Thread: The Fifth Marian Dogma? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027405
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
I can understand (though not necessarily believe) the existing dogmas around Mary and her role(spiritual motherhood, perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and assumption) they all seem to have a Christological root and therefore to fit within the framework of orthodox belief. My issue comes with the as yet unproclaimed fifth Marian Dogma which would give Mary the titles of co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all grace and co-Advocate.
I consider myself to be an Orthodox Christian with a fair understanding of theology though I am certainly no expert. The ideas espoused in this proposed dogma seem to me to increasingly separate Mary away from her humanity and into an almost otherworldly superhuman. I feel this runs the risk of leading people into Mariolatry. I am aware that the RC Church would never support or encourage the worship of Mary and that these dogmas when investigated state that they do not make Mary on any level equal with God. Still I think this feels a little like splitting hairs and it sits ill with me.
I would welcome the opinion of shipmates, particularly RC posters in regards to their understanding of the theology behind these beliefs and their views about the pressure within the Church to declare them as dogma.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I am aware that the RC Church would never support or encourage the worship of Mary
That's kinda like saying the country-club denizens who run the Republican Party would never encourage people to call Obama a Muslim terrorist spearchucker.
They might not actively encourage it, but if it manages to swing a few more votes into their column, well, what the hey.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
I have been hearing this story since the early 1990s, yet never has anyone given any evidence that the Catholic Church is seriously giving this consideration. Can you tell us where you got this from?
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
I kind of agree with you Stetson, that's why I said it felt like splitting hairs. But still officially the position of the church is that they do not worship Mary and I think we have to be fair to that.
TT, I'll include a few links. Apologies for not doing so before.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/MEDIATRI.htm
http://catholicexchange.com/the-fifth-marian-dogma-the-churchs-unused-weapon
http://www.voxpopuli.org/index.php
The last link is to the organisation's previous website. There is a new one but as I can't get it to open on my browser I don't want to link to it blind.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
The ideas espoused in this proposed dogma seem to me to increasingly separate Mary away from her humanity and into an almost otherworldly superhuman. I feel this runs the risk of leading people into Mariolatry.
Pope XVI seems to have warned of creating this impression. From Wikipedia:
quote:
When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger responded that,
the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings...Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way.
[ 09. June 2014, 22:03: Message edited by: roybart ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
I am aware that the RC Church would never support or encourage the worship of Mary
That's kinda like saying the country-club denizens who run the Republican Party would never encourage people to call Obama a Muslim terrorist spearchucker.
They might not actively encourage it, but if it manages to swing a few more votes into their column, well, what the hey.
What is this, exactly? An insinuation that the hierarchy of the Church would be happy to have people full-on worship the BVM if it got them more members or support, or... Or, well, what? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I have been hearing this story since the early 1990s, yet never has anyone given any evidence that the Catholic Church is seriously giving this consideration. Can you tell us where you got this from?
I just googled this article that refers to a letter Benedict XVI wrote at the end of his papal reign and adds references other popes have made about Mary's role in sharing the bounty of grace she received.
And from Lumen Gentium (I hope this isn't too long a clip) : quote:
... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.
This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer...."
The document made clear that according to the Council, this should not cross the line into worship as the Godhead is worshiped. But in the fervor of the Marion devotion in people's hearts, does this usually hold true? I'm somewhat concerned. I can see that Mary as the Theotokos enabled the Incarnation and thus the Word's saving grace to enter the world. I can even see that asking the BVM for her prayers to her son in addition to one's own is comforting and heartening. But the implication that flows through the words of the doctrine is that all graces since the Annunciation to this very day are mediated through devotion to Mary who then passes the requests to her son. This may not be what is meant, but are the majority of worshipers theologically sophisticated enough not blur the line between worship and veneration and to appreciate that the gifts of grace are gifts of the One God however they are distributed?
From the article quoted above: quote:
St. Pius X said she was the "dispensatrix of all the gifts, and is the "neck" connecting the Head of the Mystical Body to the Members. But all power flows through the neck." Pius XII said "Her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion."
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Pretty goddess-sounding even if it's not meant to be.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
That's kinda like saying the country-club denizens who run the Republican Party would never encourage people to call Obama a Muslim terrorist spearchucker.
I certainly couldn't endorse this as an exemplar of the way to "Be courteous in your debating style."
In a rough score of words this sentence manages to insult and alienate Republicans and Catholics.
Well done, sir. well done.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
TT, I'll include a few links. Apologies for not doing so before.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/MEDIATRI.htm
http://catholicexchange.com/the-fifth-marian-dogma-the-churchs-unused-weapon
http://www.voxpopuli.org/index.php
The last link is to the organisation's previous website. There is a new one but as I can't get it to open on my browser I don't want to link to it blind.
Okay. I was wondering whether you were referring to that petition. The thing is it is no more than that - a petition. It has not been taken up in Rome - just as those who go on and on and on about consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Third secret of Fatima don't get a positive response from Rome. I can assure you, it's not an imminent move.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
TT I am relieved about that (though really as I am not RC I suppose it's ultimately not my concern I am just curious) but still it does seem to pop up an awful lot amongst RC communities. I've actually just found the original reference that led me to go on a google hunt.
It's here: http://www.legionofmary.ie/about/
My friend mentioned she had to go to her meeting for this society and being a nosy soul I had to find out what it was and then raised my eyebrows somewhat at the phrase 'Mediatrix of all graces' so hunted it down.
What do you make of the ideas contained within the proposals for the dogma?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
The adoption of such dogma would surely destroy any hope of some form of reunion with the Orthodox ( I would think) and would totally alienate protestants, even the most catholic minded. The legitimate hyperdulia of the BVM is always at some risk of verging into de facto latria.
Here's a question I have: if such novel dogma were proclaimed, would any Roman Catholics here seriously consider leaving because of it?
Posted by Manx Taffy (# 301) on
:
I do not think I would leave the Church because of it. To do so would be me saying that I know better.
In reality I would accept that if it is a dogma there must be some mysterious truth in it even if I at this time might struggle to understand it. Hopefully I would prayerfully accept it and stay open to understanding it better over time. This has worked for me over time with the Immaculate conception and I feel I have a deeper understanding.
If I didn't move to a stronger belief and understanding I could accept that as it wouldn't be fundamental to how I try to live out my faith. This is not the same as me thinking I know better than the Church.
I am sure some Protestants will see that as leaving my brain at the church door, but Imthink it is quite different.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
This article from L'Osservatore Romano , the Vatican mouthpiece, says it all really.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Just another thought: some of the earlier papal assertions quoted above would seem to make Mary coterminous with the Triune Godhead. Surely this is seriously unbalancing to orthodox trinitarian and Christological theology, to put it mildly. Our Lady's cooperation in the Incarnation does make her intimately involved in the "economy" of salvation, and she is certainly to be given due veneration as the new Eve and our maternal intercessor, but this high veneration is a far cry from essentially making her co-equal with the Incarnate Logos.
Cross-posted with TT, whose post I've not yet been able to read ( the link anyway).
[ 10. June 2014, 00:11: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
So Fr TT's link seems to put paid to all this, and expresses my own thoughts, i.e. You could define Mary as co-redemptrix in a way congruent with existing orthodox theology, but it would simply be giving an easily misunderstood title to characterise what is already recognised as to Mary's role in the Incarnation and human redemption. Requests for such definitions are in my view seriously misguided and promote what is crudely but bluntly called Mary-worship. Oddly, however, I think a strictly delimited definition of Mary as co-redemptrix would be less unbiblical than the extra-biblical dogmas of immaculate conception and the assumption ( dogma that are supported by long held pious opinion within the Tradition, but not by Scripture or early conciliar theological formulations).
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The legitimate hyperdulia of the BVM is always at some risk of verging into de facto latria. Here's a question I have: if such novel dogma were proclaimed, would any Roman Catholics here seriously consider leaving because of it?
That depends on whether the proclamation would establish de facto latria instead of hyperdulia, or not... This is not inherent in the terms, but depends on the meaning given to them. If an orthodox interpretation was provided, and such a proclamation certainly would provide some clarification of meaning, then I would consider this move unwise but not deadly.
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
This article from L'Osservatore Romano , the Vatican mouthpiece, says it all really.
I agree.
FWIW, it seems clear to me that the human being Mary cannot possibly deal in any sort of mechanistic fashion even with all the prayers addressed to her, much less with the dispensation of all graces, unless Divinely and miraculously empowered to do so. In a way then Mary adds a distinct "motherly flavour" to salvation, not over and against God, but by and through God.
In my reading of the bible, Jesus Himself is frankly not quite the ever-kind and ultra-loving person that people make Him out to be. I also see some very hard edges and considerable harshness in the texts, and to put it simply, I see a man. When I think of Mary in this context, I think of John 2, the Wedding of Cana. Here the - shall we say - civilising influence of women on men, of mothers on sons in particular, seems to me in full play. The very first miracle of God Incarnate, worked in response to a mother reminding a (frankly somewhat petulant...) Son to look out for the needs of others, even if they seem trivial... One can see this as taking away from the Divinity of Christ, but I would see it rather as God being truly human. In a sense being Divine cannot be contained in just an isolated male human being, however perfect. It spills over into the relationship to women, in particular to one's mother. God as being beyond genders does not incarnate into some kind of confusion of genders, but He incarnates into the full relationship between genders - and so He as a young adult male has a mum that nags Him to stop dreaming of His time and do the right thing here and now.
So as far as God's graces come to us as "motherly care", I think we can imagine them coming "mediated by Mary" somehow. Not because Jesus is deficient. But rather because Jesus is fully human, and male, and hence attains a "motherly perspective" not in Himself but by relationship to women, and as a single, in particular by His relationship to His mother.
I feel the saccharine Jesus, the Divine hippy, is in a way the rolling into one of what the traditional Jesus and Mary are. The image and the likeness of God is male and female, but if one reduces the Incarnation to a single male Person, abstracted away from the relationship to women and in particular to His mother, then this Person needs to be overloaded with "feminine" elements to be complete. Even though frankly there's not much of that in scripture itself...
Jesus turns the water into wine, not Mary. But just who of us cannot add to this exchange
And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
the missing verse
Jesus ever so slightly rolled his eyes: "OK, mum."
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
IngoB: quote:
Jesus turns the water into wine, not Mary. But just who of us cannot add to this exchange
And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
the missing verse
Jesus ever so slightly rolled his eyes: "OK, mum."
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
And I like the point that Jesus in his humanity didn't just receive DNA from Mary, but a healthy, human rearing. The Incarnation descended not only into the world in a big, theological splash, but into the fabric of human community and loving relationships of family and friends. "And the Word became flesh and lived among us."
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Here's a question I have: if such novel dogma were proclaimed, would any Roman Catholics here seriously consider leaving because of it?
The short answer is Yes.
Not necessarily because of the dogma itself.
But I have encountered quite a few fellow R.C.'s who in practice consider Mary to be the fourth member of the Trinity.
It doesn't bother them that the R.C. church does not teach that. They just "feel" they are right, and are happy to provide you with any number of (usually blatantly misinterpreted or even fictional) quotes from an assortment of saints and popes in support of their convictions and the accompanying demands for additional Marian Dogma's.
I fear these people would be greatly encouraged by a 5th Marian Dogma.
Personally I am (apparently) too focused on the Trinity to see that a 5th Marian Dogma would serve any practical or spiritual purpose in a Christian church. But apart from that it would encourage these people to the extent of being deliberately irresponsible.
And indeed it would also be the nth stumbling block in ever achieving any true oikumene with most non-R.C. Christian churches. But hearing both my bishop and parish priest openly and unashamedly stating that oikumene can only be achieved by all non-R.C.s "converting" to the Roman Catholic church, that probably won't be a consideration in the decision to proclaim such a dogma.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
I am aware that the RC Church would never support or encourage the worship of Mary
That's kinda like saying the country-club denizens who run the Republican Party would never encourage people to call Obama a Muslim terrorist spearchucker.
They might not actively encourage it, but if it manages to swing a few more votes into their column, well, what the hey.
What is this, exactly? An insinuation that the hierarchy of the Church would be happy to have people full-on worship the BVM if it got them more members or support, or... Or, well, what?
That would seem to be what I'm trying to say, sir.
(Hat tip to Inspector Columbo.)
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That depends on whether the proclamation would establish de facto latria instead of hyperdulia, or not... This is not inherent in the terms, but depends on the meaning given to them. If an orthodox interpretation was provided, and such a proclamation certainly would provide some clarification of meaning, then I would consider this move unwise but not deadly.
Would it be right to say that the RCC is already pretty clear on what it believes about Mary and her role in God's plan for our salvation, and the debate is really about whether the "co-Redemptrix..." etc form of words is a useful and edifying way to convey that belief, rather than representing a proposed change in the way the Church sees her?
[ 10. June 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Would it be right to say that the RCC is already pretty clear on what it believes about Mary and her role in God's plan for our salvation, and the debate is really about whether the "co-Redemptrix..." etc form of words is a useful and edifying way to convey that belief, rather than representing a proposed change in the way the Church sees her?
I'm not sure that this is true. I think there's plenty of room left there for argument and speculation, indeed, real disagreement on doctrine. Saying something definite would be a bit like staking out a claim, in a way that would be more pleasing to one side than another. For example, I have given above a very "psychological" and soft interpretation of what it could mean to say that Mary is involved in the dispensing of all graces. I'm sure others see this more like Mary, the grace pump, who runs on 10.000 Marian prayers per second to spray the Divine grace bubbling up from the Godhead into the direction of earth. Or something more "mechanistic" like that. There are some real issues there, and a dogmatic definition now would be shortcutting a necessary process of discernment, I feel.
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on
:
I think that for a new dogma to be proclaimed either an Ecumenical Council or the Pope Ex cathedra would have to be able to point to something resembling unanimity in the Church at this time and to a consensus of Sacred Tradition from which the dogma could be inferred. I'm not at all sure that this is likely to be achievable any time soon if ever.
In many cases, of course, a dogma is only proclaimed in response to some heresy which the dogma in question handily refutes. There seems to be no such urgent reason in this era and so nothing particularly to be gained by such a proclamation rather the possibility exists of losing something unnecessarily by so doing.
Personally I am very relaxed about the idea of our Lady as Mediatrix of all Grace and as our Advocate before Jesus the Judge as well as the Saviour. I don't however see any need for the title Co-Redemptrix simply because it is so easily misunderstood and, as we perhaps see already, so easily misrepresented.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I would think the true Mediator of all grace is the Third Person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit. Mary's perpetual intercession is in union with the will of the Godhead, as are the perfect prayers of the whole company of the saints in glory, but these intercessions both resonate our own prayers and reflect a full unity of will with the Triune God; they are not an independent channel of grace; it is the Holy Spirit who remains Lord of Prayer and conveyer of grace into the world.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
That's kinda like saying the country-club denizens who run the Republican Party would never encourage people to call Obama a Muslim terrorist spearchucker.
I certainly couldn't endorse this as an exemplar of the way to "Be courteous in your debating style."
In a rough score of words this sentence manages to insult and alienate Republicans and Catholics.
Well done, sir. well done.
In the 2000 GOP primaries, a strategist working for Bush spread rumours that John McCain had fathered a black child. These rumours were intended to dovetail with the real-life fact that McCain had adopted an Indian child.
In 2008, running again for the nomination, McCain hired the very same strategist who had launched that racist smear.
So, no. I am not weeping for the tender feelings of any Republican leaders who might object to being characterized as race-baiters. It's pretty much their stock-in-trade.
The Nation
[ 10. June 2014, 23:27: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Here's a question I have: if such novel dogma were proclaimed, would any Roman Catholics here seriously consider leaving because of it?
The short answer is Yes.
I hope you will pardon me cutting the rest of your reply I read it and found it extremely interesting. It's precisely this that intrigues me. As I did my reading around the controversy surrounding previous infallible proclamations of Marian dogma I discovered that some very famous saints and scholars of the church including St Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairveux - see fourth paragraph under history of doctrine here: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm had denied the doctrine of the immaculate conception.
There is very probably a clear answer here that if we wish to be part of the Catholic Church then we need to conform our minds to it and that doubt among the faithful is on them to correct and not the church to conform to. But it seems strange that the Church could hold people up as Saints who had very clearly denied what is now held to be declared and required truth for all Catholics. It seems to undermine something about the necessity of definitions and doctrine beyond the fundamentals as defined in the Creeds.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
In the 2000 GOP primaries, a strategist working for Bush spread rumours that John McCain had fathered a black child. These rumours were intended to dovetail with the real-life fact that McCain had adopted an Indian child.
In 2008, running again for the nomination, McCain hired the very same strategist who had launched that racist smear.
So, no. I am not weeping for the tender feelings of any Republican leaders who might object to being characterized as race-baiters. It's pretty much their stock-in-trade.
All this vituperation, on a thread about Marian doctrine, is slyly directed at Republicans, when it is Catholics you really have in your rhetorical gun-sights.
What you say about Republicans could all be true, but I think you make my point for me.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
As I did my reading around the controversy surrounding previous infallible proclamations of Marian dogma I discovered that some very famous saints and scholars of the church including St Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairveux - see fourth paragraph under history of doctrine here: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm had denied the doctrine of the immaculate conception.
I will quote myself from a recent thread: "As for Aquinas, some people argue that he never actually denied the Immaculate Conception. But a fairer view is that he first accepted it (in his commentary on Lombard's Sentences), then denied it (in the Summa Theologiae) and finally accepted it again (in his comment on the Angelic Salutation). And there is a good and simple reason why he and many other famous theologians were sceptical at this point in time. There is an apparent conflict, still raised by many Protestants these days, between Mary being immaculate from conception and the need of every human for God's redemption. There was a very strong tradition that Mary was free of the stain of sin, but it often got expressed in explicit contradiction to the equally clear teaching that we all need to be redeemed by Christ. From today's perspective, much of the tradition was realised in heretical ways. The solution (that Mary was redeemed by Christ, but as a special favour to her prior or perhaps better in her conception) was still under development. The apparent contradiction had not been resolved to everybody's satisfaction in Aquinas' time, and the argument against her Immaculate Conception was primarily targeted against the opinion that Mary did not need Christ's redemption (which seems like an obvious corollary)."
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
There is very probably a clear answer here that if we wish to be part of the Catholic Church then we need to conform our minds to it and that doubt among the faithful is on them to correct and not the church to conform to. But it seems strange that the Church could hold people up as Saints who had very clearly denied what is now held to be declared and required truth for all Catholics. It seems to undermine something about the necessity of definitions and doctrine beyond the fundamentals as defined in the Creeds.
It is hardly an isolated phenomenon that the Church has rejected the theological opinion of one of her saints on something. But the RCC - perhaps unlike the Orthodox churches - does believe in a process of development of her teachings through history. Consequently, there's an element of time in all this. If you denied the Immaculate Conception in the middle ages, you would not be a heretic, if you did it now, you would be. Why? Because in the meantime this teaching has been clarified (to the point of becoming "de fide"). Looking back at the people who disagreed in the middle ages, we can say that they held an heretic opinion. But we cannot say that they were heretics, at least not if we thereby imply culpability. In fact, as pointed out above, pretty much everybody back then held an opinion that would now be suspect of heresy. Most of those favouring the Immaculate Conception did not do so in an orthodox manner either.
Did Aquinas have to believe in the Immaculate Conception? No, the Church had not spoken on this in his time. Could he have been expected to do so? Well, perhaps, but simply because he was a theological genius and one could have hoped that he would have seen through the difficulties. And/or one could have hoped that he would have been inspired by God to see the way forward. But that didn't happen. What follows from that? Not much. Mostly that the development of doctrine doesn't rest on one man's shoulders. Certainly it doesn't put his sainthood in question.
It's different for Catholics, and in particular Catholic theologians, now. The Church has spoken, so now you are a heretic when you deny this teaching. And if you insisted on that, then your sainthood would be threatened (at least certainly the judgement that you were a heroic saint deserving of canonisation).
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
The Church has spoken, so now you are a heretic when you deny this teaching.
Ah well, this comment and the long post in which it appeared makes me wonder what I was being criticised for on a couple of other recent threads, when I pointed out how Tradition and the RCC impose dogmas on people - backed up by threats - thereby undermining reason and freedom of thought.
QED.
(By the way... there does seem to be rather a contradiction between the RCC's claim to be The One True Church on the basis of its longevity and institutional succession - i.e. its appeal to history - and its self-appointed right to change its position by appealing to "development of doctrine". "Cake and eat it" comes to mind...
After all, if God is into "development of doctrine", then, hey, why not say that Protestantism was His new move, and therefore He has spoken to His people that they must embrace the Reformation otherwise they are heretics! Good for the goose is good for the gander, methinks!)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Except that, in the RCC schema, Protestantism was a development outwith rather than within the RC Church - so the idea is that development within the purlieu of the RCC is ok, but not if it takes things outside and beyond it.
I'm not saying I agree, I'm simply pointing out that this is what the RCC's position is.
I don't think any of us were disagreeing with you that the RCC does impose what it considers to be correct doctrine - what we were disagreeing over was the assertion that reason didn't come into it.
The whole point about the development of doctrine in whatever tradition we want to examine, is that it develops in ways which its proponents consider to be commensurate with the tradition - or Tradition.
This happens within Protestantism too, of course, the difference being that it tends not to rely on an official Magisterium as the final arbiter.
Of course, the rest of us are perfectly free whether to accept the conclusions of the RCC or not - and in order for any of us to be reconciled with the RCC in formal terms and become a member of that body then we would have to accept these conclusions.
The Immaculate Conception is one of the reasons why I don't see myself crossing the Tiber. The RC's are cool with that. They're not going to drag me over, kicking and screaming nor apply thumb-screws until I recant my errors and accept their dogma.
Consequently, I don't get upset by their position, nor do I feel threatened by it in anyway anymore than they feel threatened by mine.
Orthodoxy is rather 'looser' and less defined on these contentious areas so if I were ever to move from Protestantism towards one of the more sacramental historic Churches it'd be much more likely to be Orthodoxy that I'd head for.
It's all a case of how tightly you draw the line on these things.
In essence, I agree with you but not with the accusations you've made elsewhere that the RC's aren't applying reason and logic. They are. They are simply applying reason and logic in a different way and ending up with different conclusions.
We are not dealing with 2+2 = 4 calculations here.
Nor Orwellian 2+2 = 5 either ...
But I don't want to rehearse the arguments that were thrashed out on the thread you are referring to.
Yes, people were disagreeing with you, some quite vehemently, but it was more over the logic/reason thing than over the assertion that the RCs tend to impose or assert doctrine in a way that then becomes 'binding' on the faithful. I think we'd all agree with you on that.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
If doctrine can 'develop', then why not the doctrine of the church?
Again, cake and eat it, it seems...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think IngoB is saying that doctrine can develop - he's given an example of how he believes it has.
You have missed an important caveat in what he is saying though - doctrine can develop in the context of the Church - in this case understood as the Roman Catholic Church.
So the Reformation doctrines you've cited wouldn't count as a doctrinal development as they have occurred outwith the purlieu of the RCC.
Indeed, they led to a split away from the RCC and then to further subdivisions and variations - so in RCC terms those developments are inadmissible as they are occuring outside of the proper forum in which these debates and developments should take place.
As I've said, it all depends on where we want to draw the line. If we are Protestants we will draw the line in a different place to the RCC, the Orthodox draw the line somewhere else again.
To them it's the RCC which has added illegitimate developments.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Exactly my point.
It's called "special pleading", which is a logical fallacy.
[ 11. June 2014, 16:58: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, it's one you'll have to take up with IngoB and the other RCs on this board.
They wouldn't see it as special pleading but a logical development of RC teaching at various points.
We can all be guilty of special pleading, of course.
I may offend some of the more Reformed posters, but I'd suggest that some of the TwisterTM-style contortions needed to defend some of the TULIP petals - particularly the L one - are a good example of special pleading from the Protestant side of things.
There will be other examples from other traditions. I can certainly think of some charismatic/Pentecostal ones. I'm sure there are also Anglican ones and examples from any other tradition we might mention ...
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Yep, and tu quoque is another common logical fallacy.
Because "other people do it" does not justify anyone doing it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I wasn't justifying it, simply spreading the guilt.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Immaculate Conception is one of the reasons why I don't see myself crossing the Tiber. The RC's are cool with that. They're not going to drag me over, kicking and screaming nor apply thumb-screws until I recant my errors and accept their dogma.
I'm not "cool" with that. I just don't think that applying thumb-screws particularly helps anything nowadays. It never helped personal convictions. And we do not live in Christendom any longer, where paying lip service to a shared religious world view was an important part of the glue holding societies together. So if you say "Here are my religious errors, aren't they shiny? I just love them. What are you going to do about that?" Then my answer is "Not much." Possibly I will try to argue you down on some random internet forum, that sounds like a bit of fun.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You have missed an important caveat in what he is saying though - doctrine can develop in the context of the Church - in this case understood as the Roman Catholic Church. So the Reformation doctrines you've cited wouldn't count as a doctrinal development as they have occurred outwith the purlieu of the RCC. Indeed, they led to a split away from the RCC and then to further subdivisions and variations - so in RCC terms those developments are inadmissible as they are occuring outside of the proper forum in which these debates and developments should take place.
This is perhaps how the Orthodox would view this, they are in their way a lot more authoritarian than the RCC. As I understand them, or at least some of them that have written here, they have this kind of electricity point of view about Church. If something is "connected" properly to the Orthodox Church(es), then it works ("is switched on"), but if it is apart it fails. There is no real religious power apart from the Church. I find this rather weird, very authoritarian in its own way, and it is not really how the RCC operates.
The RCC never has and never will claim that something is true because she said it. The RCC will always argue that she is saying something because it is true. The development of doctrine is in RC terms not established by hierarchical dictate. Rather, what dictates of the hierarchy there might be affirm the development that has happened, and make it binding to the faithful. That is an act of governance. But in the first place, the mode of doctrinal development is roughly similar to that of natural science. A matter that is unknown or vague is studied based on available data until matters become clear, then the result is announced. Add to this the understanding that the only data that is truly available is the deposit of faith once given, and you have the RC development of doctrine. It is an unfolding of what is there, and expansion of what is given, and it is tightly constrained by the origin and the prior history of development.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Orthodoxy is rather 'looser' and less defined on these contentious areas so if I were ever to move from Protestantism towards one of the more sacramental historic Churches it'd be much more likely to be Orthodoxy that I'd head for.
Or more properly, the Orthodox we have on the Ship, and their churches in the West, are being represented as looser than the RCC. And then ever so often we get a massive rant about what the Orthodox Church has done or said in Russia or in Greece to somewhere else in the traditionally Orthodox countries. And what we hear from those lands tends to be far from vague on contentious issues, and often harsh in a way that reminds one of the RCC in the 19thC.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, ok, you're not 'cool' with it - I didn't express myself very well.
And yes, I am aware that the RCC believes that when it 'rubber-stamps' something as being true this is because it is true already and simply awaiting the official stamp, not that they 'make' something true by stamping it ...
On the Orthodox thing - well, yes, I have met other Orthodox in real life and discussed this sort of thing on other web-forums - (shock, horror) - and my impression is similar to yours. Some of them are hard and vicious bastards.
I think your electricity analogy is a good one and holds true for many of them - in a way that doesn't necessarily apply to the RC view on these things which isn't quite as on/off as it were.
In all honesty, I can see things that both attract and repel me within both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy - it could be a kind of swings-and-roundabouts thing - but that's a very, and annoyingly, Anglican thing of me to say.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
On a more positive and less polemical note, I opened a thread in Keryg about the concept of Mary being the Mother of the Church, based on Jesus' words from the cross as recorded in John 19:25-27.
Despite being a (not very good) Protestant, I explained that I didn't think Jesus was just sorting out Mary's domestic arrangements. I feel sure (backed up by the logic that Jesus' words from the cross must be for all people) that there is a spiritual meaning to this.
If anyone (RC or otherwise) can give any insight into this, I would be grateful.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not RC but I would imagine that there'd be a strand of RC teaching that would say that 'Behold your Mother' implies that Mary is the Mother of us all in some mystical way ... insofar that in giving birth to Christ she is in some way the mother of the Church - as the Church is Christ's Body ...
There is a vein of RC and Orthodox teaching that links Mary with the Church of course - Mary as a type of the Church. Just as Mary bore Christ in her womb, so the Church bears Christ to the world and so on ...
There are links between Marian devotion and typology and the Burning Bush, the Ark of the Covenant, the City of God, the New Jerusalem and so on ... and some of the images from Ezekiel such as the Temple in the prophet's visions are given a Marian gloss ... sometimes in ways that would raise Protestant eyebrows.
There are certainly typological links between Mary and the Church expressed in some of the Orthodox liturgies and I'd imagine in some of the RC prayers too.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
'Just'?! Of course He was.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Both/and Martin?
John's Gospel works on all manner of different levels. There are patterns and repetitions - the 'I am ...' statements and the miracles that are recorded there seem to have a pedagogic/theological import too - they aren't just there so we can say, 'oh look, how marvellous ...'
So I don't find anything strange or outrageous in EE's contention/assumption that there'll be some kind of spiritual significance as well as or alongside what we might see as the plain narrative purpose if you like ie, this is what Jesus said from the cross and it was purely a domestic arrangement.
Sure, it was that - but why can't it be that and more?
The thing is, and I'm being serious here too, it strikes me that as soon as we start to discuss/debate what that significance might be we are entering 'tradition' territory.
But then, I'm no longer a sola scriptura type ...
I'd be interested to see if someone could come up with a Sola Scriptura answer to EE's question ... unless you've given us one already - that it was purely a domestic arrangement.
As soon as we get into interpretation we get into tradition ... and personally, I don't have an issue with that.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
I'd just like to point out that if we want to investigate this question biblically, then there is a thread in Kerygmania for that purpose.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I'm not sola scriptura in the slightest - common sense canonical yes - and not an inerrantist. Jesus was saying that we are to be sons and mothers to all who need those roles and more, in our domestic-global arrangements. A vast challenge that we the Church feebly aspire to. He was saying nothing about Marianism of course. If He were He'd have said to it Peter. If only eh?
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
There is a Catholic (RC) Marian Litany which can be found on line. An example (I quote):
Vessel of honor,
pray for us.
Singular vessel of devotion,
pray for us.
Mystical rose,
pray for us.
Tower of David,
pray for us.
Tower of ivory,
pray for us.
House of gold,
pray for us.
Ark of the Covenant,
pray for us.
Gate of Heaven,
pray for us.
Morning star,
pray for us.
Health of the sick,
pray for us.
All romantic imagery and worthless (theologically speaking).
What is one to make of it?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It's only worthless theologically speaking if you aren't a Roman Catholic. To a Roman Catholic it would make perfect sense theologically.
Just because you find it worthless theologically, it doesn't mean that they do.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel
Avatar image
Shipmate
# 812
- Posted 13 June, 2014 10:01 Profile for Gamaliel
Reply with quote
It's only worthless theologically speaking if you aren't a Roman Catholic. To a Roman Catholic it would make perfect sense theologically.
Just because you find it worthless theologically, it doesn't mean that they do.
I am a Roman Catholic!
I stand by what I say.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
Sorry for double posting.
I do not know how to "quote" in the approved manner.
I am a (Roman) Catholic.
I like Litanies.
They are an aid to prayer. In the Marian Litany we ascribe titles to Mary that are poetic and not theological i.e. Tower of Ivory has no meaning in any sense.
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Sorry for double posting.
I do not know how to "quote" in the approved manner.
I am a (Roman) Catholic.
I like Litanies.
They are an aid to prayer. In the Marian Litany we ascribe titles to Mary that are poetic and not theological i.e. Tower of Ivory has no meaning in any sense.
Tangent - note to Frankenstein...
To quote, as above, look to the line on the post where you see the date written in red letters, glance to the right of this and find the opening and closing quotation marks, hover your mouse over them and a small note will appear that says, "Reply with quote". When you click on this, a new message begins with the quote already in place. Once you have written your message, click on "Preview Post", just below the typing window and beside "Add Reply" to be sure that it all looks the way you had intended.
Edited to remove an extra "the". ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 13. June 2014, 09:55: Message edited by: lily pad ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmm ... ok - but is there some kind of OT reference to the Tower of Ivory? I'm thinking Song of Songs, but that might get us into hot water in terms of interpretations ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
There is a Catholic (RC) Marian Litany which can be found on line. An example (I quote):
Vessel of honor,
pray for us.
Singular vessel of devotion,
pray for us.
Mystical rose,
pray for us.
Tower of David,
pray for us.
Tower of ivory,
pray for us.
House of gold,
pray for us.
Ark of the Covenant,
pray for us.
Gate of Heaven,
pray for us.
Morning star,
pray for us.
Health of the sick,
pray for us.
All romantic imagery and worthless (theologically speaking).
What is one to make of it?
I used to pray this litany silently as a devotion at Mass frequently (and I'm not RC; rather, Anglican). IMO the imagery allows one to enter into the devotional, meditative spirit of this prayer, focussing one's devotion on the BVM. It's effect is quasi-hypnotic (for me anyway). Some of the imagery certainly does have theological implications, but the real power of it is as a vehicle for, and expression of, pure veneration.
[ 13. June 2014, 12:17: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Some of the imagery certainly does have theological implications, but the real power of it is as a vehicle for, and expression of, pure veneration.
Hmm, I'd be rather more wary than this about the theological implications. If we're using a litany, or a song, or anything really, and it has theological content which we don't actually agree with, I think that's a problem; surely we're bound to absorb the content to some extent.
In my church tradition, this issue mainly expresses itself through theologically dubious songs, but that's another topic entirely...
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
There is a Catholic (RC) Marian Litany which can be found on line. An example (I quote):
Vessel of honor,
pray for us.
Singular vessel of devotion,
pray for us.
Mystical rose,
pray for us.
Tower of David,
pray for us.
Tower of ivory,
pray for us.
House of gold,
pray for us.
Ark of the Covenant,
pray for us.
Gate of Heaven,
pray for us.
Morning star,
pray for us.
Health of the sick,
pray for us.
All romantic imagery and worthless (theologically speaking).
What is one to make of it?
I used to pray this litany silently as a devotion at Mass frequently (and I'm not RC; rather, Anglican). IMO the imagery allows one to enter into the devotional, meditative spirit of this prayer, focussing one's devotion on the BVM. It's effect is quasi-hypnotic (for me anyway). Some of the imagery certainly does have theological implications, but the real power of it is as a vehicle for, and expression of, pure veneration.
Well said.
My sentiments entirely.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Frankenstiein - earlier on you classified the Litany of Loreto as 'worthless'. Now you agree with LSK that it can be 'devotional'.
It is of course poetic imagery , 'Tower of Ivory' coming from the Canticle of Canticles in the Old Testament.
In the olden days ,which you may remember, the Litany of Loreto would be recited publicly in church during May and October.I haven't heard it in a long,long time. I doubt if many young Catholics would know it,much as they probably wouldn't know many flowery Victorian hymns.
No Catholic is obliged to pray or even to express appreciation of the Litany of Loreto.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
In the olden days ,which you may remember, the Litany of Loreto would be recited publicly in church during May and October.I haven't heard it in a long,long time. I doubt if many young Catholics would know it,much as they probably wouldn't know many flowery Victorian hymns.
No Catholic is obliged to pray or even to express appreciation of the Litany of Loreto.
I heard it last month - May obviously - in my first attendance of an RC mass. I found it uncomfortable at best.
I take your word that Catholics are not obliged but it lasted nearly 10 minutes and involved a corporate response. I didn't see anyone who wasn't at least kneeling throughout.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Kneeling can be a sign of devotion.
It need not have been enforced upon unwilling subservient slaves.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've attended RC Exposition/Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and that made me feel jolly uncomfortable too ... but strangely moving at one and the same time.
I didn't know how to handle it, to be honest. It reminded me a bit of that scary thing in Lord of the Rings - The Eye of Sauron ... not that it was buzzing or emitting scary rays or anything ...
I felt a mix of embarrassment, concern and the kind of fellow-feeling you get when you are around people of genuine faith and devotion.
Oddly enough, I don't feel quite so hot-under-the-collar when the Orthodox venerate the consecrated gifts ... but then they partake of them rather than mounting them in a monstrance for people to admire ...
Intellectually, I can grasp what the practice is about but it still sits uncomfortably with me.
At the same time, I think I'd find the Loreto thing rather uncomfortable but I don't feel quite so uncomfortable about the Orthodox chant 'Rejoice Bride Unwedded'.
Here's a Russian version but you can find versions in English online.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6EurgsdeF8
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You can scroll down this Wiki page to find an English translation.
I find it a very beautiful and moving hymn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni_Parthene
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Apologies for the serial posting - but I think Seeking Sister isn't concerned that the RCs were being 'forced' to kneel, rather it was that they were kneeling in the first place as this would be a posture she would consider appropriate only for Christ rather than for Mary or the Saints.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
When I go to'happy,clappy' worship,I feel uncomfortable when people ,whom I consider to be rational beings,raise their hands or arms in the air and mutter things like 'Praise the Lord' or 'speak in tongues'.
At the same time I realise that it is just a style of worship which I am not used to.It is an everyday part of worship to these brothers and sisters in Christ and then I accept it as that.
I like the poetry and the corporate veneration of the Blessed Virgin and am happy to honour her with these words of praise from the Litany of Loreto,though I have never heard it recited during a Mass.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Why is it that some Anglicans would not want to kneel when saying prayers to the Queen of Heaven but are happy to bend the knee before the Queen of England ?
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Well because she is the Head of the Church.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Frankenstiein - earlier on you classified the Litany of Loreto as 'worthless'. Now you agree with LSK that it can be 'devotional'.
It is of course poetic imagery , 'Tower of Ivory' coming from the Canticle of Canticles in the Old Testament.
In the olden days ,which you may remember, the Litany of Loreto would be recited publicly in church during May and October.I haven't heard it in a long,long time. I doubt if many young Catholics would know it,much as they probably wouldn't know many flowery Victorian hymns.
No Catholic is obliged to pray or even to express appreciation of the Litany of Loreto.
I see that the word 'worthless' is causing a problem. I differentiate between devotional sentiments and articles of faith. 'Star of the sea' is a pretty phrase, devotional, if you must, but to me, nothing else. (Regardless of its derivation)
The Litanies seem to have gone out of fashion since Vatican 2. No Catholic is obliged to attend any act of devotion other than the Mass. 'Benediction', the stations of the Cross and the Divine Office are other such devotions.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Why is it that some Anglicans would not want to kneel when saying prayers to the Queen of Heaven but are happy to bend the knee before the Queen of England ?
She's not my queen, but it makes perfect sense to me to make a show of physical respect that is real but is much less than prayer.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Kneeling can be a sign of devotion.
It need not have been enforced upon unwilling subservient slaves.
I don't think they were forced into it, apologies.
I only mentioned the fact that everyone was kneeling and nearly everyone was participating in the corporate response "Pray for us" to point out that while it may not be an obligation, in that particular congregation the vast majority fully participated in the veneration.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
When I go to'happy,clappy' worship,I feel uncomfortable when people ,whom I consider to be rational beings,raise their hands or arms in the air and mutter things like 'Praise the Lord' or 'speak in tongues'.
At the same RC mass where I heard the litany there was a portion of the service where we all had to hold hands with our neighbors and then raise them into the air while singing. (Anyone know what this is by the way?)
Is it that different?
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
When I go to'happy,clappy' worship,I feel uncomfortable when people ,whom I consider to be rational beings,raise their hands or arms in the air and mutter things like 'Praise the Lord' or 'speak in tongues'.
At the same RC mass where I heard the litany there was a portion of the service where we all had to hold hands with our neighbors and then raise them into the air while singing. (Anyone know what this is by the way?)
Is it that different?
The saying of the Litany is not an integral part of the Mass. A Catholic might opt out of the Litany and still have 'heard' Mass.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
At the same RC mass where I heard the litany there was a portion of the service where we all had to hold hands with our neighbors and then raise them into the air while singing. (Anyone know what this is by the way?)
An abomination.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
At the same RC mass where I heard the litany there was a portion of the service where we all had to hold hands with our neighbors and then raise them into the air while singing. (Anyone know what this is by the way?)
An abomination.
A sop to the charismatic brigade, as well as being an abomination. I find 'happy clappy' nauseating.
Some people love it!
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
At the same RC mass where I heard the litany there was a portion of the service where we all had to hold hands with our neighbors and then raise them into the air while singing. (Anyone know what this is by the way?)
An abomination.
Indeed! In the US, the Charismatic Movement managed to invade many RC parishes with the practice of holding hands during the Our Father. Worse yet: Episcopalians taking liturgical cues from Rome, the abominable practice has invaded a percentage of MOTR TEC parishes.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
At the same RC mass where I heard the litany there was a portion of the service where we all had to hold hands with our neighbors and then raise them into the air while singing. (Anyone know what this is by the way?)
An abomination.
Indeed! In the US, the Charismatic Movement managed to invade many RC parishes with the practice of holding hands during the Our Father. Worse yet: Episcopalians taking liturgical cues from Rome, the abominable practice has invaded a percentage of MOTR TEC parishes.
We come together to worship God.
We should demonstrate that we are a community and not just individuals at prayer.
This started in RC circles, with the kiss of peace.
We Anglo Saxons are so undemonstrative. In Latin countries a show of warm fraternity come easier.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
In Lithuania most Catholics just nod to one another st the Peace, and say "Ramybes" (peace) -- no touching, heaven forbid.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
At the same RC mass where I heard the litany there was a portion of the service where we all had to hold hands with our neighbors and then raise them into the air while singing. (Anyone know what this is by the way?)
An abomination.
Indeed! In the US, the Charismatic Movement managed to invade many RC parishes with the practice of holding hands during the Our Father. Worse yet: Episcopalians taking liturgical cues from Rome, the abominable practice has invaded a percentage of MOTR TEC parishes.
We come together to worship God.
We should demonstrate that we are a community and not just individuals at prayer.
This started in RC circles, with the kiss of peace.
We Anglo Saxons are so undemonstrative. In Latin countries a show of warm fraternity come easier.
Given that Catholics and Episcopalians are generally more willing than many other denominations to share saliva during the Eucharist, it is interesting that they evince(at least on this board) such hostility to other displays of phycial intimacy during worship.
Not that I don't understand the hostility myself. Not a huge fan of the emotionally demonstrative "happy-clappy" stuff, though I suppose I could appreciate it more in its "native setting".
[ 13. June 2014, 20:14: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The custom of holding hands together during the 'Our Father' I first came across with German Lutherans many years ago.I don't know just how widespread it was,but I certainly saw it many times.
Wherever possible German Lutherans will stand in a circle round the altar to receive Communion and hold hands at the beginning,when they take their places round the altar.
It's not always possible depending on the layout of the sanctuary.
This custom was then taken up amongst some Catholics,holding hands during the recitation of the Lord's prayer and raising them high at the end of the prayer.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
When I say that I feel uncomfortable when I am with 'happy-clappy' Christians who raise one hand in the air and mutter sometimes incomprehensible phrases,I don't mean to say that I think this is necessarily wrong.These are simply acts of devotion which are quite normal to some Christians,but can be just as strange to some other Christians to whom the Sign of the Cross and even the recitation of the Litany of Loreto are commonplace.
We are used to what we are used to.We sometimes use incorrect language when describing what we are used to.
I'm not sure if Caissa was tongue in cheek or serious when (s)he said ' The Queen is the Head of the Church.' Jesus is the Head of the Church.
The Queen of England is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Goodness me, several folks upthread, don't you think 'abomination' is a rather strong word for worship practices you don't like? Think of a worship practice you consider to be very important or even vital as part of how we should praise God and show him our devotion. How would you feel if someone said such a practice was an 'abomination'?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
So as far as God's graces come to us as "motherly care", I think we can imagine them coming "mediated by Mary" somehow. Not because Jesus is deficient. But rather because Jesus is fully human, and male, and hence attains a "motherly perspective" not in Himself but by relationship to women, and as a single, in particular by His relationship to His mother.
Holy Spirit. Father, Son, Mother. Never understood how Mary needed to be elevated like this. Except that mom is okay but wife or opposite sex partner is unpalatable to sexless or attempted sexless clergy.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
SCK, Chesterbelloc is joking you know.
We're all confessing our weaknesses, our prejudices, our enculturation here after all.
Post Roman minimalists do not and cannot understand Marianism at all although I FULLY understand the need for God to have maternal, sororal, filial attributes, to be related to in these personae. That's not something I've explored and don't feel the need and therefore may be I SHOULD.
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras and Gamaliel are way ahead of me in exploring the uncomfortable, the radical in Roman and Greek worship. Although I must confess I went as a tourist in my wilderness years to see the Roman remains at St. Pancras whilst on business nearby and stayed and worshipped not just comfortably, in that I could reconcile it, make it work, but with a frisson of wonder in a full Marian service ...
In Triangle we've often, but not recently as our format has changed, stood in a circle, held hands and shared a blessing. Perfect equality.
That was inspired by Forthview's comments among others: last night I was struggling to respond to your comment about bowing the knee to Her Majesty but not to the Queen of Heaven. Hence my three paragraphs up. Feeling my way in reconciliation. Mary in The Pietà needs no elevation. I cannot let anyone else have faith for me in any regard that I don't 'see'. I don't, can't possibly see Mary in Roman or Greek dogmatic terms. Those outer concentric circles, beyond those of the gospels, Acts, epistles, the TaNaKh: the apocrypha, traditions, cultures, generations, centuries, millennia which surround, perichoretically suffuse, gave birth to and from the inner canonical circles have no authoritative weight for me and can't.
I was having to defend a creationist against a theistic evolutionist, having been both and now a full on evolutionist with the three vitalist caveats. I feel all of that weight. The authority is in not judging in matters of meat and drink, in vain disputations, argument.
Yet and so here I am. Wanting to reach out, as I do to all my children alienated from each other but demonstrably less so from me. A prodigal father, child and brother (for which I thank Father Henri Nouwen).
I CANNOT be Marian in any placist dogmatic regard. Neither can I be rabidly fundamentalist, a narrow, distorted 'Puritan'. Circles that I have left and want no part of, no echo of in myself. Despite their veiled presence in the beginning of this paragraph. A 3D animation of these circles in time would be a great creative challenge, De Kooning meets Kandinsky by Disney.
And now on the cusp of 60, with no capacity for change, I've been kicked in to a vast postmodern orbit, the outermost circle in dogmatic terms, not far to go to outer darkness , where Thomas Merton and life make me nod and see God Zenning back. And I feel the need more than just nod at St. Ignatius of Loyola.
So, what is such a person to do? I am utterly incapable of receiving what I have no receptors, receivers, receptacle for. Whilst having them for much that is shared with Rome and Greece.
Can I stand in your circles and hold hands? You with Mary, me without? You with the actual body and blood of Jesus and me without?
Is there anywhere I can actually go and do that?
[ 14. June 2014, 10:20: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
[x-p'd with Martin]
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Goodness me, several folks upthread, don't you think 'abomination' is a rather strong word for worship practices you don't like? Think of a worship practice you consider to be very important or even vital as part of how we should praise God and show him our devotion. How would you feel if someone said such a practice was an 'abomination'?
SCK, since I brought the word up, I should probably say that my tongue was somewhat in my cheek - exaggerating for "comic" effect. On a serious note, the practice described is not one which is terribly conducive to the spirit of the Sacrifice of the Altar which the Church encourages us to inculcate. That is all.
[ 14. June 2014, 10:26: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
At the same RC mass where I heard the litany there was a portion of the service where we all had to hold hands with our neighbors and then raise them into the air while singing. (Anyone know what this is by the way?)
An abomination.
If "we all had to hold hands with our neighbors" then it was an abomination (no tongue in cheek).
Holding hands is not an abomination, of course.
Having to hold hands most definitely is.
There is not supposed to be any compulsion in religion (so says the Quran. Ooops! Wrong religion. But you get the point... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
)
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Martin - I don't understand half of your vocabulary but you should always be welcome to go into any Catholic church and simply pray with others who may be there.
You don't have to hold hands literally with the other people,but you can be 100% sure that the Good Lord will welcome you.His Catholic servants may or may not welcome you with open arms -they are not always just as perfect as the Lord.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0