Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2023 2:28:58 GMT
I realize that a large part of your whole raison d'etre for being on these forums is to make long posts defending Russia and Russian Orthodoxy. Why I don't know given that you don't live there and aren't Orthodox, I have just accepted it as this weird thing you do all the time. Obviously if you think Pope Francis is agreeing with whatever you're on about then you're gonna like it. At this point he better be making points with the Russians because his approval rating with Ukrainians has gone from about 60 percent before the war to about 3 percent now, they distrust him greatly. Given that he's supposed to be on the side of the oppressed and not the oppressor, it's not a good situation. I do have an affinity for Russian culture and Russian Orthodoxy that developed before the invasion of Ukraine, although admittedly, Russia being in the spotlight as a result of the invasion made me more interested in it. I have always had this interest, but I would say that for whatever reason it intensified after the invasion of Ukraine because I wanted to know more about why this happened. I am afraid I do not understand your point about "defending Russia". The only thing I ever said about the invasion of Ukraine was that it was an evil and criminal attack unleashed by Putin, and that it was never justified nor will it ever be. I don't actually speak about Russia or Russian Orthodoxy very often on this forum. What Patriarch Kirill says and does is his problem. If I need to clarify, I will confirm that I believe Ukraine's right to defend itself is just, and that Russia needs to leave Ukraine and give it back its territories. Ukraine's cause is just. Claiming I "defend Russia" goes too far when Putin himself would persecute me in all likelihood were I a Russian, because I oppose the war. But I can definitively state that as far as the war is concerned, I am completely on the side of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. I don't know when I gave the impression I wasn't. I do post a lot about the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is not part of the Russian Orthodox Church and has nothing to do with it. I rarely post about the Russian Orthodox Church. Almost all my posts about Orthodoxy are about Ukrainian Orthodoxy, not Russian Orthodoxy. The main reason I post here a great deal of criticism against Ukraine's government is because it is persecuting Christians and I think that is immoral. If it were not persecuting Christians, I would likely not post about Russia or Ukraine here much at all. I feel I need to speak out against this. I believe it to be immoral and unjust that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is being persecuted whilst nobody speaks out about it. It is incomprehensible for me. I do not understand it at all. Hence I try to spread awareness about this, and have received gratitude for this from a Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Kyiv Theological Academy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. A lot of young people go to protests about climate change. Fair enough, good on them, they believe they aren't being heard and need to amplify their voice. So I too am horrified that nobody is talking about this persecution, and as a result I feel I need to make my voice heard in defence of those in Ukraine who are suffering for the sake of their faith. The only people I defend are Ukrainians who live in Ukraine and are believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. How that could be construed as defending Russia I do not know.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Sept 18, 2023 5:52:38 GMT
There was no trauma. What happened is that the Church discovered more manuscripts about ancient liturgies and practices. They also noted that for centuries the Mass was being translated for purposes of evangelization. Meanwhile, more in North America had been requesting for at least annotated translations of the Mass so that they could understand it from the late 19th century onward.
During the same period, the Church was also calling for better translations of the Bible and more Bible study.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Sept 18, 2023 16:52:29 GMT
Much of the TLM crowd in my are has become a *movement* against the Pope. Actually, I would go so far as to say that an irreparable schism has already occurred within the Church, especially in the US, much as has occurred in the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches. The Traditionalists routinely anathematize the "Novus Ordo" progressives, and don't see them as "real" members of the same Church. And progressives look upon the Traditionalists as some motley assemblage of kooky cults aiming to establish a "church within the Church" with the eventual goal of taking it over, but rapidly spinning beyond the orbit of the Church. My guess is that when Pope Francis goes to Jesus and is replaced by a pope not to their liking, which is the most likely scenario, the Traditionalists will spin off into various and sundry sedevacantist off-shoots, as many of them already have. And since they don't have anything resembling a leader or a center, they will fragment and eventually fade into insignificance. They have invested a great deal in the idea that, after Francis, they will get an ultra-conservative pope. When that doesn't pay off, they will most likely cash in their chips. I don't see them as willing to sit out another pontificate not to their liking.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 18, 2023 18:00:51 GMT
There was no trauma. What happened is that the Church discovered more manuscripts about ancient liturgies and practices. They also noted that for centuries the Mass was being translated for purposes of evangelization. Meanwhile, more in North America had been requesting for at least annotated translations of the Mass so that they could understand it from the late 19th century onward. During the same period, the Church was also calling for better translations of the Bible and more Bible study. Sure there was. You've referred to it yourself, people being discouraged from reading the Bible, sharp class differences at Mass (the padrones occupying a privileged place and so on). We didn't have the latter in the US, but we did have nuns in the schools administering discipline to the tune of a ruler across the knuckles, mindless memorization of the Baltimore Catechism, having to adhere to draconian communion fasts (proof that the Church can indeed err in her practical judgment), being admonished to "leave room for the Holy Ghost" when dancing (actually not a bad idea), the list goes on. Many people of a certain age, once offered a more liberal version of "Church", ran as far as they could away from the past and never looked back. I've talked to people, I've heard it all. I am not implying that such "trauma" brought about the radical changes in the Mass.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Sept 19, 2023 4:52:54 GMT
There was no trauma. What happened is that the Church discovered more manuscripts about ancient liturgies and practices. They also noted that for centuries the Mass was being translated for purposes of evangelization. Meanwhile, more in North America had been requesting for at least annotated translations of the Mass so that they could understand it from the late 19th century onward. During the same period, the Church was also calling for better translations of the Bible and more Bible study. Sure there was. You've referred to it yourself, people being discouraged from reading the Bible, sharp class differences at Mass (the padrones occupying a privileged place and so on). We didn't have the latter in the US, but we did have nuns in the schools administering discipline to the tune of a ruler across the knuckles, mindless memorization of the Baltimore Catechism, having to adhere to draconian communion fasts (proof that the Church can indeed err in her practical judgment), being admonished to "leave room for the Holy Ghost" when dancing (actually not a bad idea), the list goes on. Many people of a certain age, once offered a more liberal version of "Church", ran as far as they could away from the past and never looked back. I've talked to people, I've heard it all. I am not implying that such "trauma" brought about the radical changes in the Mass.
About the Bible, if any, the trauma involved the whole Church and started hundreds of years earlier given the rise of Protestants.
The sharp class differences took place regardless of the form of the Mass.
Corporal punishment took place outside Catholic communities and across centuries. People started going against it during the 1970s.
Finally, the liberal version of the Church started during the nineteenth century, when it called for better Bible translations and more Bible study. One can argue that it even started earlier, when it adjusted by making translations of the Mass and even of catechism for people in different parts of the world, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Oct 2, 2023 11:57:09 GMT
|
|