Attendance at Eastern Rites - Response to Objections
May 28, 2018 17:16:16 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski and clare like this
Post by Pacelli on May 28, 2018 17:16:16 GMT -5
Someone has asked me to comment on some objections to attendance at the eastern rites during this crisis. I will respond in numbered order to each objection. I have synthesized and numbered each below and answered each point.
Well, the first point to consider in your question is how the “Novus Ordo” is defined. Is it a sect recognized by the Church as such, i.e. its leader(s) and the people following the leader have been excommunicated, or a break off from an existing sect?
The answer to this question is obvious, there has been no action taken against the new sect by the Church. A sect certainly exists, but it is not a sect that has been authoritatively dealt with. The issue at hand is not what the truth about the sect is, rather, what is the status of this truth.
None of the members of the new sect have been judged by the Church. Due to this, the status of the question on each and every person who is affiliated with the sect is an open and unresolved question. In any given parish, half of the people may be Catholic, the others sectarian. Some might be Catholics who live in error but not willfully. The core principle is that so long as a Catholic desires to remain united to the Church in his will, then he does not leave the Church due to schism. So long as a Catholic submits his belief to the magisterium, even if he makes mistakes on dogma, he does not become a heretic.
To conclude: how does this apply to the eastern rites? The eastern rites have retained their ancient sacramental rites, therefore they have valid holy orders. In this sense, they are in the same situation as the Latin rite was in the mid to late 1960’s prior to the changed rites in orders and the Novus Ordo.
Every eastern rite bishop, priest and layperson must be presumed as innocent, and not a heretic or schismatic until the contrary can be shown. Even if the contrary is shown, Catholics may disagree as to any particular case until the authority settles it. A person who is not an authority cannot become an authority just because he is right. No one can bind a Catholic on an unsettled matter except for the legitimate Catholic authority.
There are no essential changes which effect the validity of any eastern rite, even the more liberal ones. Therefore, they (all of them) retain their pristine liturgies, at least on all of the essentials. There is not and never has been a “Novus Ordo” of the east.
Some eastern rites are clearly more liberal than others, and some either as an entire rite or within a rite, at the regional or parish level have innovated the rites and introduced sectarian practices, such as mass facing the people, altar girls, Novus Ordo songs, etc. Other eastern rites do not do this at all. If an eastern rite, either as a whole, or even at a regional level or at a parish level has introduced sectarian innovations, then obviously I would urge Catholics to stay clear of that place. The reality is that these problems tend to be isolated to a few eastern rites, and when they are present in the others they are not universal, and tend to be either regional issues, or local issues.
It’s also worth mentioning that the eastern rites have different practices than the Roman rite, so it’s worth making sure whether the practice is just unique to the east or a liberal innovation prior to assuming anything. Many of the eastern rites have been “delatinizing” over the last few decades, but delatinizing to prior approved practices is not innovating.
Even some sedevacantist priests revert to prior practices that are not the current law of the Church of the Roman Rite. The same can be said of the SSPX who use the 1962 missal, but with their own addition. So long as the practice was an approved practice of the Church, it must be safe. Whether it is prudent for eastern Catholics to revert to prior practices on their own without authorization from a true Pope is a question that laity do not have to worry about. It will take a Pope to settle the matter.
This is why I urge Catholics to check out the situation. Find out if the priest is Catholic. This is not that hard to determine. Listen to his sermon, read the bulletin, etc. In many instances, you don’t even have to leave your house, just go online and look at the Church website, that alone can give you a lot of information. Sectarian or liberal parishes can’t help themselves, and put forth their ideas with a twisted pride. Most Conciliar sectarians stand out, especially these days, they no longer hide their hatred of Catholicism. -
Sometimes, although this is still the exception, not the rule. Almost all eastern rite priests are priests ordained by their own eastern rite bishops who use their own eastern rite ordination. From what I have seen, this problem happens more is some eastern rites than others.
I always strongly urge people to find out if the priest was ordained by his own bishop, and that the bishop himself was consecrated by his fellow eastern rite bishops. As I said above, this is not a common problem, so the greater majority, I would say well over 90% of the eastern rite clerics, are validly ordained.
I can say from personal experience, that I have been going to esteem rite parishes for decades, in multiple states, and have yet to ever go to, or even meet an eastern rite priest who was not validly ordained. So, I think the people that are making a mountain out of a molehill are blowing smoke. I say this knowing full well that the problem exists, but it is not widespread, as some seem to pretend.
But, with all of that said, due to the fact the the problem exists, even though it is not widespread, I strongly urge Catholics to do their homework. Many times this information can be found online, and if not there, call the priest and ask him if you can meet to discuss the eastern rite. During the conversation, ask him about his background, where he was trained and ordained. I have never met a priest who was not happy to talk about this, except some independent traditionalists who did have something to hide.
A trap by definition traps. The eastern rite priests are not soliciting anyone to go to their churches, so where’s the bait for the trap? The Conciliar approved traditional groups do actually do that, they actively compete with the SSPX and others to get Catholics under them. The Conciliar traditionalists also (with the exception of former SSPX), are always ordained by Conciliar, and therefore doubtful bishops. Therefore, well over 90%, probably over 95% of their priests are doubtfully valid.
The eastern Catholic priests that I have ever known do not ever teach any of the heresies or errors of the Vatican II sect, so at least with these priests, how are they leading a Catholic out of the Church? If they ever do that, just leave. I would say the same about the traditional groups. Every situation these days is provisional, nothing is stable.
What if the SSPX makes deal, will those who go their chapels have to abandon them, because of Bp. Fellay’s deal? The answer based on Catholic principles in no, Catholics do not have to leave. The principles on this matter are clear.
———
I will leave off with the following summary of principles.
1. If the priest is Catholic, not a member of a sect, or a heretic, then a Catholic can always go to him for the sacraments.
2. We cannot presume that a person is a member of a sect, when the sect itself is new and not yet condemned by the Church. Evidence must be presented to substantiate an accusation that any given person claiming to be a Catholic is in fact a member of sect.
3. If we are going to accuse anyone of being a member of a sect, the onus is always on the accuser to provide evidence to this fact, including proof of malice. Any accusation made rashly without compelling evidence is a sin against the Eighth Commandment.
4. In the same manner, irrespective of whether one has joined a sect, we cannot presume a person who is baptized and claiming to be Catholic is a heretic, without proof of this fact and evidence that the person is culpable.
5. Regarding the reception of the sacraments, if a priest is Catholic, ie. unless it can be demonstrated that the priest is a member of a non-Catholic sect or a Vitandi, or clearly known to be a heretic, a Catholic may go to his mass, pray with, and partake of the sacraments from this priest, no exceptions.
6. But, what must we do if the priest is a heretic, but has not yet been judged by the Church? We can still go to him for the sacraments under certain conditions. I would urge everyone reading this to read John Daly’s notes on this LINK
1. “How can you justify your view when the eastern rites are under the Novus Ordo?”
Well, the first point to consider in your question is how the “Novus Ordo” is defined. Is it a sect recognized by the Church as such, i.e. its leader(s) and the people following the leader have been excommunicated, or a break off from an existing sect?
The answer to this question is obvious, there has been no action taken against the new sect by the Church. A sect certainly exists, but it is not a sect that has been authoritatively dealt with. The issue at hand is not what the truth about the sect is, rather, what is the status of this truth.
None of the members of the new sect have been judged by the Church. Due to this, the status of the question on each and every person who is affiliated with the sect is an open and unresolved question. In any given parish, half of the people may be Catholic, the others sectarian. Some might be Catholics who live in error but not willfully. The core principle is that so long as a Catholic desires to remain united to the Church in his will, then he does not leave the Church due to schism. So long as a Catholic submits his belief to the magisterium, even if he makes mistakes on dogma, he does not become a heretic.
To conclude: how does this apply to the eastern rites? The eastern rites have retained their ancient sacramental rites, therefore they have valid holy orders. In this sense, they are in the same situation as the Latin rite was in the mid to late 1960’s prior to the changed rites in orders and the Novus Ordo.
Every eastern rite bishop, priest and layperson must be presumed as innocent, and not a heretic or schismatic until the contrary can be shown. Even if the contrary is shown, Catholics may disagree as to any particular case until the authority settles it. A person who is not an authority cannot become an authority just because he is right. No one can bind a Catholic on an unsettled matter except for the legitimate Catholic authority.
2. Didn’t the eastern rites make changes to their liturgies and sacraments?
There are no essential changes which effect the validity of any eastern rite, even the more liberal ones. Therefore, they (all of them) retain their pristine liturgies, at least on all of the essentials. There is not and never has been a “Novus Ordo” of the east.
Some eastern rites are clearly more liberal than others, and some either as an entire rite or within a rite, at the regional or parish level have innovated the rites and introduced sectarian practices, such as mass facing the people, altar girls, Novus Ordo songs, etc. Other eastern rites do not do this at all. If an eastern rite, either as a whole, or even at a regional level or at a parish level has introduced sectarian innovations, then obviously I would urge Catholics to stay clear of that place. The reality is that these problems tend to be isolated to a few eastern rites, and when they are present in the others they are not universal, and tend to be either regional issues, or local issues.
It’s also worth mentioning that the eastern rites have different practices than the Roman rite, so it’s worth making sure whether the practice is just unique to the east or a liberal innovation prior to assuming anything. Many of the eastern rites have been “delatinizing” over the last few decades, but delatinizing to prior approved practices is not innovating.
Even some sedevacantist priests revert to prior practices that are not the current law of the Church of the Roman Rite. The same can be said of the SSPX who use the 1962 missal, but with their own addition. So long as the practice was an approved practice of the Church, it must be safe. Whether it is prudent for eastern Catholics to revert to prior practices on their own without authorization from a true Pope is a question that laity do not have to worry about. It will take a Pope to settle the matter.
This is why I urge Catholics to check out the situation. Find out if the priest is Catholic. This is not that hard to determine. Listen to his sermon, read the bulletin, etc. In many instances, you don’t even have to leave your house, just go online and look at the Church website, that alone can give you a lot of information. Sectarian or liberal parishes can’t help themselves, and put forth their ideas with a twisted pride. Most Conciliar sectarians stand out, especially these days, they no longer hide their hatred of Catholicism. -
3. Don’t Eastern rite priests get ordained by Novus Ordo bishops or their priests switch to eastern rites?
Sometimes, although this is still the exception, not the rule. Almost all eastern rite priests are priests ordained by their own eastern rite bishops who use their own eastern rite ordination. From what I have seen, this problem happens more is some eastern rites than others.
I always strongly urge people to find out if the priest was ordained by his own bishop, and that the bishop himself was consecrated by his fellow eastern rite bishops. As I said above, this is not a common problem, so the greater majority, I would say well over 90% of the eastern rite clerics, are validly ordained.
I can say from personal experience, that I have been going to esteem rite parishes for decades, in multiple states, and have yet to ever go to, or even meet an eastern rite priest who was not validly ordained. So, I think the people that are making a mountain out of a molehill are blowing smoke. I say this knowing full well that the problem exists, but it is not widespread, as some seem to pretend.
But, with all of that said, due to the fact the the problem exists, even though it is not widespread, I strongly urge Catholics to do their homework. Many times this information can be found online, and if not there, call the priest and ask him if you can meet to discuss the eastern rite. During the conversation, ask him about his background, where he was trained and ordained. I have never met a priest who was not happy to talk about this, except some independent traditionalists who did have something to hide.
4. Are eastern rites a trap to bait Catholics into the Conciliar sect?
A trap by definition traps. The eastern rite priests are not soliciting anyone to go to their churches, so where’s the bait for the trap? The Conciliar approved traditional groups do actually do that, they actively compete with the SSPX and others to get Catholics under them. The Conciliar traditionalists also (with the exception of former SSPX), are always ordained by Conciliar, and therefore doubtful bishops. Therefore, well over 90%, probably over 95% of their priests are doubtfully valid.
The eastern Catholic priests that I have ever known do not ever teach any of the heresies or errors of the Vatican II sect, so at least with these priests, how are they leading a Catholic out of the Church? If they ever do that, just leave. I would say the same about the traditional groups. Every situation these days is provisional, nothing is stable.
What if the SSPX makes deal, will those who go their chapels have to abandon them, because of Bp. Fellay’s deal? The answer based on Catholic principles in no, Catholics do not have to leave. The principles on this matter are clear.
———
I will leave off with the following summary of principles.
1. If the priest is Catholic, not a member of a sect, or a heretic, then a Catholic can always go to him for the sacraments.
2. We cannot presume that a person is a member of a sect, when the sect itself is new and not yet condemned by the Church. Evidence must be presented to substantiate an accusation that any given person claiming to be a Catholic is in fact a member of sect.
3. If we are going to accuse anyone of being a member of a sect, the onus is always on the accuser to provide evidence to this fact, including proof of malice. Any accusation made rashly without compelling evidence is a sin against the Eighth Commandment.
4. In the same manner, irrespective of whether one has joined a sect, we cannot presume a person who is baptized and claiming to be Catholic is a heretic, without proof of this fact and evidence that the person is culpable.
5. Regarding the reception of the sacraments, if a priest is Catholic, ie. unless it can be demonstrated that the priest is a member of a non-Catholic sect or a Vitandi, or clearly known to be a heretic, a Catholic may go to his mass, pray with, and partake of the sacraments from this priest, no exceptions.
6. But, what must we do if the priest is a heretic, but has not yet been judged by the Church? We can still go to him for the sacraments under certain conditions. I would urge everyone reading this to read John Daly’s notes on this LINK