A summation of "Progressive" Christianity beliefs.

[Akita Suggagaki]

Does the supposed beauty of churches really attract people?

I don't know how well it attracts and keeps people but art and architecture can be the first catechesis, especially for the illiterate. I am reminded of Thomas Merton's conversion initiated by the cathedrals of Europe. And yet I am kind of a low church kind of guy. I love the small simple chapels as much as the glorious larger churches.

 

[dzheremi]

And I reiterate now for the third time, your view is noted. Mine differs which I will not rehash again, but redirect you to my previous posts.

Noting your desire to convert... I'll state this again.

Missionaries who approach African religions with mutual respect, cultural sensitivity, and a willingness to learn and understand the nuances of these belief systems will be more successful in building meaningful relationships and fostering constructive dialogue. Thereby building trust and credibility as ambassadors of the gospel message.

One potential problem with using "respect and sensitivity" as a means to spread a message you'd like people to endorse is that it often leads to two outcomes that are deeply unfavorable relative to what you are actually presumably trying to do (that is, to get people to convert):

(1) You end up in a situation wherein the very people you are in dialogue with are scandalized or at least confused when it becomes clear to them what your goal actually entails. We have many examples of this through history, down to our own day, such as the completely rootless and never-realized 'union' between the RCC and the OO delegates from Egypt and Ethiopia at the Council of Florence in the 15th century (which fell apart once the delegates returned home and everyone in their home countries realized that what they had signed as an agreement of a union between equal churches was in fact intended by the Latins to be the basis for the hierarchal submission of subordinates to Rome). Similar failures in different historical contexts can be seen in things like the Zoghby Initiative in the 1990s (what's that -- the EO won't simply act as though the Great Schism and 1000+ years of development on both sides didn't happen?) or the failed talks that the Coptic Orthodox held with the Nestorians at the monastery of St. Bishoy in the Nitrian desert also in the 1990s (wherein it was the Nestorians' turn to be shocked, just shocked, that we would require them to cease veneration of Nestorius; I believe the quote I read in translation went something like "We do not ask that you cease veneration of Cyril even though we do not view him as you do" -- apparently we're playing "go fish" instead of having a serious consultation!).

(2) You don't even get as far as in (1), but instead end up trapped in an endless cycle of platitudes issued alongside the people you had intended to convert, all extolling the virtue of tolerance itself and making special note of how much the religion of your partner loves and respects Jesus as a holy prophet of Allah, and his mother Mariam, and so on (just to highlight the religion with which such 'dialogue' and statement-issuing appears to be most popular among mush-headed one worlders attempting to promote this indifference as the height of Christian love, i.e., certain occupants the Vatican). You never get to anything of theological substance, as anything that Christianity and a false religion (any of them) can equally affirm is obviously going to be a theological nothingburger in the first place. If it weren't, you couldn't sincerely affirm it, and the representative of the other religion(s) wouldn't either, assuming that they care about theology to begin with (read: aren't Unitarian Universalists types or other people who, as the joke goes, will send missionaries to knock on your door without a reason why). You also see this with other major polytheisms like Hinduism, wherein some Hindus are completely fine with accepting a Jesus who is remade to fit their preexisting pantheon, i.e., just another option of many among Ganesh, Vishnu, Krishna, etc.

I don't write this to try to paint respect and sensitivity as though they are in themselves bad things, but because I don't think you can honestly get to where you want to go without eventually (and I would argue sooner rather than later, as it is later than we think) having the "rubber hit the road", so to speak: No, your religion is not equal or acceptable or whatever the term is; no, we do not worship the same God; no, your sacrifices are not accepted; no, no, no, and some more no for whatever the next thing you'll say is. People who can't bear to hear "no" will not stay Christians long, even if by some route or another they end up eventually embracing whatever you've told them Christianity is.

And that opens up another problem: What are you converting them to if your own idea of Christianity is so weak? Why should they want that in place of their own strong belief in their non-Christian religion, which your approach does nothing but affirm the correctness of? This is often a problem that western Christians have in witnessing to Muslims effectively, as is pointed out in, e.g., Syrian Protestant author Nabeel Jabbour's 2008 book The Crescent Through the Eyes of the Cross, but obviously it has wider implications than just that particular mission field, since the underlying point is that soft-pedaling everything really eliminates the hard truths that have become unpalatable to modern westerners, to the detriment of their missionary efforts. To put it bluntly, you can't convert people to a faith that you yourself don't really have. You have to actually believe in your religion, and that religion can't be "Hey Let's Everybody Get Along So Long As You Can Say You Love/Like/Respect Jesus After I Tell You What A Swell Guy He Is". That's not Christianity. Christianity does not ask us to believe that Jesus is a swell guy. Christianity tells us that Jesus is God, and we can either accept that truth and be transformed and saved, or reject it and take our chances that the gods of whatever other belief systems there are will somehow turn out to be true and will save us.

Given the reality of what we're dealing with here, helping to condemn Africans or anyone else to the eternal torment of separation from God in Hell in the name of respect and sensitivity frankly seems evil.

 

[The Liturgist]

Missionaries who approach African religions with mutual respect, cultural sensitivity, and a willingness to learn and understand the nuances of these belief systems will be more successful in building meaningful relationships and fostering constructive dialogue. Thereby building trust and credibility as ambassadors of the gospel message.

What matters is respecting the people and their culture, but if one actually sincerely thinks their existing religion is good, it would be morally wrong to try to change it. Of course, in the case of Ghana at least, the country has been successfully served by missionaries - the small number of diehards who profess indigenous religions such as Voudon do so as an act of social rebellion, and if anyone tried to actively proselytize the Muslims, it would threaten the security of the Christian population, but of course right now Ghana represents a country where Muslims can safely convert to Christianity, particularly in the south of the country where Islam is a minority religion, but the way to induce Muslims to convert is through humanitarian effort. The work of Brother Dismas Mary, a medical doctor and penitential hermit who serves the people, including large numbers of Muslims, of Banjul in The Gambia, would be a good example.

 

[The Liturgist]

Similar failures in different historical contexts can be seen in things like the Zoghby Initiative in the 1990s (what's that -- the EO won't simply act as though the Great Schism and 1000+ years of development on both sides didn't happen?) or the failed talks that the Coptic Orthodox held with the Nestorians at the monastery of St. Bishoy in the Nitrian desert also in the 1990s (wherein it was the Nestorians' turn to be shocked, just shocked, that we would require them to cease veneration of Nestorius; I believe the quote I read in translation went something like "We do not ask that you cease veneration of Cyril even though we do not view him as you do" -- apparently we're playing "go fish" instead of having a serious consultation!).

My own view is that it was a bad idea for the Copts to directly negotiate with the Church of the East, since the Coptic Orthodox Church is known for being the anti-Nestorian church par excellence, and while the Church of the East are no longer Christologically Nestorian, their veneration of Nestorius is extremely gross, and from a Coptic perspective would be simply infuriating, but the rather I think if we want to persuade the Church of the East to adopt a more Orthodox status, this should be accomplished through negotiations conducted by the Syriac Orthodox, particularly the bishops from Iraq, such as the Archbishop of Mosul, who have counterparts in the Church of the East, and indeed in many cases share a sense of Assyrian nationality, and I base this on the fact that historically the Syriac Orthodox and the Church of the East have often gotten along very well, with for instance Mor Ignatius Zakka Iwas having close relations with Mar Dinkha IV (the two died around the same time sadly) and with Mar Addai II of the Ancient Church of the East (which was formed after an Indian bishop discovered the hereditary patriarchate of the Church of the East was a violation of its own ancient canons, which I would assume are approximately the same as the Apostolic Canons one finds in the Greek Orthodox Pedalion, although unfortunately I do not have a nomocanon for the Church of the East). There is also the historic relationship between the 12th century Maphrian of the Syriac Orthodox Church St. Gregory bar Hebraeus and his counterpart, the Catholicos of the East, and also the laity of the Church of the East, so when St. Gregory died in an area populated predominantly by members of the latter while en route from Tikrit back to his monastery, the Monastery of St. Matthew, which to my rejoicing survived the ISIS occupation of Mosul, for it exists in the hills above that city, with a view of the Nineveh Plains, his funeral was organized by the Catholicos and attended by 4,000 mourners from the Church of the East, in addition to the small number of Syriac Orthodox who were accompanying St. Gregory when he reposed in the Lord. Based on the common language and a common history, I think the Syriac Orthodox could make more progress in this respect, since they are used to working with the Church of the East and putting up with what can only be described as its absurdities and contradictions in the course of this productive working relationship.

 

[The Liturgist]

And that opens up another problem: What are you converting them to if your own idea of Christianity is so weak? Why should they want that in place of their own strong belief in their non-Christian religion, which your approach does nothing but affirm the correctness of? This is often a problem that western Christians have in witnessing to Muslims effectively, as is pointed out in, e.g., Syrian Protestant author Nabeel Jabbour's 2008 book The Crescent Through the Eyes of the Cross, but obviously it has wider implications than just that particular mission field, since the underlying point is that soft-pedaling everything really eliminates the hard truths that have become unpalatable to modern westerners, to the detriment of their missionary efforts. To put it bluntly, you can't convert people to a faith that you yourself don't really have. You have to actually believe in your religion, and that religion can't be "Hey Let's Everybody Get Along So Long As You Can Say You Love/Like/Respect Jesus After I Tell You What A Swell Guy He Is". That's not Christianity. Christianity does not ask us to believe that Jesus is a swell guy. Christianity tells us that Jesus is God, and we can either accept that truth and be transformed and saved, or reject it and take our chances that the gods of whatever other belief systems there are will somehow turn out to be true and will save us.

Given the reality of what we're dealing with here, helping to condemn Africans or anyone else to the eternal torment of separation from God in Hell in the name of respect and sensitivity frankly seems evil.

Precisely. This is exactly my view. If the Voudon religion is something so inherently good and worthy of respect and sensitive treatment, it ought to be left alone, but it of course is not; it is among the most evil and twisted of heathen religions still remaining, and every West African I know, and I know a few hundred, regards it with contempt.

 

[Rose_bud]

One potential problem with using "respect and sensitivity" as a means to spread a message you'd like people to endorse is that it often leads to two outcomes that are deeply unfavorable relative to what you are actually presumably trying to do (that is, to get people to convert):

(1) You end up in a situation wherein the very people you are in dialogue with are scandalized or at least confused when it becomes clear to them what your goal actually entails. We have many examples of this through history, down to our own day, such as the completely rootless and never-realized 'union' between the RCC and the OO delegates from Egypt and Ethiopia at the Council of Florence in the 15th century (which fell apart once the delegates returned home and everyone in their home countries realized that what they had signed as an agreement of a union between equal churches was in fact intended by the Latins to be the basis for the hierarchal submission of subordinates to Rome). Similar failures in different historical contexts can be seen in things like the Zoghby Initiative in the 1990s (what's that -- the EO won't simply act as though the Great Schism and 1000+ years of development on both sides didn't happen?) or the failed talks that the Coptic Orthodox held with the Nestorians at the monastery of St. Bishoy in the Nitrian desert also in the 1990s (wherein it was the Nestorians' turn to be shocked, just shocked, that we would require them to cease veneration of Nestorius; I believe the quote I read in translation went something like "We do not ask that you cease veneration of Cyril even though we do not view him as you do" -- apparently we're playing "go fish" instead of having a serious consultation!).

(2) You don't even get as far as in (1), but instead end up trapped in an endless cycle of platitudes issued alongside the people you had intended to convert, all extolling the virtue of tolerance itself and making special note of how much the religion of your partner loves and respects Jesus as a holy prophet of Allah, and his mother Mariam, and so on (just to highlight the religion with which such 'dialogue' and statement-issuing appears to be most popular among mush-headed one worlders attempting to promote this indifference as the height of Christian love, i.e., certain occupants the Vatican). You never get to anything of theological substance, as anything that Christianity and a false religion (any of them) can equally affirm is obviously going to be a theological nothingburger in the first place. If it weren't, you couldn't sincerely affirm it, and the representative of the other religion(s) wouldn't either, assuming that they care about theology to begin with (read: aren't Unitarian Universalists types or other people who, as the joke goes, will send missionaries to knock on your door without a reason why). You also see this with other major polytheisms like Hinduism, wherein some Hindus are completely fine with accepting a Jesus who is remade to fit their preexisting pantheon, i.e., just another option of many among Ganesh, Vishnu, Krishna, etc.

I don't write this to try to paint respect and sensitivity as though they are in themselves bad things, but because I don't think you can honestly get to where you want to go without eventually (and I would argue sooner rather than later, as it is later than we think) having the "rubber hit the road", so to speak: No, your religion is not equal or acceptable or whatever the term is; no, we do not worship the same God; no, your sacrifices are not accepted; no, no, no, and some more no for whatever the next thing you'll say is. People who can't bear to hear "no" will not stay Christians long, even if by some route or another they end up eventually embracing whatever you've told them Christianity is.

And that opens up another problem: What are you converting them to if your own idea of Christianity is so weak? Why should they want that in place of their own strong belief in their non-Christian religion, which your approach does nothing but affirm the correctness of? This is often a problem that western Christians have in witnessing to Muslims effectively, as is pointed out in, e.g., Syrian Protestant author Nabeel Jabbour's 2008 book The Crescent Through the Eyes of the Cross, but obviously it has wider implications than just that particular mission field, since the underlying point is that soft-pedaling everything really eliminates the hard truths that have become unpalatable to modern westerners, to the detriment of their missionary efforts. To put it bluntly, you can't convert people to a faith that you yourself don't really have. You have to actually believe in your religion, and that religion can't be "Hey Let's Everybody Get Along So Long As You Can Say You Love/Like/Respect Jesus After I Tell You What A Swell Guy He Is". That's not Christianity. Christianity does not ask us to believe that Jesus is a swell guy. Christianity tells us that Jesus is God, and we can either accept that truth and be transformed and saved, or reject it and take our chances that the gods of whatever other belief systems there are will somehow turn out to be true and will save us.

Given the reality of what we're dealing with here, helping to condemn Africans or anyone else to the eternal torment of separation from God in Hell in the name of respect and sensitivity frankly seems evil.

I don't know the history of the RCC and EO but from your post are you saying that historically, there have been attempts at union between them, but these efforts have been unsuccessful due to aspects of tradition and hierarchy? Or are you saying that one group desires to convert the other to their views of Christ? Or both?

Meaningful dialogue is impossible when the other person disregards your dignity, dismisses your experiences, and lacks the humility and patience to seek understanding through open-minded inquiry. Instead, they often make unfounded assumptions, demonstrating a limited perspective that hinders constructive conversation.

For example, I sought clarification on your statement about RCC and EO because the complexity of the topic could have led to multiple interpretations. I recognized that your perspective would naturally be informed by your own viewpoint, and I desired a more comprehensive understanding. This prompted me to ask for further explanation, acknowledging that a complete picture would require considering multiple perspectives, including those of the RCC.

The point is, that engaging in interfaith or intrafaith dialogue and understanding diverse perspectives can be a challenging and a nuanced undertaking, requiring effort, patience, and a willingness to navigate complexities and potential misunderstandings.

Within the Christian community, intrafaith dialogue takes place among believers who share a common faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, yet hold diverse perspectives on various aspects of Christian doctrine and practice. On the other hand, interfaith dialogue occurs between Christians and those from other religious traditions who do not share belief in Jesus Christ, instead adhering to different belief systems. The dialogue between RCC and OE appears to fall under the category of intrafaith dialogue, as both traditions affirm Jesus Christ as the Son of God and share a common Christian heritage, despite their differences in certain beliefs and practices.

For intrafaith dialogue, throughout his epistles, Paul earnestly urges Christian believers to embrace a unity of spirit, bound together by a shared love in Christ, and a oneness of mind, fostering a community of brothers and sisters in the faith. While perfect consensus may elude us, we are called to pursue peace our differences never overshadowing our shared allegiance to the Lord.

Through interfaith dialogue, we may not always achieve agreement, but we create a sacred space for exchange and understanding. And even if consensus eludes us, we trust that God may have sown a seed, which we can nurture and water. Recognizing that true growth and transformation are divine works, we humbly serve as messengers, relying on God's grace and wisdom.

The Holy Spirit's counsel directs us in our endeavors to share the gospel, empowering us to navigate diverse situations. In times of persecution, He grants us the fortitude to persevere; in others, He whispers to move forward, leaving behind the residue of resistance (shaking the dust off our feet). Trusting in His wisdom, we discern the appropriate approach, ever mindful that kindness and compassion are essential companions on our journey, even in the face of adversity.

I agree with you. Interfaith dialogue with non Christians isn't about yielding to others' beliefs, but rather about respectfully acknowledging their perspectives while remaining steadfast in our own convictions. With sensitivity and tact, we can identify opportunities to thoughtfully share the message of Christ, as exemplified by Paul's approach in Acts 17. By doing so, we can engage in meaningful discussions that foster greater understanding and mutual respect. This requires an open door for dialogue.

By closing the door on opportunities to share the gospel due to a lack of respect, we not only hinder the potential for others to hear the message, but also damage the reputation of Christianity as a whole. By being respectful, we create an environment where others are more likely to listen and receive the message with an open heart.

 

[The Liturgist]

Or both?

Neither. At the Council of Florence in 1435 the Roman Catholics bamboozled both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox bishops (and note the Coptic Orthodox Church and Ethiopian and Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox churches are Oriental Orthodox, but there is the Eastern Orthodox Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and All Africa, and also the Church of Sinai, which is a very small autonomous jurisdiction (consisting mainly of St. Catharine’s Monastery) of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem) to accept a proposal for reunification that promised the Eastern Orthodox in Constantinople military protection from the fast-encroaching Ottomans who would capture the city 18 years later, and presumably offered other things to the Oriental Orthodox. But among the Eastern Orthodox delegates, St. Mark of Ephesus immediately opposed the agreement because it involved submission to the Pope, and in his case he had to get the laity to oppose the agreement (in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions the laity can absolutely reject a council, not with a formal vote but rather through an clear informal majority of opposition) and likewise the Oriental Orthodox realized this, although the specific events were different for each of the Oriental Orthodox churches ( @dzheremi could tell us the story of the Coptic Orthodox reaction in full, for at the time the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches were an autonomous part of the Coptic Orthodox church consisting of two bishops and an archbishop known as the Abune, a title still used by the Ethiopian Patriarch, which is equivalent in meaning to the title Pope historically used by the Greek and Coptic Patriarchs of Alexandria since the third century, for over 200 years before the schism separated them into two churches and around 300 years before the bishops of Rome started calling themselves that, however, the Popes of Alexandria have never attempted to claim anything like Papal Supremacy, let alone infallibility. They are what the Pope of Rome was historically, for example, during the reign of St. Gregory the Great: the primus inter pares, or first among equals, whose job it is to lead the meetings of the Holy Synod, the bishops of the church who collectively have through plenary action the power which in the Roman church is unilaterally exercised by the Pope, except when the Pope dies and a Conclave happens. But while Conclaves are fraught affairs that barely work and involve sealing the Cardinals into the Sistine Chapel, the Holy Synods of the Orthodox Churches meet routinely and are conducted in an efficient and business like manner.

In Eastern Orthodoxy, we call this approach which is based on councils and synods conciliarity or sobornost, but I think the Oriental Orthodox are even better at it, since lately there have been subordinates of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who have been trying to elevate his status to greatly exceed that of other bishops, and this toxic dynamic has caused a near schism, so that now the Church is almost wrent in two but is being held together by a few neutral churches such as Poland and Jerusalem.

In contrast, in @dzheremi ‘s church, the Oriental Orthodox, the Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox church, the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox church, the leaders of the four parts of the Armenian church, and the Patriarchs of Ethiopia and, with some exceptions due to the brutal dictatorship, Eritrea, exercise equal authority and function very well together.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know how well it attracts and keeps people but art and architecture can be the first catechesis, especially for the illiterate. I am reminded of Thomas Merton's conversion initiated by the cathedrals of Europe. And yet I am kind of a low church kind of guy. I love the small simple chapels as much as the glorious larger churches.

And yet Thomas Merton's great epiphany occurred on a simple street corner in Louisville, surrounded by ordinary people.

When I was younger I was attracted to "high church" smells and bells, but I've learned not all that glitters is gold. It's not the one thing needful.

 

[The Liturgist]

And yet Thomas Merton's great epiphany occurred on a simple street corner in Louisville, surrounded by ordinary people.

Not a good example to use considering his writings indicate that he had a spiritual crisis to the extent that he indicates he may have lost his Christian faith after encountering idols of the Buddha and then died either by accident or intent when an electrical appliance fell into his bathtub, which it should be noted with regret, that in prior decades this was a well-known way to commit suicide, particularly given its popular depiction as the means by which James Bond dispatched a random thug in the film Goldfinger.

When I was younger I was attracted to "high church" smells and bells, but I've learned not all that glitters is gold. It's not the one thing needful.

While that is true, it does not take away the obligation to have as much reverence as possible and as much beauty as possible in the worship of God. Those who advocate four bare walls and a sermon are implying that Christ our True God is not the most worthy recipient of our gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Alas it is lamentable that the efforts of the 20th century to strip gold of its nominal value have been unsuccessful, but even then, the gilding of beautiful church buildings continues, recently including the upper dome of the Cathedral of St. Alexander Nevsky in Sofia, Bulgaria, which is my favorite cathedral in all of Europe.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Not a good example to use considering his writings indicate that he had a spiritual crisis to the extent that he indicates he may have lost his Christian faith after encountering idols of the Buddha and then died either by accident or intent when an electrical appliance fell into his bathtub, which it should be noted with regret, that in prior decades this was a well-known way to commit suicide, particularly given its popular depiction as the means by which James Bond dispatched a random thug in the film Goldfinger.

If one reads his journals it is evident that he was in the midst of vocational discernment. Good for him.
There is no hint of losing his Christian faith. His interest in interreligious dialogue and other contemplative traditions such as Buddhism seem to be a concern for the more conservative among us. But quite often a respectable encounter and dialogue with other religions can provide new insight and appreciation of one's own.

Perhaps this brings us back to the OP.
Pluralism
Religious pluralism is the idea that all roads lead to God, and no one religion holds ultimate truth when it comes to who God is and how he reveals himself to the world. Often, progressive Christians will tout the mantra, “Everyone has a seat at the table,” meaning all creeds and religions are true in their own way and the people who embrace them are equally accepted by God.

BTW, the suggestion of suicide is uncalled for. As long as we want to speculate about things indeterminable try this. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00552R000404210002-0.pdf

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Those who advocate four bare walls and a sermon are implying that Christ our True God is not the most worthy recipient of our gold, frankincense and myrrh.

There is no such implication.
The simplicity, free of distractions, can be refreshing and promote a more pure devotion. One is not there for the smells and bells and gold.

 

[FireDragon76]

If one reads his journals it is evident that he was in the midst of vocational discernment. Good for him.
There is no hint of losing his Christian faith. His interest in interreligious dialogue and other contemplative traditions such as Buddhism seem to be a concern for the more conservative among us. But quite often a respectable encounter and demagogue with other religions can provide new insight and appreciation of one's own.

Perhaps this brings us back to the OP.
Pluralism
Religious pluralism is the idea that all roads lead to God, and no one religion holds ultimate truth when it comes to who God is and how he reveals himself to the world. Often, progressive Christians will tout the mantra, “Everyone has a seat at the table,” meaning all creeds and religions are true in their own way and the people who embrace them are equally accepted by God.

Actual pluralism isn't as common among Progressive Christians, but there is alot of openness to interreligious dialogue that is beyond polemicism.

I believe if you delve into the documents of Vatican II, you are going to find similar sentiments in the Catholic Church.

BTW, the suggestion of suicide is uncalled for. As long as we want to speculate about things indeterminable try this. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00552R000404210002-0.pdf

That's one theory I have heard. Merton's opposition to the military industrial complex was prophetic at the time, even within the Catholic Church.

There is no such implication.
The simplicity, free of distractions, can be refreshing and promote a more pure devotion. One is not there for the smells and bells and gold.
View attachment 351322View attachment 351323

The much lamented "denuding of churches" according to some historians, may have begun with Catholics themselves. You can read renaissance humanists like Thomas Moore or Erasmus and find even more scathing critiques of the opulence of religion at the time, than anything you find from Protestants.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is no such implication.
The simplicity, free of distractions, can be refreshing and promote a more pure devotion. One is not there for the smells and bells and gold.
View attachment 351322View attachment 351323

With no icons or even a prominent Cross to venerate we regard those as totally unfit for Christian worship. Indeed I refuse to attend churches with inadequate iconography and usually I want to smell the offering of incense as well.

I suspect these are Roman Catholic abbeys given the size of the choir and the organ but I would charge that they violate the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, which your church agreed to.

 

[The Liturgist]

The much lamented "denuding of churches" according to some historians, may have begun with Catholics themselves. You can read renaissance humanists like Thomas Moore or Erasmus and find even more scathing critiques of the opulence of religion at the time, than anything you find from Protestants.

Considering how Pope Francis is dedicated to eradicating one of the most beautiful liturgical rites, the Traditional Latin Mass, and how the Franciscans and Dominicans were largely responsible for the removal of most Rood Screens from Western European churches, which was a terrible tragedy, for the Rood Screen was the Western form of the Iconostasis, this has always seemed to me to be likely.

The worst outbreak of iconoclasm happened in Constantinople, after all, due to superstitious generals and politicians attributing the military superiority of the Ummayid Caliphate to its radical iconoclasm.

 

[FireDragon76]

Considering how Pope Francis is dedicated to eradicating one of the most beautiful liturgical rites, the Traditional Latin Mass, and how the Franciscans and Dominicans were largely responsible for the removal of most Rood Screens from Western European churches, which was a terrible tragedy, for the Rood Screen was the Western form of the Iconostasis, this has always seemed to me to be likely.

Does God only speak Latin? Is sincere service to God any less beautiful because it's in a living language? How is worshiping in Latin any more beautiful than worshiping God in English, Italian, or Japanese?

With no icons or even a prominent Cross to venerate we regard those as totally unfit for Christian worship. Indeed I refuse to attend churches with inadequate iconography and usually I want to smell the offering of incense as well.

That's your preference. I don't see how you equate elaborately adorned churches with something that is essential to the Christian faith.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

With no icons or even a prominent Cross to venerate we regard those as totally unfit for Christian worship. Indeed I refuse to attend churches with inadequate iconography and usually I want to smell the offering of incense as well.

I suspect these are Roman Catholic abbeys given the size of the choir and the organ but I would charge that they violate the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, which your church agreed to.

Hard to tell from the balcony but closer up I know they had icons of the Blessed Virgin.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There is no such implication.
The simplicity, free of distractions, can be refreshing and promote a more pure devotion. One is not there for the smells and bells and gold.
View attachment 351322View attachment 351323

This simple chapel still is full of symbolism and beauty.

 

[The Liturgist]

Does God only speak Latin? Is sincere service to God any less beautiful because it's in a living language? How is worshiping in Latin any more beautiful than worshiping God in English, Italian, or Japanese?

The Novus Ordo mass can be said in Latin, and masses in the Vatican usually are, and furthermore under Summorum Pontificum no one was forced to attend the Usus Antiquour mass, so that completely misses the point.

 

[The Liturgist]

This simple chapel still is full of symbolism and beauty.

I prefer the elegant Lutheran churches in Germany and Scandinavia, such as the Frauenkirche in Dresden, which has been gloriously rebuilt:

Imagine hearing a Bach mass such as his Mass in F minor in there.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

With no icons or even a prominent Cross to venerate we regard those as totally unfit for Christian worship. Indeed I refuse to attend churches with inadequate iconography and usually I want to smell the offering of incense as well.

Wow! This statement is certainly uncharacteristic of your usual posts. And I read your usual posts and glean value from them.....but this is going a tad to far. Frustration?