For those wishing to argue about the liturgical reform and.....
  • Elmar
    Posts: 463
    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
    OK...
    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.
    If this is analysis is correct - I'm not convinced but I'm by far not enough expert in these matters - then Christianity in my native country has 'lost the battle' not after V-II, not even V-I, but after Trent. Reformation thinking is deeply rooted in 'ordinary' catholics, much more than I was aware before I went living elswhere.
    On the positive side: nothing left for possible destruction post-VII
    the climate in which Vatican I occurred was [...] about [...] 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.
    I'm not sure who is 'we' in this statement; at least where I live there is a lot of wining about lack of support of christianity by the government and society in general, while the main enemy to our faith and its practicing (occupying at least ranks 1 through 10) is our own lukewarmness.
    And there where liberty of the church really is at stake - and that's a large part of the world indeed - it is in political systems where Trent, Vatican I or catholic teaching on temporal power in general matters 0%.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    what the phrase "Word of God" actually means


    See the first 30 words of John's Gospel for the complete and total explanation.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    a_f: I'm waiting for the part where you prove that "Church authorities discouraged reading the Bible"

    The fact that RC's do not read it--per your cite--is NOT a proof that they were 'discouraged' from reading it, nor that they could not read it. All it proves is that RC's didn't think it was necessary. And it isn't!!
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Elmar
  • Elmar
    Posts: 463
    See the first 30 words of John's Gospel for the complete and total explanation.
    ???
    I must admit that I need at least a good homily to get the point; I even fail to understand how this is at all about the Bible being the written Word of God... maybe our pastor should have encouraged us more to read the Bible by ourselves, rather than just listening to the readings and his homilies...

    And as to 'Church authorities discouraging...': does our then-auxiliary bishop count as such? This was in 1989 if I correctly remember.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Old Church Slavonic disappeared in the U.S. when the immigrants aged out and went to their eternal rewards. While never really a spoken language, it was understood by the people using it. One of the reasons Latin has disappeared is because there seems to have been a backlash against it. It has also become too identified with extremists who are often more political than religious. They long for a romanticized church that may not have ever existed. Both Latin and Old Church Slavonic are not solutions to contemporary problems and issues.

    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.


    I have often held that much of the Reformation revolved around politics more than religion. The German princes at least in North Germany, wanted to be free of the Holy Roman Emperor and were happy to go along with Luther.

    In any case, the Byzantine perspective is incoherent


    We think it is coherent. The papacy in the first thousand years before popes became secular princes, operated through consultation and consensus with other bishops. I recall reading of an instance, and I don't have time to look it up right now, when to stop certain heretical teachings the pope visited Constantinople to ask the emperor to put a stop to them. The pope didn't have the power to stop it himself. As the empire faded, popes took on powers formerly reserved to the emperor and by the time of Trent were secular monarchs, and no better than the secular monarchs in terms of holiness.

    the stakes are not at all the same for someone who is not canonically a Latin Catholic and therefore has an escape pod.


    We do not have an escape pod. Granted, Pope Francis has been very kind to easterners, perhaps more kind than to traditional westerners. Francis has a bi-ritual background and is quite knowledgeable about the east. However, we are Catholic. That 900 pound gorilla in the room, the Roman Rite, has influence beyond the other churches so we can't really escape from it as it affects us, too. Some of our folks think we would be better off returning to Orthodoxy, although I don't share that view.

    Vatican II was actually closer to an ecumenical council than Vatican I and Trent because it had representation from a wide cross section of churches. Some good things have come from it. The emphasis on actually learning scripture has been good and the readings cycle is a big improvement over what was there before. The restoration of the psalms to participation rather than a concert piece has been positive. More involvement by local bishops in decision making and power sharing has had both good and bad effects. Music, unfortunately, has suffered greatly.

  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....He was in the beginning with God....All things came to be through him,and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race..."


    E Michael Jones has a great deal to say about the real meaning of "Word". As a church musician, you undoubtedly know that in Sacred Music (not hymnody) text (Word) is primary and the music illuminates the text (Word.)

    Why is text primary? Because it IS the WORD.....

    Therefore, it is extremely dangerous to dis-believe or 'creatively interpret' the Word as set forth in either Testament.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    What did your then-Auxiliary Bish say in1989 or whenever?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,687
    Indeed, I think that Germany has been poisoned since the Reformation.

    As to the first one thousand years of Christianity, asking the emperor to wield power over heretics is in fact a perfect example of papal supremacy. The emperor had no power to do it himself, and this is in fact something brought up by Thomas Pink with respect to Vatican II.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,050
    dad29 - I refer you to my previous answer, (and urge you not to hold your breath).
  • Dad,

    E.Michael Jones? Are there two men of this name?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    The emperor had no power to do it himself, and this is in fact something brought up by Thomas Pink with respect to Vatican II.


    I don't know Pink be he is quite wrong on this. The emperor had all the power and the popes had none. For example, councils were called and their edicts decreed by the emperor, not the pope. If the emperors were still around and held sway, the pope would have little more power than one of the eastern patriarchs.

    Different post but E. Michael Jones? Is he the anti-semitic rabble rouser of "The Remnant" fame. Hardly credible and I have never taken him seriously. Do I have him confused with another rabble rouser?
  • Elmar
    Posts: 463
    dad29,
    Therefore, it is extremely dangerous to dis-believe or 'creatively interpret' the Word as set forth in either Testament.
    There are issues with this that I ask you not to dismiss light-handedly.
    For example, most folks like me need to have a translation, and when I e.g. hear a certain reading in one of the languages that I understand, they often do not seem to mean exactly the same. Unfortunately I cannot read Greek nor Hebrew.
    Further, Gospels were written in Greek, but Jesus didn't speek Greek to his disciples; quotations of what Jesus said at a given occasion often differ between Matthew, Marc and Luke - what's then The Word?
    "Just read the Bible" doesn't resolve this kind of question, you (or at least I) need more teaching on exegesis (I think that's what it is called). I hope you get my point.
    What did your then-Auxiliary Bish say in1989 or whenever?
    I do not remember the words, situation was as follows:
    We regularly met in a group of six to read in the Bible. One among us wasn't confirned yet, so we accompanied her as her 'family' at the confirmation mass and spoke to the bishop at the socializing. We explained what kind of family we were, but the bishop wasn't amused.
    He then told us (in a warm and fatherly way) that we shouldn't do this kind of thing without involvement of a priest; the fact that we had two theology students among us - one now a priest, the other a nun - seemed to make things worse rather than better.
    We were perplexed.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 463
    Matthew,
    Indeed, I think that Germany has been poisoned since the Reformation
    Your honor, I plead guilty.
    I fear that this even includes my wife, who grew up in a Marian pilgrimage place...
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    E.Michael Jones?


    I think there's only one. He was a guest of mine many moons ago at an annual spanferkel. During the "priest shortage" (remember that?) there were 6 priests present there (one later murdered in a yet-unsolved case and one who would become a Bishop) along with Jones and 60 hoi polloi. Beer flowed. Good times were had by all.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    Hardly credible and I have never taken him seriously.


    IIRC, opinions are like.....and you have one. Good for you that you do not have to purchase his books, eh?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    What I have seen by him was more conspiracy theory than anything else. I guess that sells among certain groups.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    Jones is an original thinker who names names and kicks ass. Snowflakes have problems with that.
  • This is quite new to me. I was reared as an Anglican, in which church the three-fold pillars of the Church were Scripture, Faith and Reason - add to that, Tradition. It is always wise to note that the Church preceded the gospels and it was the Church which compiled the canon, not the other way around - and it is the Church which ultimately interprets what degree of literal truth is represented in parts or in the whole of the Biblical canon. The Church has made mistakes before, Galileo's discoveries being but one example. Much of the Bible's cosmology is but one great conflict with science since we now know that the the Bible's Ptolomaic cosmological system is an historical anomaly and bears not the slightest relationship to observed reality. The Church has never said that the Bible was literally true from beginning to end, and those who insist that it is are putting themselves outside the Church's clear position on a number of matters - including the creation narratives.

    It is a great surprise to me that some Catholics hold these positions. I had thought that only some species of Baptists and back woods sectarians shared these views. And, of course, just any Bible is not trusted - it must be the King James Version because God spoke only King James English.

    I have often thought that some Protestant sects are so paranoid over the literality of every word (except 'this is my body') of the Bible worshiped the Bible and not the God of Love behind it. For this reason the Bible must be totally infallible, else their belief-world will collapse utterly. And, they typically fail to see the God of compassion and mercy who, read correctly, is revealed in it. It's all really a very depressing and unfortunate manner of thinking (if one can call it 'thinking' - it really is irrational).

    Literal interpretation is not Catholic.

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Typical conspiracy stuff. The sky is falling, the pope may not be validly elected and the see vacant, the mass is corrupted and ineffective, the church is declining and will soon be extinct, except of course, the remnant who support him and buy his books.

    We know the church will endure until the end of time. Christ said so. It has never been perfect and as long as there are people in it, will never be.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    And, of course, just any Bible is not trusted - it must be the King James Version (because God spoke only King James English.


    Only the King Jimmy was divinely inspired.

  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,932
    As Grammy Eugie said, "If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me."
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    Indeed, M. Jackson!! That's why I said that it is extremely dangerous to dis-believe or creatively interpret the Word as set forth in the Bible.

    That would be in American, not English.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • My father told a story of a fellow he knew who said, "If the Saint James version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    Indeed. St. James said, "not by 'faith alone,'" and it's the only instance in the Bible where you find those 2 words paired as such.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 463
    ... or creatively interpret the Word as set forth in the Bible. That would be in American, not English.
    Let alone French, German or (horribile dictu!) Dutch... crd. Ratzinger even dropped 'German' Latin long before becoming pope.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    The "faith alone" position is one I have viewed as a bit off the mark. I know Luther and others subscribed to it but I find a misunderstanding within it. He even threw the book of James out of his Bible because it stressed good works.

    The Protestants I know who support faith alone do generally understand faith and charity. It is hope they have trouble with. We have hope, not some iron clad contract assuring us of salvation. Good works are simply the fruit produced by faith which expresses itself in works. No good works often indicates no real faith. Kind of like the fig tree cursed by Christ because it didn't produce. I trust James over Luther any day.
  • Or, as St Paul saith - 'show me your faith and I will show you my works'.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CCooze
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,687
    I don't know Pink be he is quite wrong on this. The emperor had all the power and the popes had none. For example, councils were called and their edicts decreed by the emperor, not the pope. If the emperors were still around and held sway, the pope would have little more power than one of the eastern patriarchs.


    Well, as you said, you "don't know Pink," so I'd kindly ask you to go read what he says before continuing. The emperor doesn't have power in himself. It has to be given by the church. Only the church has direct control over the baptized.

    And no, we already saw the submission of the temporal sword to the spiritual sword — the teaching of which even comes from a letter to the emperor! — when the emperor was still in the West. So the stuff about the pope being no more powerful than an Eastern patriarch is utter fantasy.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,601
    FWIW, Thomas Pink is a philosopher at Kings College London (while he delves in adjacent disciplines, he's neither a theologian nor a historian as such, though he read history in addition to philosophy as an undergraduate).
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,687
    It's not worth very much to me.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Emperors don't cotton to anyone who usurps or compromises their powers. Those who do tend to not last long. Popes had little political power as long as the emperors were in control and functioned as patriarchs and universal pastors. That's all they ever should have been in the first place.

    Granted, Roman emperors had little and eventually no power in the west after the fall of Old Rome. The Eastern Roman Empire became quite weak after the Muslim incursions. When the popes started assuming imperial powers after the decline of the Roman emperors, they became little more than secular monarchs with all the corruption and political shenanigans that tend to go along with power. Anyone remember the forged and supposed Donation of Constantine the popes used to justify their false claim to power? Sounds like some of our current politicians who will use any means to hold power and privilege.

    Interesting that Emperor Franz Joseph in more recent times blocked the election of a papal candidate he didn't approve of leading to the election of Pius X. More than one king or emperor - Charles V for one - invaded and sacked Rome and the papal states proving who actually held the real political power.

    There is something about some Trads that desires the glories of a papal court with demi-god popes. Why, I don't know since that has only served as a detriment to Christianity. If you want to make the argument that many popes were not worthy of that status, I wont disagree.

    And all this time I thought Pink was a mediocre pop singer. What Liam said.



  • Charles is so right.
    It is the nature of secular power to have no truck with competition. The popes in the west only rose to the preeminence that they enjoyed for some centuries because of the utter feudalistic chaos in the west, the lingering aura of Romanitas being the only civilizing influence. As history shows, and the secular powers became more powerful and secure the papal power receded. Henry VIII was not alone in wishing to be free of papal meddling in their kingdoms. He was the only one who did anything about it. It was clear that in France the king, not the pope, was the de facto head of the Church. Henry II would have done as Henry VIII if he could have gotten away with it. Bismarck famously and flatly stated that 'there will be no more Canossas', and, as mentioned above, Franz Joseph utilized his veto power over any papal election to thwart a papal candidate he didn't approve of in the early XXth century. Popes, the Church, and its people do far more convincingly represent Christ when not weighted down with worldly power and feudal courts with all their rampant corruption and obscuring of the Christian life and message.
    When I was very young and saw those pictures of Pius XII - and some of his predecessors all arrayed in rich garments trimmed with white fur and ermine, seated on a great throne and wearing a gaudy three=tiered crown, carried about on a litter upheld by right by the noblest and oldest of Roman families, and flanked pretentiously by those imperial Roman ceremonial flabella, I could not believe - it defied comprehension - that this man supposedly represented Jesus of Nazareth. It is best for the Church to be like its Lord, not like lords of the earth - a message of HF Francis that I admire greatly. Some marks of degree are appropriate, but there reaches a point at which people really are worshiping and are in awe of the trappings, not Jesus.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • HG?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,687
    Ah, yes, so we should just let governments do what they want, while asking them nicely to not do bad things? This is exactly what liberalism has gotten us.

    It was clear that in France the king, not the pope, was head of the Church.


    Well, obviously, no, because the French church remained in communion with Rome and the bull Unigentius enforced. Was Gallicanism ideal? Absolutely not. But did the king cross a line? Apparently not.

    The supposed imperial veto was then abolished by Pius X, and the interference was roundly condemned by the participating cardinals, although the only practical way forward was to elect Sarto instead.

    and no, the popes and clergy do not "more convincingly represent Christ" when shorn of all of temporal power; the church is in its worst condition today, and it's not like corruption has magically disappeared. Again, the popes have all authority, and while Francis is skeptical about the externals and in the details, he's easily the most skeptical pope when it comes to liberalism that we've had since at least John XXIII, if not before.
    Thanked by 2trentonjconn CCooze
  • Sorry, Chris - I meant HF
  • Well, obviously, no, because the French church remained in communion with Rome and the bull Unigentius enforced. Was Gallicanism ideal? Absolutely not. But did the king cross a line? Apparently not.


    Louis XIV actually came so close to cross that line some people say he was secretly excommunicated (or was about to be, I can't remember). Though he never broke communion with Rome, it was clear he thought of himself as the supreme ruler of the Church in France. So thought many clerics, including such high figures as Bossuet.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Ah, yes, so we should just let governments do what they want, while asking them nicely to not do bad things?


    That's what they generally do, anyway. I can't think of any world leaders today who actually care what the church thinks.

    The supposed imperial veto was then abolished by Pius X, and the interference was roundly condemned by the participating cardinals, although the only practical way forward was to elect Sarto instead.


    That veto in effect disappeared with the fall of the empire after WW I. There were no more emperors and the popes no longer had any temporal power. They really didn't even have legal title to the Vatican until the Lateran Treaty with Mussolini in 1929.

    I have suspected that the post-Vatican II popes have squandered and effectively destroyed any power and most of the influence they had before the council.

    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • I can't think of any world leaders today who actually care what the church thinks.


    The President of the United States makes much of his favor with Pope Francis, and is known to carry a rosary with him and attend Mass, and be counted a Catholic in good standing.
  • To me, the idea that the papacy should be free of any worldly glamour or adornment is just a step or two removed from the idea that vestments should be plain, churches shorn of decoration and richness, etc. Why do we use nice, expensive, beautiful things during the Mass? To glorify God and edify his people. Why do the high offices of the Church embrace similar adornment? For the very same reason. Bring back the tiara, full stop.

    There seems to be a troubling amount of latent anti-Roman sentiment in this thread...
    Thanked by 2dad29 MatthewRoth
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,601
    Nah, it's just anti LARPing Rome 1846 adorned with shabby pretense.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    To me, the idea that the papacy should be free of any worldly glamour or adornment is just a step or two removed from the idea that vestments should be plain,...


    There are degrees from minimalism to total excess. The excess has prevailed in the past along with monarchial splendor that is hard to justify.


    The President of the United States makes much of his favor with Pope Francis, and is known to carry a rosary with him and attend Mass, and be counted a Catholic in good standing.


    Some of the bishops don't seem to think much of his Catholicism.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,050
    President Biden's Catholicism is surely typical of the pre-VII age in which he acquired it. But with a loss of obseqious adherence to the word of the bishops.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    all arrayed in rich garments trimmed with white fur and ermine, seated on a great throne and wearing a gaudy three=tiered crown, carried about on a litter upheld by right by the noblest and oldest of Roman families, and flanked pretentiously by those imperial Roman ceremonial flabella,


    They took their cues from the Royals, you know.
  • Indeed!
    And not just any royals, but the caesars themselves.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    The excess has prevailed in the past along with monarchial splendor that is hard to justify.


    In YOUR opinion.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    Caesars.......and the foppish throne-thieves now sitting in Windsor.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674

    In YOUR opinion.


    My opinion says I am not willing to pay for it. If YOU like the finery and splendor, then YOU subsidize it with the substantial dad29 fortune.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    substantial dad29 fortune.


    You are FULL of opinions!!!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Never subsidize the anachronistic. Let them pay for their own reenactments.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,687
    Nah, it's just anti LARPing Rome 1846 adorned with shabby pretense.


    A rather lazy remark. It's not about LARPing or shabby pretense, as much as I might admire the Holy Roman Empire or the Ancien Régime; that the temporal sword must submit to the spiritual sword is the fundamental principle missing from the world, by and large, since 1789, and it is at the heart of each and everyone of modernity's problems. This is also how you get things like politicians and, worse, judges who don't believe in the binding character of natural law, even as Catholics; the best concrete example of this is that conservative lawyers won't deviate from originalism in order to score actual victories and to ban abortion, as manifested lately by the exchange with John Finnish, Josh Craddock, Ed Whelan, and others.