www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Becoming an Eastern Catholic

Dear Ian:

I'm afraid I cannot (and I don't think I Should) discuss the internal struggles of the Latin Church. First and foremost I am not a member of the Latin Church, so I don't want to interfere in the internal matters of one of my Sister Churches (and I would hope that they would extend to my Church the same courtesy and respect). Secondly I don't know much about the internal logic, canons, theological dynamics of the Latin Church; I'm having enough trouble figuring that out for my own Church.

So for me, the question of your going to the SSPX and the canons relating to the Novus Ordo of the Latin Church are beyond my ken.

All I can say is, if you are searching for God and seeking to worship God, you would be very welcome to worship with us in the UGCC and receive the Holy Mysteries from our presbyters - all things being equal.

If you find yourself not at home or estranged by your local Latin Church parish, I would welcome you to consider making our Church your ecclesial home - if the Spirit so leads and your heart & soul find rest in our way of understanding and living Christianity and Catholicism.

It is true what you say about the Latin Church being more legalistic over many issues than the Eastern rites, this is true and part of the reason why aspects of the Roman Missal are defined in canons. The other reason, is that at the time these canons were proclaimed the Protestants were trying to do away with the Mass. The use of vernacular in the Latin rite may also be allowed by indult; I know Pope St. Pius X issued many to Croatian Catholics. I also know that the Eastern Churches handle issues such as these differently, and should not be approached in the same way the Roman Church on them.

One would also be correct in saying that canon law may be changed as it is disciplinary. However when an Ecumenical Council proclaims something to either be dogma or anathema, it is an infallible statement which cannot be changed and we must believe; to say otherwise would be to say that the Holy Ghost erred, of course this is impossible. The canon which forbids changes in the "received and approved" rites of the Church clearly has an anathema, and is thus infallible. It is also worth noting that it refers to the Church as a whole, and refers to all rites not just that of the Roman Church.

You must also believe me when I say that I'm not approaching the Eastern Church with the intent of turning it into some sort of theological battlefield, or seeing it's parishes as dogmatic bunkers. I am genuinely interested in Byzantine traditions, and feel drawn to them. Even then I'm not planning on actually starting the process of changing rites until I learn much more about these traditions, and pray over the matter (preferably with spiritual guidance from a clergyman), and am certain that I should go through with it.

Thank you Herbigny for your kind words regarding this, from what I have seen and read of the spirituality and customs of Ukrainian Catholics and Eastern Catholics (I still have much to learn though), I think there is much I could find spiritual nourishment in; both in your liturgy and theology. Even (in the likely even) if i don't switch rites, I do have every intention of learning more about the customs of my Eastern brethren and attending the Divine Liturgy on occasion.

Thank you,
Ian

Learning more about the Eastern Catholic Churches is always a very good idea. I wish more people would do so. Good luck!

Praised Be Jesus Christ!

It's funny how I often read on this forum the love the Eastern Catholics have for the Orthodox Churches, the non-Chalcedonians, etc... There is even a part of the forum dedicated to the Old Believers (and after all they went through, they deserve it!) Yet, whenever the SSPX comes up, they are ANATHEMA! Oh, please! I guess we excuse everyone except the SSPX.

If you ever got to know any SSPX priest, you would soon find that they consider themselves in union with Rome, love Pope Benedict XVI as their father, (even defend him publically from attacks by liberals), pray for him constantly in their Churches, pray for their local hierarch, etc...

There ARE some real problems with Vatican II, and the reforms(de-forms) which followed. It's great Rome FINALLY decided to encourage the Eastern Catholic Churches to be who we really are-Orthodox in communion with Rome, (return to our traditions)-but, at the same time, this same council decided to "can" it's own ancient Divine Liturgy, and replace it with a "new creation" as Archbishop Annibale Bugnini called it. A local Russian Orthodox priest I know, told me with regard to the Roman liturgical "reform" that, "It was terrible what they did", even though he actually gained by it, as GREAT NUMBER of his flock are former Roman Catholics. With what has happened in the Latin Church following Vatican II, I can understand why they joined, confused and broken hearted.

Archbishop Lefebvre DID NOT WANT to consecrate bishops without papal mandate, he requested it from Rome again and again, but they kept delaying it, again and again-and, his health was failing. It was only the events of the 1986 Assisi world religions meeting that he decided he could not wait any longer, or really trust WHO Rome would offer. I always questioned why Archbishop Lefebvre did the consecrations,(how could he justify that!, I said) but after I finally saw what happened at Assisi I thought to myself, no wonder! He wants bishops who are not going to support such nonsense! What happened at Assisi in 1986 was, quite honestly, demonic. I'm all for being charitable and helping in every way a person of ANY religion especially to help lead them to the true faith, but that event clearly showed Christ Jesus was NOT considered to be the one Lord and Saviour.

Metropolitan Sergius signed his infamous declaration, and accepted the regime of one of the most demonic systems ever on the face of the earth which slaughtered countless faithful Christians. As the Shamordino martyr nuns declared,"our spiritual father says your the Antichrist-we REFUSE to work!"Thus, ROCOR was later born and refused to compromise with working with the offical Church which accepted the "adaptation to atheism".

The SSPX is very similiar. Archbishop Lefebrve had no intention to start a parallel Church, but thought, how could he work with hierarchs who are compromising the faith? A Pope who allows pagans to worship their gods on Catholic altars-even if just ONCE-how can we work together, we are clearly thinking in two different ways! Pope Honorius did not even get close to what Pope John Paul II did, yet he was anathematized by the Third Ecumenical Council!

I read on this forum how many Eastern Catholics are against the idea of the Pope being infallible-but I see again and again modern Catholics justifying basically everything the recent Popes have been doing, giving a kind of "infallibility" to the Pope that not even Pastor Aeternus talked about-its like the Pope can basically do no wrong-and those who raise objections, like the SSPX, are shouted down, and told, "so, you think you are more Catholic than the Pope!?" If Pope Honorius could make a mistake, than the post-conciliar Popes can to. Let's be fair.

I know personally several SSPX priests and can say I have never met such devoted and fervent men of God! I have seen what their work has done, souls just amazingly transformed, pulled from the gutter of sin. Lives TRANSFORMED by the Holy Spirit. No wonder several Roman Cardinals have said the Holy Spirit is definitely working with them! Or, why, for example, the former Maronite Archbishop of Damascus gave the SSPX chapel in Geneva, Switzerland, several major relics of the Blessed Massabki brothers last year in a solemn Liturgy, followed by a conference on the glory of martyrdom. Clearly not all the hierarchs believe the tale that the SSPX is "outside the Church" or scismatics to be avoided at all cost. Other examples could be mentioned.

It seems like the mindset of some on this forum is, give the group a hundred years or more, whether they be Old Believers, Old Catholics, Polish Nationals, etc... and we will start praising and justifying their stand to the injustices of the time. I guess the SSPX will have to wait a hundred years before anyone on this forum will start speaking about them with respect.

It is not a question of like or don't like, but of the truth. The SSPX is far from perfect. I have spoken before, with their priests, of objections I have to how the SSPX handles certain issues. But, there ARE real problems in the Church and these problems must be fixed. They ARE right on some things, and are thus bringing it to the attention of Rome, who they consider themselves in union with. Their canonical situation is not perfect, but this has happened in Church history many times, most recently during the persecution of the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine, when consecrations had to be done, even without papal approval, due to the situation. It's obviously not exactly the same as the SSPX, but I believe Archbishop Lefebrve will be justified some day, as, he acted in good faith with no intention to "stick it" to Pope John Paul II,-he just could not trust the man.

If one is a Roman Catholic who wants to attend a parish where the priets love God greatly, work hard to save souls, teach the true faith according to the Latin Roman tradition, are very balanced and not fanatics, and be around some of the most kindest and self-sacrificing lay people around, I reccommend attending an SSPX chapel. Visiting them on occasion, and having gotten to know them well over the years, this is what I have found.

God Bless, and may the Theotokos protect!
RussianCath

I disagree. The SSPX is dangerous and ought to be avoided. Many of these remnant-type Roman Catholic defectors after Vatican II came into our churches and caused many problems. Their whole reason for existence is rooted in a misguided notion that they (mere thousands) are right and the other billion Catholics in the world are wrong. Talk about pride, no?

You can't be a church in exile by exiling yourself. You can be a church in exile if your church is made illegal and tens of thousands of your priests, bishops, nuns, and faithful are brutally tortured and murdered and you are forced underground or abroad for their faith in Jesus Christ. That is exile.

Vatican II happened. It is 2011. Get over it. The Mass changed from an "Ancient" one as you say (I guess a few hundred years is Ancient). Either stay out of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and remain an insignificant remnant, self-imposed exile "church" whose concept of Catholicism flawed, or come home by fleeing the sin of martyrific pride.

Stop bringing your grievances to Eastern Catholic parishes and faithful. Stop coming to our parishes because we have Sacraments that you, in your Sacrament GPS, deem as valid. Thanks, I am glad we meet the bear minimum. We are our own Church and not a displaced persons camp. Stop trying to impose your heresies on us. We are Catholic and those outside of the Church are not. We worship Jesus Christ and not the remembrance of your version of the Catholic Church prior to 1962.

It might have something to do with the SSPX denying our right to exist as true particular Churches and our right and obligation to return to the fullness of our authentic Tradition. In short, the SSPX wants a return to uniatism tout court, and this is just not acceptable, sorry. It isn't just the liturgical issue, it's their whole ecclesiology which is dangerously defective. Add to that a large dollop of nostalgia for a lost Roman Catholic past that never really existed, and you have the recipe for much mischief making.

You should read these canons as responses to 16th-century protestantism, not to the 1970 Missal of Paul VI. But allow me to comment on them anyway.

Regarding Canon IX. In the Missal of Paul VI, the words of the Canon (eucharistic prayer) are said aloud, but there is no condemnation of the earlier practice, which remains valid for the Missal of Blessed John XXIII (which every priest is free to use thanks to Pope Benedict XVI). Nor is there any requirement that Mass should only be celebrated in the vernacular. There are plenty of Masses celebrated in Latin according to the Missal of Paul VI.

Regarding Canon XIII. The Catholic Church does not permit individual ministers to change the words of the liturgy or the sacraments. This is a serious abuse which must be corrected whenever it happens.

A key concern of Trent was that it is for the Catholic Church, not individual ministers, to decide and regulate the liturgy of the Church. That's one of the main differences between Catholicism and protestantism. I know that there are individual Catholic priests (especially among those ordained during the '60s and '70s) who don't get this. Thankfully, many younger priests seem to be of a different and more traditional mind.

In saying this next bit, I'm not accusing billions of heresy it's just a wonderful parallel. Are you familiar with St. Athanasius of Alexandria? He was the Bishop of Alexandria and was excommunicated for a time by Pope Liberius for upholding the Trinity against the Arian heresy. At this time according to St. Jerome (with slight exageration) " The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian". Again, I'm not accusing anybody of heresy, as much as it is possible for the minority of opinion to be right at times, or was St. Athanasius just being proud?


When have I said I was an exile? When has the SSPX tried to set up their own Church? Frankly I have no further comment on this.


Yes Vatican II happened, I never said it didn't nor that it was invalid. The most I can really say about it is that some of the documents were poorly worded. Are you saying that the Tridentine Mass is not ancient? Specific rubrics may have "only" been mentioned in canon law at Trent, but the Mass is much older than the Council, in fact I believe that much like the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine rite, the Mass has been developing in the Roman rite since the time of the Apostles. Why the disdain? Why the hostility to traditional Roman Catholics?


Are you serious? I never even intended to discuss them on this forum, let alone start raising debates about the state of the Roman Church at an Eastern parish. As for this "Sacramental GPS" thing, I'm honestly confused. Do you want me to deny that Eastern Catholics are also part of the Church, and that the Divine Liturgy is the liturgical equivalent of the Mass (and vice versa)? Or that you have Holy Orders? It's never going to happen, and I think that it would be heresy to say so.

And what's this about the Byzantine rite meeting the "bear minimum"? I have not said any such thing, on this forum or in my life! For future reference I regard the Eastern rites of the Church to be the equals of the Latin rite, also thank you for not putting words in my mouth! As for the "displaced persons camp" I'm glad that you are being so charitable to those seeking a new spiritual home.

What heresies are Traditional Catholics trying to impose on you? What heresies am I trying to impose on you? I'm glad that you are Catholic, and I'm glad that I'm Catholic and that neither of us are outside of the Church. Who do you think I and all traditionalist Roman Catholics worship if not Jesus Christ? I don't think it's un-Catholic at all to want to retain the traditions and Liturgy of your own rite!

Ian A.,

I was responding to RussianCath, not you.

Then maybe you should have made that clear and saved Ian the trouble of answering you.

Your post was Re: Ian A.

Really, the post seemed to be directed to a traditionalist of the Latin rite? Still my points remain the same.

I agree with this but many in the SSPX want the opposite for us. Look at what their official website says about the Orthodox and how they distort the history of married clergy. They also support the schismatic Society of Saint Josaphat in the Ukraine.

But I also think we should return to the original topic of becoming an Eastern Catholic and move away from this divisive topic

When it comes to Latinizing the Eastern Church, I am adamantly opposed to it. The Byzantine rite doesn't need to be "improved". If anybody in the SSPX (or anywhere else) want to push Latinization, I would gladly stand against them on it.

Also I agree, enough time has been spent on this topic. I had no intentions of starting a debate on the SSPX here.

Latin Catholic,

I just started typing in the box at the bottom of the page and my post is the one right after RussianCath's so my apologies to Ian for going through the trouble to respond.

IanA.,

"Really, the post seemed to be directed to a traditionalist of the Latin rite? Still my points remain the same."

There is a difference between a traditionalist of the Latin rite and those who have placed themselves out of the Latin rite. Once you have placed yourself out of the Latin rite, you placed yourself out of the Church, which means you are no longer a traditionalist of the Latin Rite.

----

Now, there were a bunch of sedevacanists at our parish. They were a spiritual cancer and never attempted to become Eastern Catholics. They were there only because we had a "Valid Mass." As soon as a priest came in who was not quite valid enough (married), they took off and are gone with the wind. They were in our parish for a long time but it was unhealthy for both the founders of the parish and those who truly converted, and did not just use us for our "Valid Mass."

They would frequently accost those of mixed marriages-- Roman and Eastern--as the wedding being invalid and they rendered the children as illegitimate. They believed that the Papacy ceased to exist at whenever they said so. And they would argue their points ad nauseum with the original members of the parish for no reason. It was an all-encompassing sickness. I could type a whole book of information on how these SSPX parishioners would come and go in and out of the parish-- of course depending how valid the current priest or bishop was.

Thankfully, they are out of the parish. The older priests were enablers for letting them stay. They were not Catholics and still aren't.

I am sorry if this offends people, but Eastern Catholic Parishes across North America were infected with this spiritual cancer.

The irony was that they still attended the Divine Liturgy and heard the Pope being prayed for three different times during the service, yet they said no such Pope existed. Further irony was they would complain when not enough English was done during combined services, yet they wanted their Mass in Latin.....

It is mind boggling.