|
Oh yeah, ground floor!  Ad multos annos! 
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
RIP old thread, have Mozart's Requiem with the added bonus of a Tridentine Requiem Mass being said along with it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPGx76vR414&t=292s
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:Welcoming, but in a New England way not a southern way Gotta explain this to a dirty Old Worlder
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years is pretty good, though it covers all of Christian history and I can't remember offhand into how much detail he goes concerning the early councils. https://www.fourthcentury.com is a great resource concerning early Christianity, especially for the 4th century, but it is down for me atm Re: music, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuxKTJ0tvE (Charpentier is to die for, and he's afaik the only French composer of that period to emulate the Baroque style that was popular in the rest of Catholic Europe at the time. That's probably because he studied at Rome) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE5LbRk4AfE A super baroque setting to the Mass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-q9ss_phO8 A baroque Christmas piece written by a Silesian composer that's very popular in Germany https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpjXqPXs42g Another Mass setting, though 19th century this time. This is the go-to music for Christmas Mass in the area I grew up in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc4GJCbF2G4 A great album that's titled "Fragments for the End of Time", need I say more? (it's musical settings to early medieval apocalyptic texts from Aquitaine and what today is Germany) System Metternich fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Excellent hats, and therefore always relevant to this thread. And just like that I found a great collection of excellent religious hats on Pinterest (I get the feeling that whoever's running this collection isn't a great fan of religion, but eh)  Imam Sheikh Sa’ad Musse Roble at a White House summit last year  You all know who that is   Navajo mask dancer, 1904  A Shinto priest  An Evenks (an ethnic group living mostly in Siberia and northern China) shaman's headgear, late 19th century  Josyf Cardinal Slipyj (1893-1984), Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church wearing the cardinal's galero  The Dalai Lama wearing a ceremonial hat  "The Rignga Uesham Hat is worn by the head monk when performing Jingsey, a special type of puja ritual ceremony in order to purify the place, drive out the evil spirits and to bring peace and happiness to the living family." (from the always excellent Philippi Collection  Sadly women seem to be underrepresented in all major religions concerning both priestly offices and blinged-out headgear
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Just realised that one guy in my choir has been a member for 75 years, holy crap
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Two cool things before I go to bed: All the various vestments of the Pope before the Council (he didn't wear them all at once tho) https://vimeo.com/183328027 (can you even embed vimeo videos?) Some bored public officials in Germany created a 3D image of Luther from his death mask. That smirk at the end 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
We may have different opinions on things, but one constant remains: the love of cool religious hats e: that picture's wrong on one account though: members of orders who have a white habit can wear a matching zucchetto too, I'm pretty sure System Metternich fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Orthodox Wiki posted:The Orthodox Church makes no judgment concerning the efficacy or validity of baptisms performed by other denominations, as regards people who are members of those respective denominations. The precise status and significance of such baptisms has not been revealed by God to the Orthodox Church; however, as a practical matter, they are treated as non-efficacious unless and until the person joins the Orthodox Church. Persons coming to Orthodoxy from other denominations, and who had been baptized with water in the name of the Trinity, are generally not received by holy baptism, but instead through holy chrismation, after which their former baptism is deemed to be efficacious. The final decision as to the mode of reception to be used in each case rests with the bishop. When there is doubt as to whether or how the person was previously baptized, a conditional baptism is employed, in which the officiant says something of the form of "if you are not yet baptized, I baptize you..." The need for conditional baptisms is motivated not only by factual uncertainties regarding the original baptism, but also by the uncertainty of some of the baptismal theology regarding the precise conditions for the validity of baptism. (The Church holds that one cannot be certain that opinions which are offered by pious theologians, but on which the Church has not made an authoritative pronouncement, are correct, and even authoritative pronouncements can have multiple interpretations which the Church has neither definitively endorsed or rejected.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:The Spanish are very serious about Catholicism It's much older, too, most of those Spanish confraternities (hermandades or cofradías) date back to the late Middle Ages, in some cases even earlier. They're most prominent during Holy Week, when they will do elaborate processions through their cities and towns. Here's a random video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVeg4oTm32w Oh to see the face of an American tourist who happens to visit Spain during Holy Week without knowing about those confraternities 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Hmm, is it generally true across Europe that church isn't a big social affair with food and such? I guess that would surprise me. My parish in Vienna offered a Pfarrcafé most Sundays where various groups within the parish like the altar servers, Caritas etc. would offer self-made food and coffee for a price. I did the Pfarrcafé for one of the best-attended services throughout the year (the admission of new altar servers) for four years in a row and at the end we had like 550€ or something. We never managed to spend it I've got very fond memories of sitting around with friends after Mass until far into the afternoon and spend the hours away merrily bullshitting. Sadly the parish of my hometown where I'm back now doesn't have this 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:for the record, i have never heard the first word, always only the second That's because originally there was a distinction between confraternities that were open to everybody (hermandad and confraternities that were organised along professional lines, i.e. only bakers or shoemakers or whatever (cofradía). This sort of professional corporation doesn't exist anymore, and at least in Spain the two terms are used pretty much interchangeably afaik. Maybe it's different for former Spanish colonies? Fun fact: In 1585 there were 300 indigenous confraternities in Mexico City alone, not even counting those confraternities in which the Spanish upper class was organised 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
I've never seen a church with a kitchen anywhere, at least not Catholic ones (not sure about the local Lutheran church). You've got a fully-equipped kitchen in the Pfarr- or Gemeindezentrum (a larger building near to the church where there are rooms and facilities for the various parish groups and usually also a large hall for theatre productions and stuff) and also wherever the priests live, of course, but the average church around here is only for prayer/dusty hidden rooms we don't tell the tourists about that've got tons of ancient stuff in there that nobody ever needs e: Are you saying that the kitchen is indeed part of the church building itself? If so than that may be another American-European difference
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
I don't have time to look it up/reply properly, but you should also consider about which part of the Middle Ages you're talking about, both temporally and geographically. There is a world of difference between, say, a rural German peasant of the 8th century and a Parisian living around 1400
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Ok, I got home later and more drunk than I thought I would, so this will have to be a bit shorter. Re: Christianity in the Middle Ages, the questions of Where? and When? really do play a very big role. The Medieval Era spans a good 1000 years, after all. Generally speaking (and keep in mind that my focus lies on Catholicism in the 17th and 18th century where things were very different): during the Early Middle Ages, all of Europe was extremely rural. There were only very few cities, and even those would hardly pass as such even when viewed from a late medieval perspective. When you encountered a priest he was more likely a monk than not; the parish system was still in development and diocesan priests were definitely seen as "less holy" than their monastic counterparts and so those who chose to enter the clergy usually took the monastic route. This meant on the other hand that there were only relatively few churches covering large swathes of land. For many people going to church simply wouldn't have been all that feasible. Therefore your average rural European in, say, the 8th century would probably have relatively few contact to the Church in his or her life, as long as they weren't living close to a monastery. They would have been Christian, sure, but probably not in a way looked upon kindly by the educated clergy. The predominant role of monasteries in the clergy meant on the other hand that those monks who were priests probably did know very well what they were doing, seeing as monasteries were *the* centres of learning in these times. This was different after the huge wave of urbanisation hitting Europe in the 12th and especially 13th century, where existing cities grew rapidly and the various European monarchs methodically established hundreds of new cities as well. Monasteries were overtaken by universities in their importance as educational centres and by cities in their role als economic hotspots. The rise in population also meant a huge rise in clergy. The parish system was well developed by now, with those parishes where you had to walk for more than one or two hours before reaching the church becoming a minority (they still continued to exist far beyond though, sometimes even well into the 20th century), new churches and chapels sprung up everywhere etc. The social aspect of a rising population also meant that comparatively more people chose a career in the Church. On the other hand religion was excessively urbanised too, with most priests both being city slickers by birth and staying there too - the image of the village priest who himself grew up on a farm is largely one of the 19th and 20th centuries; for the longest time before that priests were predominantly an urban phenomenon. That, combined with the tendency of this age for priests to collect lots of parishes and other prebendaries together with either no replacement or a very cheap one being sent instead, meant that rural Europeans of that time had a much different problem. There were enough priests going around, but all the capable ones were looking for a nice job somewhere in the city, and your country parish was either sent a loser who didn't cut it in the big league or nobody at all. There are plenty of reports from exasperated bishops in the 15th century for example of them encountering priests in the far reaches of their dioceses who wouldn't even be able to recite the most basic prayers, much less read and write. So the peasants of that time had in a way little contact with the Church too, or at least the parts of the Church who were able to properly communicate its dogma. The religious undersupply of rural regions can also be observed as late as the Baroque, btw: the "agro romano", i.e. the rural areas directly around Rome were not only extremely poor, but also dramatically undersupplied with priests, even though the centre of western Christendom was only a few miles away! The advent of the printing press and the standardisation efforts of Trent especially in the area of priestly education did a lot to spread official teaching among the general population, though it was less the peasants being more able to inform themselves about stuff but better educated priests being able to teach them. The confessionalisation of the Early Modern Era was eventually the last step in bringing the beliefs of the common people and of the Church together, culminating in the extreme overlap in positions and mutual support showcased by Catholics between about 1850 and 1950. The large disconnect between many Catholics and official dogma is in this sense nothing new, but instead a revert to a much older status
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
I dunno whether you'd already be old enough (minimum age of 35) but you could try and become a permanent deacon after you two got married. You would be ordained clergy and serve both at the altar and the parishioners, and with a bit of luck the Church would even pay you for your work. Also if not praying the rosary everyday means being a bad Catholic then I'm the worst
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Otoh the wiki article also mentions that the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship with 1,900 churches and 700,000 congregants broke away from the SBC in 1991 because of that, and they're described as "theologically moderate". There's even a "theologically progressive" group that turned away from the SBC (Alliance of Baptists), but they're only 130 churches strong. If there's no fire-and-brimstone-less SBC church where you live, then you may be lucky and find a CBF or Alliance congregation near where you live, OP  As an aside: that wiki article you linked is really interesting, thanks for this!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
I don't know about Luther not being venerated, I definitely know about some movements within the Lutheran Church of Germany where he is the next best thing to a saint, complete with St Martin's Day being changed into Martin-Luther-Day in some parts. This reached its peak in the 19th century, but is in some places still very much alive (just a couple of days ago I read in an article about that very topic how American Lutherans come to Eisleben to kiss Luther's baptismal font) Also there's a super cool Playmobile figurine of Luther 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
 Pictured: Thomas Aquinas, thin as a rail
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:In my experience Lutherans do not treat Luther like a saint, or "close" to a saint. I'm not an expert on saint-stuff but he is not associated with any of the checkmarks I know of, such as: he wasn't a martyr, he didn't do any miracles, he isn't considered particularly moral or pious. The closest thing to supernatural I've ever heard about him is the story that he was struck by lightning and survived; Luther himself took this to be significant, but when I was young this was never presented to me as divine intervention or as something that marked him as special, rather it was just treated as an anecdote about his life story and his development as a person. Luther literally threw his ink bottle at the devil, every child in Germany knows this you can look at the ink spot left on the wall in the Wartburg Castle if you wantre: Martin Luther Day, I looked it up: in some regions of northern Germany the old customs and traditions of St Martin's Day were shortened or replaced wholesale by carol singing in which the songs praise Luther as a "friend of light and pious man" (Lichtfreund und Glaubensmann) who "tore down the crown from the Pope's head". In some cases traditional songs of St Martin were simply changed a bit into Martin Luther songs instead. I'm not talking about the official position of the various Lutheran Churches, mind. What I mean instead is the Luther memory as it developed mainly in the 19th century and is still alive in some corners of the Lutheran Church in Germany - as I can't speak for the rest of the world, of course. This attitude towards Luther ranged from hero worship to almost outright veneration, complete with supernatural legends like the one with the ink bottle. The Castle church of Wittenberg contains some 19th century paintings which put Luther in an implied genealogical relation to the House of Hohenzollern, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
So, I'm a member of my parish's schola now and will sing chants during the first Rorate Mass this year poo poo, singing Gregorian chants is way different from what I'm used to, I love it! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
poo poo, who are the other two then?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Stop making me want to play CK2 again when I'm out of country without a PC, you jerks!  Fake edit: so anyway last weekend in Berlin I met nega-System Metternich: a young EME historian and liturgically conservative theologian with an interest in language. Too bad that he's also Protestant and Prussian as gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
To add a small bit on what was said already: my favourite bit about Mark is how “human“ Jesus is presented in there. It's the only Gospel afaik that describes Christ as “hungry“ or “sad“ which doesn't sound like much, but is quite a lot when compared to the other three (this is probably because Mark's the oldest of the four by quite a bit and therefore could draw on the recollections of people who had known Jesus personally, or so I'd guess)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
Welp, Archbishop Welby of Canterbury just made my day: Archbishop Welby: ‘Pope Francis would beat me in a fight’ quote:f you could ask Archbishop Justin Welby any question, whether or not he could win a fight against Pope Francis would probably not be top of your list. and: Archbishop of Banterbury Justin Welby has the Pope rolling in the aisle of St Peters with a series of quips quote:According to the Times, he asked: 'What's the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist? You can negotiate with a terrorist'. (I think Welby would love this thread
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
There are others who are way better qualified to talk about this than I am (I'm thinking of Disinterested mostly who is effortposting right now in the Middle Ages thread about the intellectual underpinnings of the Church's claim to be a "universal power"), but I'm thining that the 9th century is way too late a timeframe to give a proper answer to your question. The Church was in a position of power already by the late 4th century when it had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire, and after the end of the Empire in the West it became of the main representatives of the "Romanitas" quality which many of the new powers sought to emulate. There were loads of conversions to Christianity during Late Antiquity/the Early Middle Ages, though not all of them to a strand of Christianity accepted by the Ecumenical Councils - for a while Arianism was pretty popular amongst the Goths, for example. These conversions were politically beneficial not only because they would put you on good footing with the Emperor in Constantinople, who was still the preeminent power of Europe, but also because of the aforementioned "Romanitas". It's hard to really speak of a "Catholic Church" in the modern sense for that time period though, seeing as the Great Schism between East and West was still many centuries away - if anything, people had to decide between two different liturgies and theological schools as; the political dichotomy between Constantinople and Rome was already there, but would grow in importance later on. When the Muslimic conquest of much of the Levant and Africa greatly disturbed Mediterranean trade and communication, the political, economical and cultural centres of Western Europe gradually moved northwards, putting peoples and kingdoms like the Franks in the limelight, who for various reasons had chosen to side with the Roman strand of Christianity. As the differences/animosities to the East grew, Constantinople diminished as a theological influence, while the Roman Curia became (more or less) the sole arbiter of Christian thought in the West. The coronation of Charlemagne in 800 kinda sealed the deal there for the connection of the Papacy to Western politics, but it definitely had a looong backstory. e: keep in mind that this is super cliffnotes-y, and that I'm not a medieval historian at all, so hopefully others here will be able to correct me where needed/elaborate more
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Who attended the Council? The Emperor invited a great many bishops from both east and west, though only a fraction actually could come. The actual number is unclear, as contemporary historians speak of different numbers. Traditionally (and in the liturgiy of the Eastern Orthodox Church) it's given as 318, most of which naturally hailed from the Eastern Church. We know of only five bishops from the west who attended the Council, although one of them, Hosius of Cordoba, was given the honour of presiding over its deliberations (he may have been a papal legate too, although that's a matter of debate; Pope Silvester couldn't attend due to his advanced age, but we know of two priests who were sent in his charge) Bishops from as far as India came too. Oh, and Santa Claus (i.e. St Nicholas of Myra) probably participated as well. Every bishop had the right to an entourage consisting of two priests and three deacons, so that up to ~2,000 persons may have participated altogether. Lastly, the Emperor also personally oversaw the whole affair, although he didn't cast any vote. quote:How were doctrinal matters decided on? The Council Fathers already had an agenda when they arrived in Nicea, i.e. a set of matters they were supposed to decide on drafted by the Imperial Court. Rufinus of Aquileia (who was not a contemporary) speaks of daily sessions, but we don't know much more about the details of how the proceedings went, or at least I don't There was a great deal of debate, discussion and arguing/shouting matches, and at the end doctrinal matters were decided by the vote of the majority amongst the bishops. All in all the Council was in session for about a month.quote:What happened to the books that weren't included in the New Testament? Nothing, because the story that the Council decided on what books to included in the Bible isn't true (and was made popular by Voltaire of all people). The biblical canon developed organically, with the four Gospels we have today being the most popular by far already by the second century. All others didn't fall to the wayside because they were heretical or because of ~~hidden truths~~ or whatever Dan Brown's about, but instead because they didn't prove popular enough. Various strands and sects of Christianity placed different emphases on different books, but what we have today is basically what had become "mainstream" biblical canon by the 5th century. In fact the RCC didn't bother with formalising the biblical structure and content until the Council of Trent in the 16th century, over a millenium later. quote:Why was the exact nature of Jesus' relation to God (the same or similar thing- I don't know the official name) so contentious? There were various subgroups within Arianism, but they were all united in the claim that only the Father is God. Or, as Arius himself states: "For he [Jesus] was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning." Those who would later on define what today is Christian small-o orthodoxy opposed this on theological grounds (when Jesus wasn't fully identical to God, but instead only partaking his His godhood or being subordinate to Him, what meaning does that leave to His death on the Cross?) as well as political ones. The exact nature of Christ was so contentious because depending on how you see it it casts His death and resurrection in a completely different light. When - one extreme - Jesus was only mortal, then why should his death have this deep metaphysical importance for the entire world? And on the other end of the spectrum we have movements like Docetism who claimed that Jesus' mortal body was merely an illusion and that he was in fact entirely divine, which again deprives his death and especially his resurrection of meaning. The theological consensus of Christ being both fully human and fully divine was developed to show that the Christian God so loves the world that He Himself became mortal and subjected Himself to a painful and humiliating death by execution, only to show that death is not the ultimate end even for mortal men by rising from the dead three days afterwards.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
If you don't get goosebumps when listening to Verdi's rendition of Dies Irae I don't know what to tell you
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:that's why it's bad, from beethoven to the 20th century music is just self-indulgent. you want something that's over the top without being eeeyuuuck? then lully or charpentier, deromanticism yourself and face to baroque 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:that's why it's bad, from beethoven to the 20th century music is just self-indulgent. you want something that's over the top without being eeeyuuuck? then lully or charpentier, deromanticism yourself and face to baroque e: ok, how on earth did that happen
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Most churches here only offer communion with a wafer/eucharist-the wine is only taken by the priest. I assume it also covers situations like this. That's because of codified tradition: Communion sub utraque specie, i.e. both bread and wine had grown rare for various reasons (most prominently practical ones: back then laypeople received Communion only a couple of times throughout the year, and the number of communicants was so large during those days that people were afraid of accidentally spilling the wine) already by the Middle Ages. The Council of Constance forbade giving the chalice to laypeople in 1415 as a reaction to the Hussite demand that Communion under both kinds should in fact be made obligatory, though the moderate Hussite faction of the Utraquists eventually reunited with Rome and gained the special privilege of receiving both Flesh and Blood. (As an aside, the Holy Roman Emperor kept the privilege of receiving sub utraque on special days throughout the year, as did the King of France on the days of his coronation and on his deathbed. The Austro-Hungarian monarchs kept the privilege of receiving the chalice on Maundy Thurday until 1918!). The Second Vatican Council repealed the ban of Constance, encouraging Catholics instead to receive both Flesh and Blood when possible. This seems to be one of the liturgical reforms of V2 that didn't really make it, though: in my experience (as in yours apparently) the vast majority of parishes don't bother with that, giving out both only on Maundy Thursday or on other special occasions. Due to the historical aversion towards giving the chalice to the laity, Catholic theologians developed the doctrine of "concomitance" which means what Bel Canto said: no matter which one of the Eucharistic species you receive, Christ is wholly present in both, so receiving only the bread (or only the wine) is absolutely sufficient
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Is there a historical reason why Catholics don't practice intinction? My guess would that it seems irreverent for the laity to handle the Host in such a manner, but it seems like intinction would be fine if you're letting the parishioners take communion in the hand now in some places. I've seen it happening quite a lot in that one parish I know where Communion under both species is practiced in every Mass, but elsewhere I don't think I've ever seen that. It is allowed, though! General Instruction of the Roman Missal posted:287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws. (the one parish I mentioned 100% ignored this, the communicants received the host instead and then either consumed it directly or went to the minister holding the chalice for intinction)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
I didn't know about that new movie and have to admit I did a bit of a double-take when I read "Yo guys, let me tell you about a really good and important movie: Birth of a Nation" re: which wine for the Eucharist, it used to be red whine in the RCC as well, but for several centuries white wine is usually used instead for practical reasons (mostly to avoid spots on the altar cloth and because the purification of the chalice is easier that way). The Orthodox still use red wine afaik. I just found a nice story about how and why the Pope first approved white wine in the liturgy, though I don't know how well attested it is. In the 1470s, there was a priest in the Italian city of Saluzzo named Gino Dante, who was extremely popular with his parishioners, but also a bit clumsy: he regularly spilled communion wine on the altar cloth and - even worse - his chasuble, which must have been really hard to get out of again. Cleaning the vestments always took a long time and a lot of money, and there was the additional question if you even should get rid of the spots when they were caused after the Eucharist, because then it wasn't just wine but the Blood of Christ. Exasperated, the citizens of Saluzzo petitioned their bishop Clemens Bruno of Cueno for the extraordinary privilege to use white wine instead, which Bruno denied: it was the Blood of Christ after all, and not His sweat. A winegrower from Revelo near Saluzzo heared about the city's plight and started to treat his Pinot Noir grapes as he would a white wine, thereby producing a red wine that yet had no colour of its own. The citizens of Saluzzo were delighted and send a couple of bottles to Bishop Bruno, who again sent a bottle to Pope Sixtus IV for clarification whether it was legal to use this as communion wine. On October 8th, 1478, Sixtus replied in a letter in which he allowed the use of this wine and also requested another bottle, but could it maybe be a larger one than the small example the bishop first had sent him? Since then at least white red wine is allowed, and the Council of Trent eventually passed the same legislation that's valid even now, i.e. that it's not important whether the wine is red or white, but that "[t]he wine must be natural, made from grapes of the vine, and not corrupt". Se non è vero, è ben trovato, I guess
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Not to drag C-SPAM into this thread, but would anyone like to pick apart Jerry Falwell Jr's reply to his students upset that he supports the Orange Bastard? I don't know if I should be glad or concerned that after reading "Orange Bastard" my first reaction was wondering what William of Orange had to do with Jerry Falwell Jr
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
I think I already wrote somewhere in the old thread about the belief widespread amongst early modern Catholics mostly in the Alps that infants who died before being baptised could yet be saved by bringing their bodies to certain pilgrimage churches, where they were laid down on specific altars and immediately baptised as soon as the body showed any sign of life again (i.e. cheeks reddening, or a feather held against the mouth being lifted - mostly explainable due to candles on the altar etc., I'm guessing). I found a votive painting depicting such a baptism: The text below reads: "Anno 1680 on May 14th, the Wednesday of the Cross [a rogation day; though the date is a bit strange since May 14, 1680 was in fact a Tuesday], a dead boy was born to me, Martin Wierer, by my wife Catharina Wiererin, née Oberpodnerin. Therefore we promised an offering and a Holy Mass to the church of the Visitation of Our Lady. So the boy stirred and first changed his colour, before he started to sweat and was dried two times by the midwife. The midwife eventually baptised him." Sadly I couldn't figure out in which church this painting can be found, just that it has to be somewhere in eastern Tyrol. Another pretty unknown Catholic practice of the time I read about just today were the Traufkinder or "eaves children" (as in the eaves of a roof). When the above ritual wasn't feasible for some reason, some parents decided to bury their unbaptised children beneath a church's eaves due to the widespread belief that the priest blessing water in a church meant that all water in and above the church would be blessed as well. Rain dropping down from the eaves on the child's grave would mean that eventually blessed rainwater (which was seen as having special healing powers anyway, seeing as it came down directly from High Above) would reach the grave, being the next best thing to a baptism. For both rituals, virtually only pilgrimage churches were chosen, as only those were said to be "holy" enough for this. Baptising dead children wasn't only an act of love by desperate parents who wanted to give their children the opportunity to enter Heaven, but it was in parts also a protective measure, as unbaptised children were said to be especially likely to become Wiedergänger and haunt the living from the grave; in the Middle Ages their bodies were sometimes even staked before being buried.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:im going to post this again I don't remember if this was explained the last time this video came up, but what is happening here? Is there a strand of Evangelicalism where the ministers are throwing Holy Spirit bombs at the audience? Why is the one guy hitting people with his jacket? What is going on? 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Oregon church says: No fat chicks/dudes in or worship team, tyvm. Also no shoes with white soles and you have to speak in tongues and you have to be born again which to me are the two most weird/off-putting requirements altogether. Why the fixation on being born again, does that mean that people who have been members of this particular church since their birth but never had a profound spiritual crisis or whatever can't make it? e: also their head pastor looks like all European clichés about Americans put together and made flesh: 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
There are about a million variants of the rosary, many of them dating back centuries (to assuage HEY GAL's fears ), either devise your own (which is totally cool) or pick one that suits you. Here is just a small number of the historical rosaries (or rosary-based prayers, I guess) around. Here's another site gathering those prayers; if you speak other languages than English then these should be worth checking out; at least the German page has way more prayers listed than the English one vvv omg I hadn't seen that before  vvv
System Metternich fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I'm seeing y'all talk about Mysteries with a capital M as something relating to prayer, so I can only assume this is yet another weird high church thing the Protestants ditched. Maybe an explanation of the rosary is in order for all non-Catholics itt: The Rosary is a pretty, uh, "haptic" prayer; you can pray it without the beads, of course,but it's that long and repetitive that it has become common to pray it with the beads in your fingers. It's become *the* Catholic devotion since it was according to legend given in 1214 to St Dominic by the Virgin Mary. It's got its own feast (Our Lady of the Rosary on October 7th, which was initially instituted to celebrate the victory over the Ottomans at Lepanto), there have been dozens of papal encyclicals and apostolic letters been written about it, there are archconfraternities of the Rosary all around the world with millions of members, there are tons of pious legends about the spiritual benefits of praying it and so on. lt's prayed like this:  You start with the Sign of the Cross followed by the Creed at the cross; the first bead is for the Lord's Prayer and at the following three beads you pray one Hail Mary each and then the Glory Be on the next bead. Afterwards you've got five "decades", that is ten Hail Marys (Maries? ) concerning a specific Mystery (today for example you'd try and meditate on the Glorious Mysteries of the resurrection of Christ, His ascension, the descent of the Holy Spirit, the assumption of Mary and her coronation in heaven) - five Mysteries with ten Hail Marys each altogether. After each decade there's the Glory Be, and the next decade is started with the Lord's Prayer again.There are some interesting differences between how I pray the Rosary and how it's apparently prayed in the English-speaking world. For one: we don't say any psalms at the cross as the English wiki tells me; at the end of each decade it's common at least in Germany and Austria to say the Fatima Prayer as well ("O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.") And finally, and most surprising to me, is that we don't "simply" meditate on the mysteries as you apparently do; we also insert them into the Hail Mary, e.g. like so: quote:Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus, who has risen from the dead. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen Around here it's also common for groups to recite the Rosary alternatingly, i.e. the one half of the group (normally it's divided left-right) saying the first part of the Hail Mary including the Mystery, after which the other half picks up and says the rest. Which half of the group says what also changes with each decade to keep things fresh Do you do that too?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
Valiantman posted:Wow, thanks. I had no idea what the Rosary meant, other than it's some beads and people hold it in their hands sometimes when praying. That's some serious time used for meditation. How long does it usually take to pray it? It'll take me about 20-25 minutes or so when alone, and maybe half an hour when in a group. I'd say that in my area the repetitive aspect is more important/prominent than the meditation though, so your mileage may vary. Around here the rosary will often be used simply to fill the time in a pious manner, like before Mass (where the rosary will simply end whenever the service begins) or during pilgrimages. In rural Catholic areas it was common well into the 20th century to describe units of time by how many prayers of a specific sort you could say in it, like "boil it for the length of a rosary" or "it'll take you about three Lord's Prayers". A handwritten late 19th-century cookbook my grandma has somewhere still uses this as units of time
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 10:35
|
|