Post: #276

"Agni Parthene" - Valaam Monastery Brotherhood - Valaam Monastery Festival


The Prayer by Archimandrite Seraphim Bit-Haribi - Valaam Monastery Festival (July 2016)


Blooming Lilac on Valaam Island

Post: #277

Real trad:

   

Post: #278

Roosh, I just wanted to thank you for helping me find the faith. If not for you, I would be a lost soul on this earth. I've joined an Orthodox Church, praying and fasting regularly in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. May you be a shepard who leads more men to God. May our Lord bless your travels and lead you not into temptation but deliver you from evil. Amen.

Post: #279

(11-01-2019 04:35 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Real trad:

This is the kinda stuff that gives me the fuzzies .
I love this meme

Post: #280

(11-01-2019 06:27 PM)JosephWing Wrote:  Roosh, I just wanted to thank you for helping me find the faith. If not for you, I would be a lost soul on this earth. I've joined an Orthodox Church, praying and fasting regularly in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. May you be a shepard who leads more men to God. May our Lord bless your travels and lead you not into temptation but deliver you from evil. Amen.

Great to hear. God is using me to reach others. I claim no credit.

Post: #281

Films for Orthodox Christians
https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/fi...hristians/

The Island is on the list, of course.

Post: #282

Roosh, did you ever detail the re-emergence of your faith? I recall you said you might go into it, but I don't believe I ever saw the full story posted anywhere.

Post: #283

(11-14-2019 10:59 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Roosh, did you ever detail the re-emergence of your faith? I recall you said you might go into it, but I don't believe I ever saw the full story posted anywhere.

It's a part of the speech I've been giving. I'll have it available to watch after my tour is over.

Post: #284

Question for some of the guys on here who have been Orthodox longer than I have (which is about 2 years, including my inquirer and catechumen stages): one of my friends, another Jewish convert to Orthodoxy, ended up converting to Catholicism and writing a long and detailed article (link below) on all the reasons for why he did so. He's clearly well-studied on these topics, and some of them I've never even scratched the surface of at all, but some of his arguments make sense to me - and specifically in regards to the lack of Orthodox evangelism of any organized or serious sort, it's something that has been bothering me lately as well. But besides that, he goes into a lot of detail on other historical and theological issues in this article that I wanted to put out here and see whether anyone can refute some of his other arguments. This isn't with the intention of re-converting him, as I spoke with him yesterday and today and he's very happy where he is at the moment, but rather just for my own knowledge and growth in understanding of all these issues. Is there anything he wrote here which you guys believe is objectively incorrect - and if there is, what makes you say so?

https://www.damiendp.com/post/why-conver...-orthodoxy

Post: #285

(11-19-2019 05:34 AM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  Question for some of the guys on here who have been Orthodox longer than I have (which is about 2 years, including my inquirer and catechumen stages): one of my friends, another Jewish convert to Orthodoxy, ended up converting to Catholicism and writing a long and detailed article (link below) on all the reasons for why he did so. He's clearly well-studied on these topics, and some of them I've never even scratched the surface of at all, but some of his arguments make sense to me - and specifically in regards to the lack of Orthodox evangelism of any organized or serious sort, it's something that has been bothering me lately as well. But besides that, he goes into a lot of detail on other historical and theological issues in this article that I wanted to put out here and see whether anyone can refute some of his other arguments. This isn't with the intention of re-converting him, as I spoke with him yesterday and today and he's very happy where he is at the moment, but rather just for my own knowledge and growth in understanding of all these issues. Is there anything he wrote here which you guys believe is objectively incorrect - and if there is, what makes you say so?

https://www.damiendp.com/post/why-conver...-orthodoxy

For the Fatima apparition you can find an Orthodox view here
http://www.orthodox.org/Fatima.pdf
To his question regarding satan telling people to pray daily a number of prayers the answer is yes. The devil is old in tricking people it can say things which are true to make people accept the wrong ones. The mention that The Virgin asked for Russia to be consecrated by the Pope is obviously wrong form an Orthodox pov.
Also Jay Dyer mentioned it in some of his talks.

Post: #286

(11-19-2019 05:34 AM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  Question for some of the guys on here who have been Orthodox longer than I have (which is about 2 years, including my inquirer and catechumen stages): one of my friends, another Jewish convert to Orthodoxy, ended up converting to Catholicism and writing a long and detailed article (link below) on all the reasons for why he did so. He's clearly well-studied on these topics, and some of them I've never even scratched the surface of at all, but some of his arguments make sense to me - and specifically in regards to the lack of Orthodox evangelism of any organized or serious sort, it's something that has been bothering me lately as well. But besides that, he goes into a lot of detail on other historical and theological issues in this article that I wanted to put out here and see whether anyone can refute some of his other arguments. This isn't with the intention of re-converting him, as I spoke with him yesterday and today and he's very happy where he is at the moment, but rather just for my own knowledge and growth in understanding of all these issues. Is there anything he wrote here which you guys believe is objectively incorrect - and if there is, what makes you say so?

https://www.damiendp.com/post/why-conver...-orthodoxy

The mission the catholics conducted in my country, for example, led to forced conversions and to the creation of this strange Greek Catholic church, while those Orthodox who did not denied their faith and were killed for it are celebrated as saints today.

Post: #287

Here is a comparison between Saint Seraphim of Sarov and Francis of Assissi, it is easy to see the difference between them and to understand why the catholic saints are accused of prelest. What is interesting about Francis is that he sent his disciples first to Christian countries to preach his version of Christianity.
http://orthochristian.com/90893.html
for the role of the pope as a mediator, here’s a talk Jay had with a guy Ybarra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkIfo15jV-8


children being baptized is biblical:
• The Household of Cornelius, Acts 11:13–14: “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.”
• The Household of Lydia, Acts 16:15: “And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ So she persuaded us.”
• The Philippian Jailor’s Household, Acts 16:33: “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.”
• The Household of Crispus, Acts 18:8: “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”
• The Household of Stephanas, 1 Corinthians 1:16: “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.”
If anyone argues that the ‘household’ or ‘family’ do not have to include children, it is possible they didn’t. But given the fact that we have five explicit references to a whole household being baptized, we have to assume that many, many more such households were baptized. Surely some of them included children of different ages.
Also there is the word of Christ in John 3, 5. The Orthodox church baptises infants in case they get sick and die before the baptism. There are cases when sick infats recovered after baptism.
Divorce is allowed in case of adultery, which is not only sexual, but spiritual as well. In the OT God describes the people of Israel as a prostitute when they turn away from Him to worship other gods.

Post: #288

Regading Michael's post of his friend converting:

Really, quickly, and this doesn't mean Orthodoxy has its faults too, but look at post Vatican II Roman Catholicism and talk to me about the fruits it is producing, particularly in the West. In 3rd world countries these rottten fruits (all things SJW, which come from political institutions such as Rome) are not part of life so you don't see them, yet. There are reasons why so few Catholic converts are a notable item, such as this man, and that's because of the rapidly diminishing Catholics in the West and the Anglicanization of their diocese ("those aren't true RC, we are" or "I don't agree with the Pope" for blah blah blah reason).

-His understanding of ancestral sin is incorrect, in both history and a matter of fact, a related topic of this is the creation of the IC dogma, which is heretical and not dogma in the orthodox faith --> He says, "The immaculate conception is clearly taught by the Fathers of the Church, who teach that she was without sin." This statement is neither the RC dogma, nor any of the considered Orthodox positions, again none of which dogma. Mary is the foremost of the Saints, but she is a created being, not an incarnate eternal person that Christ is. If she doesn't have anything to be healed (sinless), how are we as humans healed by the incarnation of Christ? It is a huge Christology problem. We say in prayers, "Only you are without sin." Who? God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It seems they had an Islam moment and included Mary in the Holy Trinity, lol

-universality isn't political, which is the RC view, the pope is a head of State, think of it --- disunity is only a conclusion if you want something political, as he does, the very essence of orthodoxy is unity, but not in an earthly sense but in doctrine and practice

-The first 3 topics (Fatima, Missionary Work, Holiness of western saints) are non-sequitirs

-Papacy is too long and too corrupt to consider (Avignon, Charlemagne, etc) but the apostles are all universal teachers of the faith. You have to claim that the other apostles teaching bishops presiding over the successive churches are defective to make any sense of the papacy, which of course doesn't make sense. Also, the Antiochians don't claim Peter as Pope, he was there first, interesting they are Orthodox.

-Uniates as a matter of fact are offshoots of political invasion (there is nothing RC about them, at all, which is just weird). The Orthodox never went to other people's lands as Christians and then created division like that.

-The Filioque is pure invention. It doesn't even deserve to be treated or argued about.

He makes a single reference in that piece to Fr. John Romanides and it actually makes no sense. He needs to (actually) read Romanides, is what I was saying the entire time.

What we know as the Roman Catholic Church currently is the descendant church of the "Holy Roman Empire" instituted by Charlemagne. That was a political move, was the ultimate basis for the the Schism, and set up a State church appealing to the Pope as its leader. It is ironic that the Roman Empire continued to be "Greek" (as was the letter to the "Romans") was the Christian Empire as a continuation, and then the Franco Roman Empire came on the scene. As a result, what is now called "Orthodoxy" is actually more "Roman" and "Catholic" (as is said in the creed) than those that are labeled Roman Catholic in the current day.

And by the way, none of these facts suggest that people called "Roman Catholic" can't be faithful or holy. Of course they can. Just as someone who is called Orthodox may or may not have anything to do with Orthodoxy, or activate what he has inherited, as being meaningful in his life.

Post: #289

I second Kid Twist's post. In addition, here are my thoughts on the key issues in the article:

- Orthodox under the Muslim yoke sucked at evangelism. The author is correct on this point. Roman Catholics managed to poach a few diocese from the Orthodox Church, and make a lot of progress converting people in the New World. This doesn’t make them the One True Church, unless he’s willing to admit that the hordes of cradle RCs converting to Protestantism in the global south are joining the new One True Church. Since Protestants seem to be good at missionary work.

- The Orthodox Church is the same organizational mess it has been for the last two thousand years. The author thinks the Papacy is the solution, despite the fact no pope in the first millennia had authority even vaguely resembling that ascribed to them at Vatican I. Not even a little bit. The “one, holy, catholic, apostolic” line was added to the creed at a council presided over by a bishop who wasn’t even in communion with Rome. Church Fathers wrote entire sermons about “you are Peter, you are rock” that didn’t even mention the bishop of Rome. Moreover, the Roman Church can’t provide satisfactory answers to the myriad of Roman Catholic scholars who argue against the monarchial papacy. It’s not a defensible doctrine in any way, shape, or form. Only by incredibly selective quotations from the Church Fathers can the ultramontanists push their ahistorical doctrine onto Christians. I can expound more on this, or provide book recommendations if you'd like. It's the single biggest problem with Roman Catholicism, and the reason I left my the Roman Church of my ancestors to join the Orthodox Church.

- The sadly lacking Novus Ordo liturgy is exactly what you get when you believe that a single person has the final authority in every single matter of Church life. It took a schismatic to preserve the authentic Roman Rite. Since we’ve never had anything even vaguely resembling a monarchial papacy in the 2,000 years of our history, we have never had such dramatic liturgical changes. Even the Nikonian reforms were small potatoes in comparison.

- The Church sometimes allows remarriage after divorce, as we have for at least a millennia and a half. The Roman Church did too, until in more recent years they decided to add an extra step in the middle. 1. Divorce. 2. Pretend the people were “never really married” despite having taken vows, raised children together, etc. 3. Remarry. I fail to see how this, either, makes Roman Catholicism the One True Church. I cannot defend Orthodoxy's stance on divorce, but it is at least more defensible than Roman Catholicism's.

- One thing I agree with the author on: the way some Orthodox disrespect Western saints and Western theological ideas is shameful. But this does not make Orthodoxy illegitimate; it merely means that some Orthodox fail to see the orthodoxy where it exists outside our own denominational lines. But these anti-west attitudes are not legitimate orthodoxy; just look into our history with the Episcopal Church. And sinners in the Church do not make it cease to be the Church; both Catholicism and Orthodoxy condemn donatism.

Post: #290

(11-19-2019 05:34 AM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  Question for some of the guys on here who have been Orthodox longer than I have (which is about 2 years, including my inquirer and catechumen stages): one of my friends, another Jewish convert to Orthodoxy, ended up converting to Catholicism and writing a long and detailed article (link below) on all the reasons for why he did so. He's clearly well-studied on these topics, and some of them I've never even scratched the surface of at all, but some of his arguments make sense to me - and specifically in regards to the lack of Orthodox evangelism of any organized or serious sort, it's something that has been bothering me lately as well. But besides that, he goes into a lot of detail on other historical and theological issues in this article that I wanted to put out here and see whether anyone can refute some of his other arguments. This isn't with the intention of re-converting him, as I spoke with him yesterday and today and he's very happy where he is at the moment, but rather just for my own knowledge and growth in understanding of all these issues. Is there anything he wrote here which you guys believe is objectively incorrect - and if there is, what makes you say so?

https://www.damiendp.com/post/why-conver...-orthodoxy

Interesting Blog post. It actually helped me to learn a lot about Orthodoxy & Catholicism at the same time. FYI I'm Roman Catholic.

The subject of schism came up today in our Catechism class relating to Catholic groups that have splintered off recently, along with Eastern Orthodoxy. The priest said the following:

Quote:"Schism is not a mortal (grave) sin, unless the person is aware they are in schism. If they are aware, it then becomes mortal."
also,
"E. Orthodox people recognize me as a priest and when I lived out west they would kiss my hand and call me Father"

Regarding some of the content:
> Fatima - I have some posts on this in the Catholic Thread. I believe in the apparitions, specifically Our Lady of Fatima and also Guadalupe. They are miraculous and incredibly compelling, specifically Fatima and seeing it unfold in our modern times. A Catholic is not required to believe in any apparition as part of their faith.

> Missionary Work - part of this I attribute to the celibacy of Priesthood. This is a Roman Catholic 'Discipline'', so it is not expressly in the Bible as many Apostles were married, although St. Paul was celibate. So the discipline could be changed, as other Catholic Rites allow for married priests. Although I hope not, because these independent priests were amazing. My belief is that the sex scandal is caused by infiltration in the Church and worldly corruption, not the practice itself. All bishops must be celibate though.

> Western Saints: He left out St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Thomism is the theological and philosophical underpinning of much of Catholicism, and it came after the schism. Pope Francis sometimes seems to try to move us away from Thomism.

> Sacraments: E. Orthodox sacraments are legitimate in the eyes of the Catholic Church due to Apostolic succession.

> The Unity of the Catholic Church is a very positive thing. I never have to worry about being turned away from a Catholic Church. The difficulty personally, is keeping our unity with Novus Ordu types, and more recently with Pope Francis. The modernism in the Church is something we fight, along with the feeling that much has been hijacked. There are many traditional Catholics do end up in schismatic 'catholic' groups. The consolation is that all the doctrine and Dogma is established and intact.

>Vatican 2, is acceptable to me. For many of us, the issue is that it was vague, in which case we read it in light of tradition, and prior teachings but this is not what happened. This was used against the Church by evil forces. EMJ talks about this when he discusses Vatican 2 having "no anti-Semitism" in it, but it doesn't define the term, so we go back to the "Don't harm the Jew and they can't influence your culture" of Old. But this didn't happened, the vagueness encouraged reinvention, which is what happened afterwards and has had a lot of bad fruits. All that said, if there are people who personally stray, bad pastoral teaching, bad clergy, and perhaps the Pope,... all we can do is pray, and try to be part of the change.

Post: #291

(11-19-2019 05:34 AM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  Question for some of the guys on here who have been Orthodox longer than I have (which is about 2 years, including my inquirer and catechumen stages): one of my friends, another Jewish convert to Orthodoxy, ended up converting to Catholicism and writing a long and detailed article (link below) on all the reasons for why he did so. He's clearly well-studied on these topics, and some of them I've never even scratched the surface of at all, but some of his arguments make sense to me - and specifically in regards to the lack of Orthodox evangelism of any organized or serious sort, it's something that has been bothering me lately as well. But besides that, he goes into a lot of detail on other historical and theological issues in this article that I wanted to put out here and see whether anyone can refute some of his other arguments. This isn't with the intention of re-converting him, as I spoke with him yesterday and today and he's very happy where he is at the moment, but rather just for my own knowledge and growth in understanding of all these issues. Is there anything he wrote here which you guys believe is objectively incorrect - and if there is, what makes you say so?

https://www.damiendp.com/post/why-conver...-orthodoxy

One of the comments by Jonathan York offered a detailed rebuttal: https://ccatholicism.wordpress.com/2019/...omment-527

Post: #292

How do I explain to my Catholic brethren and family that our church has been uprooted? That perhaps my own doubts about our pagan origins are not unfounded? I cannot put up a Christmas tree any more, nor tolerate easter eggs, mistletoes, holly wood, ornamentation, hindbrained yuletides, etc. The bible does not say of such rituals. I find myself unable to go to mass where someone is preaching a message that is antithetical to God's will. I cannot attend a ceremony where they pay homage to a man in a big hat (although I prefer anything over a man in a small hat) who is a state actor working for globohomo. I cannot pray to anyone other than Jesus and the Father Himself. I cannot pray to a woman who was the fleshly mother, even if she is saintly and divine. There are just certain things that feel inherently wrong, like I am going against the will of the God, against the will of the prime mover. Doesn't mean I don't sin, I have just been in a confused state for a long time on which fleshly path to choose in terms of which Church to align myself with while I'm still here. The rotten ones have done good to sow these seeds of confusion that make hesitation of me. I only know that I feel right in prayer to our Lord Himself and not to anything else. I have received PM's from several before suggesting me to try certain churches, but I just think that the whole entity of religion is against Jesus' teachings and purpose. In what way can we align ourselves with His will if it be not through organized religion?

Post: #293

(11-20-2019 01:35 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 05:34 AM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  Question for some of the guys on here who have been Orthodox longer than I have (which is about 2 years, including my inquirer and catechumen stages): one of my friends, another Jewish convert to Orthodoxy, ended up converting to Catholicism and writing a long and detailed article (link below) on all the reasons for why he did so. He's clearly well-studied on these topics, and some of them I've never even scratched the surface of at all, but some of his arguments make sense to me - and specifically in regards to the lack of Orthodox evangelism of any organized or serious sort, it's something that has been bothering me lately as well. But besides that, he goes into a lot of detail on other historical and theological issues in this article that I wanted to put out here and see whether anyone can refute some of his other arguments. This isn't with the intention of re-converting him, as I spoke with him yesterday and today and he's very happy where he is at the moment, but rather just for my own knowledge and growth in understanding of all these issues. Is there anything he wrote here which you guys believe is objectively incorrect - and if there is, what makes you say so?

https://www.damiendp.com/post/why-conver...-orthodoxy

One of the comments by Jonathan York offered a detailed rebuttal: https://ccatholicism.wordpress.com/2019/...omment-527

York made some solid points there. I think he's wrong about Original Sin, of which Augustine's definition was made official at the pre-schism Council of Orange, and I think Gideon is right that "ancestral sin" is a modern and pointless distinction. I also don't think York is right about the idea that so many Catholics disbelieving their own doctrines is proof of disunity, when it's just their own personal beliefs deviating from a set of unified ones.

There were also Fathers who did see the person of Peter as the "rock" spoken of in Scripture (including St. Augustine at one point, though he later retracted that opinion and left the interpretation of that verse open to the reader). The Fatima stuff is interesting though, I think York is right that there was no real testing of the apparition.

I know Gideon also goes to a Catholic university, so he's probably being inundated with anti-Orthodox propaganda in more or less every class.

Post: #294

(11-20-2019 01:04 AM)NoMoreTO Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 05:34 AM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  Question for some of the guys on here who have been Orthodox longer than I have (which is about 2 years, including my inquirer and catechumen stages): one of my friends, another Jewish convert to Orthodoxy, ended up converting to Catholicism and writing a long and detailed article (link below) on all the reasons for why he did so. He's clearly well-studied on these topics, and some of them I've never even scratched the surface of at all, but some of his arguments make sense to me - and specifically in regards to the lack of Orthodox evangelism of any organized or serious sort, it's something that has been bothering me lately as well. But besides that, he goes into a lot of detail on other historical and theological issues in this article that I wanted to put out here and see whether anyone can refute some of his other arguments. This isn't with the intention of re-converting him, as I spoke with him yesterday and today and he's very happy where he is at the moment, but rather just for my own knowledge and growth in understanding of all these issues. Is there anything he wrote here which you guys believe is objectively incorrect - and if there is, what makes you say so?

https://www.damiendp.com/post/why-conver...-orthodoxy

Interesting Blog post. It actually helped me to learn a lot about Orthodoxy & Catholicism at the same time. FYI I'm Roman Catholic.

The subject of schism came up today in our Catechism class relating to Catholic groups that have splintered off recently, along with Eastern Orthodoxy. The priest said the following:

Quote:"Schism is not a mortal (grave) sin, unless the person is aware they are in schism. If they are aware, it then becomes mortal."
also,
"E. Orthodox people recognize me as a priest and when I lived out west they would kiss my hand and call me Father"

Regarding some of the content:
> Fatima - I have some posts on this in the Catholic Thread. I believe in the apparitions, specifically Our Lady of Fatima and also Guadalupe. They are miraculous and incredibly compelling, specifically Fatima and seeing it unfold in our modern times. A Catholic is not required to believe in any apparition as part of their faith.

> Missionary Work - part of this I attribute to the celibacy of Priesthood. This is a Roman Catholic 'Discipline'', so it is not expressly in the Bible as many Apostles were married, although St. Paul was celibate. So the discipline could be changed, as other Catholic Rites allow for married priests. Although I hope not, because these independent priests were amazing. My belief is that the sex scandal is caused by infiltration in the Church and worldly corruption, not the practice itself. All bishops must be celibate though.

> Western Saints: He left out St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Thomism is the theological and philosophical underpinning of much of Catholicism, and it came after the schism. Pope Francis sometimes seems to try to move us away from Thomism.

> Sacraments: E. Orthodox sacraments are legitimate in the eyes of the Catholic Church due to Apostolic succession.

> The Unity of the Catholic Church is a very positive thing. I never have to worry about being turned away from a Catholic Church. The difficulty personally, is keeping our unity with Novus Ordu types, and more recently with Pope Francis. The modernism in the Church is something we fight, along with the feeling that much has been hijacked. There are many traditional Catholics do end up in schismatic 'catholic' groups. The consolation is that all the doctrine and Dogma is established and intact.

>Vatican 2, is acceptable to me. For many of us, the issue is that it was vague, in which case we read it in light of tradition, and prior teachings but this is not what happened. This was used against the Church by evil forces. EMJ talks about this when he discusses Vatican 2 having "no anti-Semitism" in it, but it doesn't define the term, so we go back to the "Don't harm the Jew and they can't influence your culture" of Old. But this didn't happened, the vagueness encouraged reinvention, which is what happened afterwards and has had a lot of bad fruits. All that said, if there are people who personally stray, bad pastoral teaching, bad clergy, and perhaps the Pope,... all we can do is pray, and try to be part of the change.

The lack of focused, large-scale missionary work in Orthodoxy really, really bothers me. Half the world has no Orthodox Churches, yet we have bishops living in mansions. Seems like an easy fix if the will and vision existed to fix it, but you can't even bring this stuff up without people looking at you like you're committing some kind of heresy for daring to question the wise and mighty hierarchs.

It sounds like each Catholic is free to care about V2 or not, without its affecting their status as members in good standing, so the Novus Ordo I suppose is only relevant to those who want to go celebrate it.

Post: #295

(11-20-2019 06:28 AM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  It sounds like each Catholic is free to care about V2 or not, without its affecting their status as members in good standing, so the Novus Ordo I suppose is only relevant to those who want to go celebrate it.

Every Roman Catholic must accept Vatican II because it is an Ecumenical Council for them; the pope has approved it. I suppose they don't have to care, but that doesn't change its binding status.

And the Novus Ordo is relevant for every Catholic, because the Tridentine Rite barely exists. They call it the Extraordinary Form for a reason. Finding a parish that celebrates it is like finding a Western Rite Orthodox parish; if you do, you're incredibly lucky.

It was outright banned when the Novus Ordo came out. If Archbishop Lefebvre hadn't been willing to get excommunicated to continue celebrating the Tridentine Mass, then it likely never would have been allowed again either.

(11-20-2019 06:28 AM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  The lack of focused, large-scale missionary work in Orthodoxy really, really bothers me. Half the world has no Orthodox Churches, yet we have bishops living in mansions. Seems like an easy fix if the will and vision existed to fix it, but you can't even bring this stuff up without people looking at you like you're committing some kind of heresy for daring to question the wise and mighty hierarchs.

Then get started! Perhaps my experience has been unusual, but every parish I've attended has either been involved in missionary work in the surrounding community, or missionary work abroad with the OCMC.

To be surrounded by people within the Church who don't like the idea of doing what they're supposed to, though, is not unusual. That's pretty much how a large portion of hagiographical stories begin.

Post: #296

(11-20-2019 10:14 AM)Emperor Constantine Wrote:  

(11-20-2019 06:28 AM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  It sounds like each Catholic is free to care about V2 or not, without its affecting their status as members in good standing, so the Novus Ordo I suppose is only relevant to those who want to go celebrate it.

Every Roman Catholic must accept Vatican II because it is an Ecumenical Council for them; the pope has approved it. I suppose they don't have to care, but that doesn't change its binding status.
...
It was outright banned when the Novus Ordo came out. If Archbishop Lefebvre hadn't been willing to get excommunicated to continue celebrating the Tridentine Mass, then it likely never would have been allowed again either.

To clarify on points above, or my own points:
(1) Every Catholic must accept Vatican 2 or they are in schism and can not receive communion.

(2) Arch Bishop Lefebvre signed the Vatican 2 documents himself. So consider that this same man who worked to reinstate the Tridentine Mass was in agreement with Vatican 2. The difference is how it was implemented was not at all in the tradition of the faith.

The Novus Ordu, New Mass, or Mass of Pope Paul VI was instituted in 1967, after the Second Vatican Council, which closed in 1965.

Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) is one of 16 Documents in Vatican 2, and pertains to the change in the liturgy. That which was agreed to in principle (1965), seems different to me than what happened in practice afterwards (1967 - ). We don't have to actually agree with the change that happened afterward though, this is my understanding.

If we look at the passage below, as a Catholic I can accept this. But I don't accept what actually happened afterwards. Altars being ripped out, sanctuaries taken down, women reading scripture, altar girls, guitars replacing organs, prayers being taken out, nearly the entire mass in Vulgar tongue. Similarly, yes, of course I would want the mass being brought back to the vigor of the Church Fathers.

Quote:The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary. - Section 50 Sacrosanctum

Vatican 2 Documents

Post: #297

I love the Western Rite and its use of the Mass of Pope St. Gregory the Great. Been to several services and spent a few days at the WR monastery in Colorado as well. I thought Gideon had stated that V2 was “pastoral” but not Ecumenical - isn’t that what the Pope himself said at the time?

Also @EC - my “mission work” is mostly to occultists and PUA types. In regards to building churches geographically, I’d have to be in charge of how money is spent in order to make that happen, but my interest in being clergy is zero. I’m far more likely to end up as either a monk or just a regular unmarried lay person at this rate, but if I *were* in charge it doesn’t seem especially difficult to organize. There are people in unbaptized nations who desperately want to become Orthodox and currently cannot, which makes me sad and frustrated.

Post: #298

(11-20-2019 10:14 AM)Emperor Constantine Wrote:  

(11-20-2019 06:28 AM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  It sounds like each Catholic is free to care about V2 or not, without its affecting their status as members in good standing, so the Novus Ordo I suppose is only relevant to those who want to go celebrate it.

Every Roman Catholic must accept Vatican II because it is an Ecumenical Council for them; the pope has approved it. I suppose they don't have to care, but that doesn't change its binding status.

And the Novus Ordo is relevant for every Catholic, because the Tridentine Rite barely exists. They call it the Extraordinary Form for a reason. Finding a parish that celebrates it is like finding a Western Rite Orthodox parish; if you do, you're incredibly lucky.

It was outright banned when the Novus Ordo came out. If Archbishop Lefebvre hadn't been willing to get excommunicated to continue celebrating the Tridentine Mass, then it likely never would have been allowed again either.

(11-20-2019 06:28 AM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  The lack of focused, large-scale missionary work in Orthodoxy really, really bothers me. Half the world has no Orthodox Churches, yet we have bishops living in mansions. Seems like an easy fix if the will and vision existed to fix it, but you can't even bring this stuff up without people looking at you like you're committing some kind of heresy for daring to question the wise and mighty hierarchs.

Then get started! Perhaps my experience has been unusual, but every parish I've attended has either been involved in missionary work in the surrounding community, or missionary work abroad with the OCMC.

To be surrounded by people within the Church who don't like the idea of doing what they're supposed to, though, is not unusual. That's pretty much how a large portion of hagiographical stories begin.

My local parish is involved in local missionary ministry. I was surprised myself.

Post: #299

(11-20-2019 03:16 PM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  I thought Gideon had stated that V2 was “pastoral” but not Ecumenical - isn’t that what the Pope himself said at the time?

At the risk of turning this into the Roman Catholic thread, here goes:

Sometimes it is said that V2 was pastoral rather than dogmatic, but it is still considered to be an Ecumenical Council by the Roman Church. But the former statement is misleading; although it covered many pastoral issues it also covered some doctrinal issues. Namely, it reaffirmed V1's ultramontanist dictates, changed religious liberty from an evil heresy to a human right, and overturned the medieval RC teachings regarding the possibility of salvation for non-Roman Catholics.

As NoMoreTo pointed out in his excellent post above, the Novus Ordo Mass was not part of V2; the council did not specify exactly how the liturgy was to be updated. And a great deal of the council's ideas were very good, such as trying to bring back Saturday vespers in parish churches, translating scripture from the original tongues instead of the Latin, giving the laity some things to say during the Mass, and so forth.

Sadly, in the wake of the council the traditional Roman Rite with something else entirely. The priests turned to face the people, the prayers to "deliver us from fornication" were removed as well as many others, Sunday Mass was celebrated early on Saturday night instead of doing vespers, Pius X's brilliant weekly arrangement of the psalms in the Divine Office was replaced with a 4-week rotation that left out any verses that didn't look PC, and a host of other practices that no one but flaming leftists are happy with.

(11-20-2019 03:16 PM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  … but if I *were* in charge it doesn’t seem especially difficult to organize. There are people in unbaptized nations who desperately want to become Orthodox and currently cannot, which makes me sad and frustrated.

I see what you mean; it is very discouraging. All we can do is pray that the hierarchs will adjust their priorities.

Post: #300

(02-21-2018 08:27 PM)Raylan Givens Wrote:  -But we can partake in God's uncreated Energies. By participating in God's uncreated Energies we can through a process called theosis (which involves purification, fasting, noetic prayer, and illumination) become partakers in the Glory of God and become gods by Grace.

Sorry to reply to such an old post, but would you be willing to clarify "become gods?" Does that mean an individual becomes a deity in-of-themselves separate and apart from God, with all the abilities that implies? Or is that a way of saying that one enters into some kind of divine union with God but still remains subservient to Him? Or does it mean something else entirely?

Thanks!