|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 28, 2017 15:39:51 GMT -5
This post is written to correct a false assumption by some that parishes in union with the antipope are by that fact automatically in union with the Conciliar sect.
Those that remain Catholic who are "under Francis" are by definition not part of the heretical Conciliar sect. It is a fact that countless Catholics who have failed to grasp the issues of this crisis have remained at least nominally under the antipopes.
It is also a fact that many parishes have not adopted the abominable Novus Ordo or some similar form of it. This fact is clear in all eastern rite parishes. Although some innovations can be found in some eastern rites, not even one of the 23 Catholic eastern rites have changed their liturgical rites into a radical novelty and break from the theology and liturgy of the Church as found in the Novus Ordo Missae.
This is further illustrated by the fact that in addition to the mass (Divine Liturgy) all eastern rite sacramental rites (baptism, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, penance and extreme unction) are completely intact and essentially unchanged.
With that said, the parishes of the Catholic Church that have kept the Faith remain legitimate canonical parishes of the Church. The grouping of Catholics in an assigned territory under a legitimate canonically appointed pastor constitute a parish. If some sectarians attend such a parish, then that fact would not mean the the parish as a whole sectarian. The few sectarians would be unlawful intruders at a Catholic liturgy.
The same principal applies to a diocese, the canonical diocese remains intact. The groupings of Catholics who live within the specific territories remain members of the diocese, even if the bishop has defected, and even if the rite is no longer Catholic. A Catholic cannot participate in the rites of heretics, and in many cases must not worship with a priest who is an undeclared heretic, so in almost all cases (if not all) Roman Rite Catholics must avoid their lawful parishes, and must withdraw from all men claiming to be their parish or diocesan authorities.
On the other hand, eastern rite eparchies (dioceses) did not adopt the new and uncatholic rites. Their eparchies and parishes remain intact, and publicly profess the Faith through the prayers of their public liturgies. Catholics remain united with each other through this common and public profession of Faith, and submission to lawful authority, and by this maintain the unity of Faith.
It is true that heretics and suspected heretics are present in the eastern rites. It is also certain that the greater majority of clergy and laity have given no public cause to suspect them of heresy, and therefore must be presumed innocent.
Even in cases where heresy may be suspected, as the person has given cause for suspicion, the person must not be presumed a heretic based only on grounds that cause a suspicion of heresy.
I contend that that these principles apply to most eastern Rite clerics who have allowed, participated in, or have condoned communicatio in sacris with schismatics. Such an act would make one suspect of heresy, but would not be conclusive evidence that one is a heretic.
With that said, I contend that the eparchies and parishes of the eastern rite are the public, lawful and authorized continuation of the the governance and authorized worship of the Catholic Church. They are not in toto part of the sect, and that presumption cannot be legitimately be formed against them. It is true that some members of the eastern rites may have embraced the sect, and by that fact are no longer Catholics. But, the evidence only indicts a small amount of bishops, priests and possibly laity. The vast majority must be presumed innocent, as there is no evidence to make a presumption of their guilt, and are living their Faith through the public and approved worship at their parish churches.
In my opinion, the visible unity of the Catholic Church has been maintained throughout this crisis in the eastern rites who profess the same true Faith, the same approved sacraments, and who have remained under their lawfully commissioned pastors within their eparchies.
There can be no doubt that the enemy is targeting this last holdout of hierarchical Catholicism, and the effects of this relentless attack are showing. Many eastern rites hierarchs and clerics are already heretics, some are flirting with heresy, and all are remaining silent in the face of it, even those who still firmly hold the true Faith, but are failing to defend it.
|
|
myrnam
Junior Member
100th Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by myrnam on Jul 28, 2017 16:47:51 GMT -5
I hope that I haven't broken any rules but I posted the link to your above on another forum. I haven't known much about the Eastern approved rites of the Church and found this info. interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 28, 2017 17:34:24 GMT -5
Anyone is free to post any thread that isnt a PM on any social media site they want. Use the address line on facebook and a nice professional looking link will appear.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 28, 2017 19:05:50 GMT -5
I hope that I haven't broken any rules but I posted the link to your above on another forum. I haven't known much about the Eastern approved rites of the Church and found this info. interesting. No problem Myrna. I have peeked in at the forum you are talking about. Mithrandylan, the forum moderator, is doing a very good job helping the folks on there understand these complex matters of the Faith.
|
|
myrnam
Junior Member
100th Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by myrnam on Jul 28, 2017 19:36:12 GMT -5
Anyone is free to post any thread that isnt a PM on any social media site they want. Use the address line on facebook and a nice professional looking link will appear. Thanks to both of you and I don't have Facebook. Not sure I can get the nice professional looking link, but now you have me curious to see it. lol!
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jul 30, 2017 17:07:57 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli, I agree with many of your points but I have serious reservations with the following paragraphs from your opening post: From your pt. i and ii above, I agree we have grounds for suspicion only, but it is definite grounds for scandal (i.e. communicatio in sacris) and consequently a danger to one's Faith and family -even if the priest or Bishop is not culpable, which in many cases is difficult to reconcile with the facts. In previous posts I have shown that its the official policy of the UGCC hierarchy from its own Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches (CCEO, Canon 671)and official documents (i.e. Ecumenical Conceptions of the UGCC - see link here, p. 66. -, signed by Pat. Svjatoslav and his synod). And this sanctioned sacrilege is promoted by the most authoritative voice of the UGCC. (see link here, p. 10, section 8.3). Moreover, all the eparchies in the US also sanction this same sacrilege in an official document, Pastoral Guide of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the USA (see here, p. 132 Art. 560). Although not directly related to this topic, the document also discusses the sanction and use of lay extraordinary ministers for Holy Communion - another scandal as well. WRT your pt. iii, I respectfully disagree. I will summarize below. As I stated in previous posts: The post-underground hierarchs in Ukraine (after 1990 AD) were all imbued with the Spirit of Vatican II and implemented changes to the Liturgy and Faith for their Modernist superiors in Rome (i.e. JPII). Makes sense since why would the heretics appoint good Catholics that would later oppose them. These include the vernacular for the Liturgy instead of Church Slavonic, the use of the Teplota (i.e. boiling water added to the chalice before communion of the celebrants) suppressed by the Synod of Zamosc. This latter issue of the Teplota can also effect the validity of the Liturgy. I will post more about this point if you want. Suppression of kneeling during the liturgy and reception of Holy Communion etc. The use of extraordinary ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion. The abandonment of compulsory Clerical Celibacy which was being phased in Ukraine and Eastern Europe before the liquidation of the UGCC by the Communists. The acceptance of " Orthodox saints" into the official UGCC calendar i.e. " St. Photius", " St. Gregory Palamas" all to become more like the Orthodox - in addition to the abandonment of the classical Catholic Ecclesiology of St. Robert Bellarmine and Pope Pius XII. Hence the sacrilege of Communicatio in Sacris. Note, that these changes were put in place by a false "pope" and a false council for the purpose of leading the UGCC into schism. With respect to the liturgical disciplines etc., they were once tolerated by the Church i.e. infallibly safe. But are they not evil reforms when implemented for the purposes of leading good Catholics astray, away from Church - a form of the false archaeologism condemned by Pope Pius XII. It would be as if Latin Rite Catholics would start receiving the Holy Eucharist under the species of bread and wine to placate Utraquist heretics. Both methods of the reception of the Holy Eucharist are quite orthodox, but it would be intrinsically evil to receive under both species as an ecumenical gesture to heretics. A true Catholic would not agree with what the enemy has done, yet it is this same hierarchy that is promoting all of the above. That is why a couple hundred thousand people support the Society of St. Josaphat in Ukraine and refuse to participate in their previously local parish. If any hierarchs of the Ukrainian Church are still Catholic, we should rejoice, but we know where this is all heading very quickly - heresy and schism.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 30, 2017 17:43:11 GMT -5
Wenceslav,
All of your points are covered in the OP. The eastern rites are bigger than the Ukrainian rite, which is only one of 23.
I was clear in stating, "It is true that heretics and suspected heretics are present in the eastern rites. It is also certain that the greater majority of clergy and laity have given no public cause to suspect them of heresy, and therefore must be presumed innocent."
Are you arguing that we can make certain judgments that the hierarchies of all of the 23 eastern rites are heretics, and by that fact have lost their office? Do you even contend that most fall into this category? I have conceded that some can reasonably be accused of heresy, and some, (perhaps many) could be suspected of heresy.
But what you appear to be arguing since you disagree is that all or at least most are heretics, and by that outside the Church and by that no longer office holders in the Church. If you believe that, then I would urge you to prove your case. If you don't believe that, then we agree, not disagree.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jul 30, 2017 19:06:53 GMT -5
hi Pacelli,
I apologize, I quickly read your article and made a wrong conclusion. In my response I was talking about the Ukrainian Catholics and associated Churches i.e. Ruthenian, Hungarian etc. Although demographically the Ukes et al. make up a strong majority of the entire Eastern Church in communion with Rome. I don't know enough about the others (Maronites, Melkites etc) to come to a conclusion. However, WRT to the Ukrainians et al. I certainly believe that many(if not most) of the Ukr. hierarchs should be avoided and great care should be taken when choosing a parish in that hierarch's eparchy to attend the Divine Liturgy. I don't have authority to condemn anyone a heretic but I would definitely suspect that a given bishop is a heretic, if the documents like the ones I referenced above in my post are promoted in a given eparchy -which is the case throughout the UGCC in Ukraine.
For example, the UGCC is currently discussing reunion plans with a break-away eparchy of the UAOC (Kharkhiv-Poltava) and indications are that the new eparchy will remain "Orthodox" and be in communion with UGCC, Constantinople and Rome. It will practice a false union that they claim will resemble the 1st millennium relationship with the Papacy. I can't see how such people planning such a "Church" can be Catholics. They all acknowledge the Eastern Code etc and other official documents. When is the breaking point short of personally interviewing each prelate for their opinion on relevant Catholic issues. They certainly should be avoided and do not represent the Catholic Church as best as I can see in my limited knowledge as a simple layman.
I always look at Card. Siri as a comparison. He might have served the "Novus Ordo Mass", reluctantly, through obedience but there is no indication of any heterodoxy in his writings. He was a Catholic. These prelates on the other hand serve a valid D.L. but don't have the Faith as evidenced through their writings and their activities in the greater UGCC or their personal eparchies. I mean if it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, its a ......... Or at the very least should be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 30, 2017 19:48:45 GMT -5
hi Pacelli, I apologize, I quickly read your article and made a wrong conclusion. In my response I was talking about the Ukrainian Catholics and associated Churches i.e. Ruthenian, Hungarian etc. Although demographically the Ukes et al. make up a strong majority of the entire Eastern Church in communion with Rome. I don't know enough about the others (Maronites, Melkites etc) to come to a conclusion. However, WRT to the Ukrainians et al. I certainly believe that many(if not most) of the Ukr. hierarchs should be avoided and great care should be taken when choosing a parish in that hierarch's eparchy to attend the Divine Liturgy. I don't have authority to condemn anyone a heretic but I would definitely suspect that a given bishop is a heretic, if the documents like the ones I referenced above in my post are promoted in a given eparchy -which is the case throughout the UGCC in Ukraine. For example, the UGCC is currently discussing reunion plans with a break-away eparchy of the UAOC (Kharkhiv-Poltava) and indications are that the new eparchy will remain "Orthodox" and be in communion with UGCC, Constantinople and Rome. It will practice a false union that they claim will resemble the 1st millennium relationship with the Papacy. I can't see how such people planning such a "Church" can be Catholics. They all acknowledge the Eastern Code etc and other official documents. When is the breaking point short of personally interviewing each prelate for their opinion on relevant Catholic issues. They certainly should be avoided and do not represent the Catholic Church as best as I can see in my limited knowledge as a simple layman. I always look at Card. Siri as a comparison. He might have served the "Novus Ordo Mass", reluctantly, through obedience but there is no indication of any heterodoxy in his writings. He was a Catholic. These prelates on the other handed serve a valid D.L. but don't have the Faith as evidenced through their writings and their activities in the greater UGCC or their personal eparchies. I mean if it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, its a ......... Or at the very least should be avoided. Hi Wenceslav, It seems that we may be talking about different things. It's one thing to talk about whether one should go to a particular eastern rite parish, and another thing to make a judgment against them for public heresy and defection of the Faith. In this thread, I am only dealing with the latter question. I am aware of the dangers present at some eastern rite parishes, and have publicly said so, see HERE for example. I have agreed with you that the problems you have described are very serious. I have also said that some eastern rite bishops may be accused of heresy, and some suspected of it. When I say "suspect," I am not using the term loosely, I am applying it in the usage of canon law which gives specific offenses that make one a suspect of heresy, see HEREThere are many smaller eastern rites that we know very little about, some make no presence through a diaspora, and are only existing in their homelands. Some eastern rites are huge like the Ukrainians, and they have a massive presence in the west, and perhaps that's why we know so much about them. I believe that all of the eastern rites, large and small are a target, and to the extent that they have preserved their Faith in the face of the highly aggressive Vatican II sect is in my opinion miraculous. In my opinion, the faithful eastern rites, whether it's an entire rite with its hierachy, of whether it's just some particular faithful bishops, are the last ordinaries left on earth that are actually teaching, governing and sanctifying their flocks. The Roman rite with all of its dioceses has defected into false worship and heretical beliefs. There may be some old bishops in retirement homes with legitimate claims to offices, but they are not using those offices. The eastern rite bishops who have not defected, with their legitimate and certainly valid sacraments are the last vestige of the Church of all ages, with bishops teaching, sanctifying and governing their flocks identically to all other successors of the apostles in every other age of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by kim on Aug 2, 2017 2:10:58 GMT -5
We have a Byzantine priest here who has con-celebrated the Novus Ordo Mass several times with a local Novus Ordo parish priest. I wonder if his presence possibly makes the Mass valid.
If an Eastern rite Catholic church were to declare the sedevacantist position , deny Vat 2 and separate themselves from Rome, how would they be different from a non-Catholic Eastern rite church?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 2, 2017 5:14:11 GMT -5
The ducks hold many heresys so the sede Catholic Byzanteens would still be Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 2, 2017 13:05:02 GMT -5
We have a Byzantine priest here who has con-celebrated the Novus Ordo Mass several times with a local Novus Ordo parish priest. I wonder if his presence possibly makes the Mass valid. If an Eastern rite Catholic church were to declare the sedevacantist position , deny Vat 2 and separate themselves from Rome, how would they be different from a non-Catholic Eastern rite church? I doubt it would make the Novus Ordo valid, for the same reasons as validity was doubted when validly ordained Roman rite priests said it. There are reasonable grounds for suspecting the validity of the Novus Ordo rite itself, irrespective of the validity of the priest's holy orders. If eastern rite priests declared the See vacant, they would be in an identical situation as the Roman rite priests of the 70's who were, sedevacantist or not, distancing themselves from the sect and no longer obeying. What we need are legitimate bishops to recognize that there is no Pope, that we are in sedevacante, and to use their God-given offices to call forth all remaining bishops and clerics of Rome who will courageously come forth to form an imperfect council and elect a Pope. While every priest who comes forth, recognizes, and acts upon the truth that public heretics can't be popes is to be commended, it is the hierarchical bishops and clerics of Rome that have the real power to end this crisis any time they want. They have the power, they are just disoriented.
|
|
|
Post by kim on Aug 3, 2017 7:41:14 GMT -5
We have a Byzantine priest here who has con-celebrated the Novus Ordo Mass several times with a local Novus Ordo parish priest. I wonder if his presence possibly makes the Mass valid. If an Eastern rite Catholic church were to declare the sedevacantist position , deny Vat 2 and separate themselves from Rome, how would they be different from a non-Catholic Eastern rite church? I doubt it would make the Novus Ordo valid, for the same reasons as validity was doubted when validly ordained Roman rite priests said it. There are reasonable grounds for suspecting the validity of the Novus Ordo rite itself, irrespective of the validity of the priest's holy orders. If eastern rite priests declared the See vacant, they would be in an identical situation as the Roman rite priests of the 70's who were, sedevacantist or not, distancing themselves from the sect and no longer obeying. What we need are legitimate bishops to recognize that there is no Pope, that we are in sedevacante, and to use their God-given offices to call forth all remaining bishops and clerics of Rome who will courageously come forth to form an imperfect council and elect a Pope. While every priest who comes forth, recognizes, and acts upon the truth that public heretics can't be popes is to be commended, it is the hierarchical bishops and clerics of Rome that have the real power to end this crisis any time they want. They have the power, they are just disoriented. So do you believe the priests and bishops of the Vatican 2 sect are valid and have that "power?" Or just the Eastern rite ones?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 3, 2017 10:04:34 GMT -5
I doubt it would make the Novus Ordo valid, for the same reasons as validity was doubted when validly ordained Roman rite priests said it. There are reasonable grounds for suspecting the validity of the Novus Ordo rite itself, irrespective of the validity of the priest's holy orders. If eastern rite priests declared the See vacant, they would be in an identical situation as the Roman rite priests of the 70's who were, sedevacantist or not, distancing themselves from the sect and no longer obeying. What we need are legitimate bishops to recognize that there is no Pope, that we are in sedevacante, and to use their God-given offices to call forth all remaining bishops and clerics of Rome who will courageously come forth to form an imperfect council and elect a Pope. While every priest who comes forth, recognizes, and acts upon the truth that public heretics can't be popes is to be commended, it is the hierarchical bishops and clerics of Rome that have the real power to end this crisis any time they want. They have the power, they are just disoriented. So do you believe the priests and bishops of the Vatican 2 sect are valid and have that "power?" Or just the Eastern rite ones? If a priest is a member of a sect, he is by that fact not a member of the Church. You can't be a member of both at the same time, they are mutually exclusive. Roman rite priests who have not defected, who were ordained and sent lawfully by their bishops prior to the change in rites, most certainly remain in their offices, and if they had lawful faculties retain them. Eastern Rite priests who have not defected also remain in their offices.
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Sept 3, 2017 5:20:12 GMT -5
This post is written to correct a false assumption by some that parishes in union with the antipope are by that fact automatically in union with the Conciliar sect. Those that remain Catholic who are "under Francis" are by definition not part of the heretical Conciliar sect. It is a fact that countless Catholics who have failed to grasp the issues of this crisis have remained at least nominally under the antipopes. It is also a fact that many parishes have not adopted the abominable Novus Ordo or some similar form of it. This fact is clear in all eastern rite parishes. Although some innovations can be found in some eastern rites, not even one of the 23 Catholic eastern rites have changed their liturgical rites into a radical novelty and break from the theology and liturgy of the Church as found in the Novus Ordo Missae. This is further illustrated by the fact that in addition to the mass (Divine Liturgy) all eastern rite sacramental rites (baptism, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, penance and extreme unction) are completely intact and essentially unchanged. With that said, the parishes of the Catholic Church that have kept the Faith remain legitimate canonical parishes of the Church. The grouping of Catholics in an assigned territory under a legitimate canonically appointed pastor constitute a parish. If some sectarians attend such a parish, then that fact would not mean the the parish as a whole sectarian. The few sectarians would be unlawful intruders at a Catholic liturgy. The same principal applies to a diocese, the canonical diocese remains intact. The groupings of Catholics who live within the specific territories remain members of the diocese, even if the bishop has defected, and even if the rite is no longer Catholic. A Catholic cannot participate in the rites of heretics, and in many cases must not worship with a priest who is an undeclared heretic, so in almost all cases (if not all) Roman Rite Catholics must avoid their lawful parishes, and must withdraw from all men claiming to be their parish or diocesan authorities. On the other hand, eastern rite eparchies (dioceses) did not adopt the new and uncatholic rites. Their eparchies and parishes remain intact, and publicly profess the Faith through the prayers of their public liturgies. Catholics remain united with each other through this common and public profession of Faith, and submission to lawful authority, and by this maintain the unity of Faith. It is true that heretics and suspected heretics are present in the eastern rites. It is also certain that the greater majority of clergy and laity have given no public cause to suspect them of heresy, and therefore must be presumed innocent. Even in cases where heresy may be suspected, as the person has given cause for suspicion, the person must not be presumed a heretic based only on grounds that cause a suspicion of heresy. I contend that that these principles apply to most eastern Rite clerics who have allowed, participated in, or have condoned communicatio in sacris with schismatics. Such an act would make one suspect of heresy, but would not be conclusive evidence that one is a heretic. With that said, I contend that the eparchies and parishes of the eastern rite are the public, lawful and authorized continuation of the the governance and authorized worship of the Catholic Church. They are not in toto part of the sect, and that presumption cannot be legitimately be formed against them. It is true that some members of the eastern rites may have embraced the sect, and by that fact are no longer Catholics. But, the evidence only indicts a small amount of bishops, priests and possibly laity. The vast majority must be presumed innocent, as there is no evidence to make a presumption of their guilt, and are living their Faith through the public and approved worship at their parish churches. In my opinion, the visible unity of the Catholic Church has been maintained throughout this crisis in the eastern rites who profess the same true Faith, the same approved sacraments, and who have remained under their lawfully commissioned pastors within their eparchies. There can be no doubt that the enemy is targeting this last holdout of hierarchical Catholicism, and the effects of this relentless attack are showing. Many eastern rites hierarchs and clerics are already heretics, some are flirting with heresy, and all are remaining silent in the face of it, even those who still firmly hold the true Faith, but are failing to defend it. Hello Pacelli, I think that your theory answers several objections that R&R Catholics would have against the sedevacantist position. I see that you haven't used the term "common error" in your explanation. Do you believe that the ordinary jurisdiction that the Eastern Rites possess comes to them through common error?
|
|