|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 10, 2017 7:48:13 GMT -5
Dear Pacelli,
I agree with everything you said above regarding the need for true successors of the Apostles and that these successors could or are probably found in the Eastern Rites. That issue, notwithstanding, would it not be more prudent to avail oneself of the Sacraments at the CMRI, SSPV or SSPX rather than an Eastern Catholic parish? The former provide a Liturgy and Faith untainted by the problems that we have been discussing the last few months. i.e. a heretical Eastern Code of Canon Law, rampant ecumenism and by extension Communicatio in Sacris, changes in the Liturgy (and suppression of Catholic customs) - brought about by enemies of the Church. The Catholic havens that you and Vox have found in the Ukrainian Church are extremely rare and will become more rare as the time goes on. I myself have 3 Ukrainian/Byz. parishes within 30 miles or so and I wouldn’t avail myself of them except for danger of death (due to the dangers I elucidated above).
Just my 2 cents worth......
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 10, 2017 8:26:22 GMT -5
What makes cmri any less dubious if you take into account the validity issues of their priests and bishops. I really in the end cant see Our Merciful Lord holding the laity accountable...Im no pollyanna but My God isnt a legalistic monster. Now the clergy on the other hand should be trembling in their boots
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 10, 2017 8:28:35 GMT -5
Heres an anecdote...There is an old baba at my Parish...shes the most saintly woman I ever met....is her soul in danger? Because of these ponderous and highly complicated theological conundrums?
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 10, 2017 10:01:15 GMT -5
What makes cmri any less dubious if you take into account the validity issues of their priests and bishops. I really in the end cant see Our Merciful Lord holding the laity accountable...Im no pollyanna but My God isnt a legalistic monster. Now the clergy on the other hand should be trembling in their boots Although I respectfully disagree with you concerning CMRI - but that’s for another day. Then consider the SSPV or SSPX who preach the same Catholic Faith and serve the same Liturgy that existed before the 2nd Vatican Council. That is certainly safer than an almost completely compromised Ukrainian/Byz. Catholic Church who have heresy in their Canon Law and their Ecumenical mission statement and very questionable changes in Liturgy and discipline. For that matter, I have seen a lot of babushkas who are certainly in error (culpable, of course I don’t know) and deny many Catholic doctrines because of errors in what the priest and their bishop teach. Vox, you are lucky to have that perfectly Catholic and Eastern parish (in spite of the Ukrainian hierarchy). I know they can exist because I found one as well before the priest died and the parish went full blown VII. But if you are comparing the SSPX/SSPV with what has become of the Uk/Byz Church, surely you would have to agree that the former is a safer course.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 10, 2017 11:15:45 GMT -5
No I dont agree.(btw DO NOT FEEl you need to talk on eggshells...I want an open forum)...I look at this from the perspective of the illiterate peasent Catholic...which is the case because we are all in uncharted territory in this crisis (dont kid yourself otherwise) and the baba I know trust God completely...do you belive in a Jesus who would condemn the ignorant?
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 10, 2017 12:56:28 GMT -5
Hi Vox,
I think you’re conflating the objective reality of the crisis (necessitating those who have more knowledge to choose the safer and I would say Catholic course) with the subjective culpability of individuals.
I think beyond this we have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 10, 2017 18:43:32 GMT -5
Dear Pacelli, I agree with everything you said above regarding the need for true successors of the Apostles and that these successors could or are probably found in the Eastern Rites. That issue, notwithstanding, would it not be more prudent to avail oneself of the Sacraments at the CMRI, SSPV or SSPX rather than an Eastern Catholic parish? The former provide a Liturgy and Faith untainted by the problems that we have been discussing the last few months. i.e. a heretical Eastern Code of Canon Law, rampant ecumenism and by extension Communicatio in Sacris, changes in the Liturgy (and suppression of Catholic customs) - brought about by enemies of the Church. The Catholic havens that you and Vox have found in the Ukrainian Church are extremely rare and will become more rare as the time goes on. I myself have 3 Ukrainian/Byz. parishes within 30 miles or so and I wouldn’t avail myself of them except for danger of death (due to the dangers I elucidated above). Just my 2 cents worth...... In my opinion, prudence in our situation of where to go to mass is dealt with on a case by case basis. I fully recognize the macro-problems in the eastern rites, while I also recognize the fact that some rites are better off than others, and some local parish situations are safe, others are borderline and some are dangerous Regarding the traditionalist groups you mention, let me ask you, "who sent them?" They are manmade entities, whose founders had no right to found priestly groups, their seminaries are unapproved and ungoverned by the Church, their candidates for the priesthood have never been judged as to fitness and training by the approved bishop of the Catholic Church, they have never been given any right to establish public chapels, to hear confessions (outside of the danger of death), to preach sermons, etc. It is also a fact that these groups in varying degrees do excercise jurisdiction. They may say they do not, but that is irrelevant, the facts say otherwise. Example after example can be put forward to demonstrate this, but I will cite a just a few: SSPX and CMRI both approve annulments. They may argue that this situation is extreme and they judge the cases strictly according to previous cases, but the fact is that this judgment is not theirs to make, only the Pope can judge and authoritatively grant an annulment. If an unauthorized groups had this right, logically, why can't we have a "Trad Cath forum marriage reviewer group"? We would have the same authority as SSPX or CMRI, which is none at all. Regarding other groups, the Sanborn and Dolan groups, SSPX and SSPV all have documented cases of the denial of Holy Communion by priests of their groups on unsettled matters. While a priest can deny Holy Communion for specific reasons, disagreements about unresolved matters (which chapel one goes to, the Holy Orders of priests of the Thuc line, whether one can go to mass to a priest who believes an undeclared heretic is pope until he is judged by the Church, etc.) are not something that one Catholic or another has the power to bind others on. We can hash it out to try to get to the truth, but we cannot force this upon another conscience and for a priest to deny Holy Communion over this is to usurp an authority he does not have. This situation has gone on for so long, that Catholics no longer remember what it means to have a parish, a pastor, and a local ordinary, and have, in my opinion, substituted these priests and bishops and mass centers for the the true Church. Many times, the vagus priest identifies himelf as "pastor," and he people think of him as one with that title. This is why no one seems troubled when fellow Catholics are arbitrarily, or for uncanonical reasons, are denied Holy Communion or kicked out of a chapel. People think the priest has the power to do so, and the priest does nothing to correct this false idea. For a person to usurp the power given by God only to the legitimate hierarchy and by that set up a new hierrachy that exercises jurisdiction is a schismatic act. These groups have indeed set up counter hierarchies to that of the Catholic Church, as they are exercising jurisdiction over the flock of Christ. They are both gathering and governing Christ's flock, something that that have absolutely no right or authority to do. Fwiw, I believe Archbishop Lefebvre erred in ordaining priests back in 1976, this was never the solution. That act gave the birth to a traditionalist "structure" rather than a response. There has always only been one response to this crisis, and that was and is for the lawful hierarchy along with the clerics of Rome to act, declare the See of Rome vacant, and and elect a pope. It's the only way, it always has been, and ordaining vagus priests to roam the world has created countless new problems and has allowed Catholics to think that there is no need to look to the true hierrachy to resolve this, as we have everything we need without the Church sending it to us: bishops, priests, "seminaries," "parishes," and every other trapping that devolves from these. The traditionalist structure looks in many ways just like the Church, and many have embraced it. This is why the groups scattered and divergent, they submit only to themselves, and treat Canon Law as a book of suggestions, some that need to be followed, some that don't need to be followed, and some ideas not found in the Code at all that are treated as laws. It is a Presbyterian (non-hierarchical) style of Catholicism, with numerous groups and independent priests all setting up new chapels in new territories, ungoverned by the Catholic Church and answerable only to the respective groups sub-leaders and ultimate leaders. Even in the cases of the groups, the hierarchies are manmade, lacking a divine commission to be a lawful hierarchy, so it still remains a structure outside of the Divine Constitution of the Church. Lastly, am I saying by this that Catholics cannot go to such priests for the sacraments?. No, I am not. I do believe however, that Catholics must never pretend that these groups are normal, that they have any right to act with authority, and mostly, that these groups, bishops and priests only obtain the right to use their holy orders from the request of the laity, as they lack all right to do so otherwise. I think they need to be dealt with on a case by case basis, and sometimes a priest by priest basis as to whether it is prudent to request the sacraments from them, especially those with children.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 10, 2017 23:24:04 GMT -5
Pacelli , thank you for your articulate reply. Note, as you can tell I am not a theologian so please excuse me if I'm not as articulate. I will certainly try to comment as best as I can:
Pacelli said: I totally agree with your first paragraph. WRT the second paragraph, agreed they have no mission from the Church. They do have the duty to save their soul and through charity - help fellow Catholics, if possible, save their own soul as well. There is precedence in Church history for such behaviour i.e. the Underground Church in Ukraine, Czechoslovakia and other Eastern Block countries - where priests and bishops were stripped of contact with the Holy See and in many cases between each other. Ex.: Bp. Sterniuk was consecrated without papal (or the metropolitan's) approval/knowledge. He further set up clandestine seminaries, ordained priests etc.. These same heroic priests nourished the faithful with the sacraments. Similar situations in Czecho-Slovakia. They operated under the Church's supreme law of the salvation of souls.
Pacelli said: Agreed! The granting of annulments is an abuse although many priests in the SSPV that I have talked to suggest that the spouses cannot get an annulment and must live in a separated state for the rest of their lives.
Pacelli said: Agreed! An abuse. But to be fair, if the Ukrainians smell you out as a "sedevacantist" or a SSPX-sympathizer they will deny you Holy Communion as well (i.e. Orthodox are not schismatics but the SSPX is - a result of a false ecclesiology and subservience to their Novus Ordo colleagues). I have known many cases where this has happened and these members of the laity were certainly not rabble-rousers.
Pacelli said: True, I agree but its a sign that we have no Pope. But to the best of my knowledge I have not heard this happen except for one case at a SSPX chapel, but the sedes were apparently quite belligerent and disturbing the peace at the chapel. There could be more examples but I don't think its a rampant problem at the SSPX or the CMRI. Perhaps a case or two over many years (at least with the SSPX, which I'm familiar with).
Pacelli said: Thats quite an accusation! Do you base it upon the above points you have already made? (i.e. the annulments?) These same priests and bishops would certainly yield to a decision by the Church, at worst they are material schismatics. Again this is another sign that we have no pope.
Pacelli said: Agreed to a certain extent. I think you're a bit harsh on ArchBp. Lefebvre. He was a true son of the Church with a great love of the papacy. I can just imagine myself, if I was old enough post-VII to have judged the See of Peter vacant. But the Archbishop did follow a path which had precedence (the Eastern Block under communism). Your solution is probably correct but what do I know.
WRT the comment about treating Canon Law as a book of suggestions, I think we have the Underground Church in the Eastern Block as an example where the supreme law is the salvation of souls. At least the so-called Traditional groups reject the heretical New Code (or the parts that are heretical) and do not embrace it as the conciliar Ukrainian Hierarchs have done so enthusiatically to the point of hoisting false ecumenism (i.e. heretical ecclesiology) with the Orthodox to the status of dogma. Such Hierarchs do not even constitute themselves as members of the Mystical Body in some cases i.e. those that are heretics. That is what I find so surprising. The whole Ukrainian/Byzantine hierarchy has signed onto to this heresy so the danger is ever-present even to the parish level.
The SSPX / SSPV/CMRI to the best of my knowledge have not signed onto heresy nor do they accept a Mass/Liturgy that has the tampering of the Enemy. The changes in the Divine Liturgy (and the Ukrainian Sactorale of Saints observed in the calendar) which many dismiss here, unfortunately, were enacted by the Grand Apostate himself, JPII, for the specific and explicit purpose of leading the Ukrainians and the other Eastern rites into schism. I'm presenting the objective reality, I'm not judging anyone's soul but if you go to most Ukrainian parishes I think you are at least putting your soul in grave danger. Please re-read their Ecumenical mission statement. Note, I know nothing of the other Eastern rites -I'm only talking about the Ukrainians and Byzantines which I'm most familiar with but then the Ukrainians constitute the vast majority.
Pacelli said: Agreed. As an armchair theologian, I bind no one. But I do say that "Traditionalist" groups are certainly the safer course for the reasons I discussed above.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 11, 2017 11:25:30 GMT -5
Wenceslav wrote:
The situations of the persecuted Church in the Soviet Union and tradionlaists are not identical. In the former, even though they were sactttered and underground, they remained the lawful Catholic hierrachy and clerics. In situations such as this, the local hierarchies continue to operate with the tacit permission of the Pope, local bishops consecrate other bishops to fill vacant sees. It is the presumed will of the pope that vacant sees to be filled in such situations.
In the traditionalist situation, +Lefevbvre, ordained not diocesan priests or for an approved order, but vagus priests who could enter any diocese at will throughout the entire world. He set up a governing structure for this new and unapproved* organization. These priests were ordained outside of the juridical structure of the Church, and were intended to operate outside of that same structure. The idea was and is a novelty, and has no basis in theology, canon law or Church history.
I agree with you that we have an obligation in charity to help other Catholics, and this obligation remains upon priests who who have been illegally ordained. Once the act is done, it is done, they do indeed become a priest, and canon law allows them to use their orders if the laity requests it of them. The trouble is that it does not end there, they are not simply answering requests of the laity, they very often attempt to exercise authority over such laity, give themselves titles, and in many ways conduct themselves as though they are the lawful clerics of the Catholic Church.
More later...
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 11, 2017 14:17:04 GMT -5
Pacelli said: I concede to the point that they would receive tacit approval since they were probably consecrated/appointed to a see. Thus making it different from the situation of Archbishop Lefebvre. I would have to research further if such entities as "sacramental Bishops" were indeed consecrated. An interesting historical question and wouldn't be surprised at all if it indeed occurred as a result of the satanic chaos that reigned during the Bolshevik era. Pacelli said: An interesting thread from John Lane's site: i.e. a refutation of Gerry Matatic's Home Alone position John Lane : John continues: Pacelli, to your last point " The trouble is that it does not end there, they are not simply answering requests of the laity, they very often attempt to exercise authority over such laity, give themselves titles, and in many ways conduct themselves as though they are the lawful clerics of the Catholic Church." I absolutely do not concede.The onus is on you to prove this assertion which you haven't done. Please read John Lane's thread in its entirety.... Thanks
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 11, 2017 16:59:30 GMT -5
Additionally [to the last post] I think this succinctly summarizes the Traditional Bishops. Click here for link.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 11, 2017 18:29:12 GMT -5
Wenceslav wrote:
When I wrote this, I deliberately left out SSPV on this point. To the best of my knowledge they do not engage in this practice. Btw, it's more than an abuse, abuses presuppose that they had a right to do this in the first place and have abused that power. In this case, as I said, they have no more power to do this than you or I, which is none.
Wenceslav wrote:
I have not seen this, but I don't doubt what you have seen where you live. I had a friend that was a Ukrainian priest, at the time time I used to go to SSPX, he thought it was great, and even offered to say the Roman Rite for me and some friends. Clearly, every eastern rite priest is different, some are supportive, others hostile, while some in my view don't really grasp any of this subject.
Wenceslav wrote:
Regarding CMRI, I agree, I have very rarely heard of this. Regarding SSPV, the SGG group, and Sanborn's group, it's very common. It probably doesn't happen too much these days even wth these groups, because fear is an effective motivator. Once a few are made an example of by loss of sacraments, others fall into line, hence no more need to deny anyone else. In the recent controversy within SSPX, many who went to "resistance" chapels were denied Communion and publicly stated as much on various forums. Do a search for "SSPX Resistance deny Communion," to see examples.
Wenceslav wrote:
I don't believe it harsh to evaluate history and make a judgement on public acts. Archbishop Lefebvre was clearly well meaning. I don't believe he intended to create a mess, but, in my opinion, he clearly did. One might ask, "but didn't some good come out of his actions?" Yes, some good came out of them, but, that fact does not mean it was the right choice. A saintly Catholic can be produced by his parent's fornication, but it never justifies the initial and wrong act, even though great good came from it.
Fwiw, the Archbishop was corrected about his ideas to no avail. He clearly did love the papacy, but in my view, was in a fog as far as correctly and consistently applying Catholic principles to this crisis, hence he would call them schismatics at one time, and recognize them as Popes at other times, attack them one minute, negotiate the next. I think like many of us, he simply did not know what to do, and just acted out of instinct and tried to do what he believed was right. This does not, however, mean he was right.
Wenceslav wrote;
As I said before, the eastern rite clergy in the Soviet sphere were legitimate Catholic clergy. They existed within the structure established by the Divine Constitution of the Church.
A heretical non-Pope approved these Codes, both eastern and Roman. Since these codes were promulgated by non-Popes, they do not bind Catholics. I agree that both Roman and eastern Conciliar codes have heretical ideas in them. It may be, however, that those adhering to these codes, are materially in error, not grasping that these laws contradict with the teaching of the Church. It may also be that there could be silent resistance by some in the eastern rites, who quietly just do not obey.
I agree with you about the dangers, as I said before. They are ever present no matter how you respond to this crisis.
Let's be frank though, the heretical and erroneous ideas of the Conciliar sect are not the only danger. There are also heretical and erroneous ideas at least implied by various traditionalists. The SSPX, for example, at minimum implies that the Church can allow impious worship, that Popes can be ignored in their ordinary teaching, and that it's permissible to operate churches and seminaries outside of the jurisdictional authority of the pope. This is all heretical.
The sedevacantist groups, while immune from those errors, in practice imply other errors, that they have the right to consecrate vagus bishops with no claim to a mandate, either directly or implied, that they have a right to establish seminaries, train and judge the fitness of candidates, ordain men with no mission from the Church who may enter any diocese at will and act as a legitimate cleric of the Church. I could add much more to this, but I'm sure you see the point.
Wenceslav wrote:
Our souls are in grave danger in general. The ordinary defenses of the Church have fallen, and the wolves are everywhere in the pasture. I stand by my belief that all situations must be judged on a case by case basis. We are permitted to partake of the sacraments even from undeclared heretics under certain conditions, so clearly the Church has taught by this the importance of receiving the sacraments even under very trying situations. We, the laity, are in the bizarre situation of making judgments on complex theology, liturgical rites, sacramental validity, the status of persons as to whether they are heretics or schismatics, etc.
It might come to a point when all Ukrainian and Byzantine churches must be denounced and abandoned by Catholics, I just don't see that this day has come. For now, some must be avoided, some should possibly be avoided, and some are safe. We can never fall asleep and just keep treating everything as though it's not in flux. If anything, we are on a spiral downward, nothing is improving, everything that is still Catholic is gradually getting worse, and our options are getting fewer and fewer for safe places to go to mass.
Wenceslav wrote:
Let's face it, none of us are theologians, we are scattered sheep just trying to get through this mess we are faced with as best we can. I've been going to traditionalist, sedevacantist, independent, and eastern rite chapels for decades. I have seen serious problems and dangers at all of them. I have known many who were scandalized at SSPX, independents, and Sede chapels, with some losing their Faith, and others going back to the Novus Ordo. Fwiw, I have never met a well balanced Roman Rite Catholic who went to the eastern rites to escape the Novus Ordo who adopted Conciliar errors.
Let me say one last point, the absolute safest chapels that I have ever attended were those with the lawful Roman rite clerics who refused the "changes," many of which were not sedevacantist. Unfortunately, for all of us, these hardly exist anymore, and the few still left have very elderly priests, so who knows how much longer these few situations will still exist.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 11, 2017 20:09:05 GMT -5
I honestly don’t have a problem with much of what you stated. Perhaps it’s a matter of what I have seen happen to the UGCC in the past 30 years. But I do know from Ukrainians-in-the-know that more changes are a coming with the dual-Communion Modernist construct Zoghby talked about. And Ukraine will go into schism, in my opinion, I know Ukrainian Catholicism in Ukraine (they are my people, my heritage), it’s built on Nationalism not Catholicism. It was on a downward spiral after the Modernists took over post Ukrainian independence. Its a disaster and humanly speaking it’s not going to get better. Nor can I ever stomach praying for the intercession of Photius or Palamas and other clearly false saints, heretics and schismatics etc in the Liturgy .......Ad naseum.
I do avail myself of the Mass provided by the Traditional groups. Yes they are in error on some issues but with regard to daily/weekly parish life, they are the closest to what my parents experienced in the “old country” where we had solid priests who in many instances gave their life in martyrdom, (I.e my mother’s own parish priest ).
WRT Archbishop Lefebvre, yes he could have done better, I agree, but this is an unprecedented situation and crisis. From a totally honest perspective of his situation in the early 1970s what did he do so differently from a Bishop Sterniuk and other courageous clerics in Ukraine. +Sterniuk consecrated other bishops, ordained priests, set up seminaries etc. Do you really think +Sterniuk worried about jurisdictional issues and other complex constructs as he ran for his life from village to village. The one benefit was that a true Pope sat on the throne of St. Peter. I am not sure what Lefebvre could have done differently - except for declaring the See vacant, I concede.
Pacelli, just to understand your position more clearly, would you attend a Traditional Chapel, for example, if an Eastern Rite DL was 1000 miles away and you needed to fulfill your Easter Duty. i.e. confession and Holy Communion?
But thank you for your reply.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 12, 2017 4:38:38 GMT -5
I am Friends on fb with a Ukrainian Arch Priest who see my views displayed in sede matters...is from my particular parish where he grew up...knows the present Priest and I sing in the Choir next to his sister. Not once have I been even so much as given a comment about my view let alone denied the sacrament. Your quote is entirely toi broad to be charitable and I would ask you to refine it.
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Oct 12, 2017 6:10:46 GMT -5
What makes cmri any less dubious if you take into account the validity issues of their priests and bishops. I really in the end cant see Our Merciful Lord holding the laity accountable...Im no pollyanna but My God isnt a legalistic monster. Now the clergy on the other hand should be trembling in their boots What validity issues? Can you be more specific?
|
|