Post by Pacelli on Jun 10, 2019 15:56:09 GMT -5
What is the line in the sand in which we must withdraw from our lawful and canonical parish?
This is my opinion on answering the question as to criteria one must use in determining whether particular innovations would cause someone to abandon their parish. This post only applies to eastern rite parishes, as this writer is operating under the assumption that all agree that there are no Latin rite parishes left to attend, as all use the Novus Ordo. This post does not address other possible reasons why one may avoid an Eastern parish, such as the priest being a public heretic, a doubt about the holy orders of the priest, or any other reason. It goes without saying that I am not an authority, and this is my opinion, which I have developed over decades of reading and thinking about these issues.
It seems to me that many living today do not really think about the gravity of this decision to withdraw from their canonical parishes which many Catholics made in the early 1970’s. It is a radical step to withdraw from one’s lawfully commissioned pastor who was commissioned to teach and sanctify us by the local and lawful bishop, who in turn was commissioned by the Pope, who in turn received his commission from Our Lord Jesus Christ.
What was it about the Novus Ordo that brought about this reaction? It clearly went beyond the errors of Vatican II, as Vatican II did not bring about this reaction. It also went beyond the actions and inactions of Paul VI that brought about great harm to the Catholics throughout the world, and the massive widespread apostasy of the 60’s and 70’s. Even Paul VI’s 1967 law permitting Holy Communion to be given outside the Church in some cases, did not bring about that reaction. The 1965 missal with its countless innovations still did not bring about this reaction.
I contend that the Novus Ordo Missae was such a clear break with Catholic theology and Tradition, that it left no room for any other reaction except to flee from it, even though the act of fleeing from it was wrought with many grave spiritual dangers. If we abandon our parishes and these parishes are in communion with the Pope, using the rite of mass approved by him, we, by that act are implicitly abandoning the Pope, or at least the man claiming to be Pope. Once we withdraw from this congregation, we are on our own, and we rely on our own judgment, and this is a very dangerous position for Catholics to be in. Unfortunately, despite the dangers, this is what Catholics were forced in conscience to do.
The act of withdrawal from Catholics from their parishes in the Latin rite is now just a part of history, but another group of Catholics, those of the eastern rites, did not ever have to see their beautiful and Catholic liturgies be mutilated into a Novus Ordo. These Catholics had no cause in 1970 to abandon their parishes, their pastors, and their bishops. They remained faithful to the canonical structures that existed and for many, despite some innovating to their liturgies they just went on as their grandparents did in the practice of their Faith.
As it stands today, there is no Novus Ordo of the East, even among the more liberal Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Chaldeans and the Maronites. There is not even a single case where an argument could be made that the principles outlined in the Ottaviani intervention could apply to an Eastern rite, even at this late hour of the crisis in 2019.
The problem, however, is that innovations have appeared in many eastern rite liturgies. We must be clear, though that delatinizations, a reversion to past practices prior to Latin rite influence, are not innovations, but are, rather, a reversion to past approved practices. In the case of innovations, we must determine if they are unapproved acts of renegade priests or even bishops, or if they have been authorized by the Patriarch and Synod if the particular rite. Presuming that the innovation has been authorized by the lawful authority, we must then determine if the practice is in harmony with the Faith or is it such a danger to the Faith, a cause of impiety, or heretical in its nature, that Catholics must as an act of conscience abandon the parish, the Eparchy, or possibly an entire eastern rite.
In particular, some innovations are so radical and implicitly heretical, that in my opinion, Catholics should avoid any place where they are found. One that is very blatantly obvious to me is the use of Altar girls. I do not think any Eastern Catholic Church has actually approved of the use of Altar girls, but liberal clerics have been caught using them, so it is a fact that they are being used in some eastern rites, at least in some places.
Another innovation that has appeared in some Eastern rites, and this has been approved by their hierarchies, is the use of mass being said “versus populum,” mass facing the people, the same as used in the Novus Ordo. This is the regular approved practice for the Maronites, the Syro-Malabar, and the Chaldean rites of the Church. At this juncture, my opinion on this is that is a liberal innovation, done with the purpose of imitating the Novus Ordo, but it is not in and of itself heretical. In my opinion, this is a case, where, if no scandal is present, one may use their best judgment, as to whether they will attend, and my opinion, the use of versus populum along the bishops who have approved this practice must be reported to the Pope.
Regarding other practices, each must be looked at on a case by case basis. Catholics must determine if the practice is heretical, a direct cause of impiety, a risk of scandal, especially to children, or if it is an innovation that is suspect, but not something that must be immediately resolved, and will be submitted to the judgment of the Holy See.
Catholics must also determine if such a practice is actually an innovation, or is a reversion to a prior approved practice, as is the case of many changes in the eastern rites in the last few decades. If the prior practice was approved in the past, then I do not believe Catholics must abandon attendance at their eastern Catholic parish, but rather, submit the matter to the judgment of the Holy See as soon as it is possible, to determine if the reversion to the prior practice is warranted and permissible.
This is my opinion on answering the question as to criteria one must use in determining whether particular innovations would cause someone to abandon their parish. This post only applies to eastern rite parishes, as this writer is operating under the assumption that all agree that there are no Latin rite parishes left to attend, as all use the Novus Ordo. This post does not address other possible reasons why one may avoid an Eastern parish, such as the priest being a public heretic, a doubt about the holy orders of the priest, or any other reason. It goes without saying that I am not an authority, and this is my opinion, which I have developed over decades of reading and thinking about these issues.
It seems to me that many living today do not really think about the gravity of this decision to withdraw from their canonical parishes which many Catholics made in the early 1970’s. It is a radical step to withdraw from one’s lawfully commissioned pastor who was commissioned to teach and sanctify us by the local and lawful bishop, who in turn was commissioned by the Pope, who in turn received his commission from Our Lord Jesus Christ.
What was it about the Novus Ordo that brought about this reaction? It clearly went beyond the errors of Vatican II, as Vatican II did not bring about this reaction. It also went beyond the actions and inactions of Paul VI that brought about great harm to the Catholics throughout the world, and the massive widespread apostasy of the 60’s and 70’s. Even Paul VI’s 1967 law permitting Holy Communion to be given outside the Church in some cases, did not bring about that reaction. The 1965 missal with its countless innovations still did not bring about this reaction.
I contend that the Novus Ordo Missae was such a clear break with Catholic theology and Tradition, that it left no room for any other reaction except to flee from it, even though the act of fleeing from it was wrought with many grave spiritual dangers. If we abandon our parishes and these parishes are in communion with the Pope, using the rite of mass approved by him, we, by that act are implicitly abandoning the Pope, or at least the man claiming to be Pope. Once we withdraw from this congregation, we are on our own, and we rely on our own judgment, and this is a very dangerous position for Catholics to be in. Unfortunately, despite the dangers, this is what Catholics were forced in conscience to do.
The act of withdrawal from Catholics from their parishes in the Latin rite is now just a part of history, but another group of Catholics, those of the eastern rites, did not ever have to see their beautiful and Catholic liturgies be mutilated into a Novus Ordo. These Catholics had no cause in 1970 to abandon their parishes, their pastors, and their bishops. They remained faithful to the canonical structures that existed and for many, despite some innovating to their liturgies they just went on as their grandparents did in the practice of their Faith.
As it stands today, there is no Novus Ordo of the East, even among the more liberal Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Chaldeans and the Maronites. There is not even a single case where an argument could be made that the principles outlined in the Ottaviani intervention could apply to an Eastern rite, even at this late hour of the crisis in 2019.
The problem, however, is that innovations have appeared in many eastern rite liturgies. We must be clear, though that delatinizations, a reversion to past practices prior to Latin rite influence, are not innovations, but are, rather, a reversion to past approved practices. In the case of innovations, we must determine if they are unapproved acts of renegade priests or even bishops, or if they have been authorized by the Patriarch and Synod if the particular rite. Presuming that the innovation has been authorized by the lawful authority, we must then determine if the practice is in harmony with the Faith or is it such a danger to the Faith, a cause of impiety, or heretical in its nature, that Catholics must as an act of conscience abandon the parish, the Eparchy, or possibly an entire eastern rite.
In particular, some innovations are so radical and implicitly heretical, that in my opinion, Catholics should avoid any place where they are found. One that is very blatantly obvious to me is the use of Altar girls. I do not think any Eastern Catholic Church has actually approved of the use of Altar girls, but liberal clerics have been caught using them, so it is a fact that they are being used in some eastern rites, at least in some places.
Another innovation that has appeared in some Eastern rites, and this has been approved by their hierarchies, is the use of mass being said “versus populum,” mass facing the people, the same as used in the Novus Ordo. This is the regular approved practice for the Maronites, the Syro-Malabar, and the Chaldean rites of the Church. At this juncture, my opinion on this is that is a liberal innovation, done with the purpose of imitating the Novus Ordo, but it is not in and of itself heretical. In my opinion, this is a case, where, if no scandal is present, one may use their best judgment, as to whether they will attend, and my opinion, the use of versus populum along the bishops who have approved this practice must be reported to the Pope.
Regarding other practices, each must be looked at on a case by case basis. Catholics must determine if the practice is heretical, a direct cause of impiety, a risk of scandal, especially to children, or if it is an innovation that is suspect, but not something that must be immediately resolved, and will be submitted to the judgment of the Holy See.
Catholics must also determine if such a practice is actually an innovation, or is a reversion to a prior approved practice, as is the case of many changes in the eastern rites in the last few decades. If the prior practice was approved in the past, then I do not believe Catholics must abandon attendance at their eastern Catholic parish, but rather, submit the matter to the judgment of the Holy See as soon as it is possible, to determine if the reversion to the prior practice is warranted and permissible.