747Ag said:The Banned said:747Ag said:The Banned said:747Ag said:The Banned said:Zobel said:
Oh no. I'm talking about the abuses to the NO, and the NO itself. And things like the Pachamama.
Abuses to the NO I get.
Pachamama I get.
Neither of those are teachings, which I think you'd agree
But the NO itself?
All 7 sacraments changed by committee, some members of which were of dubious character. Severed the apostolicity of the liturgy. Liturgical calendar removed some seasons and further decimated our required penances. How many Catholics abstain from meat on every Friday (or substitute an equal penance)? Lectionary revised. Feasts shifted.
And all of these invalidated the faith and sacraments? They are no longer true and licit?
Read this again. Severed the apostolicity? Is this a sedevecantist argument?
Lololol... No, not sede. It's a new and novel set of rites, rites not of apostolic origin. Like I said, it was written by a committee. It didn't grow organically like the rites rites of the east and the ancient Roman rite.
And no, I'm not making a validity/liceity argument either. Vatican II and its resultant liturgical committee said our eastern brethren should retain their traditional liturgies whereas the Romans got something all together new. My guess is that we Catholics wanted to be like the others more than being ourselves. In the east, we stayed looking more like the Orthodox. In the west, we adopted more protestant ideas. Basically, most of us just have no clue as to who we are as Catholics.
I can resonate with this. I think the primary issue is that much of the rite AS IT WAS WRITTEN is not nearly the monumental change as we ended up seeing. The novus ordo still had ad orientem. It was supposed to retain Latin in pride of place. It what the bad actors did with it (bad interpretation or intentional misinterpretation) is the problem. This is why you can find reverent and beautiful novus ordos, as rare as they may be. I've been blessed to attend two in my entire life.
That said, I don't think the average Catholic wanted it. The stories I hear from the olds are stories of horror, but they stayed anyway. I think it was some very bad actors that wanted this and got it. I don't think it will stand for long. We're seeing a small movement in certain larger parishes towards a more traditional novus ordo mass. I pray it picks up steam until/if/when the TLM or a very recently novus ordo is reinstated.
Certainly. Resonates much. Circling back to some of the points between you and Zobel, the new Mass and to a larger degree the active war against the old Mass presents an obstacle to reunification with the Orthodox. I recall seeing some takes from various Orthodox circles on Traditiones Custodes and it was not favorable to Rome. We are our rites. It's my opinion that the changes we experienced in the west have yielded poor results.
PabloSerna said:
Zobel, how much time have you studied our faith in order to pass such judgments? Seriously.
Catag94 said:PabloSerna said:
For me it boils down to the fruit of the tree.
Please elaborate. I love this concept myself. I just want to see how you mean it.
Zobel said:
When I said teachings are another issue I was talking about papal infallibility, filioque, whatever else.
Teaching and praxis are hand in glove, clearly.
Zobel said:
I am not sure I understand what you're getting at.
What I was saying was set aside the filioque and papal fallibility issues, the stuff going on that I mentioned is a problem in and of itself. Even if we magically fixed the one, the other would remain as a barrier to union.
Zobel said:
Ok, and speaking for myself and not all orthodox people, I don't really care how you justify making those changes and saying they're reversible or whatever. Wholesale changes to your rites look bonkers from the outside. Why would we want to mess with that?
The church's stance hasn't changed on contraceptives. Not sure why you keep beating that drum.
Zobel said:
That being open to and having children is part of the marriage bed. Abortifacients are abortion. Natural methods and the medical use of hormonal birth control is part of pastoral and marital economy.
Zobel said:
yeah, man, you're misunderstanding.
natural methods mean the natural family planning / 'rhythm method' or similar... which the RCC explicitly endorses.
medical use of hormonal birth controls means there's an actual medical issue going on, which is why its something to be dealt with by pastoral and marital economy. "i don't want to have kids right now" is not an actual medical issue.
nobody changed anything.
and even if -- canons are canons. standards. their application is to be done by bishops. you effectively have one bishop - the pope. each and every one of our bishops function exactly like the pope. if a person goes to the pope with a difficult question between goods - like, hey, i have a serious health problem that can be treated with hormonal birth controls, but that obviously is a problem - and after discussion he blesses their use - who are you to gainsay that? bishops are not constrained by canons, their job is to apply them for the benefit of their flock, and their responsibility for that application is to God. where the RCC defaults to legalistic approach (and i don't mean that as a pejorative, i just don't have a better adjective) the Orthodox default to economy.
Quote:
So you would say that the use of hormonal birth control in order to control the time frame in which children are allowed to be conceived is wrong? Hormonal birth control is only licit for non-fertility related health reasons?
Quote:
ETA: in this "every bishop is a pope" framework, are you not suggesting that unity is essentially impossible? Maybe it works for a good long while, but at the the end of the day any bishop is capable of making a call that the rest of the bishops disagree with and that's a valid way of moving forward?
Zobel said:Quote:
So you would say that the use of hormonal birth control in order to control the time frame in which children are allowed to be conceived is wrong? Hormonal birth control is only licit for non-fertility related health reasons?
Kids are a natural outcome of sex. If you're using hormonal birth control to have sex and not have kids, there's a problem.Quote:
ETA: in this "every bishop is a pope" framework, are you not suggesting that unity is essentially impossible? Maybe it works for a good long while, but at the the end of the day any bishop is capable of making a call that the rest of the bishops disagree with and that's a valid way of moving forward?
Or unity is possible, because that's exactly how it works. Your scare quotes is literally the EO church and the whole church til the schism.
And yes, any bishop can do that. And if he does, and it's a problem, there will be a break in communion.
Who knows, one might cut himself off from the rest of the church, declare himself the universal bishop, then infallible, then start making a bunch of changes to the rites his faithful follow. Really out there, low probability kind of stuff though.
You know better than this. Is a website of a book review anything like dogma? doctrine? Of course the answer is no. Is the opinion of a parish priest on the same level as a canon even a local council? Of course the answer is no.Quote:
So when I review multiple EO pastoral sites that say using contraception is a valid method to space children,
I was never under obedience to Metropolitan Ware (memory eternal), but my own bishop. I can only speak for the guidance my parish priest gives, which is what I've described above. That also isn't how "heresy" works, and I think you know that as well. Even if there was a radical departure in teaching, that would be between my bishop and someone else's - and the decision of how to address that, which could lead to a break in communion, is absolutely not my decision to make (thank God!).Quote:
how does that sit with your parish(???) and your bishops views? Are they heretical or something else? And if they are their own pope, how can you be sure that your bishop is right? For example:
I don't know. Just because you're a bishop doesn't mean you're not under obedience. When it happens, I'll let you know how the bishops handle it.Quote:
if an (insert type) orthodox bishop here in the states decides that the metropolitan he reports to back in the motherland is heretical and splits off, is that splitting communion just a split in communion? Is this church split off just as valid as the church they split off from?
I don't know what you're referring to here.Quote:
Not as a gotcha, but to try to understand your perspective, would you be willing to answer my Peter in the minority hypothetical I posted yesterday?
You're starting to talk like an RCC with legalese that I'm not sure I know the specific meaning of. I think what you're asking me is - even with the stuff going on post Vatican II / NO is the Holy Spirit still present in your Eucharist? I would say that I do not and will not have an opinion on this. It is so far from being my business or something I could opine on. I certainly hope it is. God is merciful, even to groups in schism.Quote:
Lastly, you haven't answered, so maybe I haven't asked directly enough: is the new rite of the mass a form that invalidates the sacrament of the Eucharist? If it isn't invalid, is your discomfort with the rite worthy of schism, or something you should advocate on changing form within the church? Or does all of this not really matter since, as a bishop, he has that right and our break in communion isn't really that big of a deal?
Unity is not found in having a single monarchial bishop over all bishops at the top of the hierarchy. Unity is found in the Eucharist, in Christ, which is why the fathers say that the bishop and the laity is the catholic church. I think this is a very great temptation for people in your position.Quote:
in this "every bishop is a pope" framework, are you not suggesting that unity is essentially impossible?
Zobel said:
Sorry, to which part do you object?
andQuote:
There is truly a need for much investigation and conversation in matters of questionable dogmas, so that compelling and conspicuous arguments might be considered. There is profound benefit to be gained from such conversation if the objective is not altercation but truth, and if the intention is not solely to triumph over others...Inspired by the same spirit [as the apostles at the council of Jerusalem] and bound to one another by love, the goal should be to discover the truth, and we should never miss the purpose that lies before us; even when its pursuit is prolonged, we should still always listen carefully to and address one another amicably so that our loving exchange might contribute towards oneness of mind.
andQuote:
We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us.
These are the points and it it always comes back to the papal claims, which gave rise to differences in confession in the symbol of faith and the rites. You can't have union without unity, and there will never be unity with the idea of a bishop with universal jurisdiction.Quote:
[The Latins and the unionist Orthodox] read two Creeds as they did before. They perform two different liturgies one on leavened and the other on unleavened bread. They perform two baptisms one by triple immersion and the other by aspersion; one with Holy Chrism and the other without it. All our Orthodox customs are different from those of the Latins, including our fasts, Church rites, icons, and many other things. What sort of union is this then, when it has no external sign? How could they come together, each retaining his own?
TSJ said:
I am not Zobel but, where do we have a vote tally in Acts 15?
What we have is it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit; consensus.
You are approaching from a modern viewpoint. They worked together, they brought their different view points and they came together as one with the Holy Spirit to give their ruling.
TSJ said:
Ok so let's really test it then, Peter vs the 12. He is the only one against. He was given the keys. Does a vote even matter?
What role do the apostles play? Do they get a vote?
Zobel said:
Instead in scripture we see the opposite, and St Paul publicly rebukes him.
