www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pictures of ordination of Bishop Nikola of Krizevci

As someone who has crossed swords many times with Fr. Stravinskas precisely on Eastern Christian topics, and specifically on the question of a celibate clergy outside of the traditional territories of the Eastern Churches, I'd have to say that he is not at all representative of the Catholics in the new liturgical movement.

By the way, his comments -- whatever those were -- have been removed from the thread. Doesn't that tell you something?

That having been said, there is a difference between disrespect and disagreement. The fact is that many Roman Catholics disagree with the belief of not a few Eastern Catholics that they cannot be compelled to believe in the dogmas proclaimed by the Roman Pontiff after the Great Schism, and many Roman Catholics are certainly puzzled by married clergy, given the intensity with which the Roman Rite has valued obligatory celibacy. Let's not even get into the question of Western devotions! But disagreement on these need not be interpreted as "hostility" or "disrespect." After all, given that the Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with Rome, would this not be interpreted as a sharing in the same faith and a belief in the same dogmas, albeit expressed in a different theological language or system?

I remember reading somewhere, a question to the effect that, why is it that when Westerners borrow from the East, it is called enrichment, but when Easterners borrow from the West it is called corruption? Unfortunately, that attitude seems to be not unknown in this forum.

Looking at the thread as it now stands, I would like to note that the most prolific poster is a certain "Gregorius", who is by no means hostile -- he is simply ignorant.

What you say may be true - we are largely misunderstood


Hostility / disrespect ??

I'm tired of being told 'but you are not proper catholics ' and this by people who attend my Parish Church !!

No matter what I say they don't understand / refuse to understand / reject the explanation. To them we are RCs with some very strange ideas that need correcting - don't start me on Infant Communion - that's something that is also misunderstood - and you can extend that into people of limited understanding

I posted to the thread there, altho I limited myself to correcting an interpretation - apparently by an EC - of the relationship between the Eparchy of Krizevci and the Latin Metropolitan See of Zagreb and of how sui iuris Churches come to be (oh, yeah, the Glagolitic alphabet as well).

As to Gregorius, whom asianpilgrim referenced above, there was a post by him that I'd have addressed - but, very honestly, I was not able to make enough sense of it to do so.

Many years,

Neil

"I remember reading somewhere, a question to the effect that, why is it that when Westerners borrow from the East, it is called enrichment, but when Easterners borrow from the West it is called corruption? Unfortunately, that attitude seems to be not unknown in this forum."

I reject both, as does Father Robert Taft. I suggest you order the CD of his lecture "Liturgy in the Life of the Church" from Eastern Christian Publications, in which he addresses precisely this point. Each Church must be true to its own Tradition, and not view itself relative to other Traditions that may or may not have a certain practice, devotion or spirituality. As Taft likes to say, a Tradition is like a language, and just because one language lacks articles does not mean it should import them from another language that does, and vice versa.

On the subject of "traditionalism", I think we are all called to reject that, if we see traditionalism in light of Pelikan's aphorism, "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living". We are called to be faithful to the Tradition, which is the dynamic outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ. We are not called to mindless repetition of that which our ancestors did, but to think as our ancestors thought, with constant reference to the mind of the Fathers.

Here, in fact, is the precise exchange between Father Peter and me in regard to cross-borrowing of practices between Traditions:

Fr. Peter Stravinskas: I always find it amusing that Latin clergy who use icons or Byzantine chant are praised by Eastern folk as exhibiting an attitude of "breathing with both lungs".

Me: You'll never hear that from me, nor from any other educated Eastern Catholic. Usages from one right should not be artificially imported to some other rite. It works in both directions, whether we speak of "latinization" or of "byantinization". Methinks Father Peter is boxing with a straw man on this one.

And what makes you think that I disagree with this? I deplore the indiscriminate importation of Eastern elements into the Western tradition as much as I deplore Latinization.



Agreed, but there is a major distinction between "mindless repetition" and the thoughtful questioning of reforms and changes that neither do justice to the Tradition of the Church, nor reflect this same Tradition with the same clarity and integrity.

I agree that some in the SSPX do practice "mindless repetition", but the fact remains that for any Roman Catholic who is interested in the organic development of the sacred liturgy and the careful development of doctrine, there are many, MANY elements in post-Conciliar liturgy that are questionable, to put it mildly. As for the doctrinal aspect, I personally embrace Vatican II as do so many other traditionalists, but the fact must be admitted that the link between pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar teaching has not been sufficiently elucidated, and is all too often merely assumed without ever being properly demonstrated. It is to be hoped that the upcoming doctrinal dialogue between the SSPX and the Holy See will accomplish this task.

I was responding to your posting this:


Back to you, on traditionalism:


Well, sad to say, I see a lot of mindless nostalgia among Latin traditionalists, who are indeed traditionalists in the Pelikanian sense (as are more than a few Orthodox and Greek Catholic "traditionalists"). Most Latin traditionalists are too young to remember the preconciliar Church, have a rather rosy view of what it must have been like, and believe that a return to the "Latin Mass" (meaning not the Mass in Latin, but a particular form of the Mass in Latin) will solve most, if not all of the Church's ills. When I read what these people post, it seems clear they have only the vaguest understanding of their own Tradition, let alone ours.


I would posit that there are very few things wrong with the Ordo Paulus VI as written; most could be corrected very easily, and mainly would require mandatory celebration versus apsidem, a reduction in the number of Eucharistic prayers (getting rid of the ones two blatantly Eastern, as well as any devised for "children's Mass"), regulation of which prayers are used by their subordination to the liturgical calendar, with pride of place given to the Roman Canon, and restoration of the sung Mass as the normative form. I'd also like to see suppression of the Filioque in the Creed, and restoration of infant communion, but those are distinct from from the issue of the Mass itself.

However, one cannot say that the Tridentine Mass was not free of defects, considering the manner of its development and promulgation, to say nothing of the way it was celebrated over the centuries, which was as abusive in its way as anything done under the Novus Ordo.


Sometimes a circle cannot be squared. The restorational aspects of Vatican II of necessity meant a negating of many developments that occurred between 1054 and 1965. The key is the link not with the medieval Latin Church, but with the undivided Patristic Church.

Just to throw a "monkey-wrench" into this exchange, I figured I would remind those who are members of parishes in the Eparchy of Passaic that, in fact, Fr. Peter Stravinskas actually did serve in our Eparchy. I know that, at one point, he was in residence in our parish in Bayonne, N.J. I believe he had been granted a "bi-ritual faculty". At one point in the 90's, he returned exclusively to the Latin Church. His comments re: the restrictions on married priests in North America were, in fact, the accepted policy at the time when he served with us (the 1990's) throughout the Pittsburgh Metropolia (as well as in other Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in the diaspora). It appears that he must not have been aware of the changes which have since been reflected in our particular law (and the current particular law only allows ordination of married priests on a "case by case" basis, with dispensations by Rome-I have been told that Rome has more recently "sent signals" that they would not object to any such ordinations-in fact they, to the best of my knowledge, have not objected to any of the recent ordinations in the Parma Eparchy). Other Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in North America have not burdened themselves with such restrictions in particular law, and have regularly ordained married priests. I am not aware of any protests from Rome in recent days (I had heard that certain officials, several years ago, at the Congregation for Eastern Churches in Rome, had, in an interview, made statements that these ordinations were not licit, but were valid-but no official moves against ordaining bishops were taken). If I am wrong on this, I would appreciate an update by one of our posters. At any rate, I think somebody may want to inform Fr. Peter as to the recent changes on this issue.

Dn. Robert

On the contrary, as those who followed the full discussion are aware, Stravinskas acknowledged the changes in canon law and the various magisterial documents supporting the restoration of married presbyters--but he rejected these. As I said, I saved the whole thing because it was such an extraordinary rant, so here are a few of his key points:


and


and (money quote, as it goes to the heart of motive):


And for shear cluelessness:


And just so we know where he stands regarding the Holy See's outreach to our separated brethren:


I could go on, but it's just so bilious and over the top as to be almost a parody. One can certainly understand why Father Peter decided to put aside his bi-ritual faculties: for him, delatinization amounted to a betrayal of "real Catholicism", not to mention the dreaded "Romance with Orthodoxy" about which he warned us in this thread.

Interesting. I'd like to see his comments on the unions of Uzhorod and Brest-Litovsk. No doubt, based on his comments which you highlighted, he would say that Rome erred in the way it handled these events (i.e., allowing for continuation of married priesthood in those jurisdictions). Fr. Peter is coming from that school of thought (Christian Cocchini, et al.) which is trying to posit that priestly celibacy is from the apostolic age. My question is-what is the evidence for this assertion? When presented with Scriptural evidence for clerical marriage (from the Epistles, where St. Paul says that bishops and deacons should have but one wife), they in turn, would say that, upon ordination, the candidates and their spouses would make a promise of permanent continence (i.e., to live as "brother and sister"). I admit to not having read deeply of these writings of theirs, but I wonder what their evidence is for the latter assertion. If I remember correctly, in recent years, there was a UGCC priest (Roman Cholij)who took the position of this school, and he was contradicted by his own hierarchy, and he did somewhat of a recantation. I wouldn't get too excited. Fr. Peter Stravinskas carries no magisterial weight.

Dn. Robert

Although he wants to eat his cake and have it, too. On the one hand, he insists it's "just a discipline", yet on the other he insists on celibacy as a divine (or at least apostolic) institution. Yet, if it is the latter, then the Church has no power or authority to dispense with it (thus it should never have allowed married priests under any circumstances), yet it is clear that Rome itself does not hold this position. If Stravinskas, Cholij, Cochini, Stickler, Haid, et al. are correct, then Rome is not only in error, it is consistently in error on a matter of faith and morals. If, on the other hand, Rome is correct, then there is no way that Stravinskas, Cholij, Cochini, Strickler, Haid, et al. can be right, and their whole argument falls apart.


If you read their books, there is a lot of argument from silence combined with cherry-picking of evidence, tendentious interpretations of patristic and conciliar documents, and special pleading involved. Our good friend, Anthony Dragani, wrote a long, detailed and ultimately devastating critical review [east2west.org] of Stickler's book on celibacy, and since Stickler leans so very heavily on Cochini, Cholij and Haid, with one swipe he demolished them all.

Your response tends to confirm my suspicions regarding their arguments. I wonder how these people can dismiss the canon from the CCEO, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, which calls for holding the tradition of married priesthood in honor.

Here is a link:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PAD.HTM#13

Canon 373

Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven

and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive

Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout

the ages is to be held in honor.


Dn. Robert

I have icons! ...But icons aren't just Eastern, so I don't consider it something "Byzantine" to do.

Alexis

Stuart said: "...to say nothing of the way it was celebrated over the centuries, which was as abusive in its way as anything done under the Novus Ordo."

I agree there were terrible abuses (ah, the human condition), but I think Clown Masses with "stealth priestesses," etc. etc. are worse than anything ever produced under the Traditional Mass.

Alexis