For those wishing to argue about the liturgical reform and.....
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Some of that is very hard to prove. Christ is more widely known in our day than His. He was one of many prophets alive at the time. It doesn't help that the ancients had a different sense of what history should be and what it should convey. Much of it appears more like literature than history.

    We do have the account in scripture of the number of people who saw Christ after his death. Given the number of eyewitnesses, it seems we believe other historical accounts with less evidence. I wish more corroborating evidence existed, but it largely doesn't. Whole cultures and civilizations have been conquered, destroyed and ceased to exist in any form. If they had records, they likely perished, too.

    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,029
    But what do folks do if they only believe in Christian things that have been confirmed by scientific experiment and archaeological surveys? What about the Resurrection? What about the Virgin birth? The Ascension? Among myriad other things...

    Looking for archaeological proof for Jesus's Ascension and looking for archeological proof for the exodus of an entire nation are two entirely different ballgames. Besides, one is a question of doctrine and one is not.
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 690
    Is there a quick reference list of things in Scripture I do and don't have to believe? I was kinda going on the assumption that it was all part and parcel of my Christian life, even the bits I find odd or strange or that other people make fun of...
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    Catherine - my take. - Scripture is a collection of books which are profitable to read. Some history, some letters, some love poems, some allegories (fairy stories with morals). You don't have to believe that Jesus was telling of a real incident in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Similarly you don't have to believe that God and Satan had a discussion and God let Satan wipe out all Job's children and wives. The book of Job is not that sort of narrative, it is a theological treatise in the form of a parable.
    What you have to believe is expressed in the liturgical prayers, not what I say, not what sermons say. I asked a priest once whether being a teacher helped with preaching, and he said no 'I always have to remember that any sermon will contain heresy'. By which he meant that whatever you say someone will get the wrong end of the stick.
  • Catherine,

    Evidence for the Resurrection:

    1. Peter and his fellow apostles were, in many ways bumbling idiots. Peter couldn't even remember that he had said he would never deny Christ until he had done so three times, and had been a coward before three maids. This Peter, if he had stolen the body would have proudly announced where he had hidden it, though he had given his solemn word to the others.

    2. Roman soldiers who fell asleep on the job were, if I understand correctly, punished severely. Could they have been persuaded for a few gold coins to look the other way?

    3. The Pharisees, the Chief Priests and the Herodians didn't have the body, or they would have produced it and put an end to this troublesome carpenter's son's rabble.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    "By divine and catholic faith everything must be believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief...." --Vatican I

    The written word of God is the Bible.

    "Rationalists: Those who adopt this standpoint rely in the main on two fundamental objections: they either urge that the miraculous is impossible, and that Revelation involves miraculous interposition on the part of the Deity; or they appeal to the autonomy of reason, which it is maintained can only accept as truths the results of its own activities. " (Catholic Encyclopedia)

    Also use caution that you do not fall into Kantian/Hegelian subjectivism, roughly "If I don't KNOW it, it isn't there or didn't happen."
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • It may be believed - on some level or another- but whether it represents literal, allegorical, accurate history at all is perennialy open to question. Those who maintain that the entire Bible is literally true include those who will not be seen to be observing the Mosaic dietary lows, and who cough and sputter at the words 'this is by body'. The Missouri Synod Lutherans back in the 70s (teachers and pastors and college professors) were required to sign an oath that every word of the Bible was literally true. Many left, They lost their finest minds.They lost great musicians like Paul Manz, and many scholars who would not assent to such nonsense.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    I am of the opinion that if plagues, invading forces and such had been successful in destroying Vatican I before it could make any pronouncements, we would all be better off today.

    No, every word or event in the Bible is not fact. The ancients, including the Israelis, were not above tooting their own horns and outright lying to make themselves look more righteous and successful.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Indeed, Charles -
    History's first recorded genocide was that performed by the Jews on the Canaanites and others who preceded them in the Holy Land. They killed every man, woman, and child, even their animals, - and said that God told them to do it. (At present I don't recall book, chapter, and verse, but it's all in there.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Vatican I was the last gasp of the Imperial Papal States and all that was coming to an end. Many of the cardinals and bishops were of the nobility and were holding on to the last vestiges of royal power and prestige.
  • It is interesting, though, that Garibaldi was a monarchist and gave Italy its first universal monarchy since the last Caesar who carried any weight. The two Victor Emmanuels were good kings, too. It fell to Victor II to put up with Mussolini, whom he finally fired. What a grateless nation which then got rid of him after the war. This was the evil communist's doing..
    _____________________________

    Charles -
    I once (back in the 70s?) saw a film called 'the Leopard' which dealt with a noble family in the era of which you speak. It was an uprooting time for all. I believe it was Kirk Douglas who played the elderly count.

    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,604
    The Kingdom of the Ostrogoths was a monarchy of very considerable weight under Theodoric, who was powerful enough not to feel the need to assert succession to the Caesars (contrary to the Whig theory of history that too many folks labor under in the Anglosphere, Theodoric's reign was an important recovery moment in Western history, not a declining moment). The very fact that it was post-Caesarian and multi-national is likely responsible for keeping alive the Western ideal of trans-national sovereignty for the Carolingians to pick up in turn.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    Ah, the False Objection to the Dietary Laws!!

    Thomas Aquinas Ia IIae (from Mgr. Glenn's Tour of the Summa)

    5. Insofar as the Old Law expressed precepts of Natural Law, it was binding on all peoples, Jew and Gentile. But the special prescriptions of the Old Law which were to sanctify the Jews for the coming of Christ through their nation, were binding upon the Jews alone.


    As to the veracity of the OT, we have the Catechism, Part 1, Para. 129:

    Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading......must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by the Lord Himself (see Mk 12:29-31)


  • Actually, I once read a paper by a renowned doctor who asserted the keen medical founding and value of the Mosaic dietary laws and their caution about such foods that science has indeed proven to be unhealthy, as well as those that are healthy. They do make scientific sense. Don't ask me to go into detail - I read this paper decades ago - in a respected scientific journal.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Jackson, I read something similar. I have read so much my circuits are overloaded. LOL
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Liam, I had forgotten about that Theodoric. For some reason, the one in the old Saturday Night Live sketches with Steve Martin stuck in my mind. LOL
  • Felicia
    Posts: 87
    Charles -
    I once (back in the 70s?) saw a film called 'the Leopard' which dealt with a noble family in the era of which you speak. It was an uprooting time for all. I believe it was Kirk Douglas who played the elderly count.


    It was Burt Lancaster.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057091/

    The Leopard (Il gattopardo, if you read Italian) is a great story.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    @tomjaw, Right, but why is it so short in the OF?
    It's obviously still considerably longer in the EF at the Easter Vigil.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • The liturgical reform is inferior on all counts to the alternative presented in the OP, ".....", which achieves noble simplicity without banality, and exhibits an openness to the the infinite unencumbered by the wordy esotericism of the 1960s and 70s.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,535
    With google it's not that hard to do better than "I read somewhere". In an entertaining chapter from The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture (1987), Marvin Harris puts forth an intriguing ecological argument against pork in lieu of the trichinosis hypothesis.

    I'm so glad we're off of "Integrity of Musical Form" now ;-)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Actually, Google doesn't always have answers and even when it does, they are not always correct. I never let my students use Google as a reference source. I didn't mind them looking items up in Google but I insisted they find a corroborating source other than Google.

    Pork - don't know what to say. Been vegetarian for nigh on to 30 years now so I wouldn't know how to handle the SAD - standard American diet.

    Kind of scary that what we end up discussing is more interesting than liturgical reform and musical form, isn't it? Does anyone else wonder if we will ever return to normal after the crazy Covid year we have been through?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,691
    The Mandatum wherein the feet of poor non-Christians and Christians alike are washed would be fine, outside of Mass, and in addition to the washing of the feet of someone within the household or community. This is another argument for doing the services earlier in the day.

    I think to deny that the Israelites were literally released from bondage in Egypt and crossed the Red Sea — I pay no heed to the "Reed Sea" stuff which is at best a halfhearted way to preserve the story while calling the Jewish scribes and the Fathers a bunch of careless idiots — into the desert in the hope of entering the Promised Land actually does have doctrinal implications.
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,093
    The Red Sea/Reed Sea thing.also seems to assume that the Exodus was originally written in English...at least in the way I always hear it presented.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    I'm sure it wasn't written in English. Waterways have changed courses, empires have fallen, and there are periods in Egyptian history that were chaotic and we really know little about them. There have been several groups that invaded Egypt over time. Why the emphasis on Egypt? They kept records beyond what anyone else at the time kept. The Habiru in the Amarna letters. Who were they? Fourteenth century BC and described as outlaws. If they were Hebrews they were in the reign of Akhenaten and not Rameses as many think. I would add that slavery is more consistent with the Amarna period than the Ramases period. It is clear Akhenaten enslaved his people to build his city. What about the Sea Peoples? Twelve hundred to nine hundred BC. The Hyksos roughly 1640 BC who ruled Egypt from the Nile delta until finally driven out. Were any of these groups ancestors of modern Israelis? Were any of these groups actually Hebrews? We may never know. Some do think the Hyksos were Hittites. They had iron weapons and chariots, neither possessed by the Egyptians at the time. They also had compound bows which could shoot farther and were more deadly than Egyptian bows. Fascinating stuff!
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    If they were Hebrews they were in the reign of Akhenaten and not Rameses as many think
    Akhenaten was the only pharaoh known to be monotheist, we don't know much about his immediate successors, and Moses was brought up in the family of the pharoah. Tradition says Moses was 80 when he confronted pharoah, having left Egypt at, perhaps, 25. There were only 56 years between the death of Akhenaten and the accession of Rameses the Great. Despite the folk derivation in Exodus, Moses, m's's, could be an Egyptian name, as in Rameses (servant of Ra), but servant of an unnamed god (or God). We may never know - in this life, in the next we may not obsess about these things.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Akhenaten's successor was King Tut, his son. Nefertiti may have served as regent, but I don't remember how old Tut was when he became king. Tut and his mother restored the old gods and monotheism ended with the death of Akhenaten. Ramesses - there are multiple spellings of his name - was not of royal lineage but his claim to legitimacy was through his wife who had the right ancestry.

    I think I loved Egyptian history from the time I was around 8 or 9 years old. Long time ago.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    So what we Moderns should believe is that the Jew who wrote about the Captivity was completely and totally ignorant about who was who in Egypt?

    Got it.

    All that silliness about Moses being a 'type' of Christ, and that passage through water OUT of captivity, and the myth of Passover-------OUT!! All merely fables for old ladies, actually done better by Grimm Bros/Disney.

    Got it.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    You will notice that the "Jew" never named the pharaoh at the time. Also, how long after the event was it written down and could the account have been altered in the retelling over time? We don't really know who that "Jew" was, either. It could have even been more than one "Jew." As for Moses being a type of Christ, perhaps. That story could also be theological expansion and elaboration long after the fact. Outside of the Bible, we can't even prove there was a person named "Moses" although I do suspect there was someone named Moses. Given the inclusion of "moses" in the names of some kings, it makes sense on that level for someone raised in the royal household. But again, there is history which can be proven. There is also belief which often cannot be proven. That people can and will believe nearly anything doesn't help in finding and establishing fact.

    If by some chance the "Moses" event occurred during the Amarna period, remember that the old religion suppressed by Akhenaten was alive under the surface - sort of like modernism in Catholic seminaries. Upon his death, the priests actively tried and largely succeeded in destroying anything related to Akhenaten and his religion. Even Amarna was leveled and I suspect some historical records disappeared during that destruction.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • In some remote villages in India they are still telling (sing-chanting) about Alexander the Great's conquest of the place and when he was in their area.. We may reasonably suspect that much of the facts in the telling of these events for over 2500 years now, given human creativity, local pride, and elaboration on facts over time, the tales we hear today are heavily embroidered. I would not be surprised if the same were true of parts of the Bible - particularly those parts which were orally transmitted long before they were written down. This does not at all mean that I question the theological import or the hand of God in the Biblical narrative as we have it.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    No dad29, precisely the opposite. This is not an attack on the Biblical narrative. The names of the pharoahs involved are not important for salvation history, and not given, but modern man having deciphered some inscriptions is curious about the connections between them and the Bible. God provided a princely education for Moses so that he could lead his people out of bondage, if non-Biblical evidence suggests that it was also a monotheistic education surely that is helpful for refuting the claims of sceptics.

    Typology is largely meaningless to people unless they hear the OT texts, which before Vatican II they rarely did even in Latin. And they did not read them either because many pastors discouraged ownership of Bibles. (anecdotes can be supplied)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    You mean holy mass of Trent given by God at Pentecost did not encourage Scripture reading? And they didn't understand holy Latin? Is outrage! Heresy.
    Anathema!


    You have some valid points, Hawkins. Scripture study among the laity is a relatively new development. The Latin church I attended for years before I retired had scripture courses. They were not the best courses, in my opinion, but they did encourage scripture study.
    Thanked by 1Schönbergian
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    And they did not read them either because many pastors discouraged ownership of Bibles. (anecdotes can be supplied)


    Being a pre-VatII kinda guy, I can also provide MORE than anecdotal evidence of pastors not only approving, but encouraging, parish members to purchase and read Bibles. They even encouraged parish members to SELL them!

    So what?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    And in my pre-VatII high school religion classes, we were taught a bunch of typology--in American English, no less.

    Maybe you were thinking of pre-Vatican I? Pre-Trent?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    In the local church I associated with in my town, scripture came into its own after Vatican II. I never think of Trent or Vatican I.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    dad29 - so was I in my parish & school. Seems we both had good parishes. So what?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    So what? Here's what: we all have anecdotes which are meaningless.

    Statistics with citations are evidence. Got any?
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 1,761
    Scripture either IS (or is NOT) the holy word of God. To undermine the truths of the scriptures by either outright denying what it says or circumventing certain things that aren't proven by historical artifact thousands of years later (Noah and the flood, anyone?) by explaining them away as "containing" truths or generic themes from which we should learn is to call God a liar. It's plain and simple.

    You either believe what God said or you don't. I confess I was once drawn in by the idea that the Bible (Old Testament, in particular) wasn't historical fact but rather simply contained broader allegorical ideas from which we should learn. Mercifully, our Lord has cleared the scales from my eyes. Fortunately for me I did my own reading after graduating from Catholic schools.

    I believe that the omnipotent (in the true sense of the term) God of the Universe did not need 4 billion years to create the earth as we know it today. He performs miracles left, right, and center every single day and has throughout the entirety of human history. Lets not be so base as to deny Him His omnipotence by saying that he couldn't part a literal sea when whilst incarnate He walked on one. It's honestly insulting.

    I think it also rather petty and, frankly, a grave offense, to suggest that our Lord would be so weak as to permit His holy writ to be utterly contaminated by fanciful human invention when retelling the stories of earlier times. If the Holy Ghost could inspire the New Testament to be faithful to His Will, then He certainly was capable of doing the same in the Old.

    Let's also not forget that the ancient scriptures are historical documents in their own right. It's fascinating to me that a single parchment fragment from who knows where can have some snippet of a historical detail and scholars accept it and rewrite the history books, whilst hundreds—nay—thousands of ancient manuscripts of various bits of scripture are shredded to bits by "scholars" and not believed. If we had 400 ancient scrolls spread all around the Middle East claiming that such-and-such a war happened, or some king ruled the area for such-and-such a time, it would be accepted as though it were written in stone.

    And yet, we have hundreds of ancient copies of scriptures that retell the hundreds of people who witnessed the resurrected Lord and yet people do not believe. What a pity. And an affront to the Almighty.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    When I read this, I have to ask. Were you once a Protestant? The belief that the Bible is true in all instances is not a traditional Catholic position. Scripture is but one leg of a 3-legged stool with the other two legs being tradition and church authority/teaching. Some of the Old Testament is clearly illustrative and not an historical retelling of events. The Bible was not bound as a single book as it exists today but an eventual collection of independent writings from different times and places.
  • Charles,

    I was once a Protestant, but it was when I became Catholic that I properly understood that one had to accept all of Holy Writ (including the Fathers of the Church) as true.

    I think that all Serviam has said is this: Modern Scholarship isn't reason to abandon the truth which God has given us. In this, I completely agree with him.


    Now, Protestants like to cite passages out of context, and gloss over what they find inconvenient. To wit: Mary shows up at the creche, but is absent before and afterwards; Christ's words must be taken literally true, except when He says everything he says in John's Gospel's 6th chapter; All Scripture is written for our instruction, but we'll leave out whole books and parts of others which clearly and unambiguously teach what we want not to be there.

    The Word of God is only a book after HE is a person.

    The people who helped me most when I was a new Catholic were the ones who took seriously my difficult questions, and pointed me to reliable teachers who had, to my surprise, already thought seriously about what I thought was a new problem. They were all tradition-minded Catholics.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,535
    It's not hard with google to do a bit better than this (for instance here and here)

    In an entertaining chapter from The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture (1987) Marvin Harris replaces the trichinosis theory with an intriguing ecological argument.
  • I'll double check, but I think the litany is different in the pre-55 and the 62.


    The Easter Vigil litany is identical in 1962 as it was in 1954 but in '62 they cut it in half and don't double the invocations; but the words are identical.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 464
    Serviam, I vividly disagree with you about this:
    Scripture either IS (or is NOT) the holy word of God.
    There are too many understandings of what the phrase "Word of God" actually means, and you can perfectly maintain that you believe in this statement in one understanding of it and not in the other.

    Like: every single piece of scripture teaches us about Gods Will and the Truth; but being the Word of God doesn't mean that every sentence that can be read as a factual statement must 'therefore' be correct in a litteral way.
    (I guess it would be a far stretch here to go into details wrt. creation and miracles, for example)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Chris, I think the key is that scripture is subject to the interpretation of the Church. It doesn't have an authority greater than tradition or Church teaching. Many parts of scripture are not verifiable and may function as do parables to relate viewpoints, not actual events. As Catholics, we are not sola scriptura people.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,691
    Luckily, one can read Vatican I and Trent (you don't even need Vatican II, though it's extra ammo) to be on solid ground, and it's a point worth insisting on, because liberalism is a great lie which has as one of its goals the eradication of the traditional belief in divine revelation, which has taken many forms: denying the miracles, establishing a historical Jesus separate from the divine Christ, denying the historicity of the books, and, even, and this I hold contentiously (particularly since JPII made use of it) trying to rework the authorship in a way that makes the Bible like any other textual transmission, which is also absolutely destructive for the faith of ordinary people.

    Nobody cares whether the Priestly, Yahwist, or Pentateuchal source wrote the Torah. They do care, in my experience, whether Moses wrote it or if David wrote the psalms which bear his name.

    It's not even limited to biblical studies; early Christian specialists of the Didache, for example, write in such a way that the only conclusion is that they do not believe in the orthodox teaching. They reject that St Paul passed down what the Lord handed to him, to name one contentious example; people will bring up the Assyrian liturgy and the CDF's decision in 2001 in response, but that decision wasn't a straightforward question in any way, shape, or form.
    Thanked by 2Elmar dad29
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    I keep in mind that Trent was an over-reaction to Protestantism and Vatican I was an over-reaction to the loss of papal prestige and secular power. Both were capable of creating more problems than they solved. That has nothing to do with liberalism.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,691
    They were capable of doing so, but to say that they did is just asserting opinions based on what you don't like without any evidence.

    In any case, the objection's irrelevant, because the documents on Scripture are the irreformable teachings of an ecumenical council, complete with canons and anathemas attached.

    But as to the councils themselves: the climate in which Vatican I occurred was not about the loss of "papal prestige and secular power" in itself, but the implications of the loss of secular power for the liberty of the church, which is a non-negotiable doctrinal matter, and we are dealing with these effects today. It also turns out that the people who fall on their sword for papal infallibility are actually bad apples all around, like Hans Küng, whose Christology and moral theology were completely out of bounds.

    As for Trent, Protestantism is protoliberalism, because it denies that all authority on heaven and earth belongs to the church, to which the temporal power must be subordinate in matters of religion and in determining what is good and what is evil. The Enlightenment just takes it one step further, and it's all downhill from there.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    dad29 - I don't have access to survey data, or the reports of the surveys, only to quotations from those reports, such as :
    This subject was first investigated in G1948a when it was concluded, based on answers to the question “on what occasions do you use the Bible?”, that 24% of Britons did so regularly, the main variation being by denomination of churchgoing
    (Anglican churchgoers 19%, Free Church 33%, Roman Catholic 4%)

    G1948a, Jul?; GB; 16+; 2,055; f-to-f; Mass-Observation; Daily Graphic 10 Aug 1948, Mass-Observation Archive, U of Sussex, TC 47/12/C.
    Article by Clive D Field https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537903.2014.945735
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    There was a time when dialogue and negotiation with Protestants could have cleared up and incorporated Protestant suggestion about genuine defects and weaknesses in Church behaviors, not doctrine. For example, vernacular liturgy, which we ended up with too many years later, and the role of scripture. The indulgences scandal also was a valid point of contention. Instead, both camps came away from Trent with their positions hardened and the possibility of ever coming together was lessened. I never understood how a council with only participants from one rite of the Church could ever be considered ecumenical. Because the Latins think every council they have is ecumenical doesn't mean it is so. Could indicate why we easterners only consider the first seven councils to be ecumenical.

    Vatican I developed a view of the papacy not consistent with what the papacy actually was in the first thousand years of Christianity. Of course, the more Trad among us tend to gush profusely about papal glories and perks. It is actually funny watching them dance around the deficiencies and strangeness of the current papacy.

    Again, Matthew, I ask were you formerly a Protestant? I sense a dogmatism that makes Protestant converts sometimes a genuine bane on Catholicism. Those folks can tend to go from one extreme to the other.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,093
    I know many good priests, Traddy and not-so-Traddy, religious and secular, who continually say, from the pulpit even, "Do NOT trust ANY scriptural commentary or scholarship written after 1950"; some add, "and be very selective about all 20th century scholarship".
    ------
    Re. Vernacular liturgy: I think that this is a VERY BAD development: the Western Church is now divided by language; multi-lingual parishes are divided, with ghettos for this language or that, Triduum liturgies are Babel, not Pentecost; my parish and the next one, while using the same Roman Missal, look like two different religions, etc. The unity of cult in the West has been destroyed so completely, that to speak of THE Roman Rite is a lie; in reality, there are as many "Roman Rites" as there are parishes. My opinion and experience.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,691
    Nope, I'm not a former Protestant. Protestants misread Scripture, and reading from front-to-back is not how Catholics read Scripture. First and foremost the church reads Scripture in the liturgy, interpreted by the Fathers on the days where the relevant Scriptural passage is read, whether in the texts themselves (the Gospel homilies) or in collections of the Fathers, and then we turn to the other theologians. We can also use the choices of other texts, such as the Magnificat antiphon of Saturdays and Sundays in the traditional office (taken from Matins and the Gospel respectively), as a guide to the mind of the church on a given passage, although this doesn't necessarily mean any one reading is the only one, just that certain ones are privileged, if not excluded.

    I realize that you work (or did work, and in any case live, as far as I know) among Latins, but aren't you canonically Byzantine? It's more than a tad annoying to hear all of this, because the stakes are not at all the same for someone who is not canonically a Latin Catholic and therefore has an escape pod.

    In any case, the Byzantine perspective is incoherent : "Vatican I developed a view of the papacy not consistent with what the papacy actually was in the first thousand years of Christianity." Well, this could not be so, or otherwise the church could not have proclaimed a dogma of papal infallibility, one that Newman supported no less.

    On basically every complaint made at the Reformation, the church took either a moderated view or did something that the Reformers didn't like; I can't see how there was any room for dialogue and compromise when the Reformers put themselves outside the fold and then turned princes against the emperor.

    To Salieri's point, using ritual language (Greek or Church Slavonic; one might include Arabic as well) isn't out of place in the East, and the vernacular as such took a very long time to adopt; Romania isn't even a Slavic country, yet they used the Slavonic liturgy until the seventeenth century. So not only is the East not the source of our solutions, they would never have done what we've done, as Latin has mostly disappeared in the West.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw dad29 CCooze