- Jan 26, 2007
- 41,621
- 20,204
- 41
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
why must it if it’s God at work?It must meet us where we are to lead us on.
Upvote
0
why must it if it’s God at work?It must meet us where we are to lead us on.
Which means they held fast to the traditions they had received rather than follow the innovations of Vatican I. That kind of makes them traditionalist.I need to issue a correction here: Old Catholics aren't traditionalist, and aren't even Roman Catholic. They're a group that broke away from the Roman Catholic church in the 19th century after the First Vatican Council precisely because they disagreed with its declarations regarding the power and authority of the pope.
It isn't leading you anywhere precisely because it has been dumbed down to the lowest level. The Divine liturgy has been served unchanged for centuries to everyone from serfs to aristocrats.It must meet us where we are to lead us on.
I thought it was obvious I meant "traditionalist" in a Catholic sense, given that was the context of how it was being used. Obviously, non-Catholics are going to have different ideas on what are the the actual traditions and probably regard those who rejected Vatican I was the "real" traditionalists. But a traditionalist Catholic is obviously not one who rejects Vatican I.Which means they held fast to the traditions they had received rather than follow the innovations of Vatican I. That kind of makes them traditionalist.
Does not God meet us where we are. Did nor Christ come in the flesh?why must it if it’s God at work?
How has it been "dumbed down to the lowest level"?It isn't leading you anywhere precisely because it has been dumbed down to the lowest level. The Divine liturgy has been served unchanged for centuries to everyone from serfs to aristocrats.
He does and He did, not sure what your point isDoes not God meet us where we are. Did nor Christ come in the flesh?
the fact that the clown mass is a thing.How has it been "dumbed down to the lowest level"?
There is not a "thing" that is a clown Mass or a puppet Mass. Both would be completely outside the rubrics of the celebration of the Mass. Because individual priests may desecrate the Mass does not make it a "thing" or acceptable within the Catholic Church.the fact that the clown mass is a thing.
the fact that the puppet mass is a thing.
the fact that Pope JPII would allow the Dalai Lama to put his idols on Catholic altars.
it might not be official, but it is a thing in that it is something done and done on more than one occasion. the fact that priests have been bold enough to do such things in the first place is evidence of the watering down.There is not a "thing" that is a clown Mass or a puppet Mass. Both would be completely outside the rubrics of the celebration of the Mass. Because individual priests may desecrate the Mass does not make it a "thing" or acceptable within the Catholic Church.
if it wasn’t permitted, I stand corrected and take your word for it. however, pagans shouldn’t be using Christian churches at all for prayers. so, while not as bad as I initially said, it’s still evidence of a watering down.No.
In the first World Day of Prayer for peace, in 1986, at an interreligious gathering in Assisi including the pope, the dalai lama, and other world religion leaders, various religious groups were assigned to various churches and other spaces for prayer or meeting space throughout the city.
At one of the churches the Buddhists were using for meeting, a Buddhist participant placed a statue of the Buddha on a shelf of the high altar behind and above the tabernacle (which had been emptied), not realizing the sensitivity of the placement. Once informed, they moved it, and it has never been an issue at subsequent events.
It was not something planned or permitted by the pope or any other church authority, and the Buddhists were receptive to being informed about the significance of the tabernacle once explained - which is the whole point of interreligious dialogue, after all, to learn.
true.First and foremost any dialog should be rooted in truth, not false accusations. True?
I have never seen either a "clown mass" nor a "puppet mass". Have you?the fact that the clown mass is a thing.
the fact that the puppet mass is a thing.
the fact that Pope JPII would allow the Dalai Lama to put his idols on Catholic altars.
My point is that God meets us where we are, comes to lift us. That is not "dumbing down".He does and He did, not sure what your point is
Yes, and we admit that in that sense, God meets us where we are. But what you seem to mean by the expression is that He meets you in a form that YOU choose, that is pleasing to you. We’d say that He meets us in a form that He knows best. I don’t think the burning bush was something chosen or modified by Moses, but rather, that he had to adapt himself to God’s conditions, and become less comfortable, like in taking off his sandals. Anything we choose is more dumbed down than what God chooses for us.My point is that God meets us where we are, comes to lift us. That is not "dumbing down".
My point is that God meets us where we are, comes to lift us. That is not "dumbing down".
no, but I have seen clips of them and spoken to a few Catholic priests who are friends about them.I have never seen either a "clown mass" nor a "puppet mass". Have you?
no one disputes that God does that. that however doesn’t mean the Liturgy must speak to the times as they are today.My point is that God meets us where we are, comes to lift us. That is not "dumbing down".
The fact that liturgical abuses exist is not evidence of "dumbing down" the liturgy. That's why it's considered to be an abuse after all. Rather it's evidence of a few rogue priests who have the opinion that they are smarter than the Church. It's unfortunate but it is a far cry from the norm, especially when you put it in context of the world wide Church.it might not be official, but it is a thing in that it is something done and done on more than one occasion. the fact that priests have been bold enough to do such things in the first place is evidence of the watering down.
Is it your opinion that God does not hear the prayers of pagans or in some way finds them to be evil or disgusting to Him?if it wasn’t permitted, I stand corrected and take your word for it. however, pagans shouldn’t be using Christian churches at all for prayers. so, while not as bad as I initially said, it’s still evidence of a watering down.
true.
I am not advocating clown masses nor any other abnormality. Vernacular was a good and important option and that was a huge change.no one disputes that God does that. that however doesn’t mean the Liturgy must speak to the times as they are today.