I've been away for about a year. Lots of changes in my life. Moved three times. Got a new job. No longer feeling like shit on a day to day basis is nice. Really sad to hear that Diamhea died. I obviously didn't know him very well, but he was good company during long, sleepless nights in the chatroom. Extremely knowledgeable about melodeath, totally dedicated to this site, and a cool guy all around. RIP. 31 is too young.

I think I remember reading in Guitar World years ago that Mick Mars was behind the more iconic riffs in Motley Crue despite being more of a blues player. I always got a kick out of imagining him playing licks and them saying “too bluesy” and him rolling his eyes, making “jerk off” gestures and then pulling something like Shout at the Devil outta his ass.
As for his live performances, doesn’t the guy have some kind of “fused spine” disease where he can’t move around all that much?

John McCain is dead.

S.O.D. "The Ballad of John McCain".

Just smoked and am currently listening to Hate Eternal - I, Monarch. It sounds so massive.

Watching some videos on the Third Secret of Fatima, Vaticanum II and the current state of the Catholic Church and sedevacantism. Because I can and it's suprisingly interesting!

A lot of Catholic history is actually quite interesting. It was the most powerful religious institution in eras when politics and religion were considered inseparable; consequently its historiography frequently intersects with those of kings, emperors, and mass social movements.

Absolutely. Catholic history is amazing and hard-to-believe. I read a book on "bad Popes" and some of the facts contained therein blew my mind. However the happenings in the church today are also very interesting - the impact of Vaticanum II is still felt, sedevacantism is on all-time high, opposition to Pope Francis inside the Church is growing and traditionalist Catholic groups are still plugging along (SSPX etc.).

As someone who's been reading about both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, I can confirm that Christian church history is extremely interesting. In the West, a big deal is made out of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, but the Great Schism of 1054 is often forgotten, and you NEVER hear about the schism between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy (read: Greek Orthodoxy [or Russian] vs. Ethiopian Orthodoxy, if it helps), that occurred about 600 years prior to that. I go to both the divine liturgy at my local Greek Orthodox church and to mass at the nearby Roman Catholic church, and it surprised me how markedly different from each other they are. A lot changes in 1,000 years, I guess. I expected them to be quite similar, but on the spectrum of Eastern Orthodox liturgy -----> Baptist services, the RC mass falls closer to the Baptist end (to my mild chagrin). But that might just be this particular church, which is, after all, located in Biloxi, MS, and might be informed by its extremely Protestant surroundings to a degree.

The Great Schism of 1054 is extremely interesting and topic of discussion here in Poland. Although the Catholic Church prevails and is the overwhelming majority we are also close to Russian Orthodoxy and influences of both are present in religious life. Up to the XVI-XVII century Poland had the reputation of being a country of extreme religious freedom and some semblances remain - it is not so rare to have Russian/Greek Orthodoxy, Catholic Church, a Baptist service and Jehova's Witness' in one given town.

If there is a Catholic believer among the MA posters I would love to see his take on Vaticanum II because that event is certainly the most interesting and controversial one among the modern history of the Church (unless we count the Interfaith meeting of 1986 as such).

Being portuguese, I'm obviously very familiar with the Fatima Apparitions, and I've been to Fátima countless times. It's something that literally everyone here knows about, and it has always cause a great deal of discussion. In 2000, a priest called Mário Oliveira released a best-selling book called "Fátima Never Again" where he exposed the whole thing as a hoax. He has published more books about it since, and I can tell you that these days here less and less people (the younger generations especially) believe in the supposed "miracles".

As for the "secrets", the first one was that there was going to be an even worse war (this was in 1917, during WW1, in which Portugal participated) a few years later but that Portugal wouldn't be in it; the second one was the fall of Communism, and the third one was kept secret for decades. During that time everyone thought it would be about the end of the world, but when it was finally revealed in 2000 it was just the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul in 1982, which disappointed everyone.

I personally don't believe in any of it and have come to realise it was a conspiracy by the Church and the Portuguese State (we were under a fascist dictatorship) to scare people and demonize communism.

I never read that book. Did you read it? How does he prove it a hoax if don't mind me asking?

I always thought that the Fatima cult would be very strong in Portugal. It is weird to hear that not being the case. But I could imagine it with the overall down trend of the Church in recent years (less people at Mass, less vocations etc.).

As far as the secrets go - I know all of them but I also delved into the third secret the most as traditionalist Catholics and Fatima-centered organisations (the Fatima Center being one of them) consider the one released by the Vatican as false or simply not the whole text of the secret. There are numerous videos and conferences discussing the supposed third secret and why the one released is false. I also listened to interviews by Fr. Malachi Martin who claimed to have read the secret and talked about it with great detail. He mentioned great calamities for the Church and the faith and possibly of the world (this connected to the Akita apparitions).

@Zdan: Great reply, thank you! I imagine Poland is a very interesting place to live, what with its physical and cultural location and all. (Fun fact: I was actually trying to learn Polish at one point. No particular reason why: I just wanted to try out a Slavic language, and I hate the Cyrillic alphabet. ) I'm rather surprised that Baptists have much presence there. For some reason my mind places them almost entirely in the U.S., maybe because I'm from the southeastern U.S. and have always been surrounded by Southern Baptists and myself used to attend such a church. These days, though, I'm rather opposed to that denomination....

I know very little, if anything, about the many Catholic popes, but I was reading a book that was highly critical (to put it kindly) of Pope Francis. Basically, it was saying that he has a reputation for being a very ruthless man who is only too happy to step on people to further his own career, and that his supporters were instrumental in Pope Benedict's early retirement and his replacement by Francis. Interesting (and scary) if true - but I took it with a grain of salt. Maybe others more knowledgeable than me can fill me in on this guy.

Poland is interesting in the sense that its physical location resulted in a melting pot of cultures throughout its history. While today its almost exclusively Catholic and white and, unfortunately, going towards nationalism and xenophobia, this was not always the case. As said Poland had a tradition of religious freedom and this maybe the reason why Protestant denominations are present in Poland - Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans etc. As a sidenote - Polish is EXTREMELY hard to learn and the grammar is hell even on a native speaker. If you do not have to learn it then I would advise you to pick another language. Really - even Poles do not speak proper Polish most of the time.

As for the popes - the history of the papacy itself is an extremely interesting topic. War, corruption, orgies, selling and buying the papacy, the conflicts between the various popes and emperors - highly entertaining stuff. As far as Francis goes the circles I say have an extremely negative opinion of the man because the see him as a extreme Modernist in his view of the faith and the approaches to it. Basicly some circles yearn for a return to the regal, stern and militant Church of old and see Francis as everything opposed to that. Some also accuse him of heresy because of his views on - for example - communion to remarried Catholics. Personally I have no opinion of him.

One of my best friends is a devout Catholic as well as being a historian (and a brilliant man in general), and he dislikes Francis intensely, and is more than happy to enumerate his reasons why.

I didn't get far at all into Polish - only some vocabulary really - but I liked it as far as I got. I was taught Arabic in the military and taught myself a fair amount of Swedish, so I was thinking I probably have the basic linguistic intelligence required for a language like Polish, but as it stands, that remains untested and unproved. I'm many years older than I was when I learned Arabic, too, so that counts against me.

It's well known that the history of the Roman Catholic Church is one of intrigue; I wonder if the Eastern Orthodox Church's history is even half as scandalous. I rather doubt it. Maybe it's like comparing Taylor Swift to Jennifer Paige.

Eastern Orthodoxy had its own share of schisms and political wrangling with the local governments (this is especially true in Russia). I read up on some of it and while not as bloody and scandalous as the history of the papacy it was fairly interesting in its own right. I did not delve into the Coptic Rites and Oriental Orthodoxy much so I am interested in reading up on those.

As for Francis - many devout and old-school Catholics dislike him with a passion as he represents (to them) everything wrong with post-Vatican II Church.

And Polish grammar is from the depths of hell. I learnt in school so I should know. Really - you are better off learning almost any other language. Trust me on that one.

I've never tried to learn Polish but every time I see it written I think "Polish is to consonants what Finnish is to vowels."


The Vatican arguably has the oldest intelligence network in the world, by the way. Government leaders used to be a bit more open about what they said in the confessional booth.

Thiestru: that is an interesting point about the Catholic Church absorbing things from other surrounding denominations in the post-Vatican II era. I’m not old enough to have attended a traditional Catholic mass; but last Christmas when the car was frozen I walked to the nearby Anglican Church and was surprised at how little was different. And come to think of it, many of the hymns I’ve sung in Catholic church nowadays originate from the Protestants: “Go Tell It on the Mountain”, for instance.

Zdan: my general thoughts about Vatican II are positive. Saying mass in the local language seems like a no-brainer. And my grandfather’s sister, who was a nun, was certainly thankful for the simplified dress code. One thing I might have preferred from the old days was keeping verses ad orientem over the new verses populum. I can understand the more personal connection with the Priest when he faces the congregation during Liturgy; but the old way toward the East had its advantages too. Namely, that “proclaiming the mystery of faith” held more of a ritualistic feel the old way; instead of the Protestant-style reliance on personal charismatic sermons that is somehow more worldly.

I haven't read the book, but I've read about it. IIRC, he says it was something created by the Church in order to make money, and believe me, it worked. Even though Fátima is a small place, it's probably the best place in the world to buy catholic regalia, as there are countless shops there that sell that kind of stuff. There are several different interpretations as to what happened BTW, like this one:

http://www.miraclesceptic.com/fatimafraud.html

And there are plenty more websites like this one too.

As for the Fátima cult, every year about 100,000 people still show up at the sanctuary, but a great amount of them are foreigners. And even though about 90% of the portuguese identify as catholic, only a small minority go to church. If you go to a catholic mass here, at least 85% of the people are elderly people.

As an Orthodox reading the above discussion has been very fascinating. The Eastern Orthodox church has its scandals but they are always local. The big difference with the catholic church is that we have (or rather maintain) the synodical, conciliar system of the ancient church instead of the centralist papal administration, so any problems are obviously gonna be on a local episcopal level. In the past (byzantine empire years) problems were always about the relationship between an emperor or empress and the patriarch (the archbishop of Constantinople), which was really just politics.

Biggest problem today I would say is the nationalistic viewpoint that causes antagonism between ethnic churches in matter of jurisdictions ("the Russians are better!", "no, it's the Greeks!" etc), which often scandalize the people when you see two bishops in the same city. Other than that the only time where violence was involved was in the civil war about the use of icons in worship (byzantine iconoclasm), which was more about state power than anything else, since it was the emperor who made the prosecutions, not the actual church. No papal infallibility, immaculate conception, holy crusades, indulgences, inquisitions and tortures etc in Orthodoxy.

Thiestru, if I may ask, what sparked your interest in Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxy also did have not the problem of "papalism" that is closely related to papal infallibility (which is a fairly new dogma) - that the pope cannot be in error ever and obedience to him is of utmost importance. This is the crux of the problem with Vaticanum II and traditionalist Catholics - how to obey the popes that confirm such enormous changes in the liturgy and various other pieces of doctrine (freedom of religion)? This is the big issue and from that some people swiftly move into sedevacantism - the position that there is no pope because all of the popes from Vaticanum II onwards have been heretics and a heretic cannot be pope. Orthodoxy avoids it an elegant manner - by making the system synodical and jurisdiction given to given bishop/archbishop. Plus they essentially kept their form of worship and liturgy.

I'd argue that the system was synodical from the very beginning, if you see in Acts whenever there is a big issue that involves everyone it was all the Apostles discussing it and reaching a decision (" for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us...") , even Peter, the so-called First, submitted to that. Rome submitted to ecumenical councils too, the nicean creed comes from a council, the canon of the new testament comes from a council etc. It's only after the schism that this notion appears; that Rome and specifically the pope is the ultimate arbitrer of church matters.

I've spoken with people who had entered into formal dialogue with the Catholic church and they all told me they are basically willing to concede every theological point to the Orthodox (the Orthodox are most certainly not) but about the issue of papal primacy and infallibility, no way in hell.

It is a dead-end for the catholic church that they have allowed so much power and prestige to the Pope because they can't change it now. Most people have a cult-like fascination with the figure of the Pope, esp. in Latin America, which also holds the largest numbers of Catholics. They just can't backpedal a thousand years of history now.

Oh you will get no argument from me. I agree that on the basis on Biblical principles the system was synodical and ecumenical councils (though then the word ecumenical had a much different meaning compared to now) were just dad.

What you described is the problem of papalism I mentioned earlier. This is a problem for the Church and a major one. The notion that they may concede that one is fairly absurd - they will never back down on that point. Not after papal infalibility became dogma at Vatican I - they simply cannot change that one for fear of even more backlash for traditionalist-leaning wings of the Church.

I personally prefer Vatican IV: The Pope Takes Manhattan.

@Dungeon_Vic: I happened to be out walking one day and I came across a small Greek Orthodox church. It was just after liturgy, and the pastor was standing out front talking to someone. I hesitated for a second, then decided to go ask him what they were all about. He was more than happy to, and I got the feeling that this was where I needed to be. This was immediately following my private re-acceptance of Christianity after about 15 years of doubt and then rejection. I knew I could never go back to Protestantism, and I'd never studied any form of Christianity outside of that umbrella. (My dad raised me in the Church of God International [formerly part of the Worldwide Church of God], which, frankly, is fucked-up and was no doubt instrumental in my falling away - especially his ranting espousal of their beliefs.)

Given that it has always been the religious people themselves who had to carry out the orders as told and commanded by their divine leader figure; has that never made any of those folks doubt the power of said deity, seeing that they are apparently clearly incapable of any action at all, thus negating their existence?

This logic is so flawed that I hesitate to even call it logic. It appears far more to be begging the question: you've already developed your hypothesis, and thus construct your question to support it. God is not 'clearly incapable' of anything; you completely rule out the possibility that He may simply be choosing to place the burden of action on us. A full refutation of your stance would take far more time than I have right now, and in any case is not my job to provide. I'd suggest, rather, that you approach the question in an honest spirit and not to be lazy in searching for the truth. Do some serious-minded research, in other words.

You'd do well also to remember that though He exists outside us and the universe, we (and everything that is) exist solely in Him. If He were impotent and incompetent (or nonexistent), you would never know it, because there would be no you to begin with.

Finally, please take what I say with the knowledge that I'm not an empty-minded Bible-thumper who's lived his life complacently and comfortable with the precepts of Christianity. Only a great deal of questioning, struggling, and doubting has led me to my current position. In fact, for a long time, my creed was that nobody could possibly know anything. It took me a long time to realize how utterly absurd and self-contradictory this belief was: what I was really saying was that I know that nobody knows anything, a statement that nullifies itself!

In Japanese folklore, there is a yokai known as the "Shirime". Legend has it, a samurai was walking down the streets of Kyoto at night, when suddenly he heard a haggard voice call out to him, screaming for him to wait. The samurai is fearful, and spins around to shout "Who's there?!" Before him he sees a beggar frantically ripping off his clothes. Once fully disrobed, the beggar turns around, bends over, and glares at the samurai with a giant eyeball where his anus should be.

No ending, no resolution, no moral. Just a confused samurai and a dude with an asshole eyeball.

This post brought to you by: somebody who also tuned out of the Orthodoxy debate three days ago.

I chuckled at the asshole eyeball.

As far the debate goes I hope it does not go into a faith versus atheism thing because the Internet has seen enough of those and nobody will convince the other side to change their viewpoint.

Vatican IV: The Pope Takes Manhattan was also pretty great to be honest.

Absolutely.

I would to see some akin to this:

Vaticanum II: Electric Popealoo

So I checked my Lavaborne email for the first time in a couple weeks and we got a message advertising an NSBM label. Not even inquiring about us joining but letting us know that they existed.

I have concerns.

NSBM label mailing a heavy/power/doom two-person act. The mind boggles. NS power/doom - the new hip thing in the underground!

After I made that last post, I decided I wasn't going to say any more about the faith vs. atheism question. I'm hardly qualified, for one thing; my knowledge is not at all up to the task, and any argument I make is more likely to do harm than good. And yes, I do think that it's necessary to have knowledge in addition to faith. 'You just gotta believe' never convinced anybody.

Anyway, I've been on a melodic death metal kick lately. I used to eat and breathe this genre about 12 years ago, then moved away from it in favor of thrash, traditional heavy metal, and progressive metal. But damn it if I don't still dig it. For the life of me, I can't understand why an album like 'Whoracle' gets so little love on this site, to say nothing of 'Slaughter of the Soul' (although I prefer 'Whoracle', and, well, any pre-'Reroute to Remain' In Flames album). And ya know what? Soilwork and Dark Tranquillity rule too, especially 'A Predator's Portrait' and 'Damage Done'. Maybe I'm just getting to the age where I prefer to fall back on old favorite rather than look for something new.

Thank you Thiestru. Really. These debates tend to get ugly very very quickly and usually settle nothing, accomplish nothing and everyone walking away from one just feels smug about his point of view. If you really want to see some wanton stupidity from both sides look at a comment section of a youtube video that debates atheism vs faith. Makes you lose faith in humanity.

As for melodic death - I love me some Gates of Ishtar, early In Flames and "Slaughter of the Soul". Like the last one especially because of the punk and thrash influences.

Sure thing, Zdan.

Funny you mention Gates of Ishtar: I just listened to them for the first time! Just a couple songs from 'A Bloodred Path', but I enjoyed them. I'm on the first Nightrage album right now. Yeah, I realize I said earlier that I'd rather stick to old favorites than look for new music, but I reserve the right to contradict myself.

Didn't have as much time to spin albums this week. Here's Sweet's week!

That Black Death album is among the best classic US heavy metal records. Mean, dirty, heavy as hell, songwriting chops. Superb stuff!

I was just on a big 'Live' kick myself a few months ago. I need to revisit Extreme Aggression. I'm a huge Kreator fan but that one didn't stick with me for some reason. Haven't listened to it in about five years.

It warms my heart to see love for Black Death that isn't about the rarity from some collector dork. I've got an "exact replica" bootleg complete with the 7" and I've been smitten with them since the first spin. Don't sleep on those two bonus tracks they're as good as anything on the LP!

Have you listened to Black Death Resurrected, Zdan? Their 00s comeback album. It has a LOT of stuff that Sicky wrote in the early 80s. It's authentic as hell. They were entrancing live even amidst constant issues with their gear.