/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>260816

No disrespect to orthodox of course. This thread should not devolve into bickering and insults.

Orthodox church praises itself on not having many councils since the early ones before the schism, but as a Catholic i look at this as a fault. Theyre quite divided (not a lot of central doctrine formation so different ideas between different areas) and leave a lot in the dark (because no modern councils). For example, they dont have doctrine defined doctrine on birth control. Also another thing is that they dont seem to use non ancienct church architecture. I could be wrong but i did get into a conversation with an orthodox christian and he was heavily against architecture and iconography outside of that style, which again i attribute to their circlejerking (srry m80s) their "orthodoxy". As a westerner i have to disagree. I abhor very minimalistic protestant-like churches, vut if it wasnt for the catholic church's acceptance of modern art, all the art and architecture of renaissance that is in vatican and all the beautiful gothic cathedrals wouldnt exist, and are wrong. Again this point isnt necessarily all that legitimate cause im not sure if its true, but there you go, maybe an ortho poster can help.

But the main thing would be that they are not very centralized (you gotta be for doctrine its freaking doctrine imo) and thus they dont get many councils. I think this is simply due to the fact that theyre seperated from the chair of peter which makes it so they dont have true leadership. Also catholics have way better theology imo but thats just my opinion.

For anyone responding that our development of doctrine has led the church astray id recommend watching this which explains how that works.

Once again i dont mean any disrespect to orthodox, and im sorry if i got something wrong in my posting.

https://youtu.be/4MYMMcSI4MY

Bump

>>260819

I think that's a pretty well-rounded statement. Though as a Roman Catholic I should mention the weakness of our councils. Mainly the "Spirit of Vatican II" that currently strangles us.

>>260816

The Papacy is the single most important difference between the two in my opinion, everything else falls into place if you accept or reject it.

Jimmy Akin is a Catholic convert and apologist and his article on why he chose Catholicism instead of Eastern Orthodoxy might be helpful: http://jimmyakin.com/why-i-am-not-eastern-orthodox

One of the simpler considerations he pointed out was that if the Papacy truly has a privileged place among the bishops, as both Catholics and the Orthodox admit, then whom would God more likely lead to a correct understanding of it? The ones who possess it or the ones who are separated from it?

>>261010

Wasn't the whole "Spirit of Vatican II" thing mostly an American phenomenon? I'm pretty sure that at least in Hungary we didn't have stuff like that, though that could have been because we were preoccupied with the commies.

>>261026

Vatican 2 applies to the whole church.

I've never understood the full butthurt over it. The only things that really matter in it to me are that the liturgy is in a language people understand and so is the Bible.

This is the main why the Protestants broke off (or were excommunicated if you are Baptist), and it is just as things were in the early church before Latin quit being the Lingua Franca.

I am super traditionalist, but as long as the change is not something I am convinced is sin I'm ok with it.

>>261040

>The only things that really matter in it to me are that the liturgy is in a language people understand and so is the Bible.

If you read Sacrosanctum concilium you'll see the intention of Vatican II was to retain Latin as the primary language of the Latin rite.

Vatican II hardly called for any of the changes, most of it is due to the "Spirit of Vatican II" which is just the modernists' heretical interpretation of Vatican II.

>>261026

>Wasn't the whole "Spirit of Vatican II" thing mostly an American phenomenon?

It's absolutely everywhere. Though in some countries it's stronger than others. In particular the US, Canada and Western Europe, I think.

>>261131

>SC 36.2 2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.

the priests sermons in my mother tongue are the most rewarding part of the mass for me.

>>261176

Sermons were always in the vulgar tongue. Priests didn't give sermons in Latin in the 1950s. The only times sermons were in Latin was when Latin was the vulgar tongue (like in the early Church) or when it was understood as a lingua franca (for example, addressing an audience of clerics or other educated people).

>>261176

>the priests sermons in my mother tongue are the most rewarding part of the mass for me.

It's not the Holy Eucharist?

>>261193

and the reading of the scripture? the priest chooses the particular parts from the bible so he could later expand on them in his sermon.

>>261273

>and the reading of the scripture?

Latin. I actually prefer it that way. I would have read the passage in vernacular in advance anyway, so I appreciate getting another perspective.

>the priest chooses the particular parts

No. He has to stick to the missal. Otherwise it would constitute liturgical abuse.

Even protestants have liturgical calendars, only in the more whack-a-doodle denominations the "pastor" can make it up as he goes along.

>>261343

i got it wrong then. the priest is building his sermon on the reading of the scripture. you may prefer it that way because you memorized the bible in latin. he might as well speak the sermon in latin too.

i recall that muslims memorize the koran in arabic too so maybe that is the way it should be.

>>261358

>you may prefer it that way because you memorized the bible in latin.

I haven't. I haven't memorized it in any language. But it's healthy to read different translations of the Bible. Ecclesiastical Latin is also unique in that it's completely set aside and tailored to discuss matters of Christian faith. Being a so-called "dead language" means that the words haven't changed meaning much if at all since St. Jerome wrote them. Unlike English, where for instance 'gay' went from meaning 'cheerful' to 'pervert'.

>he might as well speak the sermon in latin too.

No, that would miss the entire point of the sermon, which is to tie the Gospel to people's daily lives. Unless people speak Latin in their daily lives, Latin is going to be a poor tool for the job.

>i recall that muslims memorize the koran in arabic too so maybe that is the way it should be.

The Muslims have practically made an idol of their book. That's absolutely not the way it should be.

There is great merit to being familiar with the Bible in Latin, Greek, Syriac, Slavonic, Coptic or Ge'ez, depending on your tradition, but there's no need to memorize the whole thing, in those or any other language.

>>261372

then for the purpose of better exposition of the message of the sermon to the church goers it would make sense that the reading of the scripture would also be in the language everyone understands. you seem to think that our church is some kind of elitist club. its the opposite: jesus message should be made available to everyone who is interested in it.