OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
12hr ago
The local prior, not the prior provincial (Prevost), accepted the request of the Archdiocese of Chicago.
I would say the stuff that happened in the Diocese of Chiclayo is stronger evidence of poor responses to sexual abuse.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
12hr ago
to me the overall thrust makes it pretty obvious that Rome is in the wrong.
Politically or theologically?
I would say desecrating the Eucharist in 1054 and killing/expelling/enslaving all Italian Catholics in 1182 are both examples of Constantinople being in the wrong politically first.
I can't say for certain if the Papal Legates were on their best behavior or not in Constantinople. It seems like there are many sources and sides to the story, all of them undoubtedly biased.
Fortunately, what I can say is none of that matters as far as whether one should be Catholic or Orthodox. The question of if I should be Catholic or Orthodox is a theological question. Is there theological basis for Roman Primacy? I believe the answer is "Yes." I believe that the answer has been yes, and was demonstrably so even before the Synod of Chalcedon.
I would love for us to heal the schism. From Rome's perspective I don't think there's anything we'd require the other side to change, just reconfirmation of Rome's primacy. We already have many Eastern Catholic Churches that have a multiplicity of different views and practices. We see the Orthodox as having valid Holy Orders and sacraments.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
14hr ago
More information on Prevost available here: https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-francis-prevost/
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
15hr ago
He's lived in Peru most of his recent years.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
18hr ago
Like for example, and maybe this isn’t actually a big sticking point, the longtime celibacy requirement of the Western church, I heard there was talk of changing that?
This is 100% capable of change, because it is not a matter of faith or morals. There is no declaration at all that requires us to believe that priests must be celibate as a matter of faith or morals. Of all the things that people list, this is such an easy thing to change. Almost as easy as rescheduling the donuts and coffee get together after mass. About as significant to our theology as rescheduling a parish breakfast.
We currently have married priests! One was my neighbor! If an Anglican or Orthodox priest converts, they are still a priest and still married. If a Lutheran pastor or similar level protestant converts, they can seek ordination while still married.
It's a discipline to have unmarried men enter the priesthood. Discipline means it's just a choice we made. Now, there's reasons we made that choice. But it's as significant as a uniform at a private school. It's distinctive! But it can be changed easily.
Doesn’t seem like there is much particularly different this century vs previous ones that that would become an issue still unresolved.
The reason people are talking about changing this is because there has been a real shortage of priests in the past few decades. That shortage seems to be changing - the flock itself is getting smaller, more young people are entering the seminary, there might not be a need.
There is a significant change this century, but either way this is a prudential matter.
but where does the power (theologically) reside?
In the Church's magisterial teaching authority. The bishops all together exercise this authority. When there are disputes, the Pope is where the buck stops.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
18hr ago
Can you expound upon where the Great Schism of 1054 was Rome going off the rails? Because this is how Catholics see it:
In 1042 Monomachus became emperor peaceably by marrying Zoe... He remembered his old friend and fellow-conspirator, [Cærularius], and gave him an ambiguous place at court, described as that of the emperor's "familiar friend and guest at meals" (Psellus, "Enkomion", I, 324). As Cærularius was a monk, any further advancement must be that of an ecclesiastical career. He was therefore next made syncellus (that is, secretary) of the patriarch, Alexius (1025-34). The syncellus was always a bishop, and held a place in the church second only to that of the patriarch himself.
In 1034 Alexius died, and Constantine appointed Cærularius as his successor. There was no election; the emperor "went like an arrow to the target" (Psellus, ibid., p. 326). From this moment the story of Cærularius becomes that of the great schism.
The time was singularly unpropitious for a quarrel with the pope. The Normans were invading Sicily, enemies of both the papacy and the Eastern Empire, from whom they were conquering that island. There was every reason why the pope (St. Leo IX, 1048-56) and the emperor should keep friends and unite their forces against the common enemy. Both knew it, and tried throughout to prevent a quarrel.
But it was forced on them by the outrageous conduct of the patriarch. Suddenly, after no kind of provocation, in the midst of what John Beccus describes as "perfect peace" between the two Churches (L. Allatius, "Græcia orthod.", I, 37)... Cærularius sent to the other patriarchs a treatise written by Nicetas Pectoratus against unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, and celibacy. Because of these "horrible infirmities", Nicetas describes Latins as "dogs, bad workmen, schismatics, hypocrites, and liars" (Will, op. cit., 127-36).... Still entirely unprovoked, [Cærularius] closed all the Latin churches at Constantinople, including that of the papal legate. His chancellor Nicephorus burst open the Latin tabernacles, and trampled on the Holy Eucharist because it was consecrated in unleavened bread.
The pope then answered the letter... He points out that no one thought of attacking the many Byzantine monasteries and churches in the West (Will, op. cit., 65-85)...
For a moment Cærularius seems to have wavered in his plan because of the importance of the pope's help against the Normans. He writes to Peter III of Antioch, that he had for this reason proposed an alliance with Leo (Will, 174).
[Pope] Leo answered this proposal [to join forces to resist Norman invasion] resenting the stupendous arrogance of [Cærularius]'s tone, but still hoping for peace. At the same time he wrote a very friendly letter to the emperor, and sent both documents to Constantinople by three legates, Cardinal Humbert, Cardinal Frederick (his own cousin and Chancellor of the Roman Church, afterwards Stephen IX, 1057-58), and Archbishop Peter of Amalfi.
The emperor, who was exceedingly annoyed about the whole quarrel, received the legates with honour and lodged them in his palace. Cærularius, who had now quite given up the idea of his alliance, was very indignant that the legates did not give him precedence and prostrate before him, and wrote to Peter of Antioch that they are "insolent, boastful, rash, arrogant, and stupid" (Will, 177).
Several weeks passed in discussion. Cardinal Humbert wrote defenses of the Latin customs, and incidentally converted Nicetas Pectoratus [The original author of the treatise against Roman practices of against unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, and celibacy].
Cærularius refused to see the legates or to hold any communication with them: he struck the pope's name from his diptychs, and so declared open schism. [A diptych was used to record the names of those in the Church, typically high-profile people like Bishops and nobility. Striking someone from a diptych is basically saying that they are no longer a member of the Church.]
The legates then prepared the Bull of excommunication against him, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents, which they laid on the altar of Sancta Sophia on 16 July, 1054. Two days later they set out for Rome. The emperor was still on good terms with them and gave them presents for Monte Cassino.
Hardly were they gone when Cærularius sent for them to come back, meaning to have them murdered (the evidence for this is given in Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 186-7). Cærularius, when this attempt failed, sent an account of the whole story to the other patriarchs so full of lies that John of Antioch answered him: "I am covered with shame that your venerable letter should contain such things. Believe me, I do not know how to explain it for your own sake, especially if you have written like this to the other most blessed patriarchs" (Will, 190).
From here, I have done some formatting because gosh that's a wall of text with names no one's heard about before.
Distilling down the barest essentials:
Patriarch of Constantinople declares, based on a document written by a local theologian, that Roman disciplines of consecrating unleavened bread and fasting on Saturday are horrible and disqualifying from being a member of the Church. They go so far as to desecrate the Eucharist in Roman churches.
Pope sends delegation that explains to the theologian how they are wrong, and that this ancient practice of the Latin Church is not disqualifying or heretical. Patriarch refuses to even see them.
Once it becomes clear that the Patriarch's side isn't going to win, he excommunicates the Pope. The papal legates excommunicate the Patriarch using the authority they have from the Pope (except at this time, unbeknownst to them, the Pope is dead so the excommunication isn't even valid on the Latin side, which was discovered shortly after).
Most of the Church didn't realize there's a permanent Schism, it slowly develops over time. The Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182 was a more significant event, with 60,000 Latins dead or sold into slavery, but the Schism probably really became permanent in the Fourth Crusade with the Sack of Constantinople.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
19hr ago
How can a Catholic distinguish between a Tradition that's OK to change, and one that isn't?
First, we need to establish what actually counts as Church teaching. And that can be challenging, because there are lots of people running around on the internet and in real life saying, "My personal theological interpretation is the one true teaching of the Catholic Church, I know this because it is the personal theological theory my favorite saint expounded, who are you to say you're smarter than St X of X?"
So what is Catholic teaching? Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott is an encyclopedia of doctrine that is still used in Seminaries today. You can read it with a free account here. The introduction lays out seven categories in shades of certitude, ranging from "De Fide Definita" (which are defined by a solemn judgement of faith of the Pope or of a General Council) to "Tolerable Opinions" (which are weakly founded, but currently tolerated by the Church.)
Traditions that are "De Fide Definita" are not able to change. But they are pretty rare. There are about 1000 of them, and no, there isn't an infallible list of infallible teachings. People have read through every Church document and made lists, Ott's book above is one such list (though it then gives non-dogmatic explanations under each dogmatic statement. The explanations could be wrong.) Not every statement by a Pope or by a Church Council is infallible. Most are not. To make a De Fide Definita requires the magisterial source saying something like, "This pertains to the deposit of faith and binds everyone forever universally" before the statement. The statement itself is then considered infallible. The justification or explanation of the statement is not infallible even if it is given by the same authority that made the infallible statement.
So questions like "How many people are supposed to elect the pope?" is not infallible. It's not even a question of faith or morals. There are lots of disciplinary questions, like should priests marry or what songs should be sung at Mass, which are not even in the category of Faith and Morals, and therefore cannot by principle have an infallible answer.
How does doctrine develop? Acts gives us a good, basic example of what it looks like. At the beginning of the Church, every follower of Jesus was a Jew. Everyone was circumcised. There was no conflict to resolve, no debate. While it was true, even at that time in the past, that Jesus died for all, gentile and Jew, there was no need for the Church to have a clear teaching on circumcision yet. The truth was the same, but there was no clear teaching.
And then Gentiles started converting. Peter had a vision that he interpreted as God saying to baptize Gentiles. It fit into prior revelation - with Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations. There was a prior teaching which was held in tension to this one - that Jews should not visit with Gentiles. But Peter recognized the voice of God calling him to baptize Gentiles and that Jesus also commanded the baptism of all nations.
Over time, this theological tension grew. Conflicts arose with people who thought Gentiles needed to be circumcised and basically become Jewish first before receiving salvation. There was genuine disagreement with both sides thinking they were following the tradition handed to them.
So a council was called. The Council of Jerusalem declared that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. The council found other portions of scripture that supported this doctrine, and then promulgated the new doctrine that uncircumcised Gentiles can be baptized and saved.
So the fundamental aspects of doctrinal development are:
-
Due to a temporal change in circumstances, a legitimate disagreement has developed between two or more groups of well-intentioned believers. Both groups believe they find support in tradition and scripture.
-
A large number of bishops gather together to discuss the differences. (Catholics would say it's important that this gathering has either Peter or one of his successors promulgating the findings of the council, but outside of that distinction I think most Orthodox and many Protestants would agree without this point added.)
-
The gathering comes to a conclusion. Since both sides had some justification based on prior teaching, the conclusion will also be based on prior teaching, but will close off one of the previously acceptable theological positions.
And that is how Doctrine develops in the Catholic Church.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5d ago
Honestly I feel kinda bad. I think this guy is in a spot of Mania and my response was, "Catholics have this all figured out" rather than "get to a doctor and tell him everything you've told us."
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
All you leave us with is speculation because you are not specific. What is the difference between ownership and possession?
You use a lot of words without signifiers. If you would like to be understood, try answering the following:
The point here is to explore alternatives.
Alternatives to what?
Most people have never once even considered the possibility
The possibility of what? The possibility of people not having a legal right to exclusive use of land and valuable property?
If so, yes, I have considered it. I read Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" in High School. Every teenager dabbles in the idea of anarchy or communism or such. In the end, the downsides of not allowing people sole use of productive property is too great. It creates very significant coordination and inefficiency issues. If you look at failed states, where there are no longer laws governing ownership, they are not productive places.
Countering with, "Well, don't raise problems until you've got a solution!" is just silly.
Oh. You really don't have an ideology you're trying to push on us and just darkly hinting? Because all your statements sound like you're darkly hinting at some kind of solution that we're all too dumb to get.
Ok, if all you want to do is ask if people have tried to puzzle out alternatives to ownership, yes, they have. The only reason why everyone has all these objections to the idea of structuring a society without ownership is because everyone has already tried to find alternatives and came up with worse situations than what we have now.
But if you conflate ownership with attachment ("It's mine!", belonging) or even mere physical possession, we can't even discuss whether preemptive principled deprivation is, in fact, a problem like I say it is.
Can you explain the difference between physical possession and belonging and "pre-emptive principled deprivation" is? I am holding a coffee cup in my hand right now. I physically possess it? (Y/N). It was gifted to me by my husband. So is there a principle by which I can deprive others of using it? (Y/N) Is this principle pre-emptive in some way? (Y/N) If no, what would make it pre-emptive (does it have to involve the law, like if I were to get a divorce I would have to have a legal right to exclusive use of the mug?)
I think, if you really want to just explore the topic, you need to start with family life. It is in a healthy family that we see humans at their most cooperative.
But that said, there are the haves and have nots in a family. Kids come into a family with no possessions, everything is preemptively held by the parents. The parents give what they thinks is best in a very paternalistic and condescending way. Even if the toddler has decided for himself that pennies taste delicious, the parent might deprive the child of the pennies - by force if needed! And this is in a loving household where the parents share all in common, and the kids will one day grow to be partakers of this commons.
And then you have to remember the ways in which a society is not a family. It is impossible to love everyone in your city as much as your family, to be as aware of their needs and desires and strengths and weaknesses as you are of your family members. "That only matters if you're trying to be a central-planning-tyrant," you might object. Well, no. It matters when you're trying to figure out if the person next to you, whom you've never met before, isn't going to just lie and cheat you.
"But I'm going to change human nature so that no one lies or cheats.." No, that way leads to death. See also, C.S. Lewis's "Abolition of Man."
So for a starting point (if you're really interested in starting points and don't already have a theory you're nursing that you just haven't shared with us), look at the family, and then see what you can extrapolate out. And then try the following exercises:
-
In your new society, who is keeping the power on. What incentivizes them to do so? How do they get the materials they need for power generation?
-
In your new society, who is growing food? What incentivizes them to do so? How do they get the materials they need to plant and harvest?
-
In your new society, who is making laptops and their component parts? What incentivizes them to do so? How do they get the materials they need to fabricate and manufacture?
If you can answer all three questions convincingly, then people would be more likely to take the idea seriously. The reason why everyone's throwing up their hands and saying they prefer the current system is because no one, despite many people trying, has figured out how answer the above questions without some kind of ownership of productive property, whether it is by the state, by a corporation, or by individuals. My preference would be for everyone to own a portion of productive property, but "owning" is still a part of my ideal society.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8d ago
What I don't understand is why you not only think that ownership is bad but that everyone would agree with you that ownership is bad. The phrase, "legal right to deprive others," might sound scary simply because you put the word "legal" there, but it's incomplete. For example, my kids own things, even if legally I have every right to confiscate their toys. There are some toys which are gifted on birthdays which are theirs for a time, but eventually go into the general toy pile. There are some toys which we would never ever make them share - like the special stuffed animals they have slept with at night since they were infants.
These stuffed animals might be legally "mine," but they are in fact my children's. They have the right to deprive their siblings of these toys, and that is 100% perfect, treasured, lovely. I don't know how to express just how wonderful it is for them to have ownership of these toys, and how much psychological benefit this ownership has generated.
These stuffies are theirs. They smell like their owner. Putting their stuffy in their hands makes them calm down within a minute. Night wakeups are easily managed by reminding my kids of the existence of their stuffed animal.
One day, while driving my oldest to school, she started getting upset. I asked her what was wrong.
She said, "I left Hopper on the floor."
"It's ok, he'll be just fine there."
"No, what if [the toddler] steps on him?"
"Hopper will be just fine, I've stepped on him before and I weigh much more than [toddler]. Hopper will bounce back! He's fluffy."
"No.. What if [the toddler] steps on him... and realizes how soft and wonderful he is?"
"Oh, you're worried about Forbidden Love. I'll call daddy and have him put Hopper on the dresser."
This sounds cute, but it expands further than children in a family. An ideal family holds everything in common, it's as love-oriented over ownership-oriented as you can get. Even in the family, there are different divisions of dominion. Humans need dominion.
We naturally divide up labor and tools according to who has the capacity to use them. Oftentimes divisions become domains - the husband does yard work and bathroom cleaning, the wife does kitchen work, the kids bring the mail in and sweep on weekends. Having dominion gives you authority to do things you otherwise wouldn't do. When a kid is told to clean the counters, the kid will wipe just the visible areas without moving the toaster or spice rack out of the way. This is because the kid does not have dominion over the whole kitchen, doesn't feel pieces of his own awareness/soul/psyche over all the appliances. The adult who has dominion over the kitchen will take everything down, move tables and chairs and appliances, and give everything the maintenance it needs to be clean and functional.
People find dignity in owning things and using them to make other things. My knitting supplies and the kitchen's baking tools, these are mine. I take care of them, I use them to make things for my family. I don't need a lawyer to step in, everyone in the family knows that these are mine and they need to ask my permission to use them. In using these tools I create my identity and dignity.
And if that applies so well in the home, where all is held in legal common and we are constantly working towards the other's good, how much more does that apply in the public world?
I think the only sympathetic thing I find in your comments are what Catholics would call, "The Universal Destination of Goods." Catholics have a concept that the whole world is a gift to all humans from God, and that no one has the right to deprive others of what they need. So that whoever has two shirts should give one to someone without any. And if you have more bread stored up than you can ever eat, you are stealing it from someone without.
However, this concept is tempered by the idea that humans get dignity from work, humans were made to be stewards, and good stewardship depends on having a sense of ownership over the physical world. So you have a world that is truly owned by God, gifted to humanity as a whole, which is divided to everyone as stewards. These stewards have a sense of ownership which is in reality participation in the Divine Ownership of all things. Not everyone has an equal share of stewardship, because there is inequality in people's capacities along with inefficiencies in the allocation methods. But everyone should be using their goods to the glory of God and the well-being of every person.
There you go, I have articulated a positive vision of property and ownership. Now your turn. I'm as tired of everyone else on this forum of how you keep dancing around what you actually believe should happen, rather than just acting negative about a concept that most people actually see the benefits of.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
15d ago
If you would like something more like a newspaper article, this is a good summary of several cases: https://www.basicincome.com/bp/files/A_Protestant_Looks_at_Lourdes.pdf
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
15d ago
Women are more likely to seek treatment, so have a consistent medical record of before their healing which can then be used to judge a healing took place. They are also more likely to seek a faith healing.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
15d ago
72 cases of miraculous healings that are ruled a such by a board of doctors and other medical experts studying medical records before and after the event is much better evidence of a miraculous healing than a cell phone video. I am responding to your idea that a cell phone video would make belief and religion obsolete.
If there were evidence, anyone could believe it, and the true faithful wouldn't be doing anything very impressive or unique.
Interesting. So for you, the significant part of religion is believing without evidence, and that in and of itself is impressive and unique (and rewarded I guess?)
That's um... not my experience. My experience was basically understanding the philosophy of what is meant by "God" (contrasted against my misconceptions from being a child,) investigating the historicity of the Gospels, and seeing that the beliefs of the Catholic Church aligned the best with all the data I have seen. A skeptic is very limited and is dogmatically constrained to profess things like the Resurrection of Jesus, the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the apparition at Zeitoun, miraculous healings, etc as Hallucinations or Hoaxes, even if those explanations do not comfortably fit the data. A believer, meanwhile, is free to believe these things are hoaxes, hallucinations, or real manifestations of a Supernatural order if the data indicates so.
And then what merit is in practicing religion is obviously to the extent you let it constrain your will and your ruinous desires. Not believing without evidence. That's not a virtue at all.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
15d ago
So you say. Or it's all a trick like David Blaine. There's always room for doubt. The hundreds of miraculous healings with good medical documentation that occurred at Lourdes and at every saint canonization hasn't convinced you. https://www.lourdes-france.com/en/miraculous-healings/
Not sure what you mean by, "it wouldn't be a religion anymore." Is your definition of religion, "cannot be proven or argued for unless someone already irrationally believes it?"
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
15d ago
There is a distinction between the God of the Philosophers (for example the ultimate being Aristotle or a Hindu philosopher might reason towards) and the gods that people worship on a daily basis. Hinduism is neat in that it connects the God of Philosophers with the gods. In Greek, Roman, Celtic, and other mythologies such a connection didn't really develop.
Christianity and Judaism scaffolds the European pagan gods to the God of Philosophers in a way the pagans never did in practice.
I feel comfortable saying that, just as Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same God (despite having different beliefs surrounding Him), Hindus worship the same God (but have even more error, emphasizing Divine Simplicity to the diminishment of His other qualities.)
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
15d ago
I disagree that it's a poison pill clause. It's a significant part of why the vast majority of the Cardinals present signed off on Sacrosantum Concilium. They wanted a globalized Latin rite.
Let's say the church wants to expand in a culture where showing the soles of your feet is considered horribly rude (like half the world). Even if it doesn't make it into an official document, you can imagine that in those regions, people would be careful to not show the soles of their feet at Mass. They might kick other people out for doing so.
The priest might modify the liturgy in places where they would typically have to show the soles of their feet, for example during Eucharistic Adoration they might not kneel with their back to the congregation. People might not kneel at all but adopt other postures of reverence. Churches may come up with feet hiding devices, like an altar rail for legs.
All this is to say, there are legitimate reasons why "rigid uniformity" can be bad - if you're expanding to actually different cultures and peoples.
The problem with the football example is that it's not actually rude to neglect the morning football prayer. It's not a requirement of the society. They're just normal Westeners, mixing the sacred with the banal.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
15d ago
It's not a very abstract decision. It's what makes the "Liar, Lord, Lunatic" trilemma distinct about Jesus compared to the Buddha. The Buddha could simply be earnestly mistaken. He fasted and meditated, entered some weird mental/physical state, thought he understood something no one else did, passed it along. With Jesus, "earnestly mistaken" isn't an option.
If a guy like Jesus appeared in 2025, healing the sick and raising the dead and multiplying food in front of crowds of 5,000, some would call him mentally ill. But I don't think they'd be right to do so.
requires the belief in a literal fall of man by eating literal fruit in a literal garden of Eden.
No, this is not required. A single original couple, committing a specific original sin, is what is required. Can you link to where you got the requirement for a literal fruit from? Edit: this article quotes from the authoritative documents to specify the minimum required belief.
I also would like your source on Q being infallibly condemned. Typically speaking the Church doesn't take sides in academic debates like that. Especially since the most obvious explanation of Q is that it is the original Aramaic notes of Matthew, as hinted to by Papias.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
16d ago
Christianity says that our ancestors were all wrong, for thousands of years, and then a guy in the middle east figured out the truth
You're getting pretty strong pushback on this phrasing, for good reason. Most are arguing the "ancestors were wrong" angle, which is very fair. I'd like to push back on the idea that the Christian's claim is that Jesus claims he figured out the truth.
Jesus never said he figured out the truth. He said he IS the Truth. He isn't a sage in the desert who discovered something outside himself. He said that he is sent. He says that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The way to salvation isn't to learn what he has learned, it is to follow him. "No one can get to the Father except through me." Not "through my teachings." "Through me."
This is absolutely bizzare, if you have studied global religions. Jesus is unique in this regard. He doesn't claim to have brought fire from the gods, he claims to be the flame. He doesn't claim to have received divine revelation, his followers claim that he is the divine revelation.
His teaching is secondary - a nice lovely tantalizing icing - compared to his life, death, and resurrection.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
16d ago
Regarding Cardinal Tagle, all I can say is that failure to generate a thriving local church doesn't mean a lack of Cardinal allies. @hydroacetylene knows more about the politics side of the equation.
The Spirit of Vatican II is characterized by the time immediately preceding and immediately following the Second Vatican Council. I'm not sure what would have gone differently if this "Spirit" wasn't a real spirit, and a demon to boot. Watch the Puppet Mass or the Clown Mass and tell me there's no demonic involvement. (I'm not sure how serious I am being here. There are many who would take this allegation more seriously.)
Rewind a bit. Why did people feel like they could have a mass with clowns and puppets? Before Vatican II, there was a very specific rubric they were supposed to follow. After Vatican II, there was a very specific rubric they were supposed to follow, one that did not recommend clowns or puppets. The rubric changed, but the adherence to it stopped. Priests either started doing their own inventions, or stepped back from their leadership role in the liturgy and allowed lay people (predominantly women who were teenagers in the 1960s) to add things to the liturgy.
The Spirit of Vatican II, most plainly put, is the attitude many took when things that seemed unchangable began to change. Many Catholics didn't (and still don't) understand the difference between small "t" traditional practices, like liturgical rites, and big "T" Traditional Doctrine, like teachings on Christology, Sacraments, and Morality. If you were alive then, and thought the mass is something the Church taught could never change, and then the Church changed it...
The conclusion a lot of people made was that anything could be changed. And if anything could be changed, it might as well be changed by themselves, in their own image and likeness.
Let's rewind a bit further. Why were people dissatisfied with the Mass of Pius V? The laity felt disconnected from the mass. There were lots of abuses. The most common mass was a low mass, without music and most of the fanfare that fans of the Mass of Pius V like today.
It was common for priests to try to rush through the mass - I have heard people say that most masses they went to were 20 minutes long. In order to get through the whole liturgy in 20 minutes, the Priest would have to be mumbling quickly in Latin. There wasn't as much call-and-response like there is in the new mass. The experience of many Catholics was: go to Church, pray quietly while listening to a priest mutter to himself for 20 minutes, sometimes receive communion, and walk out.
High masses were glorious time commitments, low masses were checking off a cosmic checklist. Good and holy priests would have good and holy low masses. But there were many priests who did not fill this category, and many priests who felt like there was no point in enunciating a mass spoken in Latin to God instead of in the vernacular to the Congregation.
What was the new mass, the Mass of Paul VI, supposed to look like? Done according to the rubrics, it looks like this. According to the Vatican II document discussing the Liturgy, Sacrosantum Concilium, Latin was still supposed to be given "Pride of Place." Here is how the actual council of Vatican II wanted things to develop:
- Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
- Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it is from scripture that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung; the prayers, collects, and liturgical songs are scriptural in their inspiration and their force, and it is from the scriptures that actions and signs derive their meaning.
- It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
-The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should be that of a proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history of salvation
- the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites... But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
-The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action
At no point do I see anything recommending deploying clowns.
And so it goes for the other Vatican II documents. Individual Catholics took minor developments in a certain direction (often a return to traditions and increased emphasis on teachings from earlier in Church History) and decided to make a complete rupture.
I focused a lot on the Liturgical side to this, but I could make similar write ups on what Vatican II teaches on interpretation of scripture, No Salvation Outside the Church, etc.
I have never had any trouble finding good parishes that mostly abide by the rubrics. Even so, I have noticed an increase in chant and Latin. Parishes have started doing the entrance antiphon - I never heard this as a kid. Our parish has two first-year priests, they seem a lot less gay and more knowledgeable than the older priests. There is a major vibe shift going on.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
17d ago
Found this resource that seems pretty in depth of who is electable and where they stand:
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
17d ago
Sometimes I worry that I neglect growing in prayer by focusing on theological and apologetic details, which the Imitation of Christ is pretty harsh about. But Joe Hesmeyer recently said something along the lines of "If you love your wife, you find out everything you can know about her. Same with God." which makes me feel better about all the minutia I've gotten absorbed with.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
17d ago
Thanks for the correction! If it's a theology or spiritual advice question I've got The Motte covered. When it's a political question... I don't really know.
See, that's not clear to me that this is the schism! For me, I think I'm asking that the East just goes back to believe about the Roman Pontiff the same things they believed before the 800s. Even Photius and Cerularius, the critical players in the East-West schism, never argued that the Petrine doctrine could justify schism.
For example of a Pope exercising primacy:
Before Sergius died, in 638, he assembled a great Synod at Constantinople, which accepted a "one will" formula as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic preaching." This synod was without any Papal legates nor did it receive Papal approval afterwards. The outcome of this council is not considered infallible or orthodox.
Subsequent Popes and Patriarchs rejected Monothelitism (with one Pope refusing to confirm Paul as Patriarch of Constantinople until after he stopped using the "one will" formula), but there was still some confusion about if Jesus had "one operation" or "two operations."
To clear all this up, Pope St. Agatho sent legates to the General Council in Constantinople in 680. The legates brought with them a letter in which the Pope defined the "two wills, two operations" terminology with authority as the successor of St. Peter, binding the council to accept. The council did and rejected the Monothelites.
That seems to me like the Pope undoubtedly exercising Primacy and the East recognizing this. I can point to dozens of other examples of the Pope settling disputes among various other Apostolic Sees, like when Dennis of Alexandria was accused of heresy, he appealed to Rome and was cleared. Let's look at a council document:
To me, the source of the schism is the liturgical intolerance exhibited by the Byzantine Greeks towards Latin customs and usages. In every council document and story of the schism that I see, that is the primary difficulty that starts the argument. Even Photius admitted to Papal Supremacy in his letters to Rome, when he is appealing to Rome to help his case.
Instead, arguments about Papal Supremacy seem to be ad hoc justification, because the best reason not to be in communion with the Pope would be something like a lack of agreement on the Petrine doctrine. But that wasn't the actual disagreement.
More options
Context Copy link