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

Alex,

I will continue this dialouge with you until we think it has been worked though, if that's ok with you.

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

Thanks for the falttering comment, but I have to admit, it is not my own achievement. I have grown so much from my interactions here at the forum and personally with some individuals of the forum.

I must say that if I have grown it is due to their/your patience with me.

But Thanks!


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.

Maybe that is what I am seeing, that they are both Byzantine Rite and Western Rite.

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."

I think I understand what you are saying but here is where I have problems with this.

People speak about the organic development of Liturgy and traditions but then call for a return to something of the past. I do not see any compatiblity here. To do one is to ignore the other.

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

I understand.

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).

I am not commenting on what Rome has done, only on what the Orthodox Churches have done. There is enough blame to go around.

But they have set them up anyways. Or is your next statement wrong?

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.

So, either the Antiochian Orthodox have not set up a Western Rite jurisdiction or they have, can't have it both ways.

Ultimatly it doesn't matter why they have been set up, I could argue that Rome, in changing the administrative offices in Russia to Dioceses was at the call of the faithful in Russia.

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).

There is a Catholic Patriarch of Constantiople?

It is my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church has the Patriarch of the West (the pope) and a Patriarch of Jerusalem, but that is it.

It is the Eastern Catholic Churches that have "copies" of the other Patriarchs, and can that be wrong?

No competing structures really . . .

I disagree with you and if you reread what you have written you also disagree with it. A Western Rite Deanery is a competing structure to the Roman Diocese, its only difference from the Unia is how and why it was formed.

I still see this as reverse-Unia, it has set up a place for dissident catholics whose only real problem is the hierarchy, and when you speak of protestants, such as Anglicans and Lutherans, you are really speaking of western traditions that left Rome a long time ago, so I lump them together.

In essence I see the Western Rite Orthodox as Catholics without the Pope. Just as you see us as Orthodox with the Pope.

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

I thought so! :p


David

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

Dear Alex:

I just want to make a minor correction in the number(s) of LATIN (Roman) RITE patriarchates actually existing in the East. There is now only ONE: the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem of His Beatitude, Patriarch Michel Sabbah.

The Latin patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople have been suppressed way back in 1964, I think. (Lance, I need you here and below!)

The Eastern patriarchates which are in union with Rome are:

1. Patriarchate of Cilicia of the Armenians;
2. Patriarchate of Babylon of the Chaldeans;
3. Patriarchate of Alexandria of the Coptics;
4. Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East,
Alexandria, and Jerusalem of the Greek
Melkites;
5. Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East of
the Maronites; and
6. Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East of
the Syrians.

However, the following titular (Minor) Latin patriarchates are still extant:

1. East Indies (Goa, India);
2. West Indies (vacant?);
3. Lisbon (Portugal); and
4. Venice (Italy).

I am hoping that the next Eastern patriarchate would be that of the Ukrainians, at Kyiv or at Lviv, at the very least.

The government supported the "novus ordo" and created a "progressive association of priests" (marxist-orientated) that gradually took control of the Catholic Church in Mexico.
Opposition to this policy was strong among the tridentine priests

The few clergy who didn't want to follow the counciliar rite was suspended by the Church, or forced to follow the new rite. I don't think it's restricted now, but there are no "indult" parishes.

The interesting thing is that the tridentines (indult) recommend their people to attend the Melkite and Maronite parishes (because there are no indult parishes) where they attend what they call "the true mass".

For years (in the city were I lived), the tridentine mass (in latin) was celebrated secretely in a store that sold machines. The priest (SSPX) still celebrates there.

I'm not sure if the maronite and melkite parishes still have "tridentine" faithful, I'll try to ask some information.

Dear David,

This discussion is better than ice cream on a hot, muggy day!

O.K., O.K., down to business . . .

Organic liturgical development is certainly related to the past and never disconnected from it.

And I agree that we're not achieving anything by simply reading up on specific traditions people used to do way back when and resuscitating them for today's use.

And no one is saying that what people did way back then should somehow be normative. Liturgical traditions were developing, as they always are, and there were doubtless problems then as well.

In terms of some of the philosophy behind the Novus Ordo, and believe me, I acknowledge it as a valid Rite of the Church, the idea was explicitly stated that the new Rite reflected the liturgy of the early Church.

We know, however, that the early Church had very long services and liturgies that were shortened over time. We see this in the development of our Eastern liturgies with the longest, St James, being later supplanted by St Basil's and then Chrysostom's was a shortening of Basil's.

The past can give us liturgical principles as well as what are the liturgical "necessities" that have been implanted in enduring liturgical expression. We need to be faithful to those ideals and ensure that our liturgies today are faithful to those principles.

That's all I really have to say on that subject, I see organic development as "depending" on a faithfulness to the past, if at least the enduring liturgical principles and the living tradition.

There are Latin patriarchs for each of the four Orthodox Sees.

Pope Gregory the Great understood the "See of Peter" to include not just the See of Rome, but the additional Sees of Antioch and Alexandria, also established by Peter (he was at Antioch, and his assistant, St Mark, established the "Evangelical See" of Alexandria).

As the Church was then, at the time of the Schism, based on the Pentarchy, Rome wanted to assert that the true Church, namely itself, wasn't disrupted in terms of its leadership and the five original Patriarchates continued under Rome.

The Antiochian Deanery is not a separate jurisdiction from the Antiochian Orthodox Church, but only a kind of "Adjunct." It is not an Autocephalous Church at all and is not a corollary to the RC Dioceses in Russia at all.

Orthodoxy has simply not done in the West what Rome has done in the East.

God bless,

Alex

Dear Amado (and David),

My point in raising the patriarchates was simply to comment on the historical way in which Rome has set up competing jurisdictions in Eastern territories.

Yes, three of these have been recently suppressed as part of Rome's ongoing politics with the Orthodox.

Does that mean Rome has apologized for them? No, it does not. And Rome isn't apologizing for setting up competing Latin jurisdictions in Russia today.

Alex

Dear Joe,

You raise a number of good points, my friend - I was wondering when you were going to come out, Tridentine/Pian guns blazing!

(How was your graduation?).

Actually, I thought this board was an excellent resource for educating wayward Tridentines about the beauty of the Byzantine Church! Don't you?

And I don't spend all my time on my duff - I do teach religion where I do comparative analysis of East and West for the benefit of my students.

Perhaps the Byzantines here should declare an "Enlighten a Tridentine" day?

That many of our parishes have received an influx of Tridentine refugees is a fact. My priestly friend says that half of his parishioners are Tridentines (I like the sound of that name - it's better than "Pians").

I don't know if those Tridentine Indults who have become more familiar with Byzantine Catholic parishes have increased their awareness of the distinctiveness of our Churches and their Rites/theology by so doing.

I've heard reports of Tridentines sometimes even shouting out things during Byzantine Catholic liturgies where they either didn't understand what was intended or else didn't agree.

Your paradigm here is if we educated Tridentines more about the Byzantine Churches, then they wouldn't be so monolithic in their ecclesial approach.

And I'm not so sure.

I think that the traditional RC view of the Eastern Churches is that they were portions of "schismatic" Orthodox churches that were "blessed" with having "returned" to Rome.

NOt "Union with Rome," but just "to Rome."

In other words, it is not a matter of "Oh, well I didn't know anything about you colourful, incense-filled Byzantine Churches - nice to finally come to know you."

The traditional Latin Catholics really have an ideological problem with the notion of the "Byzantine Catholic Churches," their Particularity and ecclesial being that is distinct from that of the Latin Particular Church.

They tend to see the Catholic Church as a monolith and no amount of "education" will change their basic CONVICTION about this. This is why they have a problem with the Vatican II Eastern Churches document.

And again not all Tridentines are like that.

But what the Tridentine movement is about is not just the externals of beautiful Latin liturgy.

It is also about the interpretation of the Church and of other elements of Catholic faith that Tridentines believe Vatican II has "soul-ed out" on.

Part of that is the change of attitude toward the Orthodox Churches and toward the ecclesial reality of the Eastern Catholic Churches by Rome at Vatican II.

These are important issues that the SSPX, for example, will have to hammer out as the recent impasse and problem that has arisen bears out.

Alex

+JMJ+

Mikey:

In hindsight, I can see your point. But I still do not beleive we need them because there is no real vocations shortage. It is actually a shortage of authentic Latin Catholicism. The Legion of Christ and Mother Angelica's Orders are busting at the seams. So are Mother Theresa's. The FSSP is stuffed to capacity in a very large seminary. There is no vocations shortage.

Joe Zollars

Dear Joe,

So the good news is that traditional CAtholicism has no vocations shortage.

The bad news then is what, that there are bishops who won't accept Tridentine priests under the Indult?

Alex

"(How was your graduation?)."

My graduation was just fine. I am so glad to finally have enough time to pursue wonderful discussions such as this.

"Actually, I thought this board was an excellent resource for educating wayward Tridentines about the beauty of the Byzantine Church! Don't you?"

It is, overall, such an exellent source. The problem is that there are some people on here that do not have a very charitable attitude towards us trads.

"And I don't spend all my time on my duff - I do teach religion where I do comparative analysis of East and West for the benefit of my students."

I am glad to hear that. Would that more people would work in this way. Email me privately. I have an idea for an apostolate for the education on the beuties of Eastern Christianity.

"That many of our parishes have received an influx of Tridentine refugees is a fact. My priestly friend says that half of his parishioners are Tridentines (I like the sound of that name - it's better than "Pians")."

This is most unfortuante. An indult parish should be set up immediatly for such a large group. I know they can provide quite a few challenges for a Byzantine Parish.

I don't know if those Tridentine Indults who have become more familiar with Byzantine Catholic parishes have increased their awareness of the distinctiveness of our Churches and their Rites/theology by so doing.

"I think that the traditional RC view of the Eastern Churches is that they were portions of "schismatic" Orthodox churches that were "blessed" with having "returned" to Rome.
NOt "Union with Rome," but just "to Rome.""

Exactly why you should be educating us.

"And again not all Tridentines are like that."

This is very true. Many Tridentines I know prefer to go to an Orthodox Church over the Novus Ordo any day. (they say it gives 'em their weekly dose of incense and chant).

"But what the Tridentine movement is about is not just the externals of beautiful Latin liturgy."

You are exactly correct in this point.

"It is also about the interpretation of the Church and of other elements of Catholic faith that Tridentines believe Vatican II has "soul-ed out" on."

Most properly educated Tridentines realize that the problem lies not with Vatican II but with the "spirit of Vatican II" which is nothing more than a new name for the Heresy of Modernism.

"These are important issues that the SSPX, for example, will have to hammer out as the recent impasse and problem that has arisen bears out."

Most SSPX are willing to compromise on these issues if the Universal Indult is released and if the problem of their Bishops is solved.

Alex you are correct. There are many Bishops in this country who refuse to allow Indult parishes to either be started or to expand in their diocese. Oh Well, that's why we have Una Voce chapters.

Joe Zollars

PS:

On another board, I said that if the SSPX and the Orthodox Churches were to unify, it would have the strange effect of the Vatican actually willing to come to an agreement with the SSPX.

Joe Zollars

Dear Joe,

You are just full of ideas, aren't you?

That is good. God is using you for His purposes and this will become more apparent to you as time goes by, you can be sure of that!

Your point on the SSPX uniting with the Orthodox is interesting.

I do think that the SSPX is a group that has not given up on the Papacy - they only believe Rome is going down a modernist path, as you say.

If the SSPX were "Pope-less," then there might be a chance for such unity to take place.

But I rather think the "Filioque" and "Purgatory" would be issues around which much disagreement would be centred.

Alex

Dear Remie,

Fascinating post!

And I've met right-wing Catholic groups from Brazil (Tradition, Family and Property) who are supportive of the Tridentine Rite.

From a purely secular point of view, it is true that the Novus Ordo tends to be more "horizontal" in outlook, emphasizing "equality" and de-emphasizing hierarchy and the mystical.

I can see how those in the Catholic Left can be strong supporters of the Novus Ordo.

The traditional Tridentine liturgy emphasizes hierarchy and the more "vertical" approach to God.

I can also understand those trads whose encounter with God in the liturgy, they say, should be vertical.

That is also how we experience our devotion to God and His mysteries in the East.

It is amazing that after all these years, the Tridentine/traditional liturgy is still so strong among Catholics around the world to the point that there are bishops who are literally afraid of the "consequences" for the NO should they grant the Indult in their dioceses.

Alex

I am probably considered a "Tridentine Catholic" except that there is no indult in my diocese, so I have to go to the Novus Ordo (because there are no Eastern Catholic parishes either). There is an SSPX chapel but I have reservations about that.

I agree with a lot of what Joe said. There are a lot of Tridentines that go to an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy when they can't attend the Traditional Roman Mass. I would probably do the same if I could.

Our Melkite friend Samer can attest that most of the Tridentines on our traditional Roman email list are very pro-Eastern Catholic.

In Jesu et Maria,
Justin Raines

Dear Alex:

Then why not have discussions with the SSPV (a sedevacantist version of the SSPX).

The Novus Ordo does not have to be done horizontilly. The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as aired on EWTN is anything but horizontal.

There are certain structural reforms that would have to take place in the NO to make it more verticle. These changes would and should include:

1. Priest should face altar and away from people. The altar should hopefully be situated in such a way as to allow the Priest to be facing East.

2. Mass should be mostly in Latin. Pope Paul VI issued a statement entitled "the Need for Latin Still Remains."

3. GET RID OF FEMALE ALTAR SERVERS, COMMUNION IN THE HAND, AND EXTROIDINARY MINISTERS OF THE EUCHARIST. I put this in all caps because it is very important. The all male altar servers should also wear Cassocks and Supplices.

4. Put Gregorian Chant back in the Mass as wel as Sacred Polyphony and oust the Neo Protestant, heretical trash that fills the OCP hymnal.

In short the NO needs to look a lot more like the Tridentine Mass.

Joe Zollars