I believe the principal change Vatican II made to the liturgy was to authorize celebration of Mass in the vernacular (i.e., whatever living language is spoken by the congregation) rather than in the traditional Latin. yBeayf identifies himself/herself as Orthodox – so why should he/she care about the language of the Mass if that language is not Greek?
That was the principal change which most Latin Catholics noted. yBeayf can no doubt amplify the point, but I believe that the changes which the Orthodox regarded as signficant was not the language used, but the rewriting and alteration of certain prayers. Certain aspects of the Tridentine liturgy were regarded by the Orthodox as adequate, if not ideal, expressions of what they consider to be essential elements of the Eucharistic liturgy, and some of them are missing from the current liturgy used by Latin Catholics.
Indeed. This particular view of the finality of liturgical development is primarily held by the priestless Old Believers, although the sentiment is shared to a lesser degree by a lot of mainstream Orthodox.
I personally follow the Byzantine rite, but I am a member of a church (the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) which is primarily Byzantine, but has an Old Ritualist diocese and several individual parishes and a monastery that follow Western rites (usually the Sarum rite). Both St. Tikhon and St. John Maximovich were highly supportive of returning the Western rites to the Orthodox church, and St. John even for a time was in charge of a diocese using a reconstructed Gallican rite. (This group still exists, btw; they are primarily found in France. After they left the ROCA, they were with the Romanians, and in the mid 80’s went vagante, unfortunately).
I would love to see the Orthodox Church regain many of the liturgies it has lost (I am constantly pestering my priest to serve a liturgy of St. James or St. Peter). My point regarding the Vatican II reforms is that they completely wrecked the Roman rite. The early 20th-century reforms (such as the revision of the breviary and the services of Holy Week) merely damaged it, but the Pauline missal chucked the old rite and created an entirely new one. And yes, I know that there is some continuity in the actual texts, but looking at how the liturgy is actually served, it’s clearly a new rite (and I’m talking about the Pauline liturgy as it was meant to be served, like at the televised Papal mass I watched today. I won’t even get into the various abominations that occur due to liturgical abuse). And it is this fact of being a new rite that makes it unacceptable to the Orthodox. Rites change, over long periods of time significantly, but they are never just made up because a council decides the liturgy needs to move with the spirit of the times.
(and P.S., I’m a he 
)
Perhaps you haven’t read many of my posts. For those who are interested in learning more about the God of the Christians I have been an advocate of personally reading the bible; and not getting your bible information (and presumably those who are interested for spiritual reasons, one’s faith) from this board, or the internet. Along the way, I’ve cautioned anyone reading my posts to be dubious about the accuracy of the posts here (as it relates to the bible) and have further stated (more than once) that an interested person (whether for academic or spiritual reasons) should place no more stock in my posts than any one else’s. In short, if you’re interested in what the bible has to say on a subject, read it for yourself. Period. Don’t get it here. (or at least, after getting it here, read the account for yourself)
If someone’s not interested in the bible, that’s cool too. Don’t read it. And I’ve said that more than once. My thoughts are just that simple. If you’re interested in the bible,** for any reason**, read it for yourself.
And those sentiments, and the ones above, qualify me as a religious fanatic?
As to your response, I mean no disrespect, but I don’t believe you. Not one bit. I am not usually that straight forward when I see something here that I consider dubious. (and I’ve seen a fair amount) If one were to read the whole bible, at the rate of around 4 chapters every single day of the week, it would take a full year to read it through. Yet you would have me believe that you’ve spent the equivalent of** 6 full years or so**, every single day (at that pace) reading the bible. (Which is about what 3 full times, and 3 or 4 more turns at the NT would take you)
And depite that level of effort, this is the substance of your response?:
spectrum said:
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it. It’s certainly possible, but not here. I’ve known several people who have read the bible all the way through, (including many more than once; including a woman 9 times) but in every instance they were devout believers. (of various faiths) Your post suggests that you’re not likley a believer, or at least devout.* Despite having read the NT 8 times, you didn’t provide a single cite!* In any event, any one of them would have provided more substance than you provide here. From your syntax, and choice of words I’m guessing you’re not 25 yet. To quote Don Henley, “I might be wrong, but I’m not.”
But…the question isn’t whether I’m a fanatic, or whether your veracity is suspect. If you wish to take up the standard and make a biblical case for the posts of BrainGlutton that I responded to, start a thread and show us biblically. With your knowledge of the bible, I would imagine you are uniquely qualified for the task.
I’m Russian Orthodox, but my parish uses nothing but English. The switch to the vernacular is one change the Orthodox support.
Switching to the vernacular was the most immediately noticeable change, but a lot changed with it. The entrance service was radically shortened, another lesson was added, the offertory prayers were completely eliminated and replaced by two short sentences, many of the priest’s silent prayers were greatly shortened, and the last gospel was suppressed. The anaphora is now said aloud, and besides the ancient Roman canon, several other Eucharistic prayers were composed and are now commonly used. Even in the Roman canon, the commemoration of the saints was greatly shortened. The mass is now usually celebrated facing the people, and the tabernacle is often removed from the altar. Completely sung masses have virtually disappeared. The minor orders (including subdeacon) have been eliminated, as has an entire hour of the divine office (prime)! Readings now follow a three-year schedule rather than a one-year schedule. And I could go on. For a side-by-side comparison of the old and new missals, see here.
Many changes similar to these were also applied to other Catholic rites, such as the Ambrosian and Maronite, such that those rites have sustained tremendous damage as well.
I don’t often come to Great Debates, but the thread title caught my eye.
I find it intriguing and amusing that people can obsess about the “faithfulness” of one grouping or another, to being “the most authentic bearer of the heritage of early Christianity.”
I’m Christian(Episcopalian, raised Lutheran). I prefer formal, liturgical style worship, rather than a less structured style. I think the various creeds(Nicene, Apostle’s, even Athanasian) are important condensations, or statements, of Christian religious belief. I prefer being in a denomination with a strong organization like my own. And I enjoy reading about church history, controversies, and theologies.
But one of my deepest beliefs is most of what I just mentioned is window dressing. It’s what I like, not what’s ultimately important. To me it boils down to something like “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.” No dogma, no doctrine, no qualifications.
To me, what the different denominations are good for is giving folks options for worship and service that suit their personal needs or preferences. I have a sister who is Methodist, having married my brother-in-law who is in that church. Her choice to switch from being Lutheran, as we were raised, made our father unhappy(I was still Lutheran at the time) I said, “Hey, Dad, she’s Christian! Why worry?”
Some years ago there was a fictionalized mini-series about the early life in Russia of Catherine the Great, Young Catherine. As depicted in the show, she was going to have to convert to Orthodoxy and was not sure if she could.
An Orthodox priest offered to link her own Lutheranism and Orthodoxy. Keeping in mind that this was a TV movie, what he said was still true.
In a sort of parable the priest compared Christianity to the forming of a pearl. The words of Jesus were the grain of sand that finds it’s way into an oyster, which makes it uncomfortable and causes it to start coating the grain over with the material that eventually forms a beautiful jewel. As he explained, the words of our Lord are often uncomfortable, so each of us, in our own way, coat them over with multiple layers. But break open the pearl and inside you still find the original truth.
I found that speech a pretty good summary of how I feel.
I’m afraid I respectfully disagree with this summary. It’s not like the founders of Protestantism were completely ignorant of Christianity, stumbled across a Bible, and made up their own religion from it.
The early reformers were very much part of the Roman Catholic church, and well-steeped in its doctrines and the patristic fathers. They started out trying to reform the Church, but for various reasons ended up splitting. But saying they had no chain of traditional transmission is just incorrect, in my opinion.
Luther, for example, was an Augustinian friar, while Cranmer, one of the leading English reformers, was confirmed in office as Archbishop of Canterbury by the Pope, who sent him the pallia, the traditional sign of papal investiture of a bishop. Anglicanism continues to hold to the tradition of the apostolic succession.
As well, one theme of many of the early reformers was that that the Roman Catholic church had badly strayed from the traditional practices of the primitive church, and the reformers were trying to return the Church to the original practices, stripping it of the accretions that did not represent the earliest position. In short, they were arguing that the RC church was not, in fact, being “faithful to tradition” and that the reformed churches were the true heirs to the primitive church.
Obviously, that position is subject to debate, but the mere fact that the debate occurred casts considerable doubt on your initial thesis about Protestantism, in my opinion.
Perhaps you read very slowly. When I was 10 years old, it took me less than 9 months to read the entire NIV (IIRC) from cover to cover. I read through the entirety of the New Testament (NRSV) on two separate occassions during the summer during Middle School.
I used read 30-40 books a year, including at least one read through of the Lord of the Rings every year. As I’ve gotten older, that’s dropped to 20-30. I read a lot, and I read very, very quickly. I’ve been reading since I was 4, when I learned how to pronounce letterforms and words by watching my mom run her finger along the words of the books she read aloud to me. I had probably read more by the time I was 15 than most adults read in the entire lifetimes.
Perhaps that’s how you read it. But that’s not true. Before my boyfriend and I moved away from Lawrence, I attended church services twice a week. Now, reconciling homosexuality and Christianity, particularly in a fanatic-filled area like Kansas can sometime be, can be a strain, and lead to frustration with the Pharisaical elements of Christendom, but that hardly implies a lack of devotion.
I have also read the entire Qu’ran, the Bag’havad Gita and the Book of Mormon. Religion has long been an obsession of mine.
Why would I? Quote-mining is an tactic for imbeciles and children. Any idiot can flip open a concordance and find a quote to “back up” what they’re saying. This situation didn’t call for that. And, in fact, this situation didn’t call for any sort of examination of Biblical texts, because the topic was extra-Biblical. You can’t use the Bible to assert the authority of the Bible, that’s intellectually vacuous and logically ludicrous.
That is more a statement on my estimation of how much effort I felt the post deserved, and my jet-lagged state, than my ability.
You would be correct. I’m almost 23, though in my own defense, I am a doctoral student in political science.
BrainGlutton’s entire case rests upon extra-Biblical grounds. The question of whether or not the writings we consider the New Testament accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus or the beliefs of the early church cannot be addressed satisfactorily through a series of meaningless quote-mining exercises. The very question here is the authenticity of the Bible, which the Bible itself does not address (yes, yes, Revelation refers to itself as inspired, but that doesn’t apply to the entire Bible, and yes, yes, the Beroeans are shown consulting Scriptures to verify apostolic preaching, but that admonition to turn to the Scripture for testing and proving preaching again doesn’t refer to the canon we have today).
I’ve read it many times. There’s a difference between that and truly studying it. I make no claims to scholarship.
In any case, this is a sideline of the thread, which I am sorry to have continued.
Oh, and as usual, I agree with Baker.
The OP:
I think the question is probably meaningless.
The Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, the Protestant and other branches of Christianity have all moved beyond “the belief and practice of Christianity” at its beginning. There are probably few, if any, Christians alive today whose understanding of such a fundamental question as the divinity of Christ would be shared by first-century Christians.
Of course, they have moved on from the first century in different ways. Each probably believes that it is, or at least aspires to be, the “most authentic bearer of the heritage of Christianity”, whatever that means. Whatever it does mean, it certainly doesn’t mean that their beliefs and practices are identical to those of the early Christians; when did that become the touchstone of authenticity? Is there any other field of endeavour in which having made no advance at all in understanding or expression over two thousand years would be regarded as A Good Thing?
Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and, for that matter, Protestantism and every other branch of Christianity) strive to be “faithful to tradition”. The point is that it is their lived experience that makes the tradition, and the process is ongoing; hence their traditions are diverging, and the more separately they pursue their Christian mission the more their traditions will continue to diverge.
How do we choose the “most authentic” of these developing traditions? I don’t know, but I don’t see why similarity to the belief and practice of the early Christians should be the criterion. Nor, in terms of the OP, do I see why the “less united and monolithic” branch of Christianity (as between Orthodoxy and Catholicism) should be presumed to be the more authentic.
OK. now we’re getting into touchy ground- yeah, there is a certain resemblance to Arianism in that LDS teaching is that the Son came into being from the Father, though it’s even more complicated in that the Son’s generation also involves a Divine Mother, and that the Father also may well have Divine Parents. At best, LDS doctrine is technically henotheistic (One central God among other deities); at worst, one could accuse it of polytheism.
spectrum said:
How fast I read isn’t relevent, is it? Roughly 4 chapters a day, every single day, requires a full year, no matter how fast you read. If you read 6 chapters a day, a pace that would take a good adult reader about 30 minutes daily, and got it done in 9 months, cool.
But you did that 3 times for the entire bible, and another 4 times on top of that for the NT?
I’m sorry, but given the substance of your posts, I don’t believe it.
And this too?:
What-ever. :smack:
Well…you would because it would add credibility and substance to your post, and would cast you in a better light than veering in and calling someone a religious fanatic. It wouldn’t make you look like a drive-by crackpot.
You also would because after reading the NT 8 times you would certainly be more knowledgable than most posters and would contribute to the SDMB mission of fighting ignorance.
‘Quote mining’ and similar terms like ‘proof texting’ have always struck me as a little odd. I must confess that every person who I’ve ever seen use the word would not use the bible at all.
If I understand the term correctly, doesn’t it mean that one would have a tendency to use texts or quotes blithely, out of context and erroneously? Isn’t that right? (through the use of a concordance for example) I would imagine that a person who’s read the NT 8 times would make short work of someone engaged in that activity.
So…If I understand the use of the term, it’s not as if the bible is useless as a source (in a discussion about Jesus for example!) but that incorrect citing of texts out of original context, or texts being used that are not germaine to the topic being discussed, would be examples of “quote-mining.”
I’m more than willing to take the time to accept a text or quote, examine the chapters before and after (including the whole book if necessary) to dertermine thrust, audience, context, intent etc etc. In fact, if you want, just give us chapters, or a group of them, and the context, and we’ll do our own research.
My guess however, is the use of the term is from those who cannot or will not (and it most often cannot) use the bible to make their case in a discussion where the bible is the primary source. (Like what the apostles believed about the paternity of Jesus) Comments like “quote mining” in my experience have been disengenuous ground cover for those not well versed enough to suit up and get in the game.
I’d be pleased to have you prove me wrong by picking up your bible. (Which I imagine is dog-eared and well broken in)
Maybe you should have gotten some rest instead of calling someone a religious fanatic.
It didn’t take a genius to figure that out. And your field of study isn’t germaine to the topic is it? That looks like a variation of “quote mining”—I mean what does the fact you’re a doctoral student have to do with the discussion and how is it a relevent ‘defense?’
That’s interesting. BrainGlutton offered no cites, biblical, or extra-biblical, nor why those cites would have more credibiity that the direct testimony of the people in question, the apostles, found in the bible.
I’s be interested in seeing supprt for the text I underlined above.
Well…the term “scholar” is used more freely here than anywhere I’ve seen. So have it. But, certainly after reading it 8 times one would have a substantial resevoir of knowledge, wouldn’t you say?
[quote In any case, this is a sideline of the thread, which I am sorry to have continued.[/quote]
Agreed.
I think the hijack is worthy of a thread. Unfortunately, I’m sick and my ability to think clearly is…
So, uhm. Thread about the historical evolution of the Christian faiths. Brilliant idea. I’ll try to write it later.
You are seriously underestimating the amount of time us bookworms will invest in reading a book. I’ve never been motivated to sit down and read the entire Bible in one sitting, but I’ve no doubt it could be done in a weekend. Notable books that I’ve finished in a day: Shogun, Atlas Shrugged, and the entire Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series. (It took me about a day for each of them, not all three in one day).
Well, to be fair, the Qur’an and the Bhagavad Gita are quite a bit shorter than the Bible. I’ve read the Qur’an dozens of times (being a former Muslim), and can testify that it can be read (if not really grokked) in an evening. It took me a bit longer to work through the Bhagavad Gita, but that’s simply cos I was reading it off and on for leisure. I’ve never looked at the Book of Mormon, so I can’t say how long it would take to read it.
Certainly. But the question, I suppose, is if you were to track the direction the main body of Christian believers were traveling in, in terms of doctrinal evolution, which of the two historic branches currently produces a version of Christianity that is in proper line of sight with the trajectory of the early church.
Since the East and West were on fairly amicable grounds until the the latter part of the first Millenium, in the end it’s all going to come down to where one falls on the issues that caused the Schism, and who was on the side of history on those matters. These were are pretty fundamental things, and whichever side got them “wrong” would be hard pressed to still come out on top in the “most-historically-accurate” contest.
The New Testament is generally unhelpful in much of this consideration, as it is only a partial snapshot of early Christian beliefs, and it was assembled into a canon much later, and was thus parsed through a lens of later beliefs. Patristic writings are all over the map, and often contradictory.
It’s an interesting question. As a Westerner (Episcopalian), I’d probably fall more to the Catholicism side of the equation.
“Us” bookworms? To think that someone could read the bible in a weekend, with a gram of comprehension, is absurd on it’s face. How many words in the bible? I’m guessing 800,000-850,000. At 300 words a minute, which is what a well read adult might be able to do, it would take 47 of the 48 hours. Without a break.
That’s still not the point. Spectrum levied a charge that I was ‘religious fanatic’ because I dared to suggest something as simple and benign that someone commenting on biblical issues (like Jesus’s view on his divinity, or the apostles view on his paternity) actually use the bible. In any discussion, biblical or not, I would imagine that it would be intellectually required that the source document be consulted. I was intrigued by his (her?) stated credentials, and the inablilty or unwillingness to make use of the knowledge gained by sharing it in substantive post, so I’m left more than dubious as to the veracity of the claims.
According to this site, the King James Bible has 783,137 words, and according to this site, the average adult can read ~300 words per minute. Many people can read substantially more quickly than that. By my calculations, if a person read at a rate of 300 wpm, they could finish the Bible in about 43.5 hours. If we increase the reading rate to 400 wpm, the time to finish is 32.6 hours, and at 500 wpm (which is perfectly achievable), then the time to finish drops down to 26.5 hours, both of which fit easily into a weekend of doing nothing much but reading. Given this, I’ve no problem believing that spectrum has read the Bible thrice by the age of 23.
Heh? Not that I’m particularly inclined to defend any religion, but I spent a heck of a lot of my youth hearing the details of the LDS church, and I’ve yet to hear one thing about polytheism of any form in it. The closest you’re going to get is that god is supposedly going to grant a select few sufficient priviledge and powers to be as gods themselves; but if you read or heard something to make you think that God was going to cede his supreme authority or even give these little ‘mini-gods’ equal scope to hiumself, then it went under my radar. Not to be insulting, but your claim sounds like ignorance manifest. Though I could just have missed something myself.
Pertaining to the current discussion, the LDS view is that all modern religions have drifted, and that they got a big ole’ shot in the arm of truth late in the game. As they don’t appeal to any chain of tradition (though some efforts might be made to point out direct similarities between themselves and the original church formed by Christ) the LDS church would seem to be entirely out of the scope of this discussion.
Jimmy Carter can read at over 2,000 words per minute. Depending on the text, I can hit that speed or above it. I think he’s probably read the bible in a weekend. Many times.
[QUOTE=the raindogBrainGlutton offered no cites, biblical, or extra-biblical, nor why those cites would have more credibiity that the direct testimony of the people in question, the apostles, found in the bible.[/QUOTE]
Awright, awright aready. Regarding my assertion that the Jews have never expected their Messiah to be the Son of God, nor a sacrificial sin-redeemer, here’s a cite from the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_eschatology):
Nothing in there, is there, about the Messiah being God? Or being the Son of God? Or being executed and resurrected to redeem the sins of humanity? As far as OT prophecy goes, that whole “suffering servant” business is based on Second Isaiah, particularly Isaiah 53:3, but that cannot be construed unambiguously as a messianic prophecy; the “servant” is almost certainly not the Messiah but the whole nation of Israel.