www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News SSPX and the Eastern Catholic Churches

Dear Friends,

Recently, the SSPX criticized papal authority over certain "policy" issues of the Catholic Church and an impasse in talks seems to have occurred, even though the Vatican is still keeping the doors open to them.

Some have called us a "bridge for the East."

Could we also be a "bridge for the West" with respect to the Tridentine Rite in the Church?

Although we are ritually closer to the Tridentine Rite than the Novus Ordo, it seems to me that we could not be further apart in terms of ecclesial outlook.

Do you think the Tridentine Catholics look upon us with suspicion and distrust?

Why or why not?

Alex

Alex,

All I can do is speak from my experience with Tridentine Catholics and I must say that it is not good.

I have commented to them, when they insist on calling the Eastern Catholic Churches. the Eastern rite of the Catholic Church.

I tell them that we are Churches in our own right, not just rites, they say that it is just semantics, political terms to appease those of the Eastern rites, that it really changes nothing.

They seem to have a hard time seeing the One True Church as a collection of Churches, it is either One Church or it isn't.

They seem to think anything other than the Tridentine Latin Mass is inferior and lacking.

That the Latin language is something special. In my opinion, they border on superstition here, like God only understand Latin, or it is some sort of magical language.

I do not think that they look upon us with suspicion and distrust, but as inferior catholics.


David

Dear David,

Then I would rather they look upon us with distrust!

Alex

Alex,

As a Latin who has a special place in his heart for the Tridentine Rite, as it was instrumental in bringing me back to the Church, I can say that an unfortunately significant number of "traditionalists", both SSPX-type folks and "indults", look upon the Eastern churches with suspiscion, especially those who are actively reclaiming their ethnic/cultural traditions in regards to liturgy and prayer. For many of them, the changes that have occurred after Vatican II encourage a reactionary response to anything that is different from pre-conciliar LATIN tradition. And I've found that my response to such a mindset shows me just how much at home I'm beginning to feel in the Byzantine tradition.

Case in point. Yesterday, I received a copy of "The Latin Mass" magazine (apparently after requesting a free sample copy I've been given a subscription!). The first story was a critique of the movement within the Latin rite for a married priesthood. While it started off as a reiteration of the Western rule of clerical celibacy and the reasoning behind this tradition, it degenerated quickly into an anti-Vatican II polemical. The impression I got was that even discussing the issue was tantamount to heresy and such discussion was only one part of the vast conspiracy to "demasculate" the priesthood. It even blasted the permanent diaconate. As I was reading it, I found myself getting more upset as absoultely no mention of the Eastern churches was made; not one line was written about the long standing tradition of a married CATHOLIC clergy in Eastern Europe. I actually ended up grumbling at a piece of glossy paper so loudly that my roommate came in from the other room to ask what was upsetting me so! I launched into a diatribe AGAINST mandatory clerical celibacy, something I most definitely would not have done a year ago! I didn't know I had it in me!

Traditionalists often look upon the documents of Vatican 2 with suspicion. For many of them, that Council should not have happened and anything that came out of it is suspect. The fact that the Council issued the Decree on the Eastern Churches makes the subjects of that decree suspect, as if Vatican 2 CREATED the Eastern churches as opposed to encouraging something that was already there!

Of course, much of this suspicion stems from sheer ignorance. But some people seem to enjoy living that way. As in everything, education is the key to understanding.

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Mikey,

How absolutely fascinating!!

I guess for some Tridentines, an "Eastern Catholic" is a Roman Catholic who lives geographically east of wherever they happen to be standing .

It is interesting that, ultramontanist tendencies notwithstanding, there is a Tridentine Orthodox Rite.

I wonder why there is no Orthodox Novus Ordo Rite - at least not among the canonical Orthodox Churches.

But could there be?

Alex

[ 06-12-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Mikey,
I wonder if you have experienced this.

Whenever I try to teach a bit about the Eastern Catholic Churches and traditions the Tridentine Catholics automatically assume that I am saying that the way they do things is wrong and that only we have it right.

They seem to not be able to grasp the differences in approach to theology and philosophy. They think, One Church, One theology, One tradition.

You said, "Of course, much of this suspicion stems from sheer ignorance. But some people seem to enjoy living that way. As in everything, education is the key to understanding."

Which I agree with, but along with their ignorance, they appear to have such closed minds, as if they know the whole Truth, and there is nothing left for them to learn.


Alex,
Is there really a "Tridentine Orthodox Rite"?

Isn't it just Byzantine rite with a Tridentine Liturgy? They have modified the Litrugy by adding a Byzantine type Epiclesis.

From my contact with some Western Rite Orthodox, they use the Sarum Mass, they seem to be fully Eastern in their theology and tradition.

As for an Orthodox Novus Ordo Rite, no I do not think this could/should be.

For as Metropolitan Nicholas said in his address at the Orientale Lumen conference, "But I think it is vital to remember that as we look back on the creation of the Unia - in all its manifestations - it is fair to say that the political, cultural, and social upheavals that caused the emergence of the Eastern Catholic churches no longer exist."

So if the conditions that caused the creation of the Unia no longer exists, then doesn't the same go for the Orthodox? For aren't the Orthodox Western Rites just a form of reverse-Unia?


Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear Alex (and others?)

I would like to ask a couple of questions seeking understanding, if I might.

What are the reasons that led you you to reach this conclusion:

"Although we are ritually closer to the Tridentine Rite than the Novus Ordo, ...."

By Tridentine Rite do you mean SSPX when you talk about being ritually closer to the Tridentine Rite? Do you mean the Tridentine Rite of Liturgical Celebration which, is one of the Liturgical Celebrations available for use in the Latin Catholic Church?

Do you think personally think that there could be an Orthodox Novus Ordo Rite - among the canonical Orthodox Churches?. If you do think that there could be, what would it take to get there?

That certainly seems to be an idea that is outside most of our thinking boxes, doesn't it?

Thanks, as always for your thoughts and insights.

Steve

[ 06-12-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Dear David,

Excellent post, Big Guy!

I want to address the two major points you raise.

The Western Rites of Orthodoxy are truly Western - please bear with me for a moment.

I attended one of their conferences to see for myself, in this instance, the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

They have two Rites, one Tridentine, the other Anglican or "Rite of St Tykhon" blessed by the Patriarch of Antioch himself.

In terms of the Epiclesis, this is an issue that came up in the 19th century among Russian Orthodox who were reviewing the Tridentine Liturgy.

They (correctly) stated that the Liturgy once HAD an epiclesis that slowly disappeared. They found older examples of the Liturgy of St Peter and could actually reconstruct at which point the Epiclesis was inserted (following the words concerning the taking of the Offering by the Angel up to God etc.).

They actually put it to the Latin Catholic Church that it should restore the Epiclesis.

The Orthodox version of the Tridentine Liturgy certainly does restore the Epiclesis. There are, however, some western Liturgies that have no epiclesis, never did, but that is a separate issue.

The Western Rite Orthodox practice Western Rite spirituality. They even have statues (Our Lady of Walsingham was one I saw) and rosaries and Stations of the Cross.

"So does my local Ukrainian CAtholic parish," you might say by way of rejoinder.

But someone by Fr. Schneirla of the Antiochian Western Rite Deanery is totally committed to Western Orthodox spirituality.

That these Western Riters are more grounded in patristics than their Roman confreres is not "Byzantinization" but a going back to the common sources of the undivided Faith and Church prior to 1054 AD.

They do cross themselves using three fingers. But that is the way the ENTIRE Church used to make the Sign of the Cross - the whole hand in the West came about much later and that by a mistake made by the laity in imitating the priest blessing the people.

The use of icons? Again, a common Western Church practice prior to the split.

Iconostases? The Church in England called them "Rood Screens" or "Cross Screens" and the Sarum Rite had the priest distribute Communion at the Royal Doors underneath the Cross on top of the screen.

I have come across converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy who are almost violently against the Western Rites. My Anglican convert friend is one of them.

The argument that these are somehow "Uniatism in reverse" is rather ridiculous, however.

No one is imposing Western Rite Orthodoxy on anyone, as was often the case with the various "Unions" with groups of Eastern Christians in history.

Western Rite Orthodox groups are encouraged to foster their Particular spiritualities by the Eastern Patriarchs under whose Omophorion they are.

Some Western Rite Orthodox are enamoured with the Eastern Church, just as there are Eastern Catholics who love their Latinizations. And so what?

My convert friend is violently against the Rite of St Tikhon because it reminds him of his bad experiences within Anglicanism that he has condemned wholesle, Lock, Stock and Barrel.

The very idea that the Anglican or Roman Rites that the converts have left behind could be as "Orthodox" as the Eastern spiritual culture that they have identified with Orthodoxy as a whole is a truly frightening enterprise.

But they will get over it in time.

If not, you'll find them finally returning to their mother churches in the end.

Their fear is just a mask for their pain they continue to repress involving their continuing love for their former churches.

Alex

David,

Yes! It is unnerving at how "hardline" traditionalists can become, so hardline to almost take a Protestant stance on things. We Catholics and Orthodox have long used "not either/or but both/and" to explain theological principles to our Protestant brethren. Yet I've come across folks who insist the 1950s era Latin way is the ONLY way. Any other way would, in their minds, by definition, mean that their way is wrong. The whole concept of "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity" seems lost on them. They can't seem to get past the externals and look at the underlying belief.

One of the dangers we are told to avoid is allowing external expressions of our faith to become habit. We should always know what we are doing when we are doing it and why we are doing it. I find that this caveat is one that is not heeded among many Westerners. Indeed, some Protestants are so afraid of externals that they go out of their way to completely internalize their faith and some Catholics are so afraid of internals that their faith becomes completely external! How sad it is for these people who are afraid to use everything the Blessed Lord gave us to express their faith!

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Steve,

By "Closer" I mean this in terms of external ritual.

The Tridentine Liturgy is "closer" to the Byzantine Rite than is the Novus Ordo in terms of outward rituals - is it not?

I don't know about the differences between the SSPX and the Tridentine Indult issues - I assume the two are very similar if not exactly.

There are so independent churches in the U.S. that call themselves "Orthodox Catholic" who have appropriated the Novus Ordo liturgy. The editors of the magazine "Orthodox Catholic" are among them.

As for the canonical Orthodox mainstream, there is no such Novus Ordo Orthodox Rite.

When Pope Paul VI shared his plans to introduce the Novus Ordo, I understand some Eastern Patriarchs begged him not to.

Orthodox liturgists have also critiqued the Novus Ordo on general liturgical principles, as has Alexander Schmemann.

But if, for example, the RC and Orthodox Churches announce their immediate reunification suddenly next week , I can't imagine that the use of the Novus Ordo by the majority of the Latin Church would pose a barrier to such reunification plans from the point of view of the Orthodox.

As long as, of course, no Orthodox get any ideas of trying it out in the East . . .

Alex

Dear Mikey,

You've hit on an important point in terms of the CAtholic-Protestant dynamic.

It was Alexander Schmemann who said that when it came to the Eucharist, Catholics and Protestant each got it half-right.

The Protestants insisted on viewing the Eucharist as "Symbolic." And Orthodoxy agrees with them.

This is why the Communion bread is leavened as it symbolizes the "Risen" Christ and why the wine is always red as it symbolizes true blood.

Catholics insisted on the "Real Presence" of the Eucharist. And Orthodoxy agrees with them as well without seeing "Real Presence" as a contradiction of "Symbolic."

In the Greek tradition, something that is "symbolic" points to a reality, represents it, in fact.

But, in order to so do, it must be part of the reality so that it may truly re-present it.

So both Eucharistic views complement one another in Orthodoxy, rather than mutually exclude one another.

The same holds true for the point you raised and others.

Alex

Alex,
I have some further comments for you....

Excellent post, Big Guy!

Thanks for the compliment, I think you guys are starting to rub off on me. I have been working to improve myself here.

The Western Rites of Orthodoxy are truly Western - please bear with me for a moment.

I attended one of their conferences to see for myself, in this instance, the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Ok, I will give you this one, the Antiochian Orthodox Western Rites are truly Western, but are all of them?

I know the Milan Synod, I know they are not canonically Orthodox (but they disagree with that), seem to be a bit more Eastern in thought than Western. They use the Sarum Rite.


The issue of the "restored Epiclesis", statutes and icons, iconostases, sign of the cross seem problematic to me.

There are a lot of traditions of the past, I am unsure if just proving something was done a certain way in the distant past qualifies as still being a part of that tradition today. What with all the changes and the reasons for those changes over the intervening centuries.

The argument that these are somehow "Uniatism in reverse" is rather ridiculous, however.

No one is imposing Western Rite Orthodoxy on anyone, as was often the case with the various "Unions" with groups of Eastern Christians in history.

To a degree, I agree with you here, Orthodoxy is/did not impose Western Rite Orthodoxy on anyone, but they did set up a competing structure from the Roman Catholic Church.


Western Rite Orthodox groups are encouraged to foster their Particular spiritualities by the Eastern Patriarchs under whose Omophorion they are.

Is this true, isn't part of the spirituality of the west the primacy of the pope?

Just as we are not true Orthodox because we acknowledge the primacy of the pope are the Western Rite Orthodox truly Western Rite when they deny this?


Your brother in Christ,
David

+JMJ+

Alex:

I cannot speak for all Latin Rite Catholics who choose the Missal of Pope St. Pius V (commonly called Tridentine) over the Missal fo Pope Paul VI (commonly called Novus Ordo), but I can speak for myself.

I do not view Eastern Catholics with suspician. Overwelmingly, the Eastern Catholics have been especially good allies to people such as myself. Before the indult was allowed in 1988, many traditional Latin Riters attended Eastern Rite Churches to avoid having to see the horrors of the liturgical abuses (such as Communion in the hand, persistant use of Eucharistic Ministers, and female altar servers) taking place in many churches that were using the Novus Ordo Mass.

There is an ignorance among followers of the Traditional Latin Rite as to the Eastern Churches. IF YOU DON'T WANT THIS TO CONTINUE, THAN I SUGGEST YOU GOT OFF YOUR DUFFS, MOVE AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER SCREEN AND GO EDUCATE SOME PEOPLE. I have had so many people accuse me of being ignorant (this was before I came here) of the Eastern Churches. Well if there was no Eastern Catholic to tell me of the Eastern Churches how was I supposed to know.

The SSPX is no longer under penalty. I think it was Cardinal Ratzinger that said that those attend and Communicate at an SSPX chapel incur no canonical penalty. The SSPX does remain outside of full communion however. The SSPX will come back into full communion when Rome grants the every Latin Rite Priest in the world the ability to say the Traditional Latin Mass. The reason Rome has not done this is to follow.

At every single Traditonal Latin Mass chapel, including the SSPX ones I have visited in the past few years, has been standing room only for a regular Sunday Mass. Of the 40,000+ Priests of the Latin Rite in this country alone, 20% have expressed a desire to say the old Latin Mass exclusively.

There is no real vocations shortage. The FSSPX (commonly known as SSPX) seminaries and monasteries in this country are overflowing. The FSSP seminaries are the same way.

If the SSPX were to come back into full communion with Rome without the Universal Indult, than it would be up to the local bishop whether or not they got to continue saying the TLM. The SSPX Bishops would also cause a major problem. Just what can you do with these Bishops. They are valid Bishops. They cannot, however, serve in regular Dioceses. The only workable solution woud be to set up "personal Dioceses" such as has been done with the Campos Priests down in Brazil.

There have been several instances in which certain Eastern Catholics have denegraded our own venerable traditions in the Latin Rite by trying to Byzantize the Latin Rite. One person on this board actually said that the Novus Ordo Mass restored the ancient tradition to the Latin Rite. In context it was clear that he meant the Latin Rite now looked a bit more Byzantine.

As for the Latin Mass Magazine Article you mentioned, I am very familiar with it. It was not a revolt against Vatican II but more of a revolt against the Liturgical abuses that have occured since Vatican II. It made no mention of the Eastern Traditon of Married Priest (actually it did in the notes at the end of the Article) because the magazine has nothing to do with Eastern Cahtolics but is rather a magazine dealing exclusively with the Latin Rite. The railing against permanent deacons in the Latin Rite is because we really do not have Permanent Deacons in our Particular Church. They are an Eastern Tradition, and should stay that way if you ask me. The whole purpose of a permanent deacon in the East is to assist the Priest. In the West, the whole purpose of the permanent Deacon is to all but replace the Priest.

Well I think this must be the longest post I have ever done and I hope I did not offend anybody too much by it.

Joe Zollars

Dear David,

Yes indeed, your posts are solid, theologically-sound and challenging. But that is all your own achievement!

Fr. Aidan of the Milan Synod, who has posted here before, and whom I know, does a tremendous amount of work in terms of the Sarum Rite and others in his jurisdiction likewise publish the old Benedictine Offices. Their work is a real glimpse into the great Western Orthodox Catholic past prior to the schism.

The fact is that they also have the Byzantine Rite which may even be more numerous than the Sarum Rite. Perhaps there is some unwitting overlap, I don't know. I do know about the Antiochian Western Rites that don't have that problem.

My own view is that if the Western Rites were restored to their former pre-1054 glory, they would resemble the Eastern Rites and might even be seen by many to outstrip them in terms of beauty and asceticism (e.g. Psalter recited 600 times for the repose of the soul of a bishop!).

As for your second point regarding past traditions, I think the ideal should (as opposed to what is) be that we integrally combine the solid foundations of the past with ongoing development in the "now."

WIthin the Latin Church especially there will be disagreement on this. Some like the modern(ist) approach to adapting the liturgy to contemporary times (how boring!). The Eastern approach (the really sensible one!) is to take the Patristic/early liturgical contributions seriously et al.

No one is saying that RC's have to return to the three-fingered sign of the Cross and the like. The Orthodox Western Rites do it, but they do it not because the Easterners are imposing it, but because it truly WAS part of their legitimate Western RIte heritage (they do it once,in any event, rather than three times).

"Competing structures?" How so? And I'm not trying to be adversarial or cynical.

The Orthodox Churches did not go into Western jurisdictions to set up Western Rite jurisdictions (something Rome has been doing in Russia, as we know).

The Antiochians have a Western Rite Deanery for those converts from Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Old Catholicism et alia who become Orthodox but who would wish to continue to worship according to their familiar western forms.

This request comes from them, not from the Orthodox Patriarchs who have Western Rites.

The Orthodox don't have a competing "Orthodox Patriarch of Rome," although the RC's do indeed have their own Patriarchs of the other four Eastern Sees (and before Catholicos gets upset, yes, the Greek Orthodox have their Patriarchs in Oriental Orthodox territory as well).

The Orthodox simply do this as an accommodation, just as they accommodate the Old Believers within the "United Believers" Rite and just as they accommodated those Assyrians that joined with the Russian Orthodox Church way back when.

There were also Armenians who followed their Armenian Rite in union with Eastern Orthodoxy (some were even represented among St Paissy Velichkovsky's followers) and the Georgians, a former Oriental Church.

When the Union of Brest-Litovsk was signed, it was signed by the majority of Orthodox bishops in the Kyivan Church-Ukrainian/Belarusyn territories without the prior knowledge of anyone else, including the aristocracy (Constantine Ostrozhky, for example). It was all quite "sneaky" and the aftermath was years of endless in-fighting and divisions among the Ukies over churches and who has the true faith . . .

No competing structures really . . .

As for the Pope, that really is a good point.

For some of the Western RIte Orthodox converts from Old Catholicism and Anglicanism, this isn't even an issue. The former Old Catholics were, as we know, those Catholics who couldn't accept the "Papal Triumphalism" of Vatican I. They accepted the Pope as first among equals and even his pastoral jurisdiction, but that was it.

Many RC converts come to Orthodoxy because of a disagreement with a Latin bureaucrat et alia and so there is often no love lost there.

BUT, having said that, the Western Rite Orthodox are very much in favour of a reformed Papacy as this is, after all, their Patriarchate. They are in favour of ecumenical relations with Rome.

Both East and West have great devotion to the many Pope-Saints, a number of Greeks and one Dalmatian-Slav among them, of the early centuries.

The East even venerates some Popes who are not considered saints in the RC Church, such as Pope Saint Liberius!

Alex

Joe,

I really do not see how the "whole purpose" of the permanent diaconate is to replace the Priest! I think that this idea comes from the increased role of the laity, which oftentimes has, regretably, meant the decrease in the role of the parish priest. I find it disturbing and distressing that opposition to a clerical office stems from fear.

Pope Pius XII spoke of the return of the permanent diaconate in 1957, deciding, however, that the "time [was] not yet ripe". With the decline in priestly vocations, is not the time now? Our priests are swamped with so much work that there is little time for the true pastoral care their parishoners need and even the personal spritual care the priests themselves need! A permanent diaconate would reduce the need for Extraordinary Eucharist Ministers (a scandal to all traditionalists) and allow the parish priest more time for Confession, more time for pastoral visits, and more time for himself.

In Christ,
mikey.