|
Post by Michael S on Apr 26, 2017 22:35:05 GMT -5
Questions on the Ukranian Rite,
1. Do the Ukranians have any alterations to their ordination rite in the last 500 years? 2. Are all these churches in union with Mr. Bergoglio? Better yet, have any Ukranian clergy publicly accepted the sedevacant position (outside of the small group in Eastern Europe)? 3. Have the Ukranians altered their Liturgy in the last 500 years?
I pose the same questions to all Eastern Rites such as, but not limited to: Byzantine, Maronite, Malankara, Russian, etc.
Thanks,
I've been heavily disappointed with the Eastern Churches in my research. All "orthodox" are obviously heretical and schismatic, but I had high hopes for Eastern Catholics. Let down after let down. These groups seem to have been hit just as hard by Vatican II theology and Modernist changes as the Romans have. I've only found one group of sedevacantist Easterners and they can't seem to distinguish between heretics (Protestants & Orthodox) and Catholics, not to mention the insanity of Liturgical changes and abandonment of Traditions. I can't wait for someone to prove me wrong and show me a strong, moral, liturgically traditional Eastern Rite Church that has separated itself from the heresy of Vatican II and all Modernist infiltration (including the current anti-pope) as well as all Schismatics and Protestants. Do they exist? Better yet, do they exist with a valid Bishop? Not to my knowledge.
Peace in Christ,
M.
|
|
|
Post by Michael S on Apr 26, 2017 22:41:31 GMT -5
I just realized this is probably not an appropriate location for this question.
Moderator, if you delete my post, can I re-post it somewhere more appropriate?
Thanks, M
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 27, 2017 4:36:47 GMT -5
It seems to me (and this is not meant as any kind of insult) if you hold the dogmatic una cum sedevacantist position there arent many choices in the East. I personally even as a cradle byzantine dont go to my Parish for anything but the Sacraments period full stop . Their schools ,seminars,retreats etc etc...mostly all infected by modernism or ecumanism with the orthoducks I simply avoid.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 27, 2017 4:38:38 GMT -5
I also noticed your continued use of the term "groups". I dont follow or join groups in these areas... I am simply content with Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 27, 2017 4:40:47 GMT -5
I just realized this is probably not an appropriate location for this question. Moderator, if you delete my post, can I re-post it somewhere more appropriate? Thanks, M I moved this from the Catholic resources Page.....I hope Michael S takes the time to join...not sure if he can see this thread as a guest.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 27, 2017 12:44:12 GMT -5
Questions on the Ukranian Rite, 1. Do the Ukranians have any alterations to their ordination rite in the last 500 years? 2. Are all these churches in union with Mr. Bergoglio? Better yet, have any Ukranian clergy publicly accepted the sedevacant position (outside of the small group in Eastern Europe)? 3. Have the Ukranians altered their Liturgy in the last 500 years? I pose the same questions to all Eastern Rites such as, but not limited to: Byzantine, Maronite, Malankara, Russian, etc. Thanks, I've been heavily disappointed with the Eastern Churches in my research. All "orthodox" are obviously heretical and schismatic, but I had high hopes for Eastern Catholics. Let down after let down. These groups seem to have been hit just as hard by Vatican II theology and Modernist changes as the Romans have. I've only found one group of sedevacantist Easterners and they can't seem to distinguish between heretics (Protestants & Orthodox) and Catholics, not to mention the insanity of Liturgical changes and abandonment of Traditions. I can't wait for someone to prove me wrong and show me a strong, moral, liturgically traditional Eastern Rite Church that has separated itself from the heresy of Vatican II and all Modernist infiltration (including the current anti-pope) as well as all Schismatics and Protestants. Do they exist? Better yet, do they exist with a valid Bishop? Not to my knowledge. Peace in Christ, M. Sir, I will answer your questions below: 1. Their ordination rite is intact and unchanged. 2. They recognize Bergoglio as Pope, and he is prayed for in the Liturgy. With that said, on the parish level, Bergoglio and Vatican II are not thought about, at least in my experience. I do not believe that the heresies and Vatican II and the post Vatican II papal claimants have infected the Byzantine-Ukrainian Catholics by and large. There are certainly some examples of defection, and some clerics that should be held with suspicion, but the majority, in my opinion, still possess the Catholic Faith. 3. Their liturgy is intact and relatively unchanged. The only changes came about when the liturgy was latinized, but now they are and have been for a while in de-latinization mode, going further and further back trying to make sure every latinization is removed. Regarding the other eastern rites, I have some experience with them, the worst of which has been the Maronites, they seem to be following the Novus Ordo.Fwiw, and this is my opinion on this crisis: I believe that the eastern rite hierarchies that have kept the Faith have maintained the continued apostolic succession. I believe that succession ended in the Roman rite in 1968. With the exception of the few remaining elderly Roman rite bishops, the entire episcopacy lives on in these eastern rites of Catholicism, and practically speaking they are the only active bishops ruling sees in the world today.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on Apr 28, 2017 2:40:34 GMT -5
It seems to me (and this is not meant as any kind of insult) if you hold the dogmatic una cum sedevacantist position there arent many choices in the East. I personally even as a cradle byzantine dont go to my Parish for anything but the Sacraments period full stop . Their schools ,seminars,retreats etc etc...mostly all infected by modernism or ecumanism with the orthoducks I simply avoid. Greetings Vox... The problem with this theology is it places you in union with and receiving sacraments from those "infected" with condemned heresy. I.E. going just for the sacraments and "full stop". Modernism is directly condemned by Pope St. Pius X. I don't fully understand this position. Anathema for heresy seems to be top priority when you read Galatians or the Council of Trent, Florence etc. If they (Byzantine) have valid sacraments (and there's no reason to doubt them that I've run into) then it is still unlawful to communicate in sacris with those infected with heresy (Modernism) per canon law. I am aware that the Eastern Churches have their own version of canon law, but I doubt it has very strong differences with regard to communicating in common with heretics and schismatics. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I've never seen a Byzantine canon lawbook, nor can I read Greek. I share your experience of the Byzantines being blown about and carried away with foul winds of Vatican II bogus "theology". Dark days.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on Apr 28, 2017 3:06:22 GMT -5
Sir, I will answer your questions below: 1. Their ordination rite is intact and unchanged. 2. They recognize Bergoglio as Pope, and he is prayed for in the Liturgy. With that said, on the parish level, Bergoglio and Vatican II are not thought about, at least in my experience. I do not believe that the heresies and Vatican II and the post Vatican II papal claimants have infected the Byzantine-Ukrainian Catholics by and large. There are certainly some examples of defection, and some clerics that should be held with suspicion, but the majority, in my opinion, still possess the Catholic Faith. 3. Their liturgy is intact and relatively unchanged. The only changes came about when the liturgy was latinized, but now they are and have been for a while in de-latinization mode, going further and further back trying to make sure every latinization is removed. Regarding the other eastern rites, I have some experience with them, the worst of which has been the Maronites, they seem to be following the Novus Ordo.Fwiw, and this is my opinion on this crisis: I believe that the eastern rite hierarchies that have kept the Faith have maintained the continued apostolic succession. I believe that succession ended in the Roman rite in 1968. With the exception of the few remaining elderly Roman rite bishops, the entire episcopacy lives on in these eastern rites of Catholicism, and practically speaking they are the only active bishops ruling sees in the world today. Greetings Pacelli, I've looked into the Ukranian websites that have churches in my area and they show signs of Modernism (major focus on dress and cultural dance at the detriment of Catholicism), immodesty (girls wearing makeup on website photo), lack of Traditional practice (unveiled women) etc. This is without looking into what they are teaching. Combine this with a public union with the open apostate Bergoglio and we have a mess that is not quite Catholic. I didn't go through every church listed, but if the ones in my area are a litmus then its bleak. It is a HUGE plus that they've managed to hold onto their ordination rite and liturgy (in most cases), but so have many of the Orthodox, who are equally unapproachable. Useful knowledge if the Church is ever restored. In all due respect and charity, these ideas are schismatic in theology and are dangerous. The idea that you can be in union with a non-Catholic such as Bergoglio, who is not even an validly ordained priest... and can still be Catholic while disobeying, ignoring and even ridiculing the man recognized as the vicar of Christ is not a new position at all. Its simply not Catholic. This position formally dates back about 900ish years to the big destructive schism of the Greeks. Tragic history, tragic theology. They recognize the papacy and whoever the claimant happens to be. They simply refuse to submit to his authority. So recognizing Bergoglio or any of the last anti-pope non-Catholics as pope is a serious problem to the doctrine of the Papacy not only in theory but in practice. And according to Pope Leo XIII and just about every Catechism: "To deny just one doctrine of the faith is to become a heretic." Submission to the Roman Pontiff is de fide. Side note to your comment at the end. Heresy does not end your apostolic succession. The "orthodox" are heretics, yet they still maintain apostolic succession. It is not licit, but it is valid. Now the Novus Ordo does not because they have invalidated their rite of ordination similar to the Anglicans, but there are a few hold outs left in the Latin rite, fewer by the day. Theoretically, there are a few schismatics left that use the Latin rite and probably have valid but illicit orders as well. Their numbers are dwindling very quickly as well however (no big loss). Here's hoping that some Bishops/Patriarchs with valid Eastern Rite orders start waking up to the fact that the chair is empty, that Vat2 is an apostate council and that they must separate themselves from the "church" of anti-christ to remain Catholic. Lord save us, we PERISH!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 28, 2017 11:04:18 GMT -5
The dogmatic una cum position is completly erroneous and blurrs the lines between hierarchy and laity. In the Divine Liturgy when a bishops name is mentioned even the bishop of Rome it is completely and utterly the responsability of the Clerics to get the name right. The laity are absolutly free of any guilt by association with bergoglio. I bring to your attention the great western schism. Further in the words the response after the bishop of Rome is named the response is Hospodi Pomilu...Lord have Mercy. Clearly fore sedes the response is a proper response. We have a thread discussing the Una Cum position.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 28, 2017 11:05:43 GMT -5
BTW thanks for joining...you are most welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 28, 2017 13:31:11 GMT -5
Michael,
I do not have time to respond to all of your points right now, but I will respond to each of them and let's see if we can work through this.
Michael wrote:
With due respect, it seems to me that you are assuming a lot of things here. I do not think you can relate with the Ukrainians since they still have a culture, while we have none, at least not anything real or profound anymore. They get excited about their very old traditions, painting Easter eggs, traditional costumes and dances, etc. The Italians and Portuguese and many other Catholic countries used to have these great displays of culture which are now for the most part gone.
You will very rarely find a deep and well developed cultural identify in the western countries today, it's dead. But, in the east, at least to some extent they are hanging on. It's not a bad thing, a strong culture strengthens family and creates a unified identity. You will not find any Church authority ever condemning these noble cultures. The Church is what elevated them in the first place.
Regarding the allegation of immodesty of a girl wearing make up, at a minimum that is a debatable point. I would urge you to read the principles used in defining modesty by the approved moralists, many of which I have posted in the resourse section.
Regarding the unveiled women, on that we agree that it is a problem that Catholics are abandoning a tradition that goes back to the very beginning of the Church. From my experience, however, many women of good will are confused about this law, and many think that it no longer applies. I do not believe that Catholics must avoid the mass because women in the congregation are no longer following this tradition. I do find it interesting, however, in that the delatinization movement of the Ukrainians has not purged this liberal Novus Ordo "latinization" from their midst. The traditional practice of all of the eastern rites through all of their history, as with the Roman rite, has been for women to cover their heads in church.
To your last point, and I will get more into this later, Francis has never been condemned by the Church. When Catholics remain under him, but do not adopt his heresies, they remain Catholics who err, not schismatics or heretics. There is no undisputedly recognized Pope demanding their assent and submission, so the claim of schism here is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on Apr 28, 2017 17:58:06 GMT -5
The dogmatic una cum position is completly erroneous and blurrs the lines between hierarchy and laity. In the Divine Liturgy when a bishops name is mentioned even the bishop of Rome it is completely and utterly the responsability of the Clerics to get the name right. The laity are absolutly free of any guilt by association with bergoglio. I bring to your attention the great western schism. Greetings again Vox, addressing the above... the Great Western Schism does not apply seeing as all the anti-popes in question professed the Catholic faith. The anti-popes of our day do not. Apples and Oranges. It would be more appropriate to compare these modernist heretics to arians. The only difference is the pope did not become arian in the past, but if he did, or was an arian before being elected... THEN we'd have a Apples to Apples comparison. We (the laity) are absolutely not free from moral responsibility in being in union with an anti-catholic organization. Franko runs a non-Catholic organization that is bent on destruction of traditions and globalization a non-doctrine based false world masonic religion. To be any way apart of said sect is to be in union with the "church" of anti-christ. If a layman can be punnished for heresy... and he can... then it is the layman's responsibility to anathematize all heretical organizations, up to and including the one that has usurped Rome. This is only indirectly about "una cum" this is about anathema to heretics. Greeting again Pacelli, your assessment on debatable items and assumptions is quite accurate in the first part of your message. To save time I saw one glaring error and made the assumption that the other apparent errors were also wrong. Its been my experience that when one error shows its head, there are tons more under the surface, just like an iceberg. However regarding the end portion... "Francis has never been condemned..." oh my friend, but he has. Have you read Pascendi (Pope St. Pius X)? The syllabus of condemned errors (Pope Pius IX)? "Mortalium Animus" (Pope Pius XI)? I could go on, but these are all DIRECT condemnations of the heresies pushed by the conciliar anti-church up to including the current impostor Bergoglio, who is by far the greatest poster child for sedevacantism in history due to his unstoppable bumbling heretical drivel. You simply cannot shut his mouth and some people are actually waking up. The problem is there are several safety net false solutions i.e. Bolshevik style "controlled opposition" to catch these poor souls who start to shake off their programming. So no sir... you err. The Church has definitely condemned nearly everything that comes out of Franko's mouth PUBLICLY. To publicly pronounce, teach and enforce heresy makes one a heretic. Now you can trace his, and his cohorts heresies way back, but the symptom of his flagrant heresies is quite public. I don't have to judge his heart... it is irrelevant whether his heresy is material or formal... its formal, but even if it wasn't it doesn't matter. According to the Church, he's a heretic. I can source this directly if you wish. But I think you know this as it's sort of common knowledge. Good day to you two gentlemen. Whoops... I missed your last point... "simply Catholics who err...". My friend... schism and heresy are errors. This is not different. I ask you to define for us the sin/error of schism. The textbook definition will do nicely here.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on Apr 28, 2017 20:57:39 GMT -5
On second thought... "common knowledge" isn't fair nor is it true at this point in the age of disinformation.
Here's a quote from a pre-apostate council source:
"Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separate themselves from the unity of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of government, and both reject the authority of the Church. So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her. They are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church. For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold." (Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], p. 226; The 1955 edition of the book)
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 29, 2017 6:31:14 GMT -5
Micheal please show me where in church Documents it is the responsability of laity to choose a Pope and further they are commanded to stay away from the Divine Liturgy or True Mass because a NON Pope was named. The Popes in the western schism were not Anti Popes they were dubious Popes. Whats at issue is culpability. The laity cannot tell the hierarchy which name should be inserted in the Mass...hence it is out of their control. Secondly the laity cannot simply avoid the sacrament for rebellious or self willed reasons. What you have done was to Make the Mass simply a plaything of the laity. A get together...a hang out. You know that by positive Law we may avail ourselves of schismatic orthoduck sacraments if faced with immanent death...why? Because Our Loving God is not a bureaucratic monster...the sacraments are His Gifts from Calvary...they are Our Life without which we go to hell...THEY are the purpose..He purchased these Gifts for us at an unfathomable price...and you would have them dismissed because of blundering heretics at the top. I am not in communion with bergoglio...I am in Communion with Christ. If you were in communist held Ukraine in the 70s...you would be attending a Liturgy that prayed for its government...a godless communist government...would that invalidated the Mass? Yeah sir your "knowledge" has eclipsed your charity.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 29, 2017 6:35:16 GMT -5
On second thought... "common knowledge" isn't fair nor is it true at this point in the age of disinformation. Here's a quote from a pre-apostate council source: "Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separate themselves from the unity of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of government, and both reject the authority of the Church. So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her. They are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church. For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold." (Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], p. 226; The 1955 edition of the book) Preaching to the Choir....this has nothing to do with the una cum issue. Please post a document stating the laity are to stay away from a Valid DL or true Mass because the wrong name was placed in the liturgy.
|
|