www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Church Architecture

RCG,

My point is that your orginial post seems to suggest an ultramontane viewpoint that creates difficulties to those of us who are Orthodox. Cardinal Mahoney and most bishops want to destroy the priesthood? If that is true and conciliarity is true, then the Catholic Church has no grace.

Axios

Axios,


I am not suggestion that the whole Church wants to destroy itself but rather many Liberal Bishops and Priest. The difference is that the Holy Father is the head of the Church and He does not share the opinion of Cardinal Mahoney. Therefore, the Church has grace.

God Bless!

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: aRomanCatholicGuy ]

As posted above: "In addition, since you are an advocate of Homosexuality which is against the teachings of Orthodoxy then you stand outside of Orthodoxy. Therefore, you opinions of Catholic/Orthodox relations are not relevant."

The Lord said: "Judge not, lest you yourselves be judged." Where does this attitude come from of saying "you don't believe what you're supposed to, therefore you are irrelevant (=don't exist)" That seems to me to be judgementalism of the highest order.

Further: "I do not mean this statement as a personal offense against you. Please forgive me if you take it as such."

Sounds to me like: please pardon the bullet I just fired into your heart because I think you don't have the privilege of believing differently, and you are therefore outside the community of the faithful.

What bothers me intensely is the fact that the notion of "liberal" is being used as the touchstone for salvation. IF anyone should DARE to suggest anything that is not compatible with 1920s Catholicism, then that person is automatically damnable.

If anyone wishes to even discuss ideas of interpersonal/sexual relations, the role of the laity in the Church, the real role of women in the Church - beyond the 'take care of the kids' and 'do the bake sale' syndrome, 'ecumenism', the notions of liturgical practice, the understanding of 'sacraments' and 'sacramentals', and the "place" of the Eastern Churches in relationship to Rome, then obviously this is an attack on the "traditions" of the Roman Catholic Church. And the proponents of these discussions are therefore not only suspect, but are probably crypto-heretics or minimally 'schismatics'. And therefore, as dismissable as Job's dunghill.

Well, I am not just going to roll over and play dead. 'Tradition' does not mean fossilization. It means being faithful to the principles (NOT the so-called 'ancient' practices) of the Church. And, as an Eastern Christian, I don't like to be told what I can or cannot discuss within our Church. And I particularly resent it when it is implied that my salvation depends upon adherence to the principles (or worse: the practices) of the Roman Catholic community. This is arrogance pure and simple, and an affront to the non-Roman-Catholic members of the Catholic Church.

The Holy Father himself (May the Lord keep him upon his See for many years!!) and the Council of ALL the bishops of the Church have told us that the non-Roman Catholic community MUST remain faithful to their own traditions of being Churches. And if it contradicts what the RC community believes and practices, then we are to do what we need to do - regardless. THAT is Catholicity.

And as for our Orthodox brethren, including our brother known as Axios, we are to love and respect them as our brothers and sisters in Christ. And we are to hear them, try to understand what they say, and always LOVE them as our brothers and sisters. And never dismiss them as 'irrelevant'. To do so is, in my perspective, a confessible sin, for it demonstrates an unacceptable judgementalism against the brethren.

I suspect that many 'traditional' Roman Catholics have a real problem with us Eastern Catholics because we are the 'queers' of the Church; and a real serious problem with the 'schismatic' Orthodox because they not only don't 'toe the line' of Roman praxis, but also don't subordinate themselves to the (in my opinion: distorted) understanding of the role of St. Peter.

If one folows the 'traditionalist' RC perspective, then there is no hope that the outside-the-church crowd can ever become united with the Catholic Church unless they just subject themselves to whatever the RC in-crowd determines is the 'right' understanding. For the more 'liberal' crowd, there is a willingness to talk about issues and to come to understandings of what we believe (doctrinally) and how we are structured (ecclesiologically). And there is hope of bringing Christ's body together again as He demanded of us.

Being 'stiff-necked' in terms of our inter-ecclesial relationships is not a virtue.

I pray that all of our baptized brethren will find the humility to come together in love and common prayer to serve the Lord.

Christ is Risen!!!!

Dr. John,

Thnak you for your post. When I have a chance to fully digest and reflect on it, I'll try to express my appreciation. Did I miss something that was temporarily posted?


RCG,

When you write:


Here you create a great difficulty for Orthodoxy. I think ecumencial minded Orthodox can have an open mind about some form of Petrine Ministry. However, what closes the door to Catholic -Orthodox dialogue is not so much the proposal of a Petrine Minsitry but a rejection by Catholicism of the authority of the college of bishops. If, as you say, a large portion of the college of bishops lacks grace, and the grace of the church is not preserved by the orthodoxy of the episcopate but only by the Pope, we ahve set back Catholic-Orthodox dialogue significantly.

Axios

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Dear Dr. John,

Yes, sir!

As for liberals, I have nothing against them.

When it comes to liberals in the Church, I see them as having their own Rites that should be respected as they can be very Particular!

Alex

Dear Dr. John,

Amen! Well said.

I missed the original posting of the quote that you responded to. Perhaps a senior moment!

I trust that sooner or later the attitude that you ascribe to some traditionalists will be transformed into an appreciation of the beauty of what the East can share with us in the West.

Until then, where did I put that copy of the proof that the Earth is the center of the Solar system? It, too, was once traditional teaching commonly held! It was once strange, even heretical, to think that the Earth moves around the Sun.

Perhaps some of what we hold as tradition today will share the same fate as that teaching. It seems likely that will happen as we learn more about what gifts God has given us.

Until those "traditions" that aren't part of Tradition and the attendant traditional ways of thinking change, thanks for reminding us of the Law of Love.

Steve

"Yes, sir!

As for liberals, I have nothing against them.

When it comes to liberals in the Church, I see them as having their own Rites that should be respected as they can be very Particular!

Alex "


Dear Alex,

As always, thank God for humor. Thank you for sharing your sense of it here.

I just wanted to run something by you.

Imagine this, liberals and conservatives and middle of the roaders in the same Heaven!

Do you think this idea provides support for the notion that God has a sense of humor too? Maybe we will have a traditional teaching about it in the future. It might help us to look at our traditions and the ideas of others in a slightly different way.

Actually, there is a shrine here that honors Our Lady of the Smile! I kid you not.

The architecture of the shrine, I am afraid, would not make all of those posting in this thread happy campers, though.

Steve

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Love to all of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Axios

And with thy spirit, Axios.

Dr John,

I strongly disagree with your comments and hopefully this weekend I will be able to respond to them.

Your Friend In Christ!
Ray

Ray,

As far as I can tell, since Dr. John's statement was in response to comments you made about me, but then decide to retract, I think you should feel no burdensome obligation to respond. I think we all consider the whole matter dropped.

Best wishes for a restful weekend.

Axios

Dr. John,

You said, �What bothers me intensely is the fact that the notion of "liberal" is being used as the touchstone for salvation. IF anyone should DARE to suggest anything that is not compatible with 1920s Catholicism, then that person is automatically damnable.�

In fact I am not speaking of the 1920s Catholicism but rather the Norms of the Church today! The USA Catholic Bishops fail miserably to follow there own Liturgical Norms. For example, according to the Latin Churches GIRM Ibid., no. 295: "The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, the word of God is proclaimed, and the priest, deacon and other ministers exercise their offices. It should clearly be marked off from the body of the church either by being somewhat elevated or by its distinctive design and appointments. It should be large enough to allow for the proper celebration of the Eucharist which should be easily seen."

Churches like St. Mary�s in Rockledge Florida and the Milwaukee Cathedral do not follow the Churches guidelines for proper places of worship. Further, they act as houses which divide rather than unite. The Bishops which recklessly waste parishioners money on such buildings only act to further harm the faithful and place further barriers to there spiritual development. One which has a clear conscience can not conclude that these buildings are for the benefit of the community. In fact, in some communities the Non-Catholics has ask city officials to forbid such house of worship because they deem them as �Ugly� and threaten to reduce there property value (Illinois).
Therefore, calling on the US Catholic Bishops to construct churches which reflect the GIRM is not what I would call �fossilization� as you put it. Simply wanting the Bishop in the United States to follow the rules laid down by the whole church I think is neither a conservative or �tradition� but rather following faithful to Mother Church.
The Church has always said and she continues to say how important the special role of the Priesthood is to the Church,
Pope John Paul II, "For a parish to have a priest as its own pastor is of fundamental importance. The title of pastor is one specifically reserved to the priest. The Sacred Orders of priesthood represent, in fact, for (the priest) the indispensable and necessary condition to be appointed as a valid pastor. Other faithful may actively collaborate with him, even full time, but, as he has received the ministerial priesthood, they can never take his place as pastor.�
This is why the Church building reflects the hierarchal structure of Mother Church.
GIRM 16 �The celebration of Mass, the action of Christ and the people of God arrayed hierarchically, is for the Church universal and local as well as for each of the faithful the center of the whole Christian life.�
When you hear of Bishops which want to destroy this Church hierarchy and adamantly refuse to follow Vatican orders it makes an individual wonder about such motives. Case in point, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles:
"What some refer to as a 'vocations crisis' is, rather, one of the many fruits of the Second Vatican Council, a sign of God's deep love for the Church, and an invitation to a more creative and effective ordering of gifts and energy in the Body of Christ."
In addition, the Vatican response to the Milwaukee Cathedral Renovation in which is stated,
�...it would seem to this congregation that the ancient and venerable high altar together with its baldachin should be retained, given also that it is a most suitable location for the reservation of the Most Blessed Sacrament."
So why did the Vatican want the high altar �retained�? Because, it properly reflects Church theology where as this new design lessens the importance of the priest and diminishes the hierarchal structure of the Church. Clearly this new �Modernist� design is neither Catholic nor Christian!
So, I say to you Dr. John I have clearly proven my point on the importance of this new phenomena which is sweeping through the Church. Further, I have shown that the Bishops which make such decisions have alternative motives which do not reflect the position of Rome.
Axios,
If this was happing in the Orthodox Church I am afraid the Bishops would simply ex-communicate each other furthering the Orthodox divide. In which case you are correct that these state of affairs would harm Catholic / Orthodox relations because of the failure of Rome to ex-communicate certain US Bishops. Clearly Rome has taking a tolerance stance.

God Bless
Ray

Ray,


You quote GIRM Norms(GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE ROMAN MISSEL). Every word there is a qualifier. It is a secondary document, the Roman Missel being the primary document. They are norms or instruction, not law. They are general, in need of adaptation to particular circumstances.

And with all of that they are very vague. "Clearly marked off from the body of the church either by being somewhat elevated or by its distinctive design and appointments."

It just tortures the English language to say no rational person could read that other than a condemnation of the Milwaukee Cathedral to the point that it is "neither Catholic nor Christian."

I would agree with you when you say "Bishops which recklessly waste parishioners money..." I do think Catholicism would benefit from following the Orthodox practice of giving parish councils a definative vote on all parish contruction and expenditures. If these changes are not supported by the elected Council, this is wrong.

But saying Vatican bureaucrats must decide all these matters, for us Orthodox, is simply an assult on our notions of councilarity.

If you are saying the Catholic Church has significant number of bishops who are more than just failures and weak men (ie. Law and Egan) but are out to DESTROY the Church, including Cardinals, you are saying that the whole notion of episcopal collegiality is bunk. The bishops cannot be counted on preserving essential truth.

I respect this "high papalist" viewpoint, but you must understand it sets back Catholic-Orthodox dialogue back to the 1950's.

Lastly, despite your negative view of Orthodoxy, you should know that in the same city as Weakland's church, we have a much more modernistic Orthodox church that, while it has produced strong options both ways, no schism has resulted.

Axios

Axios,

Please post the Churches website.

Ray

Let me give you an example of something "Modern" that I would approve of: http://www.architectureweek.com/cgi...ure_1-2.html&image=11496_image_3.jpg

I don't care for it but it is modern and follows Church norms.

Ray