|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 15, 2019 12:46:00 GMT -5
Wenceslav wrote:
I don’t believe the use of the pre-55 rite is licit, and that those who use them do not have a good argument. With that said, I hope you would agree that the situation with the eastern rites reverting to an older practice is not identical to the SSPV, St. Gertrude’s and others who do this. In the former case, we are dealing with the decisions of an apostolic hierarchy, led by Patriarchs or Major Archbishops, along with lawful synods which make decisions for each particular rite. The other mentioned groups are making a decision, on their own (non) authority, to revert to prior approved practices in the Latin rite of the Church which is directly ruled by the Pope.
Now, it would be a good discussion, maybe on a different thread, as to how far the pre-Vatican II authority of the Synods, Patriarchs and Major Archbishops had over such changes on their own, without direct Roman approval. I am not sure, but I do know that the eastern rite governance was semi-autonomous, so that must be kept in mind. They operated relatively independently from Rome prior to Vatican II, so it would be useful to see the extent of that relative self-governance.
Another point on this is that the eastern bishops and their flocks accept the claims of the post V2 claimants. This would mean that there is a common error as to who the Pope actually is. If Paul VI and his successors approved any acts, that needed Papal approval, of the eastern synods, Patriarchs or Major Archbsihops, so long as the act did not harm the common good, and as there is a common error about the post-V2 Popes, then a very good argument could be made that such acts would be supplied by the Church, as the conditions are met.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 15, 2019 13:25:20 GMT -5
Wenceslav wrote:
As I mentioned in a previous post, I am not certain as to how much independence Rome gave, say in 1944, to the eastern hierarchy. Who approved the legislation you are mentioning? Was Rome merely notified or was direct approval of each act necessary? Do you have any source material on this?
It depends on what you mean by “follow.” If we go to the Divine Liturgy, is it our duty to correct the priest if he is using the rite approved by the current lawful authority, i.e. Patriarch or synod, on a matter that is not against the Faith? Now, on the other hand, I realize you have a good point here, and this is something that I believe should be submitted to the appropriate authority as soon as that it possible. But, in the interim, I don’t see it as something we must take any other action on.
Wenceslav wrote: I see this as the same answer as above.
Wenceslav wrote: You brought this matter up before, so I did research it and took some notes. Here they are, updated for this thread:
1. It seems to me that in some cases that the status of whether a particular person is truly in schism is not clear. Rome appears to have said as much through its action of allowing those who appeared to be Russian schismatics to be used in the liturgy in the 1940’s. I can provide references if you are unfamiliar with this.
2. Cardinal Slipyj according to one person’s online post, wrote a 200 page paper on this defending the use of the feast of Gregory of Palamas. I don’t know what his arguments were, but I think they would be very relevant to any serious discussion on this matter. If you have the paper, I would be interested to know what it says. As I said in a post above, Card. Slipyj was not a modernist or liberal, so we should give him the benefit of the doubt and hear him out, and see why he took up this matter with such force.
3. The use of the feast of Gregory of Palamas was used in the Ruthenian rite from the time of the Union of Brest (1595) until the Council of Zamosc (1720). For 125 years of Church history, an approved rite of the Catholic Church used this feast, so, therefore, it cannot be argued that its use is evil. If anyone argues otherwise, they must argue that for 125 years, the Catholic Church in the Ruthenian rite gave stones rather than bread by having Catholics participate in an evil practice and by that leading them astray.
4. I don’t know how to resolve this issue. I do not have access to Cardinal Slipyj’s paper. If I did, and I disagreed with his reasoning of reviving this once approved feast, what more is there for one to do, other than submit this matter to the Pope when we have normalcy again, and beg for his judgment on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 15, 2019 20:11:11 GMT -5
I just split this thread off from the OP. Although the OP is related to this, the discussion really didn’t follow, so I have now renamed the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 15, 2019 22:41:10 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. I am familiar with Mediator Dei, and it goes without saying that I submit to it and agree with it. I am obviously not advocating reverting to former practices while we don’t have a Pope. We need a Pope to guide us and lead us, and to take actions such as this in the absence of a Pope is dangerous. With that said, the eastern hierarchies think that there is a Pope, so they aren’t concerned as we are. The question we are facing is how do we react to liturgical changes or reversions to past practices that are not against Sacred Tradition or the Faith by hierarchies that believe they are submitting to a Pope, when in reality they are not. If you read the text I put up, linked HERE Fr. Fortesque states that the eastern rites still received Communion standing, unlike the Latin Church which had switched to kneeling. Fr. Fortesque wrote: I am not doubting you that the posture of your youth for receiving Communion was kneeling, and it may be that the Ruthenians were more latinized than the others in the east, so the practice may go back further for that particular rite. Here, though, Fr. Fortesque, a highly regraded liturgical expert, is stating that the practice of the east, at least when he wrote the book, 1912, was to stand while receiving Holy Communion.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 16, 2019 19:55:34 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli, I would appreciate a few days to reply. You have brought up a myriad of interesting questions. It will take me a bit of time to dig some references up i.e. those that I have.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 17, 2019 2:08:38 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli, I would appreciate a few days to reply. You have brought up a myriad of interesting questions. It will take me a bit of time to dig some references up i.e. those that I have. Thanks No problem, Wenceslav, take your time.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 18, 2019 23:26:08 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli, I’m quite busy with my employment here, so I apologize for the tardiness and quality of my replies. I may need more time to fully answer all points about the Saints and Palamas issue. Pacelli said: A very good argument can also be made that these changes were not for the common good and such acts could not have been supplied by the Church. See my quote from the rector of Lviv major seminary in 2004: “ We want to return to our ancient traditions. This is why the Greek Catholic rite has to unite us with the Orthodox....[for the formation of a Kyivan Orthodox Catholic church]” I can provide more relevant quotes if you want. Here is a quote from Bp. Khomyshyn in 1931(martyred bishop of Stanislaviv) regarding the removal of Catholic devotions (Sacred Heart, Benediction, kneeling etc) from the Ukrainian Rite. This was written in opposition to those like Fr. Kostelnyk (later leader of schismatic faction in 1946) in the Nyva newspaper and sadly Met. Sheptytsky who wanted to purify the Ukrainian Rite. See p. 491 of Source. Many of the Faithful have been scandalized by these changes (in Ukraine, Society of St. Josaphat has thousands of supporters). Many have been lured into schism or schismatic tendencies by the indifferentism that the removal of Catholic devotions has instilled. Coupled with the false Ecumenism coming from the Ukrainian hierarchy, this cannot be from God, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 18, 2019 23:27:44 GMT -5
With respect to who has the power to legislate, the following is from Fr. Skcrincosky’s dissertation “THE LITURGICAL LEGISLATOR IN THE UKRAINIAN CHURCH” (of the Stamford Eparchy) answers your question. Source
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 18, 2019 23:28:41 GMT -5
A History of Kneeling for Holy Communion in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian RitePacelli wrote: Fr. Fortesque is simply mistaken at least with respect to the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Rites (I say this not to blemish the memory of this scholar). The reason why I am focusing on this particular Rite is that my family has a connection to the Ukrainian Rite as you are aware. Also, the relative size of the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches amounts to at least 60% of the total population of Catholics belonging to the Eastern Rites (I’m using data from Donald Attwater’s statistics collected in the mid 20th century) - by far the largest of any Eastern Catholic group. If any “Trad” has an opportunity to attend an Eastern Rite Mass/DL, it will probably be the Ukrainian or Ruthenian Rite. I will breakdown historical references(about kneeling for Holy Communion) chronologically from the latest evidence to the oldest. Reference 1Relevant Era: 1930s Source: p.487 of Bp. Khomyshyn “Pastoral Letter on Byzantinism” New Star Eparchial Newspaper, Stanyslaviv Eparchy, v.29 (1931) translated by Fr. Galadza into English from original Ukrainian in his book, “ THE THEOLOGY AND LITURGICAL WORK OF ANDREI SHEPTYTSKY (1865-1944)” Appendix D. Excerpt: Google DriveReference 2Relevant Era: 1870s Source: p.407, Fr. Cyril Korolevsky, “ Metropolitan Andrew (1865-1944)”, translated by Fr. Serge Keleher (1993) Excerpt: Comments: This was the second major schism in the Ukrainian Church in the 19th century. It was initiated by a former Ukrainian Catholic priest, Maciel Popiel. Instead of dismissing their Catholic devotions, the Catholics of Kholm were ready to die for their Faith. Google DriveReference 3Relevant Era: 1830s Source: pp. 288-293, Bp. Khomyshyn, “ Dwa Krolestwa” (2017)with quote from the Society of Priests of the Holy Martyr St. Josafat on the 100th year anniversary of the Siemaszko Schism i.e. letter written in 1939 regarding the schism of 1839. Excerpt: Comments: This was the first major schism in the Ukrainian Church in the 19th century. It was perpetrated by a former Ukrainian Catholic bishop, Jozef Siemaszko. This occurred in Russian controlled areas of Kholm, Volyn, and Podlasie. A major proportion of the traditional lands of the Ukrainian Catholics. Google DriveReference 4Relevant Era: mid 1600s Source: pp. 109-110,Dissertation of Vasyl Lencyk, “ THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CZAR NICHOLAS I(1961). The quote below is from the 57 priests of Novogrodek deanery writing a letter to Bp. Siemaszko in 1839 against the removal of Latinisms. Excerpt: Comments: This is quite a famous letter written in 1839. It shows how kneeling was already entrenched in the hearts of faithful for nearly two centuries - showing that such devotions were already common to the Ukrainian peoples at least by the mid 17th century, not too long after the Unia. Google DriveAnd finally here is a beautiful quote from St. Francis of Assisi regarding kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament. I believe all Catholics, East or West should ponder his words carefully, regardless, if they have a liturgical history of standing or not. Source
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 19, 2019 14:04:54 GMT -5
A History of Kneeling for Holy Communion in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian RitePacelli wrote:Fr. Fortesque is simply mistaken at least with respect to the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Rites (I say this not to blemish the memory of this scholar). The reason why I am focusing on this particular Rite is that my family has a connection to the Ukrainian Rite as you are aware. Also, the relative size of the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches amounts to at least 60% of the total population of Catholics belonging to the Eastern Rites (I’m using data from Donald Attwater’s statistics collected in the mid 20th century) - by far the largest of any Eastern Catholic group. If any “Trad” has an opportunity to attend an Eastern Rite Mass/DL, it will probably be the Ukrainian or Ruthenian Rite. I will breakdown historical references(about kneeling for Holy Communion) chronologically from the latest evidence to the oldest. Reference 1Relevant Era: 1930s Source: p.487 of Bp. Khomyshyn “Pastoral Letter on Byzantinism” New Star Eparchial Newspaper, Stanyslaviv Eparchy, v.29 (1931) translated by Fr. Galadza into English from original Ukrainian in his book, “ THE THEOLOGY AND LITURGICAL WORK OF ANDREI SHEPTYTSKY (1865-1944)” Appendix D. Excerpt: Google DriveReference 2Relevant Era: 1870s Source: p.407, Fr. Cyril Korolevsky, “ Metropolitan Andrew (1865-1944)”, translated by Fr. Serge Keleher (1993) Excerpt: Comments: This was the second major schism in the Ukrainian Church in the 19th century. It was initiated by a former Ukrainian Catholic priest, Maciel Popiel. Instead of dismissing their Catholic devotions, the Catholics of Kholm were ready to die for their Faith. Google DriveReference 3Relevant Era: 1830s Source: pp. 288-293, Bp. Khomyshyn, “ Dwa Krolestwa” (2017)with quote from the Society of Priests of the Holy Martyr St. Josafat on the 100th year anniversary of the Siemaszko Schism i.e. letter written in 1939 regarding the schism of 1839. Excerpt: Comments: This was the first major schism in the Ukrainian Church in the 19th century. It was perpetrated by a former Ukrainian Catholic bishop, Jozef Siemaszko. This occurred in Russian controlled areas of Kholm, Volyn, and Podlasie. A major proportion of the traditional lands of the Ukrainian Catholics. Google DriveReference 4Relevant Era: mid 1600s Source: pp. 109-110,Dissertation of Vasyl Lencyk, “ THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CZAR NICHOLAS I(1961). The quote below is from the 57 priests of Novogrodek deanery writing a letter to Bp. Siemaszko in 1839 against the removal of Latinisms. Excerpt: Comments: This is quite a famous letter written in 1839. It shows how kneeling was already entrenched in the hearts of faithful for nearly two centuries - showing that such devotions were already common to the Ukrainian peoples at least by the mid 17th century, not too long after the Unia. Google DriveAnd finally here is a beautiful quote from St. Francis of Assisi regarding kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament. I believe all Catholics, East or West should ponder his words carefully, regardless, if they have a liturgical history of standing or not. Source This is very good research, and it seems that Fr. Fortesque may have been mistaken on the Ruthenian and Ukrainian rites, as you say. It seems to me that he may not have been aware of the extent of the latinization in these two rites. I find it amazing that a scholar of Fr. Fortesque’s caliber would not have known this, though, and it’s too bad that we will never know the basis of his assertion. I just posted another source from another liturgical expert, Fr. O’Brien, writing in 1880: His testimony is identical to Fr. Fortesque, and I realize it does not agree with your sources on the Ruthenian and Ukrainian rites. It may be, as I said above, that the liturgical scholars in the Latin Church may not have been up to date on the extent of latinization going on in the two rites we are discussing. I remain unconvinced that many so called “latinizations” are actually truly latinizations in the first place. Is the Rosary truly a Latin rite prayer, or did Our Blessed Mother give this devotion to all Catholics? I believe it was the latter. It seems simplistic to me to argue that just because Almighty God through His Blessed Mother revealed things to Latin Rite Catholics, that we must conclude that such (private) revelation must be meant only for the Latin Church. Does Our Lady acting under God’s Will only speak to Latin Rite Catholics, or are the things she teaches and reveals meant for all Catholics? It seems that those who are arguing in this manner are gravely misguided to the point of absurdity. For what it’s worth, on a personal note, that I know many Ukrainian priests that do not buy into this nonsense and still encourage the Rosary,. One priest even saved the stations of the cross that were being left at the dumpster of a Latin Rite Novus Ordo Church and brought them back to his church and hung them up. On other matters, I think there is a legitimate debate on how the pre-Vatican II Popes’ express will should be implemented as to delatinizing the eastern rites to keep their unique traditions and customs pure from outside influence, This debate must obviously be done under the watchful eye of the Pope, who as the living Apostle is the leader of all Catholics east and west. The types,of things open to debate when the dust settles on this crisis are liturgical practices learned from the Latin rite, and whether their use in east is at odds with the express will of the Popes, most particularly Leo XIII and Pius XII. In the meanwhile, and I appreciate your reference to the Holy See taking for itself direct control over liturgical legislation in the Ukrainian rite. We cannot live in a bubble as to what we hope or should be seeing, but accept the reality of things as they actually are. The eastern rite bishops are hierarchies that accept the papal claims of men that in the end will be shown to be not Popes. They are making liturgical and other changes to their rites under the authority of these so called Popes. Due to this strange and unprecedented situation, we as Catholics must make judgements for ourselves as to how we will react to these changes. It is worth noting that Latin rite Catholics are also in a similar situation as they are being forced to make all sorts of judgments in order to preserve and keep the Faith. No Catholic is immune from making these judgments, and if one wants to avoid them totally, the only option is to become a home-aloner until the Church looks exactly like it did Pre-V2 again. To do so, though, means that one will live without the sacraments, and as the reception of Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, people in that situation have a very high risk of losing their souls. I have argued, and continue to argue that unless these hierarchies approve and enact changes that are directly against the Faith or are incentives to impiety, that we are not in conscience obligated to cease going to any particular rite or parish. In my opinion, our best guide to spotting a defection of Faith in the liturgy is to first identify if the practice was once an approved practice of the Church or something new. If it was a previous practice of the Church, then we know from the get-go that the practice is safe, at the very least. If the practice is safe, I do not believe we have to worry about it and can leave the matter to the future judgment of the Church as to whether the practice should continue or it’s use should be ended. If the practice is new, then we must make a harder judgement, but using the same standard: is it against the Faith or an incentive to impiety?. This judgment is harder as new changes that are approved under the reign of an antipope are things that have never been previously vetted by the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 19, 2019 14:22:35 GMT -5
Wenceslav wrote:
You are right that a good argument could be made that such changes were not for the common good. But, is it really a judgment that we, as the laity, have to make? If the changes are not against the Faith or incentives to impiety, they are by that not unsafe, so we have the luxury of time to let the Church sort this mess out. We don’t have to solve every problem, and in my opinion, we should not make any judgments beyond the ones we are forced by this situation to make.
If the status quo changes and new practices are introduced which clearly are against the Faith or are incentives to impiety, then we must then react accordingly, and that will be the line in the sand that we must abandon the entire rite or parish, and most likely be home-aloners or choose to request the sacraments from a validly ordained vagus priest that has no ordinary canonical right to use his sacramental powers of his holy orders, or to preach, and live with the many risks that we will find in that un-canonical situation.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 20, 2019 10:02:57 GMT -5
Please define "incentives to impiety"...I have a vague Idea of its meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 21, 2019 8:56:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 22, 2019 7:54:05 GMT -5
He’s clearly one of “them.”
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 22, 2019 10:25:14 GMT -5
Please define "incentives to impiety"...I have a vague Idea of its meaning. It’s an approved Catholic term as it was used in the Council of Trent, Session XXII. This canon infallibly teaches us two things, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outwards signs used by the Catholic Church in its masses, (1) must be incentives to piety and (2) that they cannot be incentives to impiety. In order to understand this canon, it’s good to have a clear grasp on what piety is. The definition can be found in many Catholic books, and I will post one standard definition here: A good human father loves his son, protects him, teaches him, and feeds him. There is an unequal relationship between father and son, as the father has true authority over the son, and the son is duty bound to obey the father. All of this is captured in the approved rites of the Church, both east and west. The prayers of the mass, along with vestments and outward signs incentivize piety in so many ways that it would need a lengthy paper to explain it. The Mass shows us that God is our Father, that we are His children, that there is an unequal relationship, one in which we are duty bound to obey Him, that He feeds us, teaches and protects us from our enemies. The Novus Ordo fails to incentivize piety, in my opinion. By downplaying the royal priesthood, and elevating the importance of man, it destroys the filial relationship. The vestments of the Novus Ordo are drab and effeminate. They fail in helping Catholics see God acting through the priest. The priest, facing the people fails to lead the congregation as a group all oriented in the same way in prayer to God. I could go on, but the failure of the Novus Ordo in being an incentive to piety could be a thread of its own. One only has to look at the people who worship God through this rite. By their fruits we will know them. It seems clear to me that Latin rite Catholics for the last 50 years have not learned and embraced filial piety, but in the spirit of the Novus Ordo, have embraced independence from God, rejecting the authority of God through His Church to bind their consciences in both Faith and morals, and in its general discipline, and in the end they elevate man as an authority equal to God.
|
|