www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Are we in union even with these people?

I fail to see how this is necessary. It is, Memo, rude beyond belief. Snide, snarky, unnecessary and contributing nothing of substance (except insult) to the conversation.

You may disagree with Trinity but I see no reason for being so disrespectful and rude.

Let's discontinue the tone of these posts, please.

Thankyou.
Alice

Hi,

What I fail to see is the need for Trinity's original remark, given the rest of her message.

"Memo, you are so sweet, you completely and utterly fail to understand the meaning of the image of Our Lady that was given to your ancestors".

Does it make sense to you? It doesn't to me.

It makes me feel that "sweet" stands for something else. Of course, I cannot make any accusations, I can only express my feelings.

I also fail to see how saying that I do not think people are expressing "sweetness" with their postings is rude.

Maybe it is one of those subtle American cultural things I do not understand or presume to understand (at least not yet).

In any event, it was not my intention to be rude. If you think I was, I sincerely apologize.

Shalom,
Memo

I understand that when one addresses another as 'sweet', depending on the tone and context, that it can be understood as being patronizing and/or naive. I do not know if that is how Trinity meant it, and I will presume that she did not.

I thank Memo for apologizing to us for any unintentional rudeness in his response. I don't think that there are vast cultural differences between how Americans and Mexicans address each other, but *on this forum* what happens when posts start attacking each other because of a perceived slight or sarcasm, is that the subject at hand gets sidetracked and derailed and further conversation takes a downward spiral.

Since some of our moderators are away, (though I have contacted our Administrator, who is also away, but who will be checking in on us this evening) I will ask, in their place for Memo, Carol, and Trinity to move on from any further references to the above.

Our Administrator is extremely serious, and with good cause, about any sarcastic references to others.

Alice

Dear Carole you said:

I say:

I agree with you completely in everything you wrote. My point is that these meetings, or whatever they are should not be considered a Mass.

It's obvious that those that attend and do not believe in the real presence need to acquire a certain amount of spiritual growth. That is something that cannot be taught, it must come from God and the Holy Spirit.

Hopefully the day will come when those that appreciate this Protestanized form of worship, will grow and accept the Eucharist for what it is. But until then, it is better to give them the chance to grow to that level, rather than not have a church at all.

I say this because I am Orthodox and know that our most devout participants are those that have gone through a Protestant Evangelical experience. They grew into an appreciation of our Liturgy through that experience.

Zenovia

Dear Trinity you said:

I say:

Actually, the 'crescent' represented an Aztec god, so....the brilliance of this miraculous portrait is that everything within it has a different meaning. By that I mean a different meaning to the Aztecs and to us. Yet each meaning adapts to each culture in a way that will spiritually enlighten them in some form.

While we see her hands in a form of prayer, a prayer that we can relate to, the Indians saw her hands forming a dance that related to the way they worship.

In the same way, I see her covered with the sky and perceive her garments as the earth, yet they are not the meanings given to her by the Aztecs.... and so on and so forth.

...And that is the true miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe. She, as Christianity, can conform to each and every culture because our Lord loves all, and wants all to open their hearts and allow Him to come into It... And in whichever way or path they are able to take.

Zenovia

I appreciate your post. I do have some questions, if I may. Please bear in mind that I'm mostly thinking out loud here.

You write:

I agree with you completely that these types of services should not be considered a Mass. Though they unfortunately do become a Mass when there is a valid Consecration and the Body of Blood of Christ, the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist, is given to those assembled.

In your proposal, if I understand it correctly, you seem to be saying that we should allow some sort of worship service that is not a Mass.

Practically speaking how would that be done while still offering the Mass for those who do understand and appreciate the truth of the Eucharist? Those who are more "mature" in their faith?

And then I wonder how would the Catholic Church allow such worship services but clarify that this is:

A) Not a Mass?

and

B) Not a true reflection of Catholic teaching?

Thank you again for taking the time to clarify your position.

Carole

Dear Carole,

The Church, and by that I really mean that there should be one universal Christian Church, should differentiate between a Mass or Liturgy with the Eucharist, and a form of worship that is not a Mass or Liturgy. I do not see why there cannot be other forms of worship. For instance, those that went to hear Billy Graham in the past, or maybe what goes on in mega churches today.

If a person has grown spiritually to the level where they want to receive communion, they should have to attend a real Mass performed by a real priest...and it should be a somber and very devout service.

I for one, owe a great deal of my spiritual growth to the material given out by the Evangelicals. For me to deny the method used by God to develop me spiritually, would be to deny God Himself.

By the same account, I further developed myself by reading accounts of RCC saints. That does not mean I am less Orthodox, but rather a more informed one.

So since I truly believe that Christianity should be one, with one definite set of beliefs, why not incorporate different forms of worship within the Church, but still have the Mass reserved to be performed only certain ways and with truly ordained priests.

Zenovia

I've been away from the Forum for a few days, so this is my first chance to read this particular thread and watch the video.

It's interesting because I just watched a documentary titled "In Search of the Wrong-Eyed Jesus" (rented from NetFlix). A large part of this film (desciption below) concerns Pentacostalism and the Southern ethos.

When I saw the video from L.A., I thought... this is in many ways reminiscent of Pentacostalism. It's just more upscale and orderly with Catholic trappings.

In the description of the film it says "...shows us the touching world of the impoverished whites who have been cast aside by modern society, only to create their own unorthodox culture."

I'm wondering if in a sense if this is what is surfacing in this L.A. video. Yes, you would say these L.A. people probably aren't downtrodden or pushed aside in the classic sense. But then again, maybe they are... by our 21st century, Western style of living, which in so many ways is artificial and superficial. Maybe this "experiment" is a way to make them feel alive, feel they are connected to something. In today's America, we've lost ceremony and ritual. And our rites of passage are now getting drunk or having sex for the first time.

Now, believe me, I am not endorsing the type of worship shown in the video. I'm just saying its emergence may be symptomatic of a society that in having so much, has lost so much.

Anyway, if you get a chance, give the movie a look-see. I'd really like to discuss folks' impressions of it (on a different thread of course).

Film description: Jim White plays himself in this engaging journey into the Deep South. Director Andrew Douglas tracks the alternative-country crooner as he brings his music to such diverse establishments as churches, jails and roadside bars. Along the way, Douglas shows us the touching world of the impoverished whites who have been cast aside by modern society, only to create their own unorthodox culture...."