|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 12, 2019 8:25:59 GMT -5
No problem, Wenceslav, I’ll wait until we resolve the liturgical language issue before we move on to the next point. I’m happy to see that we agree on the matter that what the Church approves in her liturgy cannot be evil or a cause of impiety. The Church cannot give her children stones rather than bread. It seems to me that there is a great confusion on this bedrock principle of our Faith among many traditionalists today. You are correct in where I am going with this, and it is at the core of my argument. If a practice is at one time approved or permitted by the Church, then it can never become an evil practice or one that leads to impiety. The Church in Her Wisdom is not stuck in time, and her disciplines and practices change, and she may bring back older practices or adopt new practices. Older practices, once used in the Church, must by definition always be safe practices, or they would never have been used in the first place. In regards to the Eastern rites, even aside from any argument from Vatican II, which doesn’t factor into anything I have to say on this matter, have a good argument that they have a right to restore older practices that existed prior to the latinization of their rites. Their argument rests not on their own ideas but on the express will of the Popes who taught that their rites are to remain unique and intact. Please see some excerpts of the papal teaching HERE
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 12, 2019 16:55:41 GMT -5
would you two gentleman be opposed to a audio recorded discussion of these topics?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 12, 2019 18:00:30 GMT -5
would you two gentleman be opposed to a audio recorded discussion of these topics? Thank you Voxx, but I much prefer writing than an oral discussion. You are far better than I in discussing topics, so if you do an audio talk on this, I would certainly like to listen to it. I really need the long time consuming approach that that goes with researching and careful writing, rather than the spoken word, as it is much more akin to my temperament.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 12, 2019 23:13:03 GMT -5
Wenceslav wrote:
I just realized that I forgot to answer this earlier. Wenceslav wrote:
The tacit approval of the Holy See presumes that the the Pope and or the relevant Sacred Congregations know that the rite is being used and take no action against it.
In the case of the Chinese rites, there was no tacit approval of Rome. They didn’t know about the matter until it was brought to their attention.
I think a good example of tacit approval of Rome regarding liturgical rites would have been the attitude of Rome towards the old Gallican rites which were controlled on the local level while Rome left the local authorities alone, and by that inaction gave them tacit approval to conduct their liturgies according to the local custom.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 13, 2019 5:40:07 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli,
Thanks for the important distinction regarding “tacit approval”. I appreciate your patience. I will try to post more info tonight after work.
Vox, thanks for your offer of an interview with Pacelli. I too prefer a simple exchange on this forum vs. an interview or taped debate. I freeze under the pressure. I’m just an old curmudgeon, I’m afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 13, 2019 10:28:31 GMT -5
yes but Im a good interviewer...I can get the best out of you.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 13, 2019 22:38:36 GMT -5
This is a quote from Fr. Galadza’s book “THE THEOLOGY AND LITURGICAL WORK OF ANDREI SHEPTYTSKY (1865-1944)”, pp. 315-316. SourceBackground and History Lesson(1) Ukrainian Orthodox schismatics celebrate liturgy in Ukrainian by 1919. In 1927, Sheptytsky (Metropolitan of Ukrainian Catholics) authorizes translation of Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for private use. (2) Sheptytsky’s interest in switching from Church Slavonic to the vernacular (Ukrainian) inspires debate (in 1930) between Basilian Father Teodoziy Halushchyns'kyi and Fr. Havril Kostel‘nyk. The Basilians were staunch Catholics (as Fr. Galadza puts it) and supported the continued use of Church Slavonic in the Liturgy. Kostel’nyk was the one of the main protégés of Sheptytsky and would lead much of the Ukrainian Catholic Church into schism with the help of his Bolshevik masters in 1946 (pseudo-synod of Lviv). ( 3) Main points by Fr. Halushchyns'kyi for the continued use of Church Slavonic are:
(i) rejected the vernacular because of Trent's proscriptions. The Council of Trent summed up well the Church's mind on Latin being the Language of Roman rite in the following words “ If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema . “ - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9). Galadza’s comments in the footnotes about this applying to only the Roman Rite is unfair. The same reasons that apply to Latin apply to Church Slavonic. (iii) "liturgical language" heightens the sense of ecclesial unity. One of Sheptytsky’s main goals was the conversion of Russia who use Church Slavonic, exclusively. If conversion of Russia would ever occur, it would be with a Liturgy that utilizes Church Slavonic. Hence, unlike Galadza’s comments, this is not bizarre. (4)I would like to add that as a speaker of Ukrainian, I do not see the problem with Church Slavonic. Even as a kid I could understand most of the Divine Liturgy even the variable parts (and without a Missal). I do see that this push for Ukrainian is simply (to the point of being sinful) - Nationalism. Ukrainian (and martyr) Bp. Gregory Khomyshyn wrote insightfully about this. It is also unfortunate that many who supported this Ukrainization ended up as apostates. There is indeed a correlation but this is beyond the scope of this thread. (5) Sheptytsky did not introduce the vernacular. It was left to his successor, Cardinal Slipyj to mandate this in the 1980s. (See pp. 281-282 of this source. (6) For the defence of Latin vs the vernacular in the Traditional Mass - which would more or less apply to the arguments for Church Slavonic as well. See Fr. Taouk’s (SSPX) article here.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 13, 2019 22:40:41 GMT -5
Pacelli said Pacelli, just for the record, I positively said it’s not heretical to use the vernacular. I do say it was unwise in retrospect and is a symptom of an infection in the hierarchy with Nationalism and or Modernism. Just as it was a symptom (one of many) of the infection during the Paul VI years when Latin was dropped. Yes, I concede that is beyond the narrow scope of this thread. But it is a harbinger of what came later. For the record and the casual reader of this thread I will list the relevant arguments for Church Slavonic listed in the 2005 paper Kevin Hannan “Experiencing the Divine Conversation....” pp. 291-292. Contra-Slavonic are listed as well if you read his paper. Source
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 13, 2019 22:41:52 GMT -5
Pacelli I agree with the above. I do have a question about whether such practices will always be extrinsically safe under every circumstance? What if changing historical circumstances render the disciplinary law an occasion of harm? For example, Communion under both species is perfectly in keeping with the Faith so the law that established it is intrinsically holy; however, after heresies challenging the Real presence of Christ under each species sprang up (Hussites and Utraquist controversy), the law became extrinsically harmful, insofar as it occasioned this theological error in that particular historical context. In the historical context of VII and it’s aftermath, are the introduction of disciplines that in themselves are “safe” but are used by the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Church to bring Catholics closer to the Orthodox for the eventual establishment of a false ecumenical church and schism - “extrinsically safe”. See quote below from the rector of the Greek Catholic Seminary in Lviv. SourceAnother example to expand my point: the St. Gertrude group (Bp. Dolan et al.) refuse to accept the new Holy Week Rites promulgated by a true Pope. Instead they use the pre-1955 Rites. Such Rites are not harmful either. Are they correct in using them. Is their use licit? The latest liturgical legislation regarding the Ukrainian Rite were the books published in 1944. For example, the Byzantine Catholics (Ruthenians) and Ukrainians here in Canada read the anaphora out loud. Yet the Ordo Celebrationis clearly requires the anaphora to be said secreto (in mystica). A case was made in Fr. Mozorowich’s articles that this is a pre-latinization custom. Should we follow the latest legislation of a true Pope or the modern Hierarchs of the Byzantine or Ukrainian churches (under the auspices of false popes) who are using the excuse of the renewal of VII. Another example, the use of Church Slavonic is of immemorial custom. Why are the proponents of these changes after VII not clamouring for its use since it was certainly the liturgical language before and after the Unia until the 1980s. In the Ukrainian and Ruthenian context, the use of the vernacular has no precedent. How about the veneration of a schismatic, Gregory Palamas, for the Liturgy on the second Sunday of Lent. This was instituted by Cardinal Slipyj in the 1970s and is celebrated in most places that I know of. He was also venerated well after the Unia, according to Ukrainian Catholic scholars. Without a true Pope at this time it is difficult to discern what is licit and what is not based simply on the criterion that we return to what was accepted prior to the so-called Latinizations.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 15, 2019 8:26:18 GMT -5
The Rites and usages of antiquity are all infallibly safe. Yet by the authority of the Church such usages or disciplines are no longer used (I.e. by the disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation). The Ukrainian hierarchy (without the authority of a true Pope) and the evil influence of JPII introduced these innovations.
The changes after VII, are not in the books published during the reign of Pope Pius XII. The posture for the reception Holy Communion was to continue according to custom (i.e. kneeling), the Canon/Anaphora was to be said silently (in mystica). There was no mention of liturgical language(as far as I can tell, but I’m no expert), but we can assume that Church Slavonic was to continue since that was the case until the 1980s. The liturgical veneration of schismatics was introduced as a result of the false ecclesiology so prevalent among the architects (Taft, Husar, etc) of this revolution.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 15, 2019 8:36:49 GMT -5
Church slavonic was the usage when I was a child...I find it beautiful. I will mandate its use at my funeral in my will.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 15, 2019 9:16:01 GMT -5
This is a quote from Fr. Galadza’s book “THE THEOLOGY AND LITURGICAL WORK OF ANDREI SHEPTYTSKY (1865-1944)”, pp. 315-316. SourceBackground and History Lesson(1) Ukrainian Orthodox schismatics celebrate liturgy in Ukrainian by 1919. In 1927, Sheptytsky (Metropolitan of Ukrainian Catholics) authorizes translation of Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for private use. (2) Sheptytsky’s interest in switching from Church Slavonic to the vernacular (Ukrainian) inspires debate (in 1930) between Basilian Father Teodoziy Halushchyns'kyi and Fr. Havril Kostel‘nyk. The Basilians were staunch Catholics (as Fr. Galadza puts it) and supported the continued use of Church Slavonic in the Liturgy. Kostel’nyk was the one of the main protégés of Sheptytsky and would lead much of the Ukrainian Catholic Church into schism with the help of his Bolshevik masters in 1946 (pseudo-synod of Lviv). ( 3) Main points by Fr. Halushchyns'kyi for the continued use of Church Slavonic are:
(i) rejected the vernacular because of Trent's proscriptions. The Council of Trent summed up well the Church's mind on Latin being the Language of Roman rite in the following words “ If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema . “ - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9). Galadza’s comments in the footnotes about this applying to only the Roman Rite is unfair. The same reasons that apply to Latin apply to Church Slavonic. (iii) "liturgical language" heightens the sense of ecclesial unity. One of Sheptytsky’s main goals was the conversion of Russia who use Church Slavonic, exclusively. If conversion of Russia would ever occur, it would be with a Liturgy that utilizes Church Slavonic. Hence, unlike Galadza’s comments, this is not bizarre. (4)I would like to add that as a speaker of Ukrainian, I do not see the problem with Church Slavonic. Even as a kid I could understand most of the Divine Liturgy even the variable parts (and without a Missal). I do see that this push for Ukrainian is simply (to the point of being sinful) - Nationalism. Ukrainian (and martyr) Bp. Gregory Khomyshyn wrote insightfully about this. It is also unfortunate that many who supported this Ukrainization ended up as apostates. There is indeed a correlation but this is beyond the scope of this thread. (5) Sheptytsky did not introduce the vernacular. It was left to his successor, Cardinal Slipyj to mandate this in the 1980s. (See pp. 281-282 of this source. (6) For the defence of Latin vs the vernacular in the Traditional Mass - which would more or less apply to the arguments for Church Slavonic as well. See Fr. Taouk’s (SSPX) article here.Thank you for this Wenceslav, although I have read in the past when researching this that the vernacular was being used in the 1950’s at least in some parishes of the Ukrainian rite. Did you read the section I gave you from Fr. DeMarco? It seems to me that the eastern rites, unlike the Roman rite were not held to the dead language standard, but it may be that in particular cases such as the Ukrainians that Slavonic was being uniformly used, at least for a long period of time. I notice that you are not addressing the many other eastern rites. I think that the Syro-Malabar and and Syro-Malankara used the vernacular. I know from research on the Byzantine Italo-Albanians pre-Vatican II that they used the Greek, but also some priests said the mass in Albanian. I am not sure about the many other rites, but if we are to take Fr. DeMarco as a reliable source, that the vernacular was traditionally the norm in the eastern rites. By the way, you do not need to persuade me of the importance of the use of Latin in the Roman Rite. I realize the benefits of Latin, most especially, that it locks the meaning into the terms that are used, as dead languages cannot evolve. I will say, though, that it’s use is a small “t” tradition, and if the Pope ever decides to use the vernacular in the Roman rite either universally or in particular areas, then I will trust his judgment on that and move on with the Pope and in support of him. Latin is not a part of the Deposit of Faith. It is a useful tool in safeguarding it, but it’s just that, a tool. Regarding Cardinal Slipyj, from all of my reading, he is one of the heroes of our Catholic Faith in the 20th century. He heroically kept his Faith for the almost two decades he was imprisoned in the Soviet Gulags. He could have caved in and compromised, but he stood strong despite living in awful conditions for such a long period of his life. He kept the Faith and he is an inspiration to all of us. With this in mind, doesn’t it seem to you out of character for a man known for his love for the Catholic Faith, and who paid his dues with true suffering for the Faith, unlike most of us, to authorize a practice to undermine it? Maybe we should give Cardinal Slipyj the benefit of the doubt that the use of the vernacular was at that time expedient and useful for Catholics under his jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 15, 2019 9:41:23 GMT -5
Pacelli said Pacelli, just for the record, I positively said it’s not heretical to use the vernacular. I do say it was unwise in retrospect and is a symptom of an infection in the hierarchy with Nationalism and or Modernism. Just as it was a symptom (one of many) of the infection during the Paul VI years when Latin was dropped. Yes, I concede that is beyond the narrow scope of this thread. But it is a harbinger of what came later. For the record and the casual reader of this thread I will list the relevant arguments for Church Slavonic listed in the 2005 paper Kevin Hannan “Experiencing the Divine Conversation....” pp. 291-292. Contra-Slavonic are listed as well if you read his paper. SourceI certainly agree that Kevin Hannan’s reasoning that you posted above is sound. The same could be applied to the use of Latin in the Roman rite. But, in non-essentials, even good reasoning, may be countered by other good reasons on the opposing side, which you did provide in the link. This is why we as Catholics look to our lawful authority to settle such matters. I don’t think the use of the vernacular was a harbinger if things to come. The Novus Ordo was it’s own unique animal, it is in a category all it’s own. It was a mutilation of the Divine worship of the Roman rite. The key problem with the Novus Ordo was not in the non-essential things that it changed, its that essential things were changed to such an extent that it caused a break with the Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Church. A destroyed rite, as we similarly see with the Anglicans will certainly also change all sorts of non-essentials, amd continue to degrade over time, making it look less and less Catholic, but it’s the essentials that are the key to grasping the matter. This is why from the get-go, that I asked you to demonstrate that any changed essentials, as were found in the Roman theologian’s study of the Novus Ordo could also be found in the Eastern rites. In my opinion, they are not. There is no Eastern rite Novus Ordo. The eastern Catholics, whether rightly or wrongly, certainly made changes to the non-essentials, but they did not severely mutilate their respective rites and by that create new forms of worship that were a break from Traditional (capital T) Catholic worship, as happened in the Latin Church. In my opinion, the most significant and arguably the strongest case to be made against an eastern rite in modern times is the use of Altar girls, as there is an implied heresy in this use, and it is clearly a novelty that is not found anywhere and at any time in Church history. I do think, however that the use of Altar girls is an abuse, and is not officially permitted in any Eastern rite. If it is officially the practice of any eastern rite, I am not aware of this, but if evidence is shown, then I will certainly look at it and revise my view accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 15, 2019 10:12:33 GMT -5
Wenceslav wrote:
We are agreed on this. The Church adapts, it’s not stuck in time, The Church may adopt better practices over time to replace a practice that has either become harmful or is no longer useful.
Its worth stating that many traditionalists deviate from this principle. They do not readily and completely submit to the judgment of the Pope on all sorts of matters such as the Pius. XII Holy Week rites, the feast of St Joseph the Worker, the permitted use of mixed choirs, the refusal to drop the second Confiteor, the refusal to acknowledge the lawful use of the Pius XI approved dialogue mass, and on and on I could go, etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 15, 2019 10:46:45 GMT -5
Wenceslav wrote:
Many people in America believe that President Trump is using his office to support the conservatives by actions such as appointing conservative judges, issuing executive orders, etc. to just use them, and to get votes, to win the next election, etc. I don’t agree with these folks, but the point I am making is that regardless of whether the president is doing something good, even if his motives are bad, the benefits to the common good remain the same.
If the eastern Catholic hierarchies are reverting to past approved practices, even for a bad reason, then they are not introducing something unsafe to their flock. I think it is arguable whether or not these former practices should be used, and that is a good matter for a separate discussion, and on that we may find agreement on many points. I think it is also worth noting that they in the east, the hierarchies, through their Patriarchs and synods were allowed to govern themselves to some extent, so it is not as though they lack any authority over these matters.
I think an argument could be made, however. that the Latinizing of the eastern rites will make it harder to show the Orthodox that it they return to the Church, they can continue as they were, in all non essentials, and their return to the Church can easily be accomplished by their submission to the Pope, and belief on all matters of the Faith that they are disputing. The Union of Brest is a good model to follow in this regard, that for the most part left the new Ruthenian Catholics with a Church that looked almost identical to their pre-Brest sect, with the exceptions of submitting to the Pope and believing all Catholic teaching. The problem is, however, that if the Orthodox think they will be Latinized and forced to surrender their (small t) traditions, and distrust the Catholics, it will make the road of conversion for these folks only more difficult.
Now, I realize that this is not what you are saying, that the motives of the Ukrainian bishops, or at least some, maybe most of them, is not to facilitate the conversion of the Orthodox, rather it is to in essence create a new sect that is a merger of Catholics with the Orthodox into a false ecclesiastical structure that will not require submission to the Pope or adherence to all Catholic teaching. Such an idea is an abomination and must be denounced. The new congregation formed by such a union will not be Catholic, as it will not possess the four marks, and will only be a new schismatic and heretical sect. Let’s hope that the Ukrainian hierarchy wakes up and ends this insanity before it’s too late!
|
|