|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 17, 2017 4:46:12 GMT -5
So I walk a fine line here as admin since I am a practicing Ukrainian/Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic. While the Majority here and in the greater sede/trad camp at large are Latin Rite. And there is an openly voiced large contigent who are of the opinion that there is at the end of the day no difference between Byzantines and the NO sect. That is to say no difference in regard to the crisis. The Byzantines are to be avoided because its under the newchurch umbrella...expresses deference to Bergoglio as a "pope"...is fully in line with ecumanism...and the una cum issue in the DL. There are other issues but I think these are the core sticking points. This thread is were I will make my defence against them. With the discussion about the above sticking points. I have to leave for work right now but feel free to begin without me.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 17, 2017 4:46:59 GMT -5
One more thing this is only about the Byzantine rite. No other eastern rite.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 17, 2017 11:17:44 GMT -5
As I have said on the previous thread, I believe attendance at the Byanztine rites, and in general in the eastern rites must be taken on a case by case basis. In the "Roman Rite," or I should say what pretends to be the Roman Rite, namely, the Novus Ordo, I believe unequivocally that it must be avoided completely, no exceptions.
Catholic laity are in the strange situation of having to judge the priests, are they Catholic or are they heretics? If the eastern rite or in this case, Byzantine priest, is a heretic, he should most likely be avoided. I know that the Church permits us to receive the sacraments from undeclared heretics under certain conditions, but we must be very careful if we choose to do this, as we are, in that case, sheep in proximity to a wolf.
The second matter that must also be investigated is the holy orders of the priests. Even though most, if not close to all eastern rite priests have unquestionably valid orders, there are some, although very few, that have come over from the Conciliar sect's Paul VI rites. Catholics should make sure that their priest is certainly ordained.
There's a lot more that can be said, but I will leave off here for now.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 17, 2017 11:25:02 GMT -5
Lets addres firstly the issue that the Byzcaths (my shorthand for this thread) show deference to Bergoglio as "Pope"...how is this any different than sspx?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 17, 2017 11:38:26 GMT -5
Lets addres firstly the issue that the Byzcaths (my shorthand for this thread) show deference to Bergoglio as "Pope"...how is this any different than sspx? The key difference is that SSPX openly rejects the heresies and errors of Vatican II, while accepting the "Popes" who gave us these teachings. In the eastern rites, they do not openly reject these teachings. While there are clerics in these rites who certainly do not believe heresy, they do not make it publicly known where they stand, as the SSPX do. The eastern rites are akin to many bishops and priests of the Roman Rite after Vatican II was promulgated (prior to the 1969 Novus Ordo) in 65. They remained at their posts, not making public opposition to Paul VI, but still believing the old Faith as it existed prior to Vatican II. They didn't change, but everything was changing around them. At the same time, 1965-69, many other Roman Rite priests were embracing the new ways, they were joining the enemy. Catholics during this time, who were more aware, began "priest shopping" to find the conservatives, and get away from the liberals/heretics. The same goes today in the eastern rites, Catholics must evaluate the situation in the eastern rites on a case by case basis, just as the Catholics of the late 60's did in the Roman rite. IMO, the eastern rites are caught in what amounts to that time period.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 17, 2017 12:18:05 GMT -5
Hi Vox, I want to thank you for this thread. I voted not sure because I do hold out the possibility that there are indeed (Byzantine) priests who do not agree with the revolution that followed the 2nd Vatican Council and even if they recognize Bergoglio as a Pope, - they act as if he didn't exist (classical R&R, UNA CUM is not really an issue, IMO). The reasons why a Catholic should be hesitant in attending a Ruthenian or Ukrainian parish come down to a few basic points, (at least for me).
(A) the question of validity and resulting chaos Pacelli has been very generous of his time in detailing the “episcopal pedigree” of most (if not all of the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Hierarchs). One problem (rather large in my estimation), however, has been the incorporation of two “Bishops” into the Ruthenian/Ukrainian Episcopy. I include the Ukrainians here because it is very common for Ruthenian Bishops to ordain candidates that can later be incorporated/incardinated into Ukrainian eparchies (and vice versa).
Case in point, “Bishop Jan Babjak” and “Bishop Milan Sasik”. Both were consecrated by JP2 in the “New Order” Latin Rite and both are relatively young and will function as bishops probably for a very long time. Certainly, I think we all agree here that these men are “doubtful” Bishops. Your American forum-members might say “so what”, these men are from and function in Slovakia and Ukraine. Let them worry about it! The problem is that since the Slavic (Catholic) Byzantine Church is relatively small, these men are called to ordain men to the priesthood and consecrate men to the episcopal dignity - candidates that will function throughout all the eparchies in the world.
Example 1: Fr. Milan Kasperek (St Anne Byz. Catholic Church, Eparchy of Phoenix) was ordained in 2006 by “Bishop” Babjak. Fr. Milan emigrated to USA from Slovakia. It didn't take me long to find this example just by googling, there will certainly be more. Example 2: Bp. Milan Lach (Apostolic Adminstrator of Parma) was consecrated by Bp. Babjak (principle consecrator). But the co-consecrator was Bp. Chautur who was consecrated by Bp. Jan Hirka (consecrated in the Novus Ordo by Novus Ordo Bishop Tomko - Tomko never used the Byz. Pontifical/Archeiratikon, sp?). You see the problem. Even with co-consecrators that seem OK we run into exponentially increasing problems)
Just from those two examples, and the fact that many of the European Byzantine Hierarchial lines have been contaminated by the Novus Ordo consecrations by either Tomko or JP2 - we have serious problems. I know, I know - Pacelli, or you will come back and say it only takes one valid co-consecrator to make the consecration valid. In reply, I say what about the future when priestly candidates ordained by Babjak, Sasik or Hirka (which are the majority) are consecrated. Such candidates will certainly be doubtful as well - hasn't been decided whether an Episcopal consecration brings the candidate to the fulfillment of the priesthood i.e if the candidate wasn’t a priest to begin with, that is.
I will post my other points soon…….
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 17, 2017 13:38:39 GMT -5
I double checked with a friend. Tomko although a bishop (consecrated in the Novus Ordo) was considered biritual. He would therefore use the Byzantine Archieratikon. My other info about Babjak and Sasik is correct.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 17, 2017 17:24:55 GMT -5
Hi Vox, I want to thank you for this thread. I voted not sure because I do hold out the possibility that there are indeed (Byzantine) priests who do not agree with the revolution that followed the 2nd Vatican Council and even if they recognize Bergoglio as a Pope, - they act as if he didn't exist (classical R&R, UNA CUM is not really an issue, IMO). The reasons why a Catholic should be hesitant in attending a Ruthenian or Ukrainian parish come down to a few basic points, (at least for me). (A) the question of validity and resulting chaosPacelli has been very generous of his time in detailing the “ episcopal pedigree” of most (if not all of the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Hierarchs). One problem (rather large in my estimation), however, has been the incorporation of two “Bishops” into the Ruthenian/Ukrainian Episcopy. I include the Ukrainians here because it is very common for Ruthenian Bishops to ordain candidates that can later be incorporated/incardinated into Ukrainian eparchies (and vice versa). Case in point, “Bishop Jan Babjak” and “Bishop Milan Sasik”. Both were consecrated by JP2 in the “New Order” Latin Rite and both are relatively young and will function as bishops probably for a very long time. Certainly, I think we all agree here that these men are “doubtful” Bishops. Your American forum-members might say “so what”, these men are from and function in Slovakia and Ukraine. Let them worry about it! The problem is that since the Slavic (Catholic) Byzantine Church is relatively small, these men are called to ordain men to the priesthood and consecrate men to the episcopal dignity - candidates that will function throughout all the eparchies in the world. Example 1: Fr. Milan Kasperek (St Anne Byz. Catholic Church, Eparchy of Phoenix) was ordained in 2006 by “Bishop” Babjak. Fr. Milan emigrated to USA from Slovakia. It didn't take me long to find this example just by googling, there will certainly be more. Example 2: Bp. Milan Lach (Apostolic Adminstrator of Parma) was consecrated by Bp. Babjak (principle consecrator). But the co-consecrator was Bp. Chautur who was consecrated by Bp. Jan Hirka (consecrated in the Novus Ordo by Novus Ordo Bishop Tomko - Tomko never used the Byz. Pontifical/Archeiratikon, sp?). You see the problem. Even with co-consecrators that seem OK we run into exponentially increasing problems) Just from those two examples, and the fact that many of the European Byzantine Hierarchial lines have been contaminated by the Novus Ordo consecrations by either Tomko or JP2 - we have serious problems. I know, I know - Pacelli, or you will come back and say it only takes one valid co-consecrator to make the consecration valid. In reply, I say what about the future when priestly candidates ordained by Babjak, Sasik or Hirka (which are the majority) are consecrated. Such candidates will certainly be doubtful as well - hasn't been decided whether an Episcopal consecration brings the candidate to the fulfillment of the priesthood i.e if the candidate wasn’t a priest to begin with, that is. I will post my other points soon……. I addressed this above, we are not ignoring or minimizing this problem of contamination. So far it is still not widespread, but it is present, which is why holy orders must be verified. You should also be doing this with SSPX. Every visiting or new priest needs also to be checked beyond your regular priests. I wrote above:
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 17, 2017 18:09:19 GMT -5
Pacelli, agreed. However if you lived in Slovakia this would be a major problem because Prešov is an archeparchy and has a large seminary with Mons. Babjak as the ordaining “bishop”.
WRT the SSPX, I’m careful but so far I haven’t seen one priest that was absorbed from the NO and not conditionally ordained - here in Canada. We’ve also been lucky with relatively stable assignments (of priests) as well.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 17, 2017 18:54:08 GMT -5
Pacelli, agreed. However if you lived in Slovakia this would be a major problem because Prešov is an archeparchy and has a large seminary with Mons. Babjak as the ordaining “bishop”. WRT the SSPX, I’m careful but so far I haven’t seen one priest that was absorbed from the NO and not conditionally ordained - here in Canada. We’ve also been lucky with relatively stable assignments (of priests) as well. Agreed, the problem is getting worse, not better. As time goes on, we will have to be even more careful. I always check the ordination of a priest I am going to go to, even when traveling. I always urge others to do the same. Years ago, I used to go to SSPX for mass, I was warned by some about the priest that he was ordained in the Paul VI rite, so I wrote the district superior. He wrote me back and told me to trust the SSPX and did not even answer my question. I stopped going to SSPX. I also had a friend who lives in another state that told me that they had a priest working at their chapel who was certainty ordained through the Paul VI rite, and was not conditionally ordained. So, it goes on, maybe more so in the US, but be careful, they may not tell you if they send one of these men to your chapel, as they did us here. Sad to say, but I must disagree with the District Superior, and emphatically say, "don't trust SSPX."
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 17, 2017 19:43:34 GMT -5
The elephant in the room...how is this at all the laitys responsability to be checking out the pedigree of priests who otherwise teach no errors during sermons..do not adulterate or make theological changes to the DL and(or otherwise abuse the DL)...Im not talking about altar girls which are an obvious sign for avoidence or red flag...or a publically revealed (as opposed to kept secret) communion in sacris with the ducks...these make for obvious avoidence....but if everything is "above board" and proper to the faith. How can the laitys benefit* be deminished if it happens to be (unknown to anyone) such and such pastor was ordained by bishops from vat2. (*benefit defined as Graces and salvation...forgivness of confessed sins.) I am constantly belaboring THIS point...VERY FEW lay Catholics are this sophisticated in their Faith. And following Chesterton's "democracy of the dead"...since when did Christ require them to be? Our Church is the Church of billions of living and dead Catholics who were poor...ignorant...uneducated...nieve...young..very old..etc.. This is my litmus...Consider the lay byzcath janitor with just a GED...loves God and his ByzCath Church...makes every Sunday except for illness...every feast day...does his fasts and penences..but Im suppost to belive that its "ooops"....nooo...sorry unbeknownst to you janitor man your priest was ordained by a vat 2 appointed bishop...oh well better luck next time...see you in hell...or a few extra millinia in purgetory". DOES ANYONE HEAR ME? This is the god of the pharassees...not the God of Justice Mercy and compassion. And please dont pass off what Im saying as just emotionalism. Day in and day out lay trads are straining theological tea leaves and trying through pedantry to be "safe"...and "orthodox"..."properly traditional". DOES ANYONE HEAR ME? The greatest tragedy as I see it is many have lost the simple childlike love and Trust in our Adorable Savior and his immesurable Gift of the DL/Mass.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 17, 2017 23:05:08 GMT -5
How can we not hear this? Tender confidence in Our Lord and Mother is what we always need to increase coupled with explosions of love. However like the una cum issue it comes down to what you know or "to much is given, much is required" responsibility type of assesment which obviously goes too far. One of the reasons I think this is the greatest forum is the fact that at the end of the day being a UNIVERSAL i.e. catholic means just THAT whether in the East or vagabound tradition or the remnants in the new church(little old ladies with no idea what happened). Who believes all that the TRUE church teaches... i.e what the act of faith says. That being said all the other theological and ecclesiology comes down to what you know ,where you are in your faith or where you should be or what you should know etc. etc. Only God can judge this but as always stated in this forum,without the proper authority - pope,we kind of spin our wheels which I think Our Lord wants now so we trust Him more. It is my prayer and wish that the Easts bishops and metropolitans wake up to the Vatican 2 church and take the lead.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 17, 2017 23:18:15 GMT -5
We all owe a great deal of gratitude to Pacelli and wenceslavs back and forth, we learn sooo much. Pacelli - The East is still catholic man. Wenceslav - Be careful,your better off in tridentine tradition man.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 18, 2017 6:41:17 GMT -5
I agree Andrew...and thank you...but that being said...is it our role as lay opinionists to sow doubt in other otherwise faithful catholics about attending the DL?. Or shall we ...which is my position...let them suss it out themselves..through Gods grace? Pacellis excellent point that many of the "vagabon tradition" (great term btw Andrew) have begun exercising roles beyond that which is proper to them. I think that peoole should not forget the real nature of what were in is an actual civil war...we are trying practice our faith in a warzone. Warzones have different standards for what can and should be done and what cant be expected to be done. A popculture metaphor is the tv show MASH. The community of doctors and the medical camp under wartime conditions spent every episode attempting to make the camp "like home" which of course it could never be and was not meant to be...nearly every episode had a scene or event that would shock them back to the reality of the war they were fighting. I could extend the metaphor to the different characters but I doubt many here are old enough to have watched the show regulary. But there were different characters who handled the situation that best satisfied their personal needs. Point being...in a warzone...do you castigate or scold your neighbor because their lawn isnt cut properly...or at all?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 18, 2017 6:48:52 GMT -5
Follow up question...in a warzone...if the only bread available is being made and distributed by atheistic jewish bakers (just to pick an example) can a faithful Catholic purchase it to feed himself and family? The bread is proper normal bread...no spells cast over it...its not being offered in the name of atheistic Jewry...it just being made available by one. And the Catholic is aware of the spiritual state of the baker. Can he be faulted?
|
|