Eaves-Dropping on a Protestant Conversation about Us

I knew my ears were ringing for some reason. HT to my Prebyterian friend David for calling my attention to a discussion string on the Melbourne Anglican Study Group forum. It starts off talking about Wesley and Charles Simeon and then, when David puts in a comment about working with other orthodox Christians despite differences on points of theology, the thing goes off on a tangent about the merits or otherwise of Catholicism. It’s worth reading the whole string, but check this out from “Jareth”:

Heh, heh, my wife and I watched a TV documentary the other week about the life of Pope Benedict, and commented to each other how much we wished we could convert to the Catholic religion (if only they got rid of that Mary stuff and a few other dodgy things ) – at times we felt we had a lot more common ground with the Pope than with Rowan Williams and many other of the Anglican leaders out there… We love what he said just before Christmas about “ecology” (ok I’d better shut up now)

and later:

The doctrinal faults of Catholicism — Mary, the re-sacrificing of Christ in the mass, faith+works, etc. — certainly make our conversion to Catholicism very very unlikely.

However, we have many a time had a genuine heart-felt admiration for and envy of Roman Catholicism, and the 2 popes who have reigned in our lifetime. Unlike the Protestant churches, who keep giving ground to modern culture and ideology, Catholicism seems incredibly resistant to liberalisation — they simply refuse to budge from historic doctrinal positions. They don’t care if that makes them unpopular or an object of popular scorn — faithfulness to orthodoxy (and to God) matters much more to them. We admire, for instance, how the Catholic church keeps giving the finger to the pro-death lobby and gay lobby no matter what the cultural pressure — where others like the Anglicans and Uniting Church simply cave in. Yet Catholicism also cares for all the important global issues like war & peace, the poor, and the environment, about which we are also passionate. Hence Rachel and I have kind of adopted the Pope as a kind of defacto moral spiritual leader to fill the vacuum we have in protestantism (excepting Mark Driscoll of course!!!), and we pray for God to uphold and strengthen his leadership of the Christian world.

It’s not just us BTW — I’ve got a (evangelical protestant) Christian friend in the US with whom I correspond, and 6 months ago when I asked him which presidential candidate he preferred (out of Hillary, Obama and McCain). He said that he had major problems with all 3 of them, and the world leader who most closely aligns with his point of view on everything — is the Pope. (Unfortunately the pope wasn’t running for election :-))

Good stuf, eh? Well, except for the stuff about the “dodgy doctrines”, and that’s what David asked me about in the email in which he drew my attention to this rather candid discussion and appraisal of “the Churches in communion with Rome” (as I am teaching Pastor Weedon to call us).

David wrote as follows:

Hi David,
I’ve been having a conversation with an Anglican layman over at http://www.masg.net.au/MASG/Discussion%20Forum.html – its the “Charles Simeon takes on John Wesley” thread.

If you scroll down to the end I have been in conversation with Jereth on how you square up your Lutheran doctrine of Lord’s Supper and Mary with your Catholic new self. e.g. with Mary and the issue of Jesus’ brothers and sisters and Mary as the go between, my guess is that you affirm your access to God through our Lord Jesus, you don’t pray to Mary, she isn’t “coredemtrix”, but you honour and revere her as Theotokos. Is that right? Do you have any comment and am I correct in my assertion re Lord’s Supper?

It is probably easiest if I take what he said directly from the discussion string and answer these questions in answer to that.

1) “Lutheran doctrine re real presence of body and blood of Christ not all that far from transubstantiation.”

That’s what the Australian Catholic Lutheran Dialogue concluded in their statement a “Sacrament and Sacrifice” (1985). Although Lutherans would never use a scholastic/philosophical word like “transubstantiation” to say what they mean. They prefer the simple “IS” of our Lord’s statements (as in “This [bread] IS my body”), and leave it at that.

2) Not sure about Mary, will have to ask them if they affirm she remained a virgin as per RC doctrine.

Yep. But that was Luther’s take on it too. In fact, the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was the standard in the Early Church, and no-one ever took the scriptural references to “Jesus’ brothers and sisters” to mean Mary’s children. It is worth checking out St Jerome’s “Against Helvidius: On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary.” which makes it quite clear how novel Helvidius’ opinion on this matter was. The best modern explanation (and the most convincing exegesis of scripture on the problem) may be found in Raymond Brown’s commentary on the Gospel of John, in an excursus on the women at the cross/tomb.

3) “and Mary as the go between, my guess is that you affirm your access to God through our Lord Jesus, you don’t pray to Mary, she isn’t “coredemtrix”, but you honour and revere her as Theotokos. Is that right? “

We certainly do affirm our access to God through our Lord Jesus. All liturgical prayer is offered to the Father in the name of and through Jesus Christ his Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. “Prayers to the Saints” are not like prayer to the Father or even to Jesus, but are actually requests for help through their intercession on our behalf (think: ancient imperial court, and you will get the picture). Rather than going to God through the saints, Catholics in fact believe that we only have communion with the Saints through our mutual communion in Christ. We do not believe that we direct access to either Mary or any of the other saints apart from Christ. Prayer is viewed as a communal thing: all the saints, living and dead, joined in one communion of intercession before God.

As for the “co-redemptrix” thing… What is in question is a title, okay? Were the Church to definitely declare that the title “co-redemptrix” is applicable to Mary, she (the Church) would not be inventing new doctrine, but would be saying that the title is in accordance with what we already believe and have always believed. So what do we believe? We believe that Mary was more than just a conduit for the incarnation. In other words, she was not just like a drainpipe through which water flows. She was really involved in the Incarnation of our Lord, body and soul. Thus she had a concrete and real role in God’s plan of redemption. So in that sense she might be properly called “co-redemptrix” – in the sense that (ENTIRELY BY GOD’S GRACE) she was enabled to “cooperate” with the Holy Spirit in being the bearer of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son. He received his humanity from her. That’s what we mean by Theotokos too: she was the God-bearer. But I don’t think that this title for Mary will be officially defined, because it does create confusion. One misinterpretation of the title would be to regard it as suggesting that Mary’s role in God’s plan of redemption was equal in kind and quality to the role of Christ. That would be utterly false.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Eaves-Dropping on a Protestant Conversation about Us

  1. Past Elder says:

    Well I dunno Josh — visual aids in the church, people moving around, not in the sanctuary, sounds too undignified, too trendy and emerging church like, to ever catch on in the church, dontcha think?

  2. Tony Bartel says:

    David, you said that there is disunity among the Orthodox.

    However, I would have to say from my experience there is a far greater unity in the Orthodox Church than in any other.

    Yes I have experienced the various ethnic groups having a go at each other. I also know that the various national hierarchies have their disputes.

    Nevertheless underneath these squabbles lies a unity more profound than many realise – a unity in worship and a unity in faith.

    When a person attends the Divine Liturgy, they know what the worship will be like. While there are a few small ethnic peculiarities and the language may vary, by and large the Liturgy is the Liturgy and it is celebrated as it is. Even when a different rite is used – such as the Western Rite – the Liturgy is celebrated as it is.

    My experience of Western Christianity is very different – the label above the door is no guarantee that the liturgical rites will be celebrated as the Church intends them. For example, my wife has been to a Roman Catholic “Mass” in which there was no reading from Scripture and no Eucharistic Prayer (just a little chat about what Jesus did as the last supper).

    This is not to mention the various number of services, Roman and otherwise, that I have attended and been asked to sing hymns which are either little ditties about me and Jesus or else undermine the teaching of the faith.

    Now I know that these are abuses and in no way represent what the western churches believe or teach. But my point is that such abuses simply do not occur in the Orthodox Church.

    If Proper of Aquitaine is right, as the Orthodox would no doubt say that he is, then the law of prayer determines the law of belief. We are how we pray. The unity of the Orthodox Church, in particular her doctrinal unity, rests upon her unity of prayer.

    By this I do not means that the Rite must be the same (although in the Orthodox Church the right is almost universally the Byzantine Rite). Instead, it is that the very meaning of Orthodox is “right glory” and because the Orthodox Church gives right glory in her liturgies she gives right glory in her belief.

    So I would have to respectfully disagree with you David and say that I have experienced far more unity in the Orthodox Church than I have ever known or seen in the West.

  3. Lucian says:

    Convert from Catholicism to Orthodoxy FINALLY admits the TRUE (carnal) reasons for (cowardly) deserting the former and joining the later!!! Hear it all here!

  4. Tony Bartel says:


    I listened to the podcast and I heard one of the best definitions of the permanent diaconate at the end.

    At the start I heard his mother’s reasons for leaving the Roman Catholic Church, which had to do with birth control. I presume that you would not hold the deacon responsible in a real sense for this as he was still a boy at the time.

    The good deacon’s real break with the Roman Catholic Church came when he was a teenager, when he became an evangelical Christian. Perhaps the true and carnal reason you refer to for his conversion away from Rome was the fact that protestant youth camps were more fun than Roman Catholic ones.

    In any case, he ended up as one of the evangelicals who became Orthodox after searching for the Church of the Fathers. There is a book by Peter Gilchrist, “Becoming Orthodox: A journey to the Ancient Christian Faith” which is a fascinating account of their journey.

    I came away from the podcast with the sense of hearing a man who admits his own shortcomings and lack of theological education but has a vocation to the diaconate and serves God faithfully where has been placed.

  5. Louise says:

    Did I come here to settle Mariology?

    I just thought you were going to Rant All Night. Since when did you ever stick on topic?

  6. Schütz says:

    Tony, say what you like about Orthodox unity, but I have never known a case where a Catholic bishop has walked out of an ecumenical meeting and refused to take part because another Catholic bishop was present.

    That is what happened in the most recent Catholic-Orthodox dialogue – the Russians refused to take part – not because of a disagreement with Rome, but because of objection to the presence of a representative of a fellow Orthodox Church.


  7. Schütz says:

    Lucian said…

    our Lady…is the Temple of God par excellence, she of whom the Temple itself…is but a type

    Matthias objected…
    Sorry Lucian but your comments give Mary the glory that should rightfully belong to Christ.

    I adjudicate:

    Matthias is correct. Lucian goes to far. Mary is the Ark. Jesus is the Temple that contains the Ark and simultaneously he is the one whom the Ark contains.

    Neat, isn’t it?

    Nevertheless, we forgive Lucian his enthusiasm. Just shows Scott Hahn is not the only one who can err in his love for Our Lady.

  8. Past Elder says:

    “Rant All Night” was the topic? Do you guys EVER have fun?

    Actually, it was a joke on myself. The first word, rant, was to take what my postings are generally considered over here as self-satire. The title itself was to joke on not only the time difference between the US ans Oz, but also that I tend to post at all kinds of hours, which even other US bloggers have mentioned. Also it was a play on a former USA cable network late night movie show, hosted by the magnificent and incomparable Rhonda Shear, Up All Night.

    A word-dance. I’d say a Nietzschean word dance, but that would involve bringing up yet more fun based on Nietzsche, the only philosopher worth reading, so I won’t. Now that is itself a word dance, which I got from Cicero, who used to bring things up by talking about what he wasn’t going to bring up all the time back in the Senate in the good old days when pontifex maximus was pontifex maximus.

    Judas, I hope you guys didn’t run off that nice Calvinist guy. Hell, I agree with the Calvinists less than with you, but it would be nice for a strong Reformed voice to be here instead of just Lutherans, let alone a Lutheran not really here to be Lutheran but to say what you have isn’t really Catholic.

    Although, if he does ever come back, he’ll probably get the usual “You’ll be Catholic once you understand, everybody wants to be Catholic but some don’t know it yet” thing, the old Borg “Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated” all prettied up.

    What’s wrong with Lucian? Rock on.

  9. Lucian says:

    There is a book by Peter Gilchrist, “Becoming Orthodox: A journey to the Ancient Christian Faith”

    Uhm, I think it’s Peter Gilquist. (As I see, Pentecostals aren’t the only ones idolizing their c/Charismatic leaders…) :-\

    the old Borg “Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated”

    And why do You think that these two Orthodox guys over here, Photios Jones and Perry Robinson, have Star Trek characters as their avatars? :-\ Hmmm? I mean, let’s face it, the [Byzantine] Empire strikes back


    both metaphors (Ark & Temple) work for both Christ and His mother.

  10. Past Elder says:

    The [Byzantine] Empire Strikes Back! Love it! Rock on!

  11. Lucian says:

    What’s wrong with Lucian? Rock on.

    Love it! Rock on!

    Is the shell or residue of Your former Roman Catholic self trying to sub-consciously communicate something to me here, P.E.? :D

  12. Tony Bartel says:


    Yes, the delegates from the Russian Orthodox Church did walk out of the dialogue, because it has a profound disagreement with the Ecumenical Patriarchate concerning the Church in Estonia.

    What I was trying to say is that disunity at this level does not really matter too much. These problems will work themselves out without having any great impact on the lives of faithful Orthodox Christians – probably even in Estonia.

    What is far more destructive is the type of disunity which infects so many of the western churches, where every parish has their own doctrinal and liturgical standards. This disunity has a profound impact on the soul and therefore should be of far greater concern.

    So I guess you really have to pick your poison.

  13. Past Elder says:

    Well, Lucian, the second post you quote was to avoid misunderstanding of the first. English is really an imprecise language, but it’s the one everyone here speaks.

    “What’s wrong with Lucian” can be taken two different ways: I see something wrong with Lucian and I’m wondering what it is; you see something wrong with Lucisn and I don’t so I’m wondering what you saw.

    I don’t think our fellowship is founded on my former church so much as our shared present indentity as commenters here regularly characterised as semi-intelligible to not at all, but you make perfect sense to me. Maybe I’m really Romanian and got someone else’s birth certificate by mistake.

    And right on Tony, too!

  14. Lucian says:


    what I meant was: does “Rock on!” have some sort of Petrine/Mathean (16:18) catch to it, coming from the abysmal depths of Your own sub-conscious, like an awakened reflex of Your former identity? :-\ :D ;-)

  15. Joshua says:

    Tony’s point, David, is really very much to the point – it is an absolute scandal, and a danger to souls, to have the present situation in Catholic parishes where every sort of doctrinal and liturgical standard can be found depending on what the parish priest does or doesn’t do… it really does remind me in a sick way of the old Catholic jibe that each Protestant (pastor/whatever) is his own Pope.

    PE, your own viewpoint largely derives from your rightful horror at this festering heterodoxy – it certainly does seem that for the past 40 years, anything goes – except for traditionalists, who have endured decades of persecution (only now ending) for the simple right to worship God and hear right doctrine taught about Him in accordance with the ways of their forefathers.

    This all reminds me of one of the condemned Jansenist heresies or opinions, that important elements of the Faith had become obscured in teaching down the ages – they thought that the strict near-Calvinist notions they held were truly those of St Augustine, and that, while never ruled out, they had become hidden from the knowledge of many in the Church.

    One almost wonders if this is the case today.

    Yes, I do recognize that if one puts in the effort one can learn the holy teachings of the Catholic Faith in true continuity (contra PE), and one can find parishes where God is worshipped in a pious and reverent manner according to the liturgical books prescribed; converts – such as David and myself – tend to fall into the first category, those who’ve taken the time to sound out what the Church teaches, and increasingly those of the younger generations who rediscover their faith do the same, because their earlier instruction in the Faith was so poor as to be nugatory; and many others as well as myself fall into the second category, those who have discovered the beauty and doctrinal richness of the Traditional Latin Mass. Recent groups of seminarians and young priests likewise fall into both categories, of those rediscovering the doctrine and liturgy of the Church.

    But for many in the parishes, as opposed to bishops and priests, Rome seems alien and what they have served up is a confused and unnourishing diet, liturgically and doctrinally. The results are evident. Worse still, I do fear that many of these people, when brought face to face with zealous young priests and people, are not reenergized as one would hope, but actually put off or repulsed.

    As one bishop put it to me, back some decades ago too many Catholics were in the position of a bushwalker who notices that the track he’s following is narrowing and getting harder to see – they plunged ahead irregardless, whereas in such a case the prudent thing to do is to stop and perhaps retrace one’s steps, to check that one hasn’t deviated from the main track (which is the right path to one’s goal) and followed a kangaroo track instead (which could lead anywhere or nowhere).

    I do believe that priests, parishes and people will get back on track; but perhaps two generations and countless souls will have been lost before the Church restores herself by the grace of Christ, and by renewed fidelity to Him. As the Pope said while he was still a Cardinal, the Church of the future will be smaller, but purer and more fervent.

  16. Lucian says:

    … an ecumenical meeting … That is what happened in the most recent Catholic-Orthodox dialogue …

    Yeah, … right … `bout that

  17. Schütz says:

    I do believe that priests, parishes and people will get back on track; but perhaps two generations and countless souls will have been lost before the Church restores herself by the grace of Christ, and by renewed fidelity to Him.

    Yes, I don’t want to down play this aspect of things, Josh and Tony (aka “Lopez”, as we used to call him). After all, it was exactly this lack of unity in worship that scandalised me as a Lutheran.

    There are all kinds of ways you can take your unity.

    1) Unity in Worship.

    This was the classic Anglican way. Believe what you like, as long as you use the Book of Common Prayer. Still today, Anglican priests sign a piece of paper at their induction saying they will only use authorised liturgical rites. Of course, all that has now changed, but it was because the “anything goes” approach to doctrine finally undid the uniform worship.

    2) Unity in Doctrine.

    The defacto Lutheran approach. Unity in Doctrine is essential, but matters of liturgy are adiaphora. This doesn’t work any better than the Anglican approach, because heterodox forms of liturgy are a fertile seed-bed for heterodox doctrines.

    3) Unity in Doctrine and Worship.

    This is, of course, the paradigm of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The idea is that the whole Church is One in Faith and One in the Liturgy. But of course human reality comes into it. And so, as Tony (Lopez) point out, you end up with a choice between two sorts of failure to live up to the ideal of Christian unity. A lack of Charity, or a lack of Discipline (to call both kinds of disunity currently manifesting themselves in the Orthodox and Catholic worlds respectively by what they actually are).

    It is not a happy choice to have to make. But at least what I see in the Catholic Church can truthfully be called a lack of Discipline (on the part of the bishops) and a lack of Obedience (on the part of priests and theologians). The Catholic Church HAS unified liturgy and it HAS firm doctrinal standards. When these are ignored the error and sin is with the individual committing it, not with the Church as a whole. Thus, such error can be rectified by “purification”. And in this great work of purification our dear Papa Benny, now gloriously reigning, is leading the way.

  18. Past Elder says:

    Ah Lucian, I get so accustomed to the verbal arthritis here that I missed it entirely! Good one! Actually David pulled off a fairly good one lately, parodying my “Nietsche, the only philosopher worth reading” as “Past Elder, the only commenter worth reading”.

    Joshua, no, none of what I say derives from horror at the festering heterodoxy. The horror is at the “orthodoxy” in the Documents of Vatican II that if you are right will eventually win out. That “Catholicism” is as removed from Catholicism as the “spirit of Vatican II” stuff. Both Vatican II and its “spirit” are liberal dissent from Catholicism.

    Or as I like to put it, the only thing worse than bad novus ordo is good novus ordo. To do the real thing under the Motu is to dishonour the real thing completely since the Motu requires accepting the novus ordo as equally valid, which if it were, there would be no need to retain anything else.

  19. Joshua says:

    As I’ve said before, the Novus Ordo is a valid liturgy – it may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it is valid and orthodox. I have looked deeply into this! I would have very grave reasons to reject Catholicism if it did appear invalid!!!

    Ditto for Vatican II – I’ve read the documents, note that the reigning Pope approved its documents and the vast majority of the world’s bishops voted in favour of them, and, knowing that these men were orthodox, and given my own reading of these works and of good theology (much of it preconciliar), again I cannot see it as heterodox or opposed to the Church’s solemn teachings prior to the Council.

    The lack of discipline and obedience is the basic problem, as David has put it above.

    PE, I just don’t accept your rusted-on position that the Council et al. betrayed the Church prior to it, and that therefore the Church pre, mid, and post must be false.

    We will, as they say, agree to differ.

    And the safe conduct pass still stands, and I promise not to have you burnt for heresy while that safe-conduct stands…

  20. Past Elder says:

    Hell Joshua, half of the stinking Communio crowd was under censure by the RCC before the palace coup of Vatican II, likewise the seminal theologians that went into the Documents. And the result couldn’t be more clear in the writings of later converts like the late Neuhaus.

  21. Joshua says:

    Don’t be stupid, PE, everyone knows that the late 1950’s rather overplayed fear of heresy, to the extent that theologians who were sentire-ing cum Ecclesia were treated quite shabbily. Those suspected, then rehabilitated had nothing in common with the real heretics that cropped up later!

    Which reminds me of one of the best dead-pan jokes I ever heard told: a very learned and very orthodox Jesuit was asked by me, Was Rahner a heretic? – and the Jesuit responded, He never _denied_ a doctrine of the Faith. (I wish I could represent in writing the exact intonation of “denied”, LOL!)

    And how mad to attack the Communio crowd, let alone have the bad taste and lack of good manners to speak ill of the recently departed Fr Neuhaus. No wonder your country deserves its latest pseudo-Messiah.

  22. Louise says:

    Do you guys EVER have fun?

    Only when you’re not around, PE.

    btw, what makes you think I didn’t get your little joke against yourself? I thought it was rather sweet (self-deprecating humour has that effect on me).

    Anyway, Rant All Night (or not) as you choose…

  23. Past Elder says:

    No-one is speaking ill of Neuhaus. His writings are not the man. About the man I have nothing to say. The positions taken in the writings are the issue, and it could not be clearer from things like “Catholic Moment” or “How I Became The Catholic I Was” that the religion to which he fell victim is based upon a thorough caricature of anything before Vatican II and a joy that it is overthrown. How ironic that this religion speaks of a reform of a reform, decries a false “spirit” of Vatican II and the real thing simultaneous in the Church, when it itself is based upon a mistake of a “spirit” of Trent, an excess which existed no less than the excesses now, for Trent itself.

    But I suppose if one somehow connects the next president of the US with all this, one may miss that to attack a position is not a personal attack on the man who holds it.

    Let me locate it a little more exactly, in my case. Urs von Balthasar, banned from teaching. de Lubac, forbidden to publish. (For our Protestant friends, this means only in a Catholic context; they are welcome to their views, what they may not do is teach or publish them under the name Catholic or in a position to which the Catholic Church has appointed them.) Bouyer, whose “Decomposition of Catholicism” is not even restrained in its glee over the death of what we held to be the real Reformation. On and on.

    All of it liberal dissent from Catholicism, only differing in how far and by what means.

    Overplayed, shabby treatment — nothing compared to th Reign of Terror unleashed by these power mad revolutionaries now in power, shouting their churchy version of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity while joyfully chopping off the heads of anyone or anything who stood in their way.

    Nor were these men a matter of just academics for me, but living realities. Not a matter of the endless round of chattering academics, must read this, have you read that, this says that about this, that says this about that, as Nietzsche, the only philosopher worth reading, so well described, they themselves no longer thing, they only think about what others have thought. I was taught, once the Revolution was afoot, by men in these same circles, colleagues and friends all, and no I don’t mean just Fr Godfrey.

    For me, it was 1972/3 academic year, once out of the toxic environment that is anything called “Catholic education”. I determined to read all of the documents, read the novus ordo in Latin — which is when the full horror of what had happened became crystal clear. The Church was simply gone.

  24. Joshua says:

    So you would say that things went wrong at Trent?

    I grant you that von B. and de L. have their downsides, but I don’t believe them to be heretics – well, maybe what von B. wrote about hoping that no-one’s in hell is a bit dubious, since one assumes that unfortunately (but most justly) many are…

    I’ve always liked Bouyer, God rest him; yes, he criticised the state of liturgy prior to the Council (it must be said, with reasoned arguments), but he certainly hated the deluge that followed.

    My point is that these fellows and their fellow proponents of ressourcement were not I believe heretics, and they were treated poorly and with too much suspicion – whereas the real heretics, like that dreadful charlatan de Chardin (no good at science, no good at religion either, but a la Velikovsky mixed them all together and fooled everyone), suffered almost less than they did, rather than getting the excommunication he deserved, the wretch!

    I still don’t get why the Novus Ordo to you appears invalid – it’s still got the Roman Canon for Pete’s sake, and there is still abundant expression of correct doctrine about the Mass; its not my idea of perfect worship, but it’ll do.

    One thing I often regret is that once one becomes keen on the Trad. Mass, one can offend and scandalize the many pious Catholics who attend the N.O. (done well) and there worship God and receive Him in Holy Communion devoutly, and find it upsetting to hear the way of Mass criticized.

  25. Past Elder says:

    Now as a Lutheran I have no problem with pious post-conciliar Catholics at a well done novus ordo worshipping God and receiving Communion devoutly.

    It’s a nice start. Maybe in a few hundred more years the RCC will get the rest of the picture.

    It’s as a Catholic, when I was still trying to be, that the novus ordo is such a clear standing on its head of Catholic worship.

    Btw, now as a Lutheran I don’t have a problem with Catholics at a “Tridentine Rite” mass worshipping God and devoutly receiving Communion either.

    Maybe in a few hundred more years … well, you know.

  26. Joshua says:

    PE, I just can’t understand you!

    God bless.

  27. Louise says:

    It’s as a Catholic, when I was still trying to be, that the novus ordo is such a clear standing on its head of Catholic worship.

    Why? My spiritual director says there’s not much difference between the NO in Latin and the Tridentine Mass.

    I have not looked into it deeply, myself, but I’m just wondering if you can tell me what some of these disastrous changes were?

  28. Past Elder says:

    I assume he means the “Roman Canon” or EP1 of the novus ordo, since the other three EPs are not even there, being entirely new, though cut and pasted from early material here and there.

    The links on the sidebar of my blog are a good place to start — the “For Tiber Swimmers” element.

    There are more exhaustive studies, but these are quite good, and certainly better than I can do, especially in a combox.

  29. orrologion says:

    …say what you like about Orthodox unity, but I have never known a case where a Catholic bishop has walked out of an ecumenical meeting and refused to take part because another Catholic bishop was present.

    This situation is more similar to the interactions of the old local churches of the West when there was less centralization, e.g., Carthage and North Africa relative to Rome. In olden days one would see the same kind of ecclesiastical wrangling and maneuvering as is seen between Constantinople and Moscow regarding Estonia, Ukraine, North America, etc. While the Russian delegation left that meeting, the Patriarch of Constantinople was given the first seat when he arrived in Moscow for the funeral of and Liturgy for Vl. Alexey II. Unity where it counts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *