bonoducchi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 (edited) . Edited March 5, 2007 by VaticanIILiturgist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonoducchi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1208422' date='Mar 5 2007, 01:12 AM']How Roman of you, reducing the aesthetics of the liturgy to legal "documents" enacted by the Curia. Sadly, the West really has lost sight of Tradition.[/quote] How Roman of you, reducing things to buildings and esoteric references to Tradition, while ignoring the faithful in the pews who aren't being fed. [quote]By the way, Christ is the Church, and the members of His body are only "church" in so far as they have been assimilated to Him through the power of His uncreated energies.[/quote] You got a picture of that, Todd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Icons are filled with God's uncreated energy; so, yes, I have many pictures of that. The saints have all been divinized by grace; it's called the doctrine of [i]theosis[/i]. Moreover, icons in Churches are not simply "pretty pictures" used as decorations; instead, the use and worship of icons is a dogma of divine and Catholic faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonoducchi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 (edited) [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1208430' date='Mar 5 2007, 01:24 AM']Icons are filled with God's uncreated energy; so, yes, I have many pictures of that. The saints have all been divinized by grace, it's called the doctrine of [i]theosis[/i].[/quote] Sorry - I guess they missed that in my Master's degree. If we are going to clamor ""liturgical abuse", then documents provide the rubrics against which we evaluate Liturgy. However, Christ did not give us the Missal of Paul VI, Pius V, or any other missal. He gave us liturgy as a public duty (office, if you're so inclined) to which the Christian faithful are obligated and privileged to perform by virtue of our baptism. When we begin thinking that a particular Rite is only good liturgy when it follows a humanly-created set of rubrics, then we cease to be a pilgrim people bringing forth the kingdom through Christ, but a bunch of brainwashed servants concerned more with rules and rubrics than people and salvation. Both/and...not either/or. That's what Phatmass doesn't seem to want to acknowledge. Orthodoxy means "correct belief" not "the belief we've always had". In the Catholic Church, once is a good idea, twice is a great idea, and three times a tradition. Edited March 5, 2007 by VaticanIILiturgist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 The following anathemas are contained in the [i]Synodikon of Orthodoxy[/i], and are taken from the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council: These acclamations, like blessings of fathers, are inherited by us, their sons, who zealously emulate their piety; but likewise do the curses seize upon those parricides and disdainers of the Master's commandments. Wherefore, we in unison, since we constitute the plenitude of piety, lay upon the impious the curse which they have put upon themselves. To them who in words accept the economy of the Incarnation of the Word of God, but will not tolerate its representation by icons, and thus in word they make a pretense of accepting, but in fact deny our salvation, [i]Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.[/i] To those who because of a mistaken adherence to the term uncircumscribed, wish not to depict in icons Christ, our True God, Who like us partook of flesh and blood, and thus show themselves to be Docetists, [i]Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.[/i] To those who accept the visions of the prophets, albeit unwillingly, but who do not - O wonder! - accept the images seen by the prophets even before the Incarnation of the Word, but vainly say that the intangible and unseeable essence was seen by the prophets, or even concede that these truly were revealed to the prophets as images and types and forms, but still cannot endure to depict in icons the Word become man and His sufferings for our sake, [i]Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.[/i] To those who hear the Lord Who said that "If ye believed in Moses, ye would have believed in me" and who understand the saying of Moses, "The Lord our God will raise up for you a prophet like unto me, " but who, on the one hand, say that they accept the Prophet, yet on the other hand, do not permit the depiction in icons of the grace of the Prophet and our universal salvation such as, He was seen, as He mingled with mankind, and worked many healings of passions and diseases, and such as He was crucified, was buried, and arose, in short, all that He both suffered and wrought for us; to those, therefore, who cannot endure to gaze upon these universal and saving deeds in icons, neither honor nor worship them, [i]Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.[/i] To those who persist in the heresy of denying icons, or rather the apostasy of denying Christ, and are not counseled by the Mosaic law to be led to their salvation, nor are they convinced to return to piety by the apostolic teachings, nor are they induced by patristic exhortations and explanations to abandon their deception, nor are they persuaded by the agreement of the Churches of God throughout the whole world, but once for all have joined themselves to the portion of the Jews and Greeks; for those things wherewith the latter directly blaspheme the prototype, the former likewise have not blushed to insult in His icon Him that is depicted therein; therefore, to them who are incorrigibly possessed by this deception, and have their ears covered towards every Divine word and spiritual teaching, as already being putrefied members, and having cut themselves off from the common body of the Church, [i]Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 [quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1208432' date='Mar 4 2007, 11:36 PM']Sorry - I guess they missed that in my Master's degree. [/quote] Yes. Evidently you were absent or you weren't paying attention. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonoducchi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1208436' date='Mar 5 2007, 01:42 AM']Yes. Evidently you were absent or you weren't paying attention. God bless, Todd[/quote] Kind of huffy, Todd....deep breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I never post when I'm in a "huffy" mood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonoducchi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1208439' date='Mar 5 2007, 01:46 AM']I never post when I'm in a "huffy" mood. [/quote] i see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight of the Holy Rosary Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 This still doesn't add up to me...Chant and Polyphany are specially suited for the Mass. Why would I want to use anything that is not specially suited for the Mass Gregorian Chant lifts the soul and magnifies the sacred. Could you please tell me some other forms of music that would be consided approprate? As far as architecture...what's wrong with giving God the best we can offer? The people are an important part to be sure....but...there are 168 hours in a week, and most Catholics are there for 1 hour. The Church has something that no other religion can say. Our God rests in our Church with a physical presence "par excellance". Why would I want to give my God a building when I can give Him a palace? Aside from this point, Church architecture evangelizes! How can we possibly evangelize our belief in the real presence when we place more prominence on ourselves than on our own God! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 (edited) . Edited March 5, 2007 by Anomaly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1208439' date='Mar 5 2007, 02:46 AM']I never post when I'm in a "huffy" mood. [/quote]me neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonoducchi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 [quote name='Knight of the Holy Rosary' post='1208617' date='Mar 5 2007, 01:56 PM']This still doesn't add up to me...Chant and Polyphany are specially suited for the Mass. Why would I want to use anything that is not specially suited for the Mass Gregorian Chant lifts the soul and magnifies the sacred. Could you please tell me some other forms of music that would be consided approprate? As far as architecture...what's wrong with giving God the best we can offer? The people are an important part to be sure....but...there are 168 hours in a week, and most Catholics are there for 1 hour. The Church has something that no other religion can say. Our God rests in our Church with a physical presence "par excellance". Why would I want to give my God a building when I can give Him a palace? Aside from this point, Church architecture evangelizes! How can we possibly evangelize our belief in the real presence when we place more prominence on ourselves than on our own God![/quote] Does Gregorian Chant lift up the souls of those who are Middle Eastern? Vietnamese? Brazilian? We can't be so hasty in assuming that western music is the "best" (a word the Church never uses) for Sacred Liturgy. An inestimable fortune that should be revitalized, to be sure (I again refer you to my active use of chant repertoire in my parish). However, the Church, whether it be your preference or not, has allowed other musical styles and for good reason. Mission lands (and the US is certainly a mission land) are good examples of where cultural music allows people to connect to the Divine in a way that is immediately accessible to them. Most assuredly after a year or two of being Catholic, people should be able to chant a simple Mass (Kyriale VIII: Missa de angelis comes to mind, as well as Tone A of the Pater Noster). But also, we should not ignore the music of the cultures to whom we are ministering. There is value in a synthesis of musical styles. Vatican II did not seek to abolish history, it was seeking to encourage a continual development of Tradition. God did not stop speaking at the Council of Trent, nor is post-World War II Catholicism or Vatican II-fallout Catholicism the only way to be Catholic. As I have said many times, "both/and", not "either/or"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 [quote name='Anomaly' post='1208627' date='Mar 5 2007, 02:18 PM']me neither. [/quote] I thought you [i]only[/i] posted when you were huffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 [quote name='hot stuff' post='1208754' date='Mar 5 2007, 08:07 PM']I thought you [i]only[/i] posted when you were huffy[/quote] No. YOU always get huffy when I post. Pointed humor is usually lost on the dull witted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now