Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Constantinopolis]

Time for another multi-reply...

The church stood her ground during the Protestant Reformation and everything else. I came to Traditional Catholicism because I was attracted to steadfastness.

If that is what you're after, you should really consider the Orthodox Church. The Traditionalist Catholics are silly modernists compared to us.

I mean, they think the 400-year-old Tridentine Mass - a product of the Counter-Reformation - is traditional. Ha! If it's not at least 1000 years old, it really shouldn't count as traditional, you know.

I still LOVE the Tridentine Mass. However, it seems in the Church today there is this view that if one has a progressive theology, one has to embrace guitar masses, polka masses and etc. This is why I am personally attracted to Anglo-Catholicism or VERY High Church Anglicanism

It actually varies parish to parish. Here, where I am, St. Elizabeth's does a mix of the guitar Mass. Sacred Heart, back home, is very traditional Mass.

...guitar Mass?? That sounds horrible. How does that even work...? I mean, the text of the Mass is fully standardized and universal, right? So is it just a matter of using different musical instruments for the same songs and chants as elsewhere? Or is it a matter of using the standard text as lyrics for different kinds of music, depending on the parish?

I think we may have found one area in which the Catholic Church is less centralized than the Orthodox Church (!)... Orthodox parishes not only have to all use the same standard text of the Divine Liturgy (obviously), but there are also standard melodies which must be used. The melodies sometimes differ from diocese to diocese (and they often differ from one autocephalous jurisdiction to another), but they are always decided by the bishop, not by individual parishes. I suppose an Orthodox parish could petition its bishop to allow the use of different melodies, but I've never heard of that happening.

In general, the Orthodox Church is very attached to the idea of liturgical uniformity, because that is how we express our unity. Administratively, we may be part of different autocephalous jurisdiction with different Patriarchs, but we are united in worship.

I'm half in that boat. I like some of Vatican II, but I'm willing to screw over the whole of Catholicism just so I can sit in a Latin Mass.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been to an Eastern Catholic service? Since they shamelessly copy follow more or less the same liturgical rites as the Orthodox, I'd imagine they would be a natural home for the more traditionalist-minded Catholics.

Religions survive because they're able to adapt.

Eh, not necessarily. The last time we adapted, we were still celebrating the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia. Religions can also survive by making their beliefs and rituals the keystone of a people's cultural identity (or many peoples' cultural identities). It's what Judaism does, and it's also what Orthodox Christianity did - not once, but twice (there were a few centuries, before the mass conversions of "barbarian" nations, when Orthodox Christianity was synonymous with Romanitas, the Roman cultural identity; and a thousand years later, Orthodox Christianity became synonymous with the cultural identity of many different peoples under Turkish rule, as well as the Russian identity further north).

This new set up is pretty cool. I just checked my trends,....started out with low civil rights and political freedoms, and I had a booming economy. As I gave people more freedoms the economy tanked.

Perhaps Const is right.

"The frighteningly efficient Constantian economy, worth a remarkable 3,811 trillion socialist credits a year, is driven entirely by a combination of government and state-owned industry, with private enterprise illegal."

Of course I'm right.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Well, sadly, even if I'm of Syrian descent, I don't know arabic because when my grand-father come to France, he choosed to assimilate rather than just integrate, and thus didn't taught Arab to his sons (my father included) and even forbidden them to learn it on their own.
Still, I have some very littles bases on Arabic I learned from some of my Tunisians/Algerians friends which let me speak one or two words, but not really more.
However, strangely, I still can understand the "point/subject" of a conversation even if I can't understand what people are saying, but well, it seem to be a rather usual thing...

I've wondered, are you typing in English? or via a translator?

If he was using a translator I don't think we'd know what he was saying at all

Web translator programs are terrible

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been to an Eastern Catholic service? Since they shamelessly copy follow more or less the same liturgical rites as the Orthodox, I'd imagine they would be a natural home for the more traditionalist-minded Catholics.

It's not really 'shameless copying' given that the Eastern Catholics used to be Orthodox, and were allowed to keep their customs when they regained communion with Rome.

Incidentally, my graduation mass was actually performed by a bishop of the Eastern Rite. Saskatchewan has a large population of Ukrainians and quite a few Eastern Rite Catholics as well. We also have several Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in my city. I've always found their architecture interesting.

[Aelex]

I've wondered, are you typing in English? or via a translator?

Well, I suspected that my english was bad, but I never tought it was at the point people could think that it's just machine translation...
Still, to answer your question, I'm the majority of the time on a 3ds which may explain some mistakes I make (any guy which ever tryied to write on a 3ds know how horrible it is...) but, well, I hope you still understand me, at least a little...

[Yellow Yellow Red]

I've wondered, are you typing in English? or via a translator?

Well, I suspected that my english was bad, but I never tought it was at the point people could think that it's just machine translation...
Still, to answer your question, I'm the majority of the time on a 3ds which may explain some mistakes I make (any guy which ever tryied to write on a 3ds know how horrible it is...) but, well, I hope you still understand me, at least a little...

Your English is understandable and good, just a few minor errors here and there that don't particularly interfere with understanding the post. I think I notice it most with the past tenses. But hey - I've spent the better part of 12 years or so studying French and I still sometimes use the wrong past tense from time to time! French and English past tenses don't always line up well, sadly.

[Constantinopolis]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been to an Eastern Catholic service? Since they shamelessly copy follow more or less the same liturgical rites as the Orthodox, I'd imagine they would be a natural home for the more traditionalist-minded Catholics.

It's not really 'shameless copying' given that the Eastern Catholics used to be Orthodox, and were allowed to keep their customs when they regained communion with Rome.

Incidentally, my graduation mass was actually performed by a bishop of the Eastern Rite. Saskatchewan has a large population of Ukrainians and quite a few Eastern Rite Catholics as well. We also have several Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in my city. I've always found their architecture interesting.

The "shameless copying" thing was only a joke, of course. I was referencing the fact that Eastern Catholics are sometimes seen as "pretending to be Orthodox" according to some less-charitable Orthodox views.

The similarity between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parish churches can be so great that there are places in Western Ukraine where, if you're coming from out of town, you'll have no idea whether the local church is Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. I have been told by a Ukrainian friend that there are some people who are not even sure if they themselves are Orthodox or Eastern Catholic (granted, he was talking about people who only attend church once or twice a year). Because of this confusion, many Orthodox would actually prefer Eastern Catholic rites to become at least a little bit more Latinized, so that we could more clearly tell the difference without having to look around the church to see if there's a picture of the Pope somewhere.

I knew about the large Ukrainian population in Saskatchewan, but that's really interesting to hear about your graduation Mass! Was it an Eastern Rite Mass (= Divine Liturgy), then? I assume not...

Are the Ukrainian Orthodox churches in your city still distinctly Ukrainian in their membership, or are they becoming more generic Orthodox parishes attended by people from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds? That is happening more and more across North America, to a lot of churches that were originally founded by distinct immigrant communities. I think it's a very good thing.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

It's not really 'shameless copying' given that the Eastern Catholics used to be Orthodox, and were allowed to keep their customs when they regained communion with Rome.

Incidentally, my graduation mass was actually performed by a bishop of the Eastern Rite. Saskatchewan has a large population of Ukrainians and quite a few Eastern Rite Catholics as well. We also have several Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in my city. I've always found their architecture interesting.

The "shameless copying" thing was only a joke, of course. I was referencing the fact that Eastern Catholics are sometimes seen as "pretending to be Orthodox" according to some less-charitable Orthodox views.

The similarity between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parish churches can be so great that there are places in Western Ukraine where, if you're coming from out of town, you'll have no idea whether the local church is Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. I have been told by a Ukrainian friend that there are some people who are not even sure if they themselves are Orthodox or Eastern Catholic (granted, he was talking about people who only attend church once or twice a year). Because of this confusion, many Orthodox would actually prefer Eastern Catholic rites to become at least a little bit more Latinized, so that we could more clearly tell the difference without having to look around the church to see if there's a picture of the Pope somewhere.

I knew about the large Ukrainian population in Saskatchewan, but that's really interesting to hear about your graduation Mass! Was it an Eastern Rite Mass (= Divine Liturgy), then? I assume not...

Are the Ukrainian Orthodox churches in your city still distinctly Ukrainian in their membership, or are they becoming more generic Orthodox parishes attended by people from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds? That is happening more and more across North America, to a lot of churches that were originally founded by distinct immigrant communities. I think it's a very good thing.

No, I don't think the mass was in the Eastern Rite, it seemed to be the same as any other I'd attended, only the Bishop was all Orthodox looking

To be completely honest, I don't know much about the format of Mass, my family does not attend as my parents are lapsed Christians, and my dad isn't Catholic.

I'm not sure about the ethnic composition of the Orthodox Churches here. I've never been inside one, though we were supposed to have a field trip to one in Grade 12 Christianity class, but we never got to because there was a water main break that took away a week of school. That was the only time I was ever upset at missing school! We only got to see a synagogue instead of the places of worship of many religions. We were supposed to see a Buddhist temple, an Orthodox church, and an Islamic mosque, and there might have been more that I'm forgetting, perhaps a Protestant church too.

And we also missed the unit about occultism, we would have gotten to see an exorcist present! I actually stayed after class once and watched a video taken at the school in the 80s where the local exorcist did a presentation, it was like something out of a movie. He had an awesome European accent, a gnarled wooden cane, all black robes, a big iron cross, it was so cool!

[Yellow Yellow Red]

It's not really 'shameless copying' given that the Eastern Catholics used to be Orthodox, and were allowed to keep their customs when they regained communion with Rome.

Incidentally, my graduation mass was actually performed by a bishop of the Eastern Rite. Saskatchewan has a large population of Ukrainians and quite a few Eastern Rite Catholics as well. We also have several Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in my city. I've always found their architecture interesting.

The "shameless copying" thing was only a joke, of course. I was referencing the fact that Eastern Catholics are sometimes seen as "pretending to be Orthodox" according to some less-charitable Orthodox views.

The similarity between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parish churches can be so great that there are places in Western Ukraine where, if you're coming from out of town, you'll have no idea whether the local church is Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. I have been told by a Ukrainian friend that there are some people who are not even sure if they themselves are Orthodox or Eastern Catholic (granted, he was talking about people who only attend church once or twice a year). Because of this confusion, many Orthodox would actually prefer Eastern Catholic rites to become at least a little bit more Latinized, so that we could more clearly tell the difference without having to look around the church to see if there's a picture of the Pope somewhere.

I knew about the large Ukrainian population in Saskatchewan, but that's really interesting to hear about your graduation Mass! Was it an Eastern Rite Mass (= Divine Liturgy), then? I assume not...

Are the Ukrainian Orthodox churches in your city still distinctly Ukrainian in their membership, or are they becoming more generic Orthodox parishes attended by people from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds? That is happening more and more across North America, to a lot of churches that were originally founded by distinct immigrant communities. I think it's a very good thing.

Evidently the Serbian diaspora hasn't got that message! The only Orthodox parish I've ever felt unwelcome in was a Serbian Orthodox Parish. But I understand that, given their history both as a people and a diaspora that they might want to cling to their ethnic identity and homogeneity as tightly as they can.

[Consumer Regulated Donuts]

Just checked back after a few days. An extended thanks to the guidance you all have provided for me. It's nice knowing the group on here cares so much.

I will TG you guys if I have any updates or need anything else on that subject now.

[Czechanada]

Religions survive because they're able to adapt.

The church stood her ground during the Protestant Reformation and everything else. I came to Traditional Catholicism because I was attracted to steadfastness. I already tried many forums of Protestantism, and found that the Novus Ordo or the Mass that is said at the great majority of parishes to be just like Protestantism. I did not like. It felt like appeasement. I would rather have the Church stand for what it truly believes, and if this means being having mass excommunication or the faithful leaving because they can't be a "Eucharistic minister". Fuck, I did not even know that the Church believed that the Eucharist is literally Jesus until I went to a Traditionalist Catholic Parish.
There is modernization and then there is changing the very way you pray to appease others. Fuck that shit.

Edit: During my years at Catholic School, they did not once tell us that the Church believed the Eucharist was Jesus.

Why not consider Miaphysite Christianity? The Coptic Church stood its ground during the Council of Chalcedon. I mean, Chacedon is much older and more earthshaking than the Reformation.

[Constantinopolis]

Why not consider Miaphysite Christianity? The Coptic Church stood its ground during the Council of Chalcedon. I mean, Chacedon is much older and more earthshaking than the Reformation.

Older, yes. Politically earthshaking, yes. But theologically... there's barely a hair separating the two positions.

The "shameless copying" thing was only a joke, of course. I was referencing the fact that Eastern Catholics are sometimes seen as "pretending to be Orthodox" according to some less-charitable Orthodox views.

The similarity between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parish churches can be so great that there are places in Western Ukraine where, if you're coming from out of town, you'll have no idea whether the local church is Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. I have been told by a Ukrainian friend that there are some people who are not even sure if they themselves are Orthodox or Eastern Catholic (granted, he was talking about people who only attend church once or twice a year). Because of this confusion, many Orthodox would actually prefer Eastern Catholic rites to become at least a little bit more Latinized, so that we could more clearly tell the difference without having to look around the church to see if there's a picture of the Pope somewhere.

I knew about the large Ukrainian population in Saskatchewan, but that's really interesting to hear about your graduation Mass! Was it an Eastern Rite Mass (= Divine Liturgy), then? I assume not...

Are the Ukrainian Orthodox churches in your city still distinctly Ukrainian in their membership, or are they becoming more generic Orthodox parishes attended by people from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds? That is happening more and more across North America, to a lot of churches that were originally founded by distinct immigrant communities. I think it's a very good thing.

No, I don't think the mass was in the Eastern Rite, it seemed to be the same as any other I'd attended, only the Bishop was all Orthodox looking

To be completely honest, I don't know much about the format of Mass, my family does not attend as my parents are lapsed Christians, and my dad isn't Catholic.

I'm not sure about the ethnic composition of the Orthodox Churches here. I've never been inside one, though we were supposed to have a field trip to one in Grade 12 Christianity class, but we never got to because there was a water main break that took away a week of school. That was the only time I was ever upset at missing school! We only got to see a synagogue instead of the places of worship of many religions. We were supposed to see a Buddhist temple, an Orthodox church, and an Islamic mosque, and there might have been more that I'm forgetting, perhaps a Protestant church too.

And we also missed the unit about occultism, we would have gotten to see an exorcist present! I actually stayed after class once and watched a video taken at the school in the 80s where the local exorcist did a presentation, it was like something out of a movie. He had an awesome European accent, a gnarled wooden cane, all black robes, a big iron cross, it was so cool!

Oh, if the Mass seemed in any way similar to others you've attended, then it was definitely not in the Eastern Rite. If it had been, you would know.

It sucks that you missed that field trip to an Orthodox church... but you could always go on your own! Although your first concern should probably be to find a Catholic parish to attend on a regular basis. You mentioned your parents do not go to church, but you obviously wish to, so would it be possible for you to simply go on your own? Surely they wouldn't object, right? Unless distance is an issue (for example if you can only get to a church by car, and you can't use the family car)...

Are the Ukrainian Orthodox churches in your city still distinctly Ukrainian in their membership, or are they becoming more generic Orthodox parishes attended by people from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds? That is happening more and more across North America, to a lot of churches that were originally founded by distinct immigrant communities. I think it's a very good thing.

Evidently the Serbian diaspora hasn't got that message! The only Orthodox parish I've ever felt unwelcome in was a Serbian Orthodox Parish. But I understand that, given their history both as a people and a diaspora that they might want to cling to their ethnic identity and homogeneity as tightly as they can.

Hmm... You're the second person I've heard complain about a cold attitude in a Serbian Orthodox parish in the diaspora... So yes, I guess there are some issues with that.

On the other hand, the Serbian Patriarchate has established an unusually large number of Orthodox monasteries in North America ("unusually large" compared to the small Serbian Orthodox presence in America, I mean), and the ones I know about are entirely English-speaking and not really ethnic Serbian at all. For example, there is St. Paisius Monastery in Arizona, which has published some very beautiful music.

But, of course, monasteries and parish churches are two different things.

[Yellow Yellow Red]

Evidently the Serbian diaspora hasn't got that message! The only Orthodox parish I've ever felt unwelcome in was a Serbian Orthodox Parish. But I understand that, given their history both as a people and a diaspora that they might want to cling to their ethnic identity and homogeneity as tightly as they can.

Hmm... You're the second person I've heard complain about a cold attitude in a Serbian Orthodox parish in the diaspora... So yes, I guess there are some issues with that.

On the other hand, the Serbian Patriarchate has established an unusually large number of Orthodox monasteries in North America ("unusually large" compared to the small Serbian Orthodox presence in America, I mean), and the ones I know about are entirely English-speaking and not really ethnic Serbian at all. For example, there is St. Paisius Monastery in Arizona, which has published some very beautiful music.

But, of course, monasteries and parish churches are two different things.

Location might play a role, too, being in a city with a lot of Serbian immigrants they form close knit communities. When there are tens of thousands in a fairly small area (small area by US standards, at least) it's easier to maintain a sort of homogeneity within the parish, I suppose.

[Constantinopolis]

I've wondered, are you typing in English? or via a translator?

Well, I suspected that my english was bad, but I never tought it was at the point people could think that it's just machine translation...
Still, to answer your question, I'm the majority of the time on a 3ds which may explain some mistakes I make (any guy which ever tryied to write on a 3ds know how horrible it is...) but, well, I hope you still understand me, at least a little...

Moi, je comprends tout, y compris les mots en français. Ne t'inquiéte pas. C'est probablement à cause de ces mots que Tarsonis pensait que tu utilises peut-être une... heu... comment dit-on? Traduction automatique?

Really, your English is good. You shouldn't feel self-conscious about it. There are many native English speakers who are a lot harder to understand.

Well, first of all, as others have said, you really do not need to make an attempt to pray in Latin. That was never a common pratice for private prayer, even when Latin was the liturgical language of Roman Catholic church services. The Mass was in Latin, but people prayed in their own language at home.

But also - correct me if I'm wrong - aren't you of Syrian or Lebanese heritage? If so, there is an ancient and beautiful liturgical language within your own heritage that you could use: Syriac. I don't see any reason to pray in a special liturgical language, as I said, but if you wish to do that, I would say Syriac is better than Latin. It is, after all, very close to the language spoken by Christ Himself.

I'm not sure if there are any online resources for learning Syriac prayers (I assume there must be), but I do know a few YouTube videos that can help. For example this one:

Abun D'Bashmayo (Our Father)

Second, as to the question of how to pray and what to say in your prayers... I actually find myself somewhat agreeing with Efraim-Judah (shockingly enough). A prayer book really helps. I have several Orthodox prayer books myself. I'm sure there must be Catholic ones you could find at local churches or stores.

Prayer books typically include a comprehensive list of prayers for most common occasions. You can start by simply reading the relevant ones out loud - in the Orthodox tradition it is customary to do so in front of an icon, and/or a set of lit candles - and after a while you will memorize words or phrases (or maybe even complete prayers). Then, later, you will get used to the general literary style of a prayer, and you will be able to make up your own prayers, in the same style, more or less on the spot.

Thanks to everyone for their answers!
And thanks Constantinopolis or all the documentation!
And yep, you're right, I'm of Syrian descent, and even if Syriac seem to be one hell of a complicated languag;, I have heard it (used religiously) in a Maronite church one time at the bapteme of one of my cousin, and it was really beautiful to hear and really solemn, in a good way, so, I guess I'll try to learn one or two prayers in it. ^^
Also, thanks a lot for the tips about prayers books 'cause even if I have two of them and that I read them from time to time, I never thought of actually using them for their first purpose!
With all that, I guess I'll try to pray a little this night, before going to sleep...

You are most welcome! I'm glad I helped.

By the way, here are some other Syriac prayers I found:

Shlom Lekh (a prayer to the Mother of God)
Sogdinan La'Slibo (a hymn of the Cross)

Actually, the person who uploaded them has an entire channel dedicated to Syriac hymns...
(if you couldn't tell, I enjoy searching YouTube for religious music in various languages - and foreign language music in general, for that matter )

I'm also glad to hear that you already have two prayer books; I hope you found them helpful!

Syriac is simply the best-known and best-recorded dialect of Middle Aramaic; it shouldn't be too difficult to pick up if you already speak Arabic. Vocabulary differences aside, the main grammatical difference between the two is that Arabic uses 'broken plurals' (ie, Arabic masculine non-human nouns typically pluralise by changing the vowels inside and around the root consonant cluster) whereas Aramaic exclusively uses suffixes to form plurals.

Well, sadly, even if I'm of Syrian descent, I don't know arabic because when my grand-father come to France, he choosed to assimilate rather than just integrate, and thus didn't taught Arab to his sons (my father included) and even forbidden them to learn it on their own.
Still, I have some very littles bases on Arabic I learned from some of my Tunisians/Algerians friends which let me speak one or two words, but not really more.
However, strangely, I still can understand the "point/subject" of a conversation even if I can't understand what people are saying, but well, it seem to be a rather usual thing...

You know, this might seem like a random connection, but you reminded me of the time when I read Isaac Asimov's autobiography. He talked about how his parents refused to teach him Russian, despite his wish to learn it, because they wanted him to be purely American. He was still upset about that, half a century later.

I don't understand why immigrant parents do that sort of thing. What's wrong with teaching your children both languages? Growing up bilingual actually helps with brain development and learning in general!

Now, unfortunately, it might be difficult for you to learn Arabic (or Syriac) if you only speak Indo-European languages like French and English... but maybe at least a few prayers and phrases...

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Oh, if the Mass seemed in any way similar to others you've attended, then it was definitely not in the Eastern Rite. If it had been, you would know.

It sucks that you missed that field trip to an Orthodox church... but you could always go on your own! Although your first concern should probably be to find a Catholic parish to attend on a regular basis. You mentioned your parents do not go to church, but you obviously wish to, so would it be possible for you to simply go on your own? Surely they wouldn't object, right? Unless distance is an issue (for example if you can only get to a church by car, and you can't use the family car)...

My parents are sort of antagonistic toward organized religion, so I'm not really comfortable talking to them about it.

When I have independence, I intend to try and be a better Catholic.

[Constantinopolis]

Oh, if the Mass seemed in any way similar to others you've attended, then it was definitely not in the Eastern Rite. If it had been, you would know.

It sucks that you missed that field trip to an Orthodox church... but you could always go on your own! Although your first concern should probably be to find a Catholic parish to attend on a regular basis. You mentioned your parents do not go to church, but you obviously wish to, so would it be possible for you to simply go on your own? Surely they wouldn't object, right? Unless distance is an issue (for example if you can only get to a church by car, and you can't use the family car)...

My parents are sort of antagonistic toward organized religion, so I'm not really comfortable talking to them about it.

When I have independence, I intend to try and be a better Catholic.

Hmmm... I see the problem.

There are some churches that hold Mass at times other than Sunday morning, however, so perhaps you could try going to one of them - not on a weekly basis, of course, but every once in a while - and just tell your parents you're heading out for a couple of hours? A lot depends on what they're like, of course (I remember my parents rarely asked questions when I told them I was heading out during the day, but others are different). And you probably don't want to talk about details like that on an internet forum.

[Nova Anglicana]

With regards to the "what do you consider Anglicanism to be" question a couple of pages back:

As a member of the Anglican Communion, I don't think about whether we are Catholic or Protestant, really. We are who we are, and I think that we cannot be easily placed in either category, though the description "catholic and reformed" has been used in the past and is appropriate. Note that neither catholic nor reformed are capitalized. I have respect for both Catholics and Protestants (though it saddens me that Catholics refuse to eat with us at the Lord's Table and that some Protestant groups insist that Catholics are not Christians and that churches like the Anglican Church have gone astray) and offer prayers for both the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople when we pray for the Church as a whole.

As to the Orthodox tradition, I did some research on Orthodox Churches a few years ago and found much the same as Constantinopolis, that at least in the US, churches were phyletist in their composition and organization, with seemingly every Balkan immigrant community having their own church. I can't speak to that in modern times, though I have non-Greek friends who are Greek Orthodox and visited an OCA parish (themselves an offshoot of Russian Orthodoxy, I believe) that was diverse in national origin. I hope that the various Orthodox churches become more integrated like the OCA, at least in the US.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

My parents are sort of antagonistic toward organized religion, so I'm not really comfortable talking to them about it.

When I have independence, I intend to try and be a better Catholic.

What sort of antagonism to they tend to display?

While I'm a staunch atheist, I definitely don't approve of parents trying to force atheism on their children.

[Angleter]

Time for another multi-reply...

The church stood her ground during the Protestant Reformation and everything else. I came to Traditional Catholicism because I was attracted to steadfastness.

If that is what you're after, you should really consider the Orthodox Church. The Traditionalist Catholics are silly modernists compared to us.

I mean, they think the 400-year-old Tridentine Mass - a product of the Counter-Reformation - is traditional. Ha! If it's not at least 1000 years old, it really shouldn't count as traditional, you know.

I appreciate that's not an entirely serious comment, but it's worth noting that the Tridentine Mass was a standardisation (with minor revisions) of the existing pre-Tridentine Roman Rite, which due to local traditions and differences between manuscripts and suchlike had taken different forms in different areas (and it was feared that were that situation to be allowed to continue, Protestant liturgical customs would be introduced to the Mass in various parts of Latin Christendom). The idea that the Tridentine Mass was invented out of thin air in 1570 and that the REAL TRADITIONAL MASS, i.e. X variation of the pre-Tridentine Mass at X point in time, was just like a particularly liberal Novus Ordo is a common trope among opponents of Summorum Pontificum and proponents of, well, particularly liberal presentations of the Novus Ordo.

It actually varies parish to parish. Here, where I am, St. Elizabeth's does a mix of the guitar Mass. Sacred Heart, back home, is very traditional Mass.

...guitar Mass?? That sounds horrible. How does that even work...? I mean, the text of the Mass is fully standardized and universal, right? So is it just a matter of using different musical instruments for the same songs and chants as elsewhere? Or is it a matter of using the standard text as lyrics for different kinds of music, depending on the parish?

I think we may have found one area in which the Catholic Church is less centralized than the Orthodox Church (!)... Orthodox parishes not only have to all use the same standard text of the Divine Liturgy (obviously), but there are also standard melodies which must be used. The melodies sometimes differ from diocese to diocese (and they often differ from one autocephalous jurisdiction to another), but they are always decided by the bishop, not by individual parishes. I suppose an Orthodox parish could petition its bishop to allow the use of different melodies, but I've never heard of that happening.

In general, the Orthodox Church is very attached to the idea of liturgical uniformity, because that is how we express our unity. Administratively, we may be part of different autocephalous jurisdiction with different Patriarchs, but we are united in worship.

The chants (Gloria, Credo, etc.) and propers (Alleluia/Tract before the Gospel, etc.) are standard texts that can be set to music, as it always has been in the Roman Rite (as far as I know), and then there's the hymns. Each parish can decide what hymns to play (if any) and what music to set (if any) at each Mass. And yes, the standard texts are meant to be standard, but there are some liberal parishes (and Mass settings - "peace on Earth") that sometimes decide to do their own thing instead. But how can we expect our bishops to take the time stamping that sort of thing out, when parishes are *gasp* putting the tabernacle inside the sanctuary! Like it was in those mystical times called "before 1970"!

I'm half in that boat. I like some of Vatican II, but I'm willing to screw over the whole of Catholicism just so I can sit in a Latin Mass.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been to an Eastern Catholic service? Since they shamelessly copy follow more or less the same liturgical rites as the Orthodox, I'd imagine they would be a natural home for the more traditionalist-minded Catholics.

There are, from what I can ascertain on the Internet, a fair few trads, mostly in America, who routinely go to Eastern Catholic services, usually because they can't find a TLM (or a Novus Ordo they can tolerate) near enough to them. I can't speak to Tarsonis, but I've never been to an Eastern Catholic service - they aren't as common in Britain as in America, presumably since America has had more Eastern Catholic immigration, and I'm not lacking for a tolerable Novus Ordo or, if I could be arsed to drag myself out of bed before 7.30am on a Sunday, a TLM. I'd love to attend one some day, though.

Just asking, are there any Traditionalist Catholics on this thread?

When I mean Traditionalist Catholic, I mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic

I'm sort of one, and I'm certainly 'tradition-friendly'. I believe Vatican II is compatible with Tradition (hermeneutic of continuity, etc.), and I think there's a need for more charitable language regarding gay people, etc., while most trads, in my experience, don't; but I do think the state of the Church right now is disgraceful, and that some of the comments made by bishops and even the current Pope ("we don't want to convert [insert religious group here]") are a bit, er, iffy. And I don't particularly mind the SSPX. But then again, though I prefer the TLM (when comparing like-for-like) and would be very happy to see it restored to at least co-equal status with the Novus Ordo, I believe the Novus Ordo is valid and I'm more than comfortable with going to one routinely - if the Novus Ordo is more convenient, more solemn (the dearth of EF High Masses is very unfortunate), and adequately 'reform of the reform', I'll go to that.

[Dangelia]

This is mostly intended for my Orthodox friends out here. Through dialogue, we've learned that the Oriental Orthodx are not Monophysites and in fact regard that teaching as heresy, preferring to call themselves miaphysites. It appears that Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy teach the same thing on the nature of Christ. However, EO regard Dioscorus as a heretic, while the OO regard him as a saint. Could it be possible that Dioscorus is in fact not a heretic and might even be added to our list of saints?

[Constantinopolis]

So, here's yet another multi-reply (the second one for today)!

This is mostly intended for my Orthodox friends out here. Through dialogue, we've learned that the Oriental Orthodx are not Monophysites and in fact regard that teaching as heresy, preferring to call themselves miaphysites. It appears that Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy teach the same thing on the nature of Christ. However, EO regard Dioscorus as a heretic, while the OO regard him as a saint. Could it be possible that Dioscorus is in fact not a heretic and might even be added to our list of saints?

That's... a thorny problem. In fact, it's basically the last major sticking point that continues to stand in the way of unity between us and the Oriental Churches: What do we do about Dioscorus and the others that are considered saints by one side but heretics by the other? If we decide that the "monophysite" schism was actually just a matter of misunderstanding, what about the major historical figures at the time who obviously didn't consider it a misunderstanding, but rather a massively important issue worth giving up your entire career over? If Dioscorus was just misunderstood, then he wasn't a heretic... but if he caused a schism in the Church over this misunderstanding, can he really be a saint, either?

If the whole thing was just a misunderstanding, then the passionate advocates on both sides - currently considered as either saints or heretics - end up looking... rather foolish, and neither heretical nor particularly saintly.

Unfortunately, it's hard to see how we can resolve this issue without seriously tarnishing the image of several people held as saints by one side or the other. So I don't have an answer...

With regards to the "what do you consider Anglicanism to be" question a couple of pages back:

As a member of the Anglican Communion, I don't think about whether we are Catholic or Protestant, really. We are who we are, and I think that we cannot be easily placed in either category, though the description "catholic and reformed" has been used in the past and is appropriate. Note that neither catholic nor reformed are capitalized. I have respect for both Catholics and Protestants (though it saddens me that Catholics refuse to eat with us at the Lord's Table and that some Protestant groups insist that Catholics are not Christians and that churches like the Anglican Church have gone astray) and offer prayers for both the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople when we pray for the Church as a whole.

Oh, I did not know about that last one (Anglican prayers for the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch, I mean). Thank you!

We also pray for "the unity of all Christians", although that is of course open to several interpretations.

As to the Orthodox tradition, I did some research on Orthodox Churches a few years ago and found much the same as Constantinopolis, that at least in the US, churches were phyletist in their composition and organization, with seemingly every Balkan immigrant community having their own church. I can't speak to that in modern times, though I have non-Greek friends who are Greek Orthodox and visited an OCA parish (themselves an offshoot of Russian Orthodoxy, I believe) that was diverse in national origin. I hope that the various Orthodox churches become more integrated like the OCA, at least in the US.

In terms of organization, 7 of the 14 overseas autocephalous Orthodox jurisdictions have "branches" in the United States (i.e. they have bishops and parishes there). 5 of them also have monasteries in the US. But while many of these parishes were indeed founded by immigrant communities and hold services in their respective languages, many others have little or no ethnic connections to the "Mother Church" overseas. For example, as I mentioned, there are quite a few "Serbian" Orthodox monasteries (i.e. monasteries belonging to the Serbian Patriarchate) which are entirely English-speaking and probably don't have any ethnic Serbs in them. Likewise there are "Greek" Orthodox parishes with few or no Greeks, and so on. The most advanced in this regard is the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese (belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch, based in Syria), which has a majority of its parishes in the US consisting mostly or entirely of American converts from various ethnic backgrounds. As a side note, I think it's very good that so many American Orthodox converts belong to the Patriarchate of Antioch, because this allows Arab Christian traditions to spread and become more widely known.

But, in addition to the above, there is also the OCA (Orthodox Church in America), which you've also mentioned. It originated as an American branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, but it was granted full autocephaly in the 1970s, and has made intentional efforts to turn itself into a culturally-American Orthodox jurisdiction. The vast majority of its members are converts (or, these days, the children of converts) from various ethnic backgrounds, and services are always entirely in English unless a given parish specifically requests otherwise. The last two metropolitans (head bishops) of the OCA have also been converts.

So basically, the bottom line is: In the United States, the OCA and the Antiochian Archdiocese are made up mostly of converts to Orthodoxy, while the other jurisdictions are made up mostly of immigrant communities (but have some converts as well).

Technically, according to the official canons of the Orthodox Church, all these separate organizations should merge into a single Orthodox jurisdiction for North America. And they've been in talks about how precisely to do this... for several decades now. They'll figure it out eventually.

If that is what you're after, you should really consider the Orthodox Church. The Traditionalist Catholics are silly modernists compared to us.

I mean, they think the 400-year-old Tridentine Mass - a product of the Counter-Reformation - is traditional. Ha! If it's not at least 1000 years old, it really shouldn't count as traditional, you know.

I appreciate that's not an entirely serious comment, but it's worth noting that the Tridentine Mass was a standardisation (with minor revisions) of the existing pre-Tridentine Roman Rite, which due to local traditions and differences between manuscripts and suchlike had taken different forms in different areas (and it was feared that were that situation to be allowed to continue, Protestant liturgical customs would be introduced to the Mass in various parts of Latin Christendom). The idea that the Tridentine Mass was invented out of thin air in 1570 and that the REAL TRADITIONAL MASS, i.e. X variation of the pre-Tridentine Mass at X point in time, was just like a particularly liberal Novus Ordo is a common trope among opponents of Summorum Pontificum and proponents of, well, particularly liberal presentations of the Novus Ordo.

Yes, I knew that the Tridentine Mass was mainly just a standardization of previous practice, in response to the chaos of the Reformation. My comment was mainly intended to be humorous.

But, as a side note, I'm just imagining how apocalyptic the situation must have looked from the perspective of the Catholic Church in the 16th century. Out of nowhere, in the space of just a few decades, all of Europe seemed to be engulfed by heresy. Not since the days of Arius had things looked so bleak. In the 4th century, St. Jerome famously said: "The whole world woke up one morning, lamenting and marvelling to find itself Arian." Well, now, in the 16th century, it seemed Europe woke up one morning to find itself Protestant.

...guitar Mass?? That sounds horrible. How does that even work...? I mean, the text of the Mass is fully standardized and universal, right? So is it just a matter of using different musical instruments for the same songs and chants as elsewhere? Or is it a matter of using the standard text as lyrics for different kinds of music, depending on the parish?

I think we may have found one area in which the Catholic Church is less centralized than the Orthodox Church (!)... Orthodox parishes not only have to all use the same standard text of the Divine Liturgy (obviously), but there are also standard melodies which must be used. The melodies sometimes differ from diocese to diocese (and they often differ from one autocephalous jurisdiction to another), but they are always decided by the bishop, not by individual parishes. I suppose an Orthodox parish could petition its bishop to allow the use of different melodies, but I've never heard of that happening.

In general, the Orthodox Church is very attached to the idea of liturgical uniformity, because that is how we express our unity. Administratively, we may be part of different autocephalous jurisdiction with different Patriarchs, but we are united in worship.

The chants (Gloria, Credo, etc.) and propers (Alleluia/Tract before the Gospel, etc.) are standard texts that can be set to music, as it always has been in the Roman Rite (as far as I know), and then there's the hymns. Each parish can decide what hymns to play (if any) and what music to set (if any) at each Mass. And yes, the standard texts are meant to be standard, but there are some liberal parishes (and Mass settings - "peace on Earth") that sometimes decide to do their own thing instead. But how can we expect our bishops to take the time stamping that sort of thing out, when parishes are *gasp* putting the tabernacle inside the sanctuary! Like it was in those mystical times called "before 1970"!

It's official, then: Orthodox liturgical practices are more centralized than Catholic ones. That's what I conclude from your statement that I have underlined in the quote above.

In the Orthodox Church, as I mentioned, individual parishes do not decide on the music. They also do not decide on the hymns. In fact, there is no way they possibly could. The only parts of the Divine Liturgy that change from week to week are (a) a few hymns that depend on the liturgical season, and (b) the hymns dedicated to the saints of the day. And, of course, it is the Church as a whole (i.e. the bishops) that decides which saints are commemorated on which day, and also appoints a set of two official hymns for each saint (the troparion and kontakion). There is no room for choices by individual parishes...

...except in one small respect. As you know, the list of saints of the day can get extremely long on most days. There is no way to chant all of their respective hymns, unless you wish to make the Divine Liturgy something like half an hour longer than normal just so you can do that. Therefore, typically only the hymns for two or three saints (or even just one) are chanted. So there is room for choice in picking which saints of the day to venerate in the Liturgy. But that's it. That's the only choice that can be made.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been to an Eastern Catholic service? Since they shamelessly copy follow more or less the same liturgical rites as the Orthodox, I'd imagine they would be a natural home for the more traditionalist-minded Catholics.

There are, from what I can ascertain on the Internet, a fair few trads, mostly in America, who routinely go to Eastern Catholic services, usually because they can't find a TLM (or a Novus Ordo they can tolerate) near enough to them. I can't speak to Tarsonis, but I've never been to an Eastern Catholic service - they aren't as common in Britain as in America, presumably since America has had more Eastern Catholic immigration, and I'm not lacking for a tolerable Novus Ordo or, if I could be arsed to drag myself out of bed before 7.30am on a Sunday, a TLM. I'd love to attend one some day, though.

And I'd love to help you find one! Except this time I don't know of any online resources that I could use... Eastern Catholics are rare enough as it is, so I suspect they don't have many parishes in the UK. But I will look into it, and maybe I can find something.

[Cannabis Islands]

Time for another multi-reply...

The church stood her ground during the Protestant Reformation and everything else. I came to Traditional Catholicism because I was attracted to steadfastness.

If that is what you're after, you should really consider the Orthodox Church. The Traditionalist Catholics are silly modernists compared to us.

I mean, they think the 400-year-old Tridentine Mass - a product of the Counter-Reformation - is traditional. Ha! If it's not at least 1000 years old, it really shouldn't count as traditional, you know.

It actually varies parish to parish. Here, where I am, St. Elizabeth's does a mix of the guitar Mass. Sacred Heart, back home, is very traditional Mass.

...guitar Mass?? That sounds horrible. How does that even work...? I mean, the text of the Mass is fully standardized and universal, right? So is it just a matter of using different musical instruments for the same songs and chants as elsewhere? Or is it a matter of using the standard text as lyrics for different kinds of music, depending on the parish?

I think we may have found one area in which the Catholic Church is less centralized than the Orthodox Church (!)... Orthodox parishes not only have to all use the same standard text of the Divine Liturgy (obviously), but there are also standard melodies which must be used. The melodies sometimes differ from diocese to diocese (and they often differ from one autocephalous jurisdiction to another), but they are always decided by the bishop, not by individual parishes. I suppose an Orthodox parish could petition its bishop to allow the use of different melodies, but I've never heard of that happening.

In general, the Orthodox Church is very attached to the idea of liturgical uniformity, because that is how we express our unity. Administratively, we may be part of different autocephalous jurisdiction with different Patriarchs, but we are united in worship.

I'm half in that boat. I like some of Vatican II, but I'm willing to screw over the whole of Catholicism just so I can sit in a Latin Mass.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been to an Eastern Catholic service? Since they shamelessly copy follow more or less the same liturgical rites as the Orthodox, I'd imagine they would be a natural home for the more traditionalist-minded Catholics.

Religions survive because they're able to adapt.

Eh, not necessarily. The last time we adapted, we were still celebrating the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia. Religions can also survive by making their beliefs and rituals the keystone of a people's cultural identity (or many peoples' cultural identities). It's what Judaism does, and it's also what Orthodox Christianity did - not once, but twice (there were a few centuries, before the mass conversions of "barbarian" nations, when Orthodox Christianity was synonymous with Romanitas, the Roman cultural identity; and a thousand years later, Orthodox Christianity became synonymous with the cultural identity of many different peoples under Turkish rule, as well as the Russian identity further north).

This new set up is pretty cool. I just checked my trends,....started out with low civil rights and political freedoms, and I had a booming economy. As I gave people more freedoms the economy tanked.

Perhaps Const is right.

"The frighteningly efficient Constantian economy, worth a remarkable 3,811 trillion socialist credits a year, is driven entirely by a combination of government and state-owned industry, with private enterprise illegal."

Of course I'm right.

I have always had great respect for the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox. Even if they have left-wing views, they don't let that effect the liturgy. I just fucking DON'T like guitar masses.In my opinion, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are by there very nature a refute of Evangelicalism. And personally, while I may dislike religion due to mainly personal reasons..., I still have a respect for Traditional Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but this respect does not extend to Evangelical Protestantism. I just have a hard time respecting sets of ideas that are based on purely on feelings of the heart rather than rationalized.

[Nova Anglicana]

Oh, I did not know about that last one (Anglican prayers for the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch, I mean). Thank you!

We also pray for "the unity of all Christians", although that is of course open to several interpretations.


In terms of organization, 7 of the 14 overseas autocephalous Orthodox jurisdictions have "branches" in the United States (i.e. they have bishops and parishes there). 5 of them also have monasteries in the US. But while many of these parishes were indeed founded by immigrant communities and hold services in their respective languages, many others have little or no ethnic connections to the "Mother Church" overseas. For example, as I mentioned, there are quite a few "Serbian" Orthodox monasteries (i.e. monasteries belonging to the Serbian Patriarchate) which are entirely English-speaking and probably don't have any ethnic Serbs in them. Likewise there are "Greek" Orthodox parishes with few or no Greeks, and so on. The most advanced in this regard is the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese (belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch, based in Syria), which has a majority of its parishes in the US consisting mostly or entirely of American converts from various ethnic backgrounds. As a side note, I think it's very good that so many American Orthodox converts belong to the Patriarchate of Antioch, because this allows Arab Christian traditions to spread and become more widely known.

But, in addition to the above, there is also the OCA (Orthodox Church in America), which you've also mentioned. It originated as an American branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, but it was granted full autocephaly in the 1970s, and has made intentional efforts to turn itself into a culturally-American Orthodox jurisdiction. The vast majority of its members are converts (or, these days, the children of converts) from various ethnic backgrounds, and services are always entirely in English unless a given parish specifically requests otherwise. The last two metropolitans (head bishops) of the OCA have also been converts.

So basically, the bottom line is: In the United States, the OCA and the Antiochian Archdiocese are made up mostly of converts to Orthodoxy, while the other jurisdictions are made up mostly of immigrant communities (but have some converts as well).

Technically, according to the official canons of the Orthodox Church, all these separate organizations should merge into a single Orthodox jurisdiction for North America. And they've been in talks about how precisely to do this... for several decades now. They'll figure it out eventually.

I should clarify. I, personally, in the time allotted for silent prayer after the prayer read aloud for the Church as a whole, pray for the Pope and the Patriarch. I imagine some others do as well, but I wouldn't call it standard practice.

And here's hoping the Orthodox in North America are better than most Christian groups at unification and find a way to come together and embrace their new parishioners.

[Angleter]

I appreciate that's not an entirely serious comment, but it's worth noting that the Tridentine Mass was a standardisation (with minor revisions) of the existing pre-Tridentine Roman Rite, which due to local traditions and differences between manuscripts and suchlike had taken different forms in different areas (and it was feared that were that situation to be allowed to continue, Protestant liturgical customs would be introduced to the Mass in various parts of Latin Christendom). The idea that the Tridentine Mass was invented out of thin air in 1570 and that the REAL TRADITIONAL MASS, i.e. X variation of the pre-Tridentine Mass at X point in time, was just like a particularly liberal Novus Ordo is a common trope among opponents of Summorum Pontificum and proponents of, well, particularly liberal presentations of the Novus Ordo.

Yes, I knew that the Tridentine Mass was mainly just a standardization of previous practice, in response to the chaos of the Reformation. My comment was mainly intended to be humorous.

But, as a side note, I'm just imagining how apocalyptic the situation must have looked from the perspective of the Catholic Church in the 16th century. Out of nowhere, in the space of just a few decades, all of Europe seemed to be engulfed by heresy. Not since the days of Arius had things looked so bleak. In the 4th century, St. Jerome famously said: "The whole world woke up one morning, lamenting and marvelling to find itself Arian." Well, now, in the 16th century, it seemed Europe woke up one morning to find itself Protestant.

It really was apoalyptic. In my first year at university, I studied the Spanish conquest of the Americas, and the genuine belief that the End Times were near (or already happening) was largely what motivated Franciscans and other monastic orders active in the Americas to baptise the natives en masse, usually with little to no catechesis (although the fact that they were dying off at a rate of knots thanks to various European diseases was also a factor), so as to fulfil the prophecy of Matthew 24:14. Luther, and later on, whoever the loudest Protestant leader du jour was, was commonly considered the Antichrist (while the Protestants, of course, reserved that accolade for the incumbent Pope). It took until the last few decades of the 16th century for everyone to realise that the end of the world was not in sight - and with that, Spanish monks stopped baptising natives (who were still dying off at a rate of knots) so zealously and came to realise that they'd created entire nations of nominal Christians who were still venerating huacas or who equated St. Thomas with Quetzalcoatl.

[Constantinopolis]

I have always had great respect for the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox. Even if they have left-wing views, they don't let that effect the liturgy.

Well, that's certainly true. Indeed, take me for example: I'm a communist, for pete's sake. I want to confiscate all the property of the capitalists, fully nationalize the means of production, and have an entirely state-owned planned economy. And I support Leninist strategies for achieving these goals.

But when it comes to the liturgy, or indeed any aspect of the faith, whether it's a matter of theology or a matter of worship, I'm an arch-traditionalist. Thou shalt not mess with the Church. And thou shalt certainly not change liturgical practices willy-nilly, just to be "modern" or for other nonsensical reasons like that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This new set up is pretty cool. I just checked my trends,....started out with low civil rights and political freedoms, and I had a booming economy. As I gave people more freedoms the economy tanked.

Perhaps Const is right.

My nation likes to disagree.