Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 12:17:15 GMT -5
Really appreciate these corrections to the "pure Easterners" narrative. I was unaware of the situation with underground and First World clergy but it makes perfect sense. Actually, all of these issues have been discussed already on this forum. I am not sure who has been presenting the "pure easterners" narrative, but on this forum things have not been sugar coated. Pacelli - I may have overlooked it, however, I don't recall anything being said regarding giving Holy Communion to the Orthodox and vice versa. If I have overlooked it, please point it out to me. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jun 22, 2017 12:25:29 GMT -5
Okay, well, now I'm not open to correction:
"People generally received Holy Communion standing, as they still do in the East."
Adrian Fortesque, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, pg. 375. 1912
This is a book about the history, practice, and development of the mass. This quote is taken from a section on the Communion portion of the Mass, it goes on to describe the posture of the deacon and pope for communion during various masses. He is not talking about current practice for the Roman rite in 1912 when the book was published but rather what was the historical norm. What is interesting is that he does make reference to the current practice of the East during his time. So here have evidence that Communion was still received in the standing posture in 1912 in the Byzantine Liturgies.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 22, 2017 12:32:54 GMT -5
Actually, all of these issues have been discussed already on this forum. I am not sure who has been presenting the "pure easterners" narrative, but on this forum things have not been sugar coated. Pacelli - I may have overlooked it, however, I don't recall anything being said regarding Holy Communion and the Orthodox. If I have overlooked it, please point it out to me. Thanks. Wenseslav brought it up on the Ukrainian Q & A thread, it didn't gain a lot of traction on there, but it was brought up. He mentioned that this is going on in Canada. Lets be clear though, that if a priest gives Holy Communion to a person not worthy, the sin is his, not yours. If the priest thinks this is ok to do because his hierarchy allows it, I would not think him guilty of sin at all.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 12:45:29 GMT -5
Pacelli - I may have overlooked it, however, I don't recall anything being said regarding Holy Communion and the Orthodox. If I have overlooked it, please point it out to me. Thanks. Wenseslav brought it up on the Ukrainian Q & A thread, it didn't gain a lot of traction on there, but it was brought up. He mentioned that this is going on in Canada. Lets be clear though, that if a priest gives Holy Communion to a person not worthy, the sin is his, not yours. If the priest thinks this is ok to do because his hierarchy allows it, I would not think him guilty of sin at all. Pacelli - If an Eastern Rite Priest is allowed to give Communion to the Orthodox if his hierarchy allows it, how is that any different than the Novus Ordo giving Communion to the Protestants? If I am confused in my understanding that the Eastern Rites can give Communion to the Orthodox and vice versa, please advise.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 22, 2017 12:53:58 GMT -5
Wenseslav brought it up on the Ukrainian Q & A thread, it didn't gain a lot of traction on there, but it was brought up. He mentioned that this is going on in Canada. Lets be clear though, that if a priest gives Holy Communion to a person not worthy, the sin is his, not yours. If the priest thinks this is ok to do because his hierarchy allows it, I would not think him guilty of sin at all. Pacelli - If an Eastern Rite Priest is allowed to give Communion to the Orthodox if his hierarchy allows it, how is that any different than the Novus Ordo giving Communion to the Protestants? If I am confused in my understanding that the Eastern Rites can give Communion to the Orthodox and vice versa, please advise. I never said it was allowed. I said the sin is on the priest, if he is guilty of sinning in that act.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 13:02:33 GMT -5
Pacelli - To clarify, I was referring to the statement "If the Priest thinks this is ok to do because his hierarchy allows it, I would not think him guilty of sin at all". How is the Eastern Rites giving Communion to the Orthodox any different than the Novus Ordo giving Communion to the Protestants?
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 22, 2017 13:06:42 GMT -5
Okay, well, now I'm not open to correction: "People generally received Holy Communion standing, as they still do in the East." Adrian Fortesque, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, pg. 375. 1912 This is a book about the history, practice, and development of the mass. This quote is taken from a section on the Communion portion of the Mass, it goes on to describe the posture of the deacon and pope for communion during various masses. He is not talking about current practice for the Roman rite in 1912 when the book was published but rather what was the historical norm. What is interesting is that he does make reference to the current practice of the East during his time. So here have evidence that Communion was still received in the standing posture in 1912 in the Byzantine Liturgies.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 22, 2017 13:09:35 GMT -5
I was referring to the statement "If the Priest thinks this is ok to do because his hierarchy allows it, I would not think him guilty of sin at all". How is the Eastern Rites giving Communion to the Orthodox any different than the Novus Ordo giving Communion to the Protestants? I was referring to that statement when I answered you. There are two issues at play. Is it objectively an evil practice? I think the evidence would support that. Secondly, if a priest were to engage in this practice, thinking it a good practice in obedience to his bishop, would he be guilty of sin. I would be hesitant to make such an accusation without knowing more about his intent.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 22, 2017 13:15:28 GMT -5
Sorry, doing this on an iPhone,
Clotilde, the custom of the Ruthenians is kneeling. I have to dig out a reference that establishes this custom as pre-union of Brest. 1912 is not that long ago in the collective memory of the common laypeople and the Byzantine rite in Ukraine and Transcarpethia is certainly kneeling.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 22, 2017 13:27:50 GMT -5
Sorry, doing this on an iPhone, Clotilde, the custom of the Ruthenians is kneeling. I have to dig out a reference that establishes this custom as pre-union of Brest. 1912 is not that long ago in the collective memory of the common laypeople and the Byzantine rite in Ukraine and Transcarpethia is certainly kneeling. Wenceslav, We discussed this matter in the Ukrainian Q and A thread, and this issue was never resolved with sources. I remember asking you what the practice was at the time Union of Brest, 1595, and from that time foward. You never provided any sources. The source you had provided proves that the Ukrainian rite pre-V2 used kneeling. Clotilde's source, and I might add that Fortesque is a highly reputable source on the liturgy, states that the practice in the east was standing for communion. Now, the onus is on you if you want to contradict Fortesque's statement. I look forward to seeing your sources that at the time of and before the publication of the book, 1912, that the practice was kneeling for communion in the east.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 22, 2017 15:52:29 GMT -5
Sorry, doing this on an iPhone, Clotilde, the custom of the Ruthenians is kneeling. I have to dig out a reference that establishes this custom as pre-union of Brest. 1912 is not that long ago in the collective memory of the common laypeople and the Byzantine rite in Ukraine and Transcarpethia is certainly kneeling. Wenceslav, We discussed this matter in the Ukrainian Q and A thread, and this issue was never resolved with sources. I remember asking you what the practice was at the time Union of Brest, 1595, and from that time foward. You never provided any sources. The source you had provided proves that the Ukrainian rite pre-V2 used kneeling. Clotilde's source, and I might add that Fortesque is a highly reputable source on the liturgy, states that the practice in the east was standing for communion. Now, the onus is on you if you want to contradict Fortesque's statement. I look forward to seeing your sources that at the time of and before the publication of the book, 1912, that the practice was kneeling for communion in the east. No problem Pacelli, Note that the attached picture of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is from 1941, well before the Roman printing of the Ruthenian Recension Books which occurred by approx. 1946. In fact this Liturgy is the pre-War Liturgy since it still contains the Lavabo. It is based on the L'viv Liturgicon of 1905 . "The 1905 edition is the last edition that was universally issued by Ukrainian Catholics prior to the Holy See's edition in 1941." see Skcrincosky " The Liturgical Legislator in the Ukrainian Church" p.86. Therefore Fr. Fortescue is wrong at least with respect to the Ruthenians. And I have shown that kneeling for Holy Communion can be dated back to at least 1905. I will try to dig up the other reference. I avail myself of your patience. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 22, 2017 16:18:18 GMT -5
Wenceslav, We discussed this matter in the Ukrainian Q and A thread, and this issue was never resolved with sources. I remember asking you what the practice was at the time Union of Brest, 1595, and from that time foward. You never provided any sources. The source you had provided proves that the Ukrainian rite pre-V2 used kneeling. Clotilde's source, and I might add that Fortesque is a highly reputable source on the liturgy, states that the practice in the east was standing for communion. Now, the onus is on you if you want to contradict Fortesque's statement. I look forward to seeing your sources that at the time of and before the publication of the book, 1912, that the practice was kneeling for communion in the east. No problem Pacelli, Note that the attached picture of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is from 1941, well before the Roman printing of the Ruthenian Recension Books which occurred by approx. 1946. In fact this Liturgy is the pre-War Liturgy since it still contains the Lavabo. It is based on the L'viv Liturgicon of 1905 . "The 1905 edition is the last edition that was universally issued by Ukrainian Catholics prior to the Holy See's edition in 1941." see Skcrincosky " The Liturgical Legislator in the Ukrainian Church" p.86. Therefore Fr. Fortescue is wronge at least with respect to the Ruthenians. And I have shown that kneeling for Holy Communion can be dated back to at least 1905. I will try to dig up the other reference. I avail myself of your patience. Fair enough, and thank you. I would still be interested in what the practice was from the time of the Union of Brest to 1905. I would not go so far as to say Fortesque was wrong, if the practice changed for the Ruthenians in 1905 and he was not aware, and was basing it the custom until that time. Fortesque may have just been asserting that this was the traditional eastern practice, and was not dealing with changes from latinization. As an FYI, I have no dog in the delatinization fight, as I stated on the Ukrainian Q & A. My only concern is this: I am against "Novus Ordo-isms," that is innovations to the liturgy that have no basis in Catholic Tradition or even small "t" tradition. In the eastern rites of today, it is clear that some if not all eastern rites have adopted ideas from the Novus Ordo. I have listed some before such as women not covering the heads, altar girls, mass facing the people, and we can even add intercommunion with the orthodox. All of these ideas have no support in Catholic theology, or Tradition. They are innovations. Some may argue that mass facing the people does have some support, but we can leave that aside for now. If the Church formerly had an approved practice, and then that practice was changed, we cannot say the former practice was bad. All approved practices of the Church must be good, and if they are changed it can never be because the former practice was evil, bad, or in any way an incentive to impiety. So, my point of this matter is this: eastern rites once allowed standing for the reception of Holy Communion, that alone means that the practice was good. If an eastern rite reverts back to the older practice as a delatinization, it may or may not be a good idea, but what we cannot say is that they are adopting an uncatholic practice. The reason I look at these matters is I must decide if a particular eastern rite or parish within the rite has adopted a practice that must cause me to no longer participate in it, then I must evaluate what I see. I will not stop going to an eastern rite due to delatinization and by that the reversion to previous approved practices.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 22, 2017 16:39:34 GMT -5
Pacelli,
Again I agree with many things you say. But many of the other practices such as Teplota, removal of the Filioque etc that I mentioned in the OP were approved post-VII for the purpose of false ecumenism and false ecclesiology. They, the hierarchy admit it themselves. They were not approved by the Church. The example that I gave in my first post about communicatio in sacris and it's promotion by the hierarchy I.e not all I agree but most - would be enough to involve one in scandal. It is well known that it is a contravention of divine law condemned by the Church. It is not like the "una cum" issue where the status of "pope" is still a matter of opinion.
I would flee the SSPX - and so would every Traditional Catholic- if they published a bulletin permitting Orthodox to receive Communion. Note, I know not every Ukrainian parish is like this but in Canada and Eastern Europe it surely is, I mean not to offend, but what's in Ukraine is coming your way if it's not there already - in US Ukrainian parishes.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 22, 2017 16:53:48 GMT -5
I have one other point worth mentioning about inter-communion. The SSPX accepts the 1983 Code of canon law (Canon 844) which expressly allows validly baptized members of non-Catholic sects to go to Holy Communion at Catholic Churches. Conversely, it allows Catholics to receive communion at their churches.
I understand your issues with the eastern rites on this matter, but the criticism equally applies to SSPX and all who accept John Paul II as a legitimate Pope. The laws of the Church can never be evil, they must be good, so if he was Pope this law must be good and all Catholics must submit to it.
My former SSPX priest used to quote the 1983 Code like it was wonderful, and quoted modern "papal" documents, and of course prominently displayed in the Church was the picture of the "Pope," obviously making the point that he is clearly recognized at the chapel and those who go there as the Vicar of Christ. At least at the eastern rite I go to sometimes, I never see that, they never talk about the Nopes, or about ecumenism, or interfaith, or anything about Vatican II or the teaching of the Nopes. The picture of their Patriarch (not Francis the Fake) is in the cafeteria.
The priest's sermon is about the gospel, that's it. There is never talk about anything about Francis, Vatican II or other garbage. The priest is rock solid, he loves the Catholic Faith, no nonsense, no liberalism, no altar girls, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jun 22, 2017 18:21:15 GMT -5
Wenceslav, We discussed this matter in the Ukrainian Q and A thread, and this issue was never resolved with sources. I remember asking you what the practice was at the time Union of Brest, 1595, and from that time foward. You never provided any sources. The source you had provided proves that the Ukrainian rite pre-V2 used kneeling. Clotilde's source, and I might add that Fortesque is a highly reputable source on the liturgy, states that the practice in the east was standing for communion. Now, the onus is on you if you want to contradict Fortesque's statement. I look forward to seeing your sources that at the time of and before the publication of the book, 1912, that the practice was kneeling for communion in the east. No problem Pacelli, Note that the attached picture of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is from 1941, well before the Roman printing of the Ruthenian Recension Books which occurred by approx. 1946. In fact this Liturgy is the pre-War Liturgy since it still contains the Lavabo. It is based on the L'viv Liturgicon of 1905 . "The 1905 edition is the last edition that was universally issued by Ukrainian Catholics prior to the Holy See's edition in 1941." see Skcrincosky " The Liturgical Legislator in the Ukrainian Church" p.86. Therefore Fr. Fortescue is wrong at least with respect to the Ruthenians. And I have shown that kneeling for Holy Communion can be dated back to at least 1905. I will try to dig up the other reference. I avail myself of your patience. The issue is this: Yes, there are things in the Byzantine rites that are innovations, just as there are other unlawful practices. My point was that if we are going to make a good case against anything we need to support that case. With regard to kneeling, the Father Fortesque quote demonstrates that posture for reception of Holy Communion is changeable and therefore not an innovation. My point is that in arguing against any Byzantine rite for standing to recieve Holy Communion is a weak argument. It has historically changed in all rites over time and is therefore subject to change according to what the Church deems necessary. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater is what I am saying. Focus on specific, substantial arguments.
|
|