Religion

[ulukinatme]

I can respect that the changes were somehow significant to you, but that sort of thing is not bothersome to me. Fortunately The Church attracts very different people and if we pay attention to Christ's Big Message, we can all sit in the same seats.

That's fair. Christ message and mass structure are two different things though. One is the word from the Lord, the later is chosen by secular mortals on Earth (Who are not infallible).

 

[SportsingHard]

The intro to my favorite book:

IT IS FLAT-OUT strange that something—that anything—is happening at all! There was nothing, then a Big Bang, then here we all are. This is extremely weird.

To Schelling's burning question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" there have always been two general answers. The first might be called the philosophy of "oops." The universe just occurs, there is nothing behind it, it's all ultimately accidental or random, it just is, it just happens—oops! The philosophy of oops, no matter how sophisticated and adult it may on occasion appear—its modern names and numbers are legion, from positivism to scientific materialism, from linguistic analysis to historical materialism, from naturalism to empiricism—always comes down to the same basic answer, namely, "Don't ask."

The question itself (Why is anything at all happening? Why am I here?)—the question itself is said to be confused, pathological, nonsensical, or infantile. To stop asking such silly or confused questions is, they all maintain, the mark of maturity, the sign of growing up in this cosmos. I don't think so. I think the "answer" these "modern and mature" disciplines give—namely, oops! (and therefore, "Don't ask!")—is about as infantile a response as the human condition could possibly offer.

The other broad answer that has been tendered is that something else is going on: behind the happenstance drama is a deeper or higher or wider pattern, or order, or intelligence. There are, of course, many varieties of this "Deeper Order": the Tao, God, Geist, Maat, Archetypal Forms, Reason, Li, Mahamaya, Brahman, Rigpa. And although these different varieties of the Deeper Order certainly disagree with each other at many points, they all agree on this: the universe is not what it appears. Something else is going on, something quite other than oops. . . .

--Ken Wilber, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution

Shared in light of "interfaith" discussion. I suppose we can respect that our neighbors are doing their best to discern the Deeper Order without pretending all explanations are equally accurate or that all moral perspectives are equally appropriate.

 

[Old Man Mike]

John Von Neumann was a WWII immigrant scientist from Hungary who became known by insiders as the most intelligent man they knew (even those who knew people like Einstein or Bohr etc.) Von Neumann was also a spiritual thinker. He knew about Quantum Mechanics (still the way we think about fundamental change/development in the Universe.) The mysterious foundation of QM change is that basic particles exist in a semi-this/semi-that state, which "wave function" then "collapses" into one or the other. This collapse takes place through "Observership."

Von Neumann meditated on the Origin of the Universe: how did that "Wave Function" collapse and form the Big Bang? To Von Neumann the answer was obvious: There must have been an Original Observer. THAT's GOD. GOD the Creator, the Originator, the One who collapsed the un-abled "nothing" of what physics calls the chaotic "sea" of unstable mini-Black Holes. The two Original Super-Natures therefore were GOD, the Lover-Observer, and Chaos, the uncollapsed "Nothing."

The Original Observer wants to stabilize something which can LOVE back, and so places into the Original Event the laws that will evolve a Universe containing advanced living physical forms into which HE can place His other sorts of stabilized "wave functions" (Souls with free wills) which are capable of decisions and thereby choosing "Love", hopefully, and leading purposeful lives.

I'm with John Von Neumann.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

That's fair. Christ message and mass structure are two different things though. One is the word from the Lord, the later is chosen by secular mortals on Earth (Who are not infallible).

I'd push back against the idea that Christ's message and the mass structure are two different things. The order of the mass is quite literally part of Christ's message: Liturgy of the Word and Eucharist. I'd also push back on "secular mortals on Earth who are not infalliable." Catholics believe Christ sends the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the Church. He also gave the apostles authority to bind and loose. Both are relevant as it pertains to this conversation.

One hurdle I had to overcome when converting to Catholicism was understanding the Church's authority to bind and loose. Coming from a non-denominational/evangelical background, I struggled with the idea that the Church could establish rules and disciplines that carried an obligation.

For example, why is it a sin to eat meat on a Friday during Lent? I thought to myself, "That sounds man-made and ridiculous!"

However, when I later confessed that particular sin, the priest offered some helpful counsel: Don't approach the Church's rules as a checklist for life. Instead, strive to do your best, not simply because you're trying to avoid a list of things you're not allowed to do, but because you love God and want to please Him. Love is the primary motivator.

I think the structure of the Mass fits into that same understanding. It's not simply a collection of man-made procedures imposed on top of Christ's message. The Church has authority to order its worship, and that structure has meaning, purpose, and centuries of theological development behind it. Of course, not every element of the Mass is divinely prescribed or immutable. But that doesn't make it arbitrary or devoid of authority. Christ entrusted His Church with the responsibility of guiding the faithful, including in how we worship.

So I worry less about nitpicking every detail and focus more on the bigger picture: worshiping God as part of the Church Christ established. I don't have to personally understand or independently validate every disciplinary decision before I can humbly accept the Church's authority. For me, it's ultimately a matter of love, not scrupulosity. We follow the Church's guidance not merely because there's a list of rules, but because we trust the Church Christ gave us to lead us closer to Him.

 

[ulukinatme]

I'd push back against the idea that Christ's message and the mass structure are two different things. The order of the mass is quite literally part of Christ's message: Liturgy of the Word and Eucharist. I'd also push back on "secular mortals on Earth who are not infalliable." Catholics believe Christ sends the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the Church. He also gave the apostles authority to bind and loose. Both are relevant as it pertains to this conversation.

One hurdle I had to overcome when converting to Catholicism was understanding the Church's authority to bind and loose. Coming from a non-denominational/evangelical background, I struggled with the idea that the Church could establish rules and disciplines that carried an obligation.

For example, why is it a sin to eat meat on a Friday during Lent? I thought to myself, "That sounds man-made and ridiculous!"

However, when I later confessed that particular sin, the priest offered some helpful counsel: Don't approach the Church's rules as a checklist for life. Instead, strive to do your best, not simply because you're trying to avoid a list of things you're not allowed to do, but because you love God and want to please Him. Love is the primary motivator.

I think the structure of the Mass fits into that same understanding. It's not simply a collection of man-made procedures imposed on top of Christ's message. The Church has authority to order its worship, and that structure has meaning, purpose, and centuries of theological development behind it. Of course, not every element of the Mass is divinely prescribed or immutable. But that doesn't make it arbitrary or devoid of authority. Christ entrusted His Church with the responsibility of guiding the faithful, including in how we worship.

So I worry less about nitpicking every detail and focus more on the bigger picture: worshiping God as part of the Church Christ established. I don't have to personally understand or independently validate every disciplinary decision before I can humbly accept the Church's authority. For me, it's ultimately a matter of love, not scrupulosity. We follow the Church's guidance not merely because there's a list of rules, but because we trust the Church Christ gave us to lead us closer to Him.

The word of God is found throughout the mass for sure, but God didn't create the structure of the mass nor the responses or many of the prayers. Those were created by secular mortals and it's changed over time. My position is the 2011 changes to the mass and Nicene Creed in particular were unnecessary as the meaning did not change, and those changes come across as awkward. In particular, the Ecumenical revisions of the Nicene Creed from the 1970s were the cleanest and soundest from a modern English vernacular standpoint, and from what I've read other Christians denominations have continued to use that version since the 70s while the Catholic version was altered again in 2011 to it's current version. I don't question every statute that comes from the Catholic church, but I try to remember that the Church is not infallible and they've made mistakes in the past. The church is for God, but men are the ones that have to interpret His word and they don't always get it right.

It's funny that you bring up the Lent practice of avoiding meat on Fridays. This practice was originally adopted in the Middle East because meat was seen as a delicacy in that region, something only more wealthy families could have routinely. Why was fish excluded? It was a staple of their diet and it would be too difficult for many to cut it out. We have the opposite issue here in the states. Meat is a big staple of many diets, while fish or seafood is considered more of a luxury (Outside of a frozen foods section). By that token I've never practiced the Lent meat stipulation, I've instead done what others have suggested and I give up something else I enjoy for 40 days like TV, pop, etc. The end goal is the same, we give something up for ourselves and bring our hearts closer to Jesus just as he fasted in the desert and brought Himself closer to the Father.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Agnostic/Atheist who was ordained as a pastor after Bible college by a mega church prosperity pastor who can promise healing and financial breakthroughs for a donation/fee. Youth/assistant pastor for 4 years and multiple missionary stays in Bolivia, Haiti/DR, Mexico, Ecuador.

They got me prior to full prefrontal cortex development.

 

[Old Man Mike]

?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The word of God is found throughout the mass for sure, but God didn't create the structure of the mass nor the responses or many of the prayers. Those were created by secular mortals and it's changed over time. My position is the 2011 changes to the mass and Nicene Creed in particular were unnecessary as the meaning did not change, and those changes come across as awkward. In particular, the Ecumenical revisions of the Nicene Creed from the 1970s were the cleanest and soundest from a modern English vernacular standpoint, and from what I've read other Christians denominations have continued to use that version since the 70s while the Catholic version was altered again in 2011 to it's current version. I don't question every statute that comes from the Catholic church, but I try to remember that the Church is not infallible and they've made mistakes in the past. The church is for God, but men are the ones that have to interpret His word and they don't always get it right.

It's funny that you bring up the Lent practice of avoiding meat on Fridays. This practice was originally adopted in the Middle East because meat was seen as a delicacy in that region, something only more wealthy families could have routinely. Why was fish excluded? It was a staple of their diet and it would be too difficult for many to cut it out. We have the opposite issue here in the states. Meat is a big staple of many diets, while fish or seafood is considered more of a luxury (Outside of a frozen foods section). By that token I've never practiced the Lent meat stipulation, I've instead done what others have suggested and I give up something else I enjoy for 40 days like TV, pop, etc. The end goal is the same, we give something up for ourselves and bring our hearts closer to Jesus just as he fasted in the desert and brought Himself closer to the Father.

I have no issue with you simply preferring one translation over another in terms of how it flows, sounds, or communicates the meaning. That's a matter of personal preference, and reasonable people can disagree.

Where I disagree is with the broader conclusion that because the wording and structure of the Mass have developed over time, the Mass itself is somehow man-made, secular, or merely the fallible invention of men. Much of what we pray is rooted directly in Scripture, and the Mass itself is grounded in Christ's institution of the Eucharist and the worship practiced by the early Church. There's a difference between the Church developing and regulating its liturgy and the Church inventing it.

I think you're drastically underestimating just how much Scripture is woven into the structure of the Mass. I actually have a chart somewhere that breaks it down line by line, showing the corresponding biblical passages alongside each part of the Mass. It's crazy how much of what we say and do is rooted in Scripture. It goes well beyond the obvious examples like the Our Father and the Last Supper. I was genuinely floored when I first saw it, and I'd be happy to track it down and share it if you're interested.

 

[ulukinatme]

I have no issue with you simply preferring one translation over another in terms of how it flows, sounds, or communicates the meaning. That's a matter of personal preference, and reasonable people can disagree.

Where I disagree is with the broader conclusion that because the wording and structure of the Mass have developed over time, the Mass itself is somehow man-made, secular, or merely the fallible invention of men. Much of what we pray is rooted directly in Scripture, and the Mass itself is grounded in Christ's institution of the Eucharist and the worship practiced by the early Church. There's a difference between the Church developing and regulating its liturgy and the Church inventing it.

I think you're drastically underestimating just how much Scripture is woven into the structure of the Mass. I actually have a chart somewhere that breaks it down line by line, showing the corresponding biblical passages alongside each part of the Mass. It's crazy how much of what we say and do is rooted in Scripture. It goes well beyond the obvious examples like the Our Father and the Last Supper. I was genuinely floored when I first saw it, and I'd be happy to track it down and share it if you're interested.

No, it's fine, you don't need to back it up. I agree for the most part. Yes, a great deal of the mass is derived from Scripture, but there's portions that come directly from man. Example: the Nicene Creed wasn't handed down by God, but it was created in 325 AD by the Council of Nicea to help settle conflicts over Arianism and unite the Christian sects. The wording has changed a few times over the centuries, and obviously there's slight variations in translations.

There's more than that of course. There's songs that are sung to the Lord and written by men (Yes, some of which are taken from Psalms and other biblical books). There's the Intercessions which are tied to community. There's the Sign of Peace (Formerly the Kiss of Peace) which came from a Mediterranean custom. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

If I'm being honest, what it really comes down to is this: no matter how long I go to mass the original responses and prayers are rooted in my brain because that's the way they were from when I was born in 1982 till the 2011 revisions. For me it was basically 30 years of the same structure and responses and in the 15 years since the changes I still find myself falling back to those previous phrases and responses like an involuntary reaction. I usually get them right now, but at least once every month or two I slip up. If the new translations fundamentally changed the meaning then I would understand, but they didn't really change anything in a meaningful way. The changes felt unnecessary and just don't make much sense to me and probably never will.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

No, it's fine, you don't need to back it up. I agree for the most part. Yes, a great deal of the mass is derived from Scripture, but there's portions that come directly from man. Example: the Nicene Creed wasn't handed down by God, but it was created in 325 AD by the Council of Nicea to help settle conflicts over Arianism and unite the Christian sects. The wording has changed a few times over the centuries, and obviously there's slight variations in translations.

There's more than that of course. There's songs that are sung to the Lord and written by men (Yes, some of which are taken from Psalms and other biblical books). There's the Intercessions which are tied to community. There's the Sign of Peace (Formerly the Kiss of Peace) which came from a Mediterranean custom. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

If I'm being honest, what it really comes down to is this: no matter how long I go to mass the original responses and prayers are rooted in my brain because that's the way they were from when I was born in 1982 till the 2011 revisions. For me it was basically 30 years of the same structure and responses and in the 15 years since the changes I still find myself falling back to those previous phrases and responses like an involuntary reaction. I usually get them right now, but at least once every month or two I slip up. If the new translations fundamentally changed the meaning then I would understand, but they didn't really change anything in a meaningful way. The changes felt unnecessary and just don't make much sense to me and probably never will.

That's fair. My wife is a cradle Catholic. She and even her mom (who converted in the ’80s) get up in arms over certain liturgical changes, so I get it.

To your comment on Nicea: As a convert, I also had to come to terms with doctrinal development. Once I worked through that, a lot of these concerns became less significant to me. We can get into doctrinal development and infallibility if you want, but your repeated use of “man-made” has me wondering where you stand on the Church's teaching authority.

For example, you say

the Nicene Creed wasn't handed down by God, but it was created in 325 AD by the Council of Nicea...

It’s true that men formulated the Creed at the Council of Nicaea in response to Arianism. But the Church teaches that the council’s definitive teaching was guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. That’s the difference between men speaking on their own (ordinary) and the Church exercising her solemn teaching authority through an ecumenical council (extraordinary).

So I guess if you're saying "I just don't like that they changed it because it seemed fine the way it was." That's perfectly reasonable. But if you're also saying "The creed was created by man" thus implying it can be fallible, then that's where I'd push back.

Hopefully that makes sense and I'm not talking in circles. I just think it's important to nail down the semantics of Church authority.

Not directing this at you, but a lot of people outside of the Church seem to have a poor understanding of this topic. They just assume everything from Rome is man-made and un-Biblical and immediately push back. I didn't realize it until after I converted, but I'm surrounded by a lot of family, friends, and coworkers who are legit "anti-Catholic." They don't just disagree with Catholic theology. They actually believe it to be a "false gospel, anti-Christ, etc." Sort of blew my mind when I got a ton of negative pushback.