www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Former Byzantine Catholic Monastery received into Orthodox Faith

[Anyway Orthoman, I doubt that you would sleep through it; somehow I imagine you are more liklely to be at its center!]

Another compliment djs?

OrthoMan

Has this thread become the equivalent of a "pissing contest"?? Let's get back to real issues.

Dear Brian,

Quite right!

I just hate it when some use up space here to do things like that . . . oops, why is my nose growing so suddenly?

Alex

Dearest Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters and all,

I have not been to this forum in quite a long time. Though I have stayed updated on Byzantine Catholic issues. I found this particular post interesting because the monastery in question is in my city, and very close to my home. While I do not claim to know the exact reason why the monastery became Orthodox,I can however offer my own insights. This partcular monastery was in the news heavily in Miami several years back because of terrible allegations and events occuring on campus grounds, I will not go into details, if you wish, search for the news articles about the incidents yourselves. In any case, after these unfortunate events occured, enrollment at the school plummeted (according to news services). This combined with possible feelings of ostracism from church officials (as some on this thread have stated) might have added to the decision to leave the Church. And from another prospective, Byzantine Catholics largely believe that Orthodoxy is a pure form of Christianity and would not have too hard of a time leaving their Catholic (Papal) heritage and accepting fully their Orthodox (Conciliar)heritage. Note that this is not to say conversion is easy for anyone. But being theologically similar and certainly outrightly in practice almost the same, one would imagine that conversion to Orthodoxy for Byzatines would be more comfortable, lets say, than converting to evangelical Protestantism. I would welcome any insights to this post, especially regarding conversion. So please right back.

In Gesu et Maria,

ProCatholico

Glory to Jesus Christ!
I have been away for purposes of work, so I have missed most of this thread. But I really despise SSPX-bashing. The fact is, like this monastery that has decided to break communion with Rome, there are many Latin-rite Catholics who are very conflicted about this Pontiff, Vatican II, etc., and all I get from the most vocal of posters on this thread is "Swallow up your doubts AND OBEY!". It is perfectly alright to become the most livid anti-Catholic Orthodox, who considers the Pope a heretic for adding a word to the Creed, but if one wants to be faithful to the Latin Church without altar girls, Communion in the hand, a Mass invented by pie-in-the-sky liturgists, then these people are schismatic???! I just don't understand all of you. When it comes o the SSPX, this is the only time that anyone will ever say: "OBEY!". If find it all a bit ridiculous.
I think many of the posters have been burned by Latin integrists, and for that reason have been very uncharitable towards Ben. But I have only had the BEST experiences with the SSPX, one year as a lay-oblate and another two years as a seminarian. If I am not with them now, it is because I think they are too narrow and stubborn on many issues, but I still regard them as Catholics in the fullest sense of the word and have known a great many living saints (many of whom are my friends) among them. I serve and sing an SSPX Mass many times a month, but do not receive Communion for the same reason I cannot receive Communion at an Orthodox Church, though I judge neither as being schismatic.

As for the relations with the Pope, I can say that we chanted weekly in seminary the following:

"Oremus pro Ponifice nostro Ioanne Paulo. Dominus conservet eum et vivificet eum et beatum faciat eum in terra. Et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius."

The fact is, the Pope wants reconciliation with the SSPX as much as he wants reconciliation with the Orthodox. I find it hard to believe that he can be so harsh with them when he is so benevolent with anyone else simply because this is "his schism", that is, one that happened during his pontificate. How could all of you think of His Holiness as being so tyrranical? If he has not unilaterraly forgiven the SSPX, it has been for political reasons (problems with the French episcopate, who hate the SSPX with a passion and see it as a threat to their power). Do you seriously think the Pope thinks that the faithful of the SSPX are going to hell because they are not being obedient towards him? I ask you to stop being his guard dogs. In this, I think many have shown themselves as "more Catholic than the Pope."
I do not ask that you accept the SSPX position. I only ask that you understand it and not anathamatize it. Like these monks that turned Orthodox, they show that there is a great deal of confusion in the Catholic Church, and few can be blamed for taking steps that we see as incorrect. Just because you have found a way to understand all that is going on in the Church, this doesn't mean that you can judge others who have not. For some, all the liturgical and doctrinal abuses of the everyday American church are too much to handle and inexplicable. If they have to go to the SSPX to find refuge where no other place is available, who is to blame them? Not even the Vatican claims to do so, so why do you? All I ask is that you use some "oekonomia" in this regard.

Arturo

Arturo:


I agree with you that outright bashing of religious groups (in this case the SSPX) is unwarranted. I do however agree with constructive arguments and simultaneous rebuttals from both sides of an argument. You stated I just want to point out that it has not been revealed with certainty that the monastery in question left because it conflicted with the Pope or Rome. That is not to say however that the conflict with Rome or the papacy wasn't a reason why they elected to leave the Church but it certainly did not seem to be the main point of their leaving in this case. You also state that you have had good experiences with the SSPX, that is great, but also respect the fact that some others have not had the same relations with SSPX and it members as you have. The Roman Catholic Church position is that the Orthodox churches are not schismatics, I respect that. The Church also says that the SSPX is schismatic and I obey the Church, but that does not mean I bash SSPX. They (SSPX) think, and they'd say, that they know what they teach is right, and I respect them. But in that same light I would hope that the SSPX wouldnt bash Roman Catholics who disagree with them. To do so is uncharitable. Again one may have disagreements and discuss them constructively but please dont resort to name-calling and insults. Catholics view the Pope as the visible head of the Church, therefore he is warranted in his opposition to groups that damn his teachings, teachings which, as pope, have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. We all seem to forget this at times. Many here do understand the SSPX, and for that very reason oppose them. Like I've said, personally I respect those members and priests of the SSPX but I do not agree with their position BUT this does not entitle me to bsh them. Arturo I ask you to use "oekonomia" yourself when understanding the Roman Catholic Church today, you dont have to agree with her at all but please respect her and her members.

ProCatholico

It is difficult to say if Urban's comment is
"ex cathedra." Certainly, it employs similar
language, BUT given that "ex catehdra" as such
itself was not articulated until 1870, it is
hard to know how to apply this standard
retroactively. Of coruse, IC in 1854 is lumped
in becasue it was under the same pope. Also, I
realize that papal declarations supposedly only
define what has already been believed, so on this\
standard, from an RC point of view, infallibility
was "true" before 1870. Still, it is hard to
say if we can assume that Urban would have been
allowed by the Holy Spirit to say what he did if
the statements of 1870 had already been made.

As far as the view of one must be "in the
Catholic church to be saved," you are correct
that Vatican II did not overturn this teaching
as such. However, clarification (development)
is given to it. Anyone baptized under Trinitarian
fromula is in a sense "in the Cahtolic church,"
though perhaps imperfectly. (I.e. they do not
acknowledge or understand this inclusion).
Even htose not baptized MAY be included under a
baptism of desire, though only God can know this.
But both teachings are Patristic, since
catechumens could be considered martyrs if they
died, and Stephen made it clear to Cyprian
that anyone bpatized even by schismatics should
not be rebaptized.

Melkman