot be resolved at that level, however, the abuses have made it hard for a lot of people to understand or even know what is allowed. For example, a lot of people think that holding hands during the recitation of the "Our Father" prayer in the Mass is totally acceptable beause everyone in the 1960's started doing it. In fact, it is not allowed because it is not part of the Mass, just an addition that people put in. Another one is female altar servers which was actually an abuse that became so widespread, it was eventually formally allowed. Not a good decision, in my opinion, but that is what happens when you have too much authority at the local level and it goes unchecked.

I guess my confusion with the issue is how the Pope could be the Universal Arbiter but have no Jurisdiction. Wouldn't that render him the same as the Queen, sort of a figurehead with no real authority to create doctrine (something the Catholics hold that the Pope is able to do if he speaks "ex cathedra")? In that sense, I couldn't see an agreement, because the ability of the Pope to speak with that Authority and infallibility on matters of faith and morals is a dogmatic issue. So it would be hard to incorporate that into practice because it would require Rome to say that, in terms of a normalised Orthodox Church, they are still Catholic and yet they are not under the Jurisdiction of Rome, which is basically an essential component of Catholicity.
User avatar
John Chrysostom
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3593
Joined: September 2007

Post by John Chrysostom »

Ahh I think I see the crux of our disagreement.
Wouldn't that render him the same as the Queen, sort of a figurehead with no real authority to create doctrine (something the Catholics hold that the Pope is able to do if he speaks "ex cathedra")? In that sense, I couldn't see an agreement, because the ability of the Pope to speak with that Authority and infallibility on matters of faith and morals is a dogmatic issue.
See the Orthodox Church very much disagrees with the practice of "ex cathedra", the infallibility of any one person, and that we can create new doctrine individually. In the Eastern tradition a consensus of Holy Fathers; not just Bishops but Monks, lay theologians, Priests, and others are necessary for agreement on doctrine.
User avatar
Sherlock
Solicitor Non Grata
Posts: 3401
Joined: May 2005
Location: Bohemia

Post by Sherlock »

Ayn Rand wrote:Ahh I think I see the crux of our disagreement.
Wouldn't that render him the same as the Queen, sort of a figurehead with no real authority to create doctrine (something the Catholics hold that the Pope is able to do if he speaks "ex cathedra")? In that sense, I couldn't see an agreement, because the ability of the Pope to speak with that Authority and infallibility on matters of faith and morals is a dogmatic issue.
See the Orthodox Church very much disagrees with the practice of "ex cathedra", the infallibility of any one person, and that we can create new doctrine individually. In the Eastern tradition a consensus of Holy Fathers; not just Bishops but Monks, lay theologians, Priests, and others are necessary for agreement on doctrine.
Yes, that makes sense. Catholics believe that infallibility is an outgrowth of Petrine Supremacy but that it is limited to those occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra. The two biggest examples I can think of are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

Out of curiosity, Catholics generally consider Pope Leo I's written statements on the two natures of Christ in 449 to be ex cathedra (later incorporated into the Council of Chalcedon). Do the Orthodox believe in these statements as dogmatic as well?
Last edited by Sherlock on Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
John Chrysostom
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3593
Joined: September 2007

Post by John Chrysostom »

The Immaculate Conception is not accepted by Orthodox, so that would be another sticking point.

We accept them as dogma only because they were later accepted by the Council and the Church as a whole and if Pope Leo I's writings were dogmatic by themselves there really wouldn't be a need for a Council yet there was.
User avatar
The Top Crusader
Hammer Bro
Hammer Bro
Posts: 22629
Joined: April 2005
Location: A drawbridge over a lava pit with an axe conveniently off to the side

Post by The Top Crusader »

Is the pope secretly funding Rick Santorum's campaign?
User avatar
Sherlock
Solicitor Non Grata
Posts: 3401
Joined: May 2005
Location: Bohemia

Post by Sherlock »

The Top Crusader wrote:Is the pope secretly funding Rick Santorum's campaign?
Through Opus Dei.

\:D/
User avatar
John Chrysostom
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3593
Joined: September 2007

Post by John Chrysostom »

What is the Roman Catholic view on the doctrine of Theosis?

Also recently I've been reading about Vatican II, I didn't know much about it until you mentioned it in the other thread. What are your thoughts on Vatican II?
User avatar
Sherlock
Solicitor Non Grata
Posts: 3401
Joined: May 2005
Location: Bohemia

Post by Sherlock »

Ayn Rand wrote:What is the Roman Catholic view on the doctrine of Theosis?
To be honest, I wasn't all that familiar with Theosis (or at least the Orthodox teaching on it) so I consulted OrthodoxWiki which defines Theosis as :
Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting.
So assuming the above is pretty accurate, I would say that Catholics have a somewhat similar teaching, only we would express it a bit differently. You may be familiar with Augustine's famous statement in Confessions: "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you." This pretty much sums up the Catholic view on what might otherwise be called divinization. Specifically, Catholics believe that God created mankind for the specific purpose of being united fully with Him in Heaven, not because He was bored or didn't have anything better to do. This means that we would say human beings were created in the image and likeness of God, possess an eternal soul and therefore share in the Divine nature. Because of this, Catholics absolutely reject the Lutheran concept of total depravity, in which Martin Luther described the human soul as being like a dung heap (essentially bad) covered by a blanket of snow (God's Grace). We would reject this concept and say that God created mankind basically good, but that we chose to sin and are therefore fallen. This does not mean that we can save ourselves or that we somehow do not need God's grace to obtain salvation, but rather that our human nature is not fundamentally evil. So, I would agree with the following statement:
Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity.
This sort of verbalizes the basic philosophical concept that states that all created things on earth have a specific end or purpose, something both Aquinas and Augustine taught. For instance, a flower has the purpose of attracting a bee, a bee has the purpose of pollinating a flower, the pollen has the purpose of creating new plants, etc. We believe that because God created us in His image and with an eternal soul, and our very nature was designed to share in the Beatific vision and that our nature itself was designed for this end. This is why the concept of Hell is so much worse than simply the idea of a hot place with a devil and pitchforks, because the true suffering of Hell is the knowledge of the soul that it will never be united to God.

Ayn Rand wrote:Also recently I've been reading about Vatican II, I didn't know much about it until you mentioned it in the other thread. What are your thoughts on Vatican II?
Yeah, Vatican II is a subject to which I could probably easily devote a book. I've wrote quite a bit of it on other Catholic forums and such, and wish I remembered what I did with some of those posts, but I'll try to summarize it here without offending any of my fellow Catholics on this board. It's a pretty controversial topic.

I'm not sure what you read, but basically Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council which was held in Rome in the 1960s. More or less, the purpose of Vatican II was to address the concept of the Catholic Church in the modern world. The Vatican II Council produced numerous encyclicals or documents to this end, the primary documents of which were Lumen Gentium, Gaudiem et Spes, and Dignitatis Humanae (see: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun ... n_council/).

What made Vatican II unique in many ways was that, unlike it's predecessor Councils, Vatican II was not called to address a particular heresy or heresies. In the past, Rome would call a Council to address and suppress some heresy, e.g. the Arian heresy at the Council of Nicaea and so forth. Vatican II, on the other hand, was almost what one would call a symposium, wherein the Church leaders met, discussed various issues and released statements and documents pertaining to what they viewed as the role of the Catholic Church in the modern world on many of the "hot" issues like human life (abortion, contraception, etc), ecumenism (the role of Catholics vis a vis non-Catholic brethren and non-Christian religions) and Liturgy (the modernization of the Mass through, amongst other things, use of the vernacular (local) languages in the Mass). Vatican II is considered by most to be one of the most revolutionary Councils and also one of the most influential in the history of the Church.

There are many things that made Vatican II controversial, and I will try to address them here from a sort of non-biased standpoint and then give my opinion later. Basically, a big issue that a lot of people had with Vatican II from the outset was the influence that the Protestant theologians had on the developments that occurred and the documents that were produced. As mentioned, a big topic at the Council was ecumenism, or how the Church relates to non-Catholics. For this reason, many influential Protestant theologians were consulted and one of the commissions set up to develop a new liturgy (the Mass that Catholics use today) included six protestants. In one of the statements released by one of the protestant theologians after the council, he was quoted as saying "We have finished the work that Martin Luther begun." Many people saw this statement as a sign that the Catholic liturgy had been "protestantized" or that many of the essentially Catholic elements had been either demphasized or removed entirely from the Mass. In a later article, Cardinal Bugnini (head of the commission in charge of the new liturgy) stated that the commission had "..strip[ped] from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”

For many Catholics, both lay and otherwise, these changes posed a significant deviation, both liturgically and doctrinally from what had existed pre-Vatican II. Some examples of this include the de-emphasis on the sacrifical aspect of the Mass (it began to be referenced as a "meal" rather than a "sacrifice") thereby falling more in line with Protestant theology on the Mass (Martin Luther rejected the idea of the Mass as a Sacrifice, instead calling it a memorial or a symbol). Through the extensive use of lay ministers and lay roles, many said that the line became blurred between the Priesthood of the faithful and the Ordained Priesthood, thereby diluting the distinctions. A lot of other things happened in what might be called the "fallout" from Vatican II, including the use of female altar severs (an abuse that eventually became normalized, and is now allowed), the use of "liturgical dancers", modern praise and worship music (mostly Protestant) and other such activities that would have been previously incompatible with the Latin Rite. In one of the documents released after the council, Cardinal Ottaviani (one of the major critics of the Vatican II liturgical changes) wrote that "the Novus Ordo Missae represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in the Council of Trent."

Anyway, there are so many resources on this topic, so I won't re-write everything, but basically my opinion on Vatican II, or at least the fallout from it, was that it caused an unnecessary degree of problems in the Church. While I agree that the subject of the Church in the modern world was a topic that needed to be addressed in some form, I think the Council went too far in trying to appease the Protestants and, thereby, created a situation in which most Catholics became confused as to Catholic doctrine and, indeed, the Liturgy. I think the structure of the New Mass (post-Vatican II liturgy) was structured (whether intentionally or not) to allow for abuses and modifications to creep in. Many Catholics saw the Liturgy as a casual affair, not a sacred, solemn event. Traditional prayers often got de-emphasised and we saw a huge movement towards pentacostal-style worship in a lot of churches and Universities (mine was one of them). Finally, what I see as the biggest negative effect was that the Latin Mass was so effectively suppressed that most Catholics were not even taught of the documents or Liturgy that existed prior to Vatican II. To use myself as an example (I was educated in theology through my church and then went to a Catholic university), I did not find out that there was a Latin Mass until I graduated and met some Traditionalist Catholic friends who introduced me to it. The pre-Vatican II documents were never taught in my theology classes and there was no mention of a Missal in anything other than the vernacular (English) form.

So no, I'm not the biggest Vatican II fan, because I believe that a lot of people used the Council as an excuse to introduce an unnecessary amount of modernizations into the Church. The consequences can only be seen as negative (a huge drop in Mass attendance, lack of knowledge in the churches and schools about theology, increased liturgical abuses, lack of priests/vocations to the priesthood, record churches and schools and convents closing etc). And whether or not one views these as direct consequences of the council or a product of the 1960's alone, I think that the Council loosened up on doctrine at a time when people needed more guidance than ever and that this ultimately had a disastrous consequence. I think also that there was, in the mind of many of the people at the time, a very negative attitude toward the "old ways" and that Vatican II was lauded as a "new Springtime" for the Catholic Church. To this extent, many of the "old teachings" were seen as antiquated and were altogether removed from most theological studies. One example is that, as the Latin was no longer used, many Seminaries stopped teaching the language altogether making it nearly impossible for a recently-ordained Priest to be able to celebrate the Latin Mass.

Finally, Catholics simply didn't have access to the Latin Mass post-Vatican II, except through a few very limited sources. Fortunately, in the decades following, we have seen a gradual shift from that, and now Priests no longer require permission from the local Bishop to say a Latin Mass and the faithful have more resources available to them if they wish to find one. Still, the Latin Mass is something that is foreign or completely unknown to many, and is still often dismissed in Churches as some crazy thing that the old traditionalists cling on to. I would like to see that change, as I think that it is vital that Catholics know about the Liturgy that existed for thousands of years prior to the 1960's. Hopefully the coming years will see more changes in this direction. The recent changes to the Missal (current) have indicated a distinct shift towards the Latin form, but arguably there is still a lot of work that can be done. Still, I think it is a sign that even Rome is finally realizing that the ambiguities of the documents and the subsequent implementations need to be corrected in order to preserve the doctrine and teaching without error.
Last edited by Sherlock on Fri May 04, 2012 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
John Chrysostom
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3593
Joined: September 2007

Post by John Chrysostom »

I would agree with the OrthodoxWiki definition, it is a good source for Orthodox things.

That explains Vatican II very well, I had no idea about these sweeping changes in Catholicism. I also now understand your question about the modernization of the Liturgy in Orthodoxy at the hypothetical 8th Ecumenical Council. I will say there are people who do debate the ordination of women and the use of them as Readers and Deacons in Orthodoxy; I will say in the Early Church pre-schism there were women Readers and Deacons but never Priests. And in fact at my parish we have a Deacons wife who was tonsured as a Reader while they were living in Hong Kong since they were some of the few Orthodox there and the Church was growing.

On a related note, what do you think about the Vatican's recent report on Nuns in America?
User avatar
Sherlock
Solicitor Non Grata
Posts: 3401
Joined: May 2005
Location: Bohemia

Post by Sherlock »

Sorry about the delay.

I agree with the Vatican - I think the situation had gotten way out of hand after the 1960's, but I don't think the problem was only a US one. Unfortunately, the US often goes without as much scrutiny as Europe in terms of what is allowed and what the bishops are allowed to do and say here. The same goes for nuns, especially prominent ones, who are known to make statements in direct contradiction to Church teaching.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ame ... story.html

Articles like this are amusing, because of the words they use like "shocked", "stunned", "outraged", etc. Well, if the nuns in the rest of the country behave as they have been doing in my city, then there is nothing to be shocked about. The Sisters in my city, with very little exception, have modernized to the point that they have done away with the wearing of any habit (they dress in lay clothing and maybe wear a cross necklace), done away with convents, and have - to a large part - caused a large degree of scandal by openly supporting abortion on demand, Catholic health insurance coverage for contraceptives, support for women's ordination and other related things that openly defy Church teaching on these matters. It is one thing to hold these views and entirely another to advocate them in the name of the Catholic Church which, I believe, causes a great deal of scandal and confusion. All of these things are done under the labels of tolerance and compassion, which is fine, but they should have the intellectual honesty to at least acknowledge that they teachings they propagate are contrary to Catholic teaching.


There's little reason to be shocked or outraged, as the situation has gone unchecked for a very long time. One concrete example of this is the fact that one, [former women's] College run by nuns in my city now offers a degree in Women's Studies - taught by nuns - that advocates for the issues I mentioned above, and is financially supported by the local diocese. When things like this happen, how are people supposed to think? It would appear that the Church has changed its teaching, so without having some check-and-balance system from Rome, people will continue to believe that this is the case.
User avatar
The Hippie
Processing
Posts: 108
Joined: August 2011
Location: VA

Post by The Hippie »

What is the purpose of confession to priests? And is it required?
Image

Love Peace, Love music, Love life.
Post Reply