• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Has the Catholic Church become anti-Catholic?

idontlikenames

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
230
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Ignorantville, U.S.A.
okay....just some questions

Why do I hear so many Catholics who converted to EO say that the RCC has become too Protestant?

I recently attended a Catholic Mass and I only heard one reference to the Holy Virgin (and a vague reference at that).  Why is that?  and why won't Pope John Paul II give out a Papal bull defining St. Mary as co-redemptrix, even though there's been thousands of requests world-wile for that to become a dogma?  (and don't say that it would be innovative because that doctrine has a long tradition--at least in the western Church).  why was there only the vaguest reference to the parish's patron saint (in this case, St. Patrick).  Has the RCC become so ecumenical that they feel they need to be as much Protestant as possible to attract Protestants?

Why has no Pope since 1950 (correct me if I'm wrong) made a statement of a strictly theological nature....they all seemed too concerned with political matters and ecumenicalism.

Has the Catholic Church become anti-Catholic?
 

JoeS

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
The Roman Catholic church hasnt changed their beliefs since VatII as far as I know. I would appreciate any corrections to this. It is the externals which you are referring to that seems to denote a radical change from the past. Many newer RC church interior and exterior designs beg the question: Where are they going with this? My experience in some new RC churches is that they look more like religious meeting halls not sanctuaries of God. Why do some churches reserve the Blessed Sacrament in side altars and many not in the church at all is anyones guess. I think the RC church is trying to appeal to the separated Protestant bretheren and wants the new converts to feel more at home when they do convert? Some of the more conservative RC churches still maintain their ancient architecture and some are extemely beautiful inside. But sadly the newer buildings resemble the minds of modern artistic design. Designs that appeal to the minds of man rather than to the glory of God. There is a book out addressing this very thing. Its title is Ugly As Sin: Why They Changed Our Churches from Sacred Places to Meeting Spaces and How We Can Change Them Back Again
by Michael S. Rose

As to the mentioning of the Theotokos at a Tridentine Mass: As a former RC, the mentioning of the Blessed Mother occured during the: Confiteor, Creed, Offetory, The Secret (silent prayers by the priest which may include thanksgivings to the BVM) , Roman Canon, and Breaking of the Host. However, Im not sure how many times the Theotokos is mentioned in the Novus Ordo (New Mass).

JoeS 8)
 

idontlikenames

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
230
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Ignorantville, U.S.A.
I attended a Corpus Christi Mass at this parish and we sung Vineyard music while the Holy Eucharist was on the altar.  Vineyard music for crying out loud!!!!
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,206
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
The Virgin is mentioned in the Confiteor, Creed, Preface for Eucharistic Prayer II and other Prefaces for use with Eucharistic Prayers I and III, and in all Eucharistic Prayers. She may be mentioned in the opening prayer, prayer over the gifts, and prayer after communion.
 

Tabby

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This is a better question for an RCC forum...but from my studies the teaching of Morals and faith has never changed.

no the Catholic has NOT turned to anti catholic.  I have a background to know there is a big difference.  Well I was raised as a Mormon...and then left the church after 20+ years.  Went to protostant churches.  The only thing I notice is there is some hyms that protostant uses that the RCC uses but if you study the lyrics it is NOT in error.  But that is about it. 

I recently attended a Catholic Mass and I only heard one reference to the Holy Virgin (and a vague reference at that).  Why is that?
I go to mass every week (sometimes daily depending on my scedule)...there are times I hear of the Holy Virgin more than once.  During Her feast days...well she is mentioned alot.  We love our Mother.  We also love her Son which the Mass is central to Him. 

You may want to ask a RCC preist about this...I wasnt really that concern how many times she is referenced in Mass, because I am too busy praying to her. 


The Roman Catholic church hasnt changed their beliefs since VatII as far as I know.
you are right.
 

Rilian

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I don’t think the moral teaching has changed, but commenting on the attitudes of the laity post Vatican II, Catholic scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has described American Catholicism as being something approximating the largest mainline Protestant denomination in the country.  I think he probably had in mind things like views on birth control or political affiliation in that particular case.

I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to see that as a corollary to the changes brought about by the Novus Ordo though.  The Novus Ordo I think has seen the stripping down of many of sacred elements of the mass, which has only been followed by other changes such as the use of altar girls or the regular use of “extraordinary” eucharistic ministers.

In Orthodoxy I think one would describe the liturgy as the doctrine of the church put in practice, it is the most tangible element of our shared beliefs.  To me that would highlight the applicability of the quote by Professor Johnson to the mass itself and give weight to the idea of a Protestantization of both the forms of worship and the beliefs of the worshippers themselves.  Many traditional Catholics I’ve talked to try and brush aside what has happened to the mass saying it’s a secondary concern, but to me it is just an indication (albeit a very visible one) of something deeper and quite significant.
 

idontlikenames

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
230
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Ignorantville, U.S.A.
Here's another thing......at St. Patrick's (I think I'll keep their location anonymous) the only statues they had (other than the Crucifix) were tucked away in some little corner (and they were quite small) as if to say: "Look we're quite embarrased about our heritage so will tuck these away to avoid suffering Protestant persecution."

My parents converted to the RCC and the priest told them that all they had to believe was the Nicene Creed in order to be able to be in Communion with them.  I'm almost certain that this isn't true, otherwise I'd have to believe that the Pope speaks to a brick wall every time he makes an ex cathedra statement. 

Shouldn't they be proud of their heritage?  There are a lot of things in the RCC that I think are quite beautiful, like the Immaculate Conception (I only reject it because of its "Original Sin" implications)
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
idontlikenames,
Just because something is our sounds beautiful doesn't mean is should become dogma.  So what if a lot of people are clamoring for the Theotokos to be declared co-redemptrix!  That doesn't mean it should be dogma.  The Orthodox Church hasn't declared any new dogma since Hesychia by St. Gregory Palamas (what, around 800 yrs?).  Why is it important for something recent to be declared?  Just because the Pope has ex cathedra power doesn't mean it should be exercised freely and often.  Heck, as an Orthodox Christian, he shouldn't have it at all (among other things)!
 

Tabby

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Points
0
idontlikenames said:
Here's another thing......at St. Patrick's (I think I'll keep their location anonymous) the only statues they had (other than the Crucifix) were tucked away in some little corner (and they were quite small) as if to say: "Look we're quite embarrased about our heritage so will tuck these away to avoid suffering Protestant persecution."

My parents converted to the RCC and the priest told them that all they had to believe was the Nicene Creed in order to be able to be in Communion with them. I'm almost certain that this isn't true, otherwise I'd have to believe that the Pope speaks to a brick wall every time he makes an ex cathedra statement.

Shouldn't they be proud of their heritage? There are a lot of things in the RCC that I think are quite beautiful, like the Immaculate Conception (I only reject it because of its "Original Sin" implications)
The RCC parshes are NOT embarrssed of their harriatage...they have statues and pictures....I dont know which one you went to...

I am actually not that fimilarr with the orthodox really (note I am not here to convert I am not here to convert anyone to the RCC I am only here to get an understanding...you know go to the source...well here I am) I only know a few things, but orthodox doesnt believe that Mary was saved from orignal sin?  am I understanding you right?
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,504
Reaction score
266
Points
83
Age
41
I recently attended a Catholic Mass and I only heard one reference to the Holy Virgin (and a vague reference at that). Why is that?
Perhaps I am wrong here, but it has always seemed to me that Catholics tend to venerate Mary more in private devotions, while the Orthodox tend to venerate her more in public devotions. Yes, the Orthodox do tend to mention the Theotokos more in the liturgy, and in very exalted language. But on the other hand, most Orthodox maybe mention the Theotokos in only a few short prayers in their daily prayer rule, while Catholics seem to focus much more on her in their daily prayers.
 

Tabby

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Paradosis said:
Perhaps I am wrong here, but it has always seemed to me that Catholics tend to venerate Mary more in private devotions, while the Orthodox tend to venerate her more in public devotions. Yes, the Orthodox do tend to mention the Theotokos more in the liturgy, and in very exalted language. But on the other hand, most Orthodox maybe mention the Theotokos in only a few short prayers in their daily prayer rule, while Catholics seem to focus much more on her in their daily prayers.
This is somewhat true.  There is a service once a week in my parish for people who want to attend for the "OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP"  We get communion during this service as well.

And I am a rosary leader at my church as well...
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,504
Reaction score
266
Points
83
Age
41
Tabby,

The Orthodox have a different understanding of original sin than Catholics. To sum up as best I understand it, the Orthodox Church believes that we inherit a tendency to sin (which we call "original sin" just for the sake of convenience), but believe that we do not inherit guilt. The distinction is hard to articulate without going into a bunch of the anthrpological underpinnings; I do realise that it can appear to be logically inconsistent (when I say this, Catholics usually ask something along the lines of, "well if they are born into a sinful world, and they die and so forth, then isn't that a punishment that came as a result of the fall? and if so, don't they have to be guilty of something to be punished?) All I can say at this point is that we do believe that we are all sinners, we do believe that Mary was born into a sinful world, many believe that Mary was sinless, but we do not believe that she was sinless because she was immaculately conceived or something akin to that. I hope I haven't confused things more than helped!
 

Tabby

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Points
0
thank you....I know most religions thinks this way...however most religions dont even praise her enough...actually they dont even praise her at all....I believe different about the oringal sin, but that I am NOT going to get into...only because that would totally be against what I am trying to grasp...and that is understanding what orthodox believes...and I thank you so much....

 

Ian Lazarus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Clark( Innocent) Carlton states in part of his version of the chatechism of the Orthodox chruch that the Orthodox belief is that we are born sinless into a sinful wordl and it is the world around us that corrupt us.  Anyone can "get rid of the guilt", but it soes not make the sin less corruptive, if my understanding is right. In the Orthodox belief, according to my priest, though fully human and prone to the consequences of Adam's sin, she (the Holy Theotokos Mary) was preserved in that light by her life in the temple.  And this prepared her for the annunciation and afterward birthgiving of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus.

Forgive me brethren, if I have erred in this thought.  :)


Ian Lazarus  :grommit:       
 

JoeS

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
Tabby said:
This is somewhat true. There is a service once a week in my parish for people who want to attend for the "OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP" We get communion during this service as well.

And I am a rosary leader at my church as well...
Roman Catholic Masses on Saturdays are usually dedicated to the Blessed Mother.

JoeS
 

JoeS

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
Paradosis said:
Tabby,

The Orthodox have a different understanding of original sin than Catholics. To sum up as best I understand it, the Orthodox Church believes that we inherit a tendency to sin (which we call "original sin" just for the sake of convenience), but believe that we do not inherit guilt. The distinction is hard to articulate without going into a bunch of the anthrpological underpinnings; I do realise that it can appear to be logically inconsistent (when I say this, Catholics usually ask something along the lines of, "well if they are born into a sinful world, and they die and so forth, then isn't that a punishment that came as a result of the fall? and if so, don't they have to be guilty of something to be punished?) All I can say at this point is that we do believe that we are all sinners, we do believe that Mary was born into a sinful world, many believe that Mary was sinless, but we do not believe that she was sinless because she was immaculately conceived or something akin to that. I hope I haven't confused things more than helped!
St. Mary whom we believe was born into a sinful world could have sinned if she chose to, but she didnt and was the greater human being for it, and she is the very example for all of us to follow.  She died (her Dormition) and was I believe raised (her Assumption) to be along side her Son. 

JoeS
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,697
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Location
Canada
With all due respect to our RC posters here, I do thnk that the Roman Church is becoming more protestant.  This comes as no surprise to me at all.  To many Orthodox, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are just two sides of the same coin.  The 19th century Russian theologian Alexis Khomiakov called the Pope "the first Protestant".  When asked by a High Church Anglican about how "to arrest the pernicious effects of Protestantism" , Khomiakov replied that he should "shake off [his] Roman Catholicism."  And this was said in 1847!

And what of today, when we see the Roman liturgy largely neutered and reduced to its current "bare bones" kind of structure?  I think it is only a logical progression.....or regression...

Having said all this, it is my own personal belief that the Roman Chruch is not devoid of Grace.  I still feel quite a spiritual kinship with some Roman Catholics. But by no means all of them.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
Ian Lazarus said:
Clark( Innocent) Carlton states in part of his version of the chatechism of the Orthodox chruch that the Orthodox belief is that we are born sinless into a sinful wordl and it is the world around us that corrupt us. Anyone can "get rid of the guilt", but it soes not make the sin less corruptive, if my understanding is right. In the Orthodox belief, according to my priest, though fully human and prone to the consequences of Adam's sin, she (the Holy Theotokos Mary) was preserved in that light by her life in the temple. And this prepared her for the annunciation and afterward birthgiving of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus.

Forgive me brethren, if I have erred in this thought. :)


Ian Lazarus :grommit:
Nope, I think you got.  Well put.
 

James

Archon
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
69
Location
Ventura, California
Bravo Pavoslavbob !

We traditional minded are treated as outcasts by our New Order brethern, no matter on how we point out the Protestant mind set within the Church of Rome.

Organic growth/ revision is fine but many new innovations were not.

Nuff dribble :p from me,

james
 

Ian Lazarus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Uh, stop dribbling.  You're getting it all over the Coffee table!  ;D

Sorry had to do pick up on that  ;)

Peace!

Ian Lazarus :grommit:

"Raised by a cup of Coffee"  :coffee: :Spam:
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,206
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
"With all due respect to our RC posters here, I do thnk that the Roman Church is becoming more protestant."

I always find this comment funny.  Go ask a Protestant if they feel the Latin Catholic Church has become more Protestant, because I have read plenty of Protestant material that claim the changes of Vatican II were cosmetic and nothing substantial changed and Catholicism is still in error.  So if the plan was to make the Latin Church more appealling to Protestants it has failed miserably. 

As to Novus Ordo criticisms, when done correctly there is nothing wrong with it although I can understand some might prefer the additional ritual of the Tridentine Use.  However, to equate the abuses that occur as a form of Protestantization is an insult to our Protestant brethren.  I have attended many Protestant services and excepting Fundamentalists/Pentecostals have never seen anything as distasteful as some of the reported abuses occuring in the Latin Church.  The services are simpler but always respectful and carried out with dignity and a prayerful attitude.

Fr. Deacon Lance 
 

Tabby

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am sorry to say but there is abuse in more churches than the RCC....the RCC gets MORE attention from the media because it is the biggest church....

I have experienced abuse from other religions...but the small ones do not get advertized....the media does alot...the media are voltures


anyways....I think the "change"  isnt bad....think about it....in the bible slavery was accepted...we HAD to have a change....

things may change...but the doctrine of faith and morals will NEVER change.  The change is with time of age...not the doctrines....

 

Jennifer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deacon Lance said:
As to Novus Ordo criticisms, when done correctly there is nothing wrong with it although I can understand some might prefer the additional ritual of the Tridentine Use.
Here's an interesting article I found at Seattle Catholic (yes, it's trad) Tilting at Liturgical Abuse

Nothing wrong with the Novus Ordo?  I understand that you have to say that because you're in communion with Rome but I simply do not understand how anyone who worshipped at a traditional liturgy can say such a thing?  I've yet to meet an Orthodox Christian who didn't understand that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Novus Ordo.  It's kind of like a 'nagging' feeling that there's something wrong.  That Byzantine Catholics can't (or won't perhaps?) see it is bizarre.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,206
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Jennifer,

There are many in communion with Rome who assail the Novus Ordo, both Eastern and Latin. I am not one of them because I don't agree with their arguements. I was raised in the Latin Church. The only form of the Latin Rite I ever knew was the Novus Ordo. The parish I grew up in was staffed by Benedictine monks who celebrated the Mass with reverence and according to rubrics. If this were the case everywhere I do not think their would be the problems there are today. That Orthodox, or Byzantine Catholics for that matter, find something wrong with the Novus Ordo is, in my opinion, a byproduct of Byzantine chauvinism that is very evident among us. Most Orthodox liturgist have nothing good to say about the Tridentine use either, feeling the only acceptable Latin liturgy is one that is preschism.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

Jennifer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deacon Lance said:
Most Orthodox liturgist have nothing good to say about the Tridentine use either, feeling the only acceptable Latin liturgy is one that is preschism.
That's not true.  Most Orthodox Christians I know like and respect the Tridentine Mass. 
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,206
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Jennifer,

Please reread my post, I said Orthodox liturgists. If you doubt my statements please see what the late Greek Orthodox Bishop of San Francisco had to say about the the Western Rite in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

http://www.saintpeterorthodox.org/luxocc.htm

And he is not the only one to express such attitudes.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 

James

Archon
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
69
Location
Ventura, California
As I have been told on other RC forums, I must suffer/lament in silence and submit to the will of the Vatican. I do not buy the idea that many mistakes were due to mistranslation of the Latin.


Hmm...I feel like saying something, but out of respect it is unspoken.

Dribbling away,

james

 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,206
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Demetri,

There were many Latin Rites not just one. Besides the Roman, which had many variant usages, there was the Gallican, Mozarabic, and Ambrosian. The Roman Rite evetually supplanted and fused with the Gallican and replaced it. The Mozarabic was suppressed in all but a few parishes and today exists only in a chapel at the Toledo Cathedral. The Ambrosian was the only one to survive and is still used in the Archdiocese of Milan. The Roman Rite itself went through many changes as the Byzantine did. The preschism Roman Rite wasn't exactly the use codified by Trent but it was not all that different either, so demands that Western Orthodox use or attempt to recreate the preschism Roman Mass are rather silly.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,206
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Yes, the only post-schism rites are uses of the Roman Rite: the Tridentine, Novus Ordo, and Anglican.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 

Jennifer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deacon Lance said:
Please reread my post, I said Orthodox liturgists.  If you doubt my statements please see what the late Greek Orthodox Bishop of San Francisco had to say about the the Western Rite in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

http://www.saintpeterorthodox.org/luxocc.htm

And he is not the only one to express such attitudes.
Sorry, I jumped too conclusions.  But his opinion is controversial and challenged by those who believe in Western Orthodoxy. 

But remember you claimed "most" liturgists don't like the Tridentine liturgy.  I don't think you can support such a sweeping claim. 

 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,206
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Jennifer,

Allow me to rephrase then: every Orthodox liturgist I have read besides the Western Orthodox themselves and their supporters in the AOA and ROCOR criticize the Western Rites as unnecessary in general since the Byzantine is available and the Tridentine Rite as an unacceptable becasue it is the product of the post-schism Scholastic Roman Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,561
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
I don't support creating new Western Rite Orthodox communities really but if a Church that already exists comes into the Orthodox Church and feels an attachment to its ancestral liturgical tradition, then fine, let them come in.

I find that many of the Orthodox liturgists who oppose the Western Rite oppose it because they are anti-Western and one of my western-rite friends even claims based on personal discussions with said liturgists that some even oppose the Western Rite because it is "too traditional."

Anastasios
 
Top