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

Dear Ukrainian Catholic,

I am sorry to learn about the difficulties you have experienced with sedevacantists and the like. I understand many other parishes have had similar experiences. It must have been very distressing, and it is very regrettable.

If you use the "Reply" button, it is easier to know who you are replying to.

Errrr...... No, they are not dogmatic.

They can't be, because their matter is not a matter of faith, but rather a matter of rite.

If they were a matter of faith, then they should apply to all Catholics and CLEARLY, they do not apply to anyone outside the Latin Church.

Nothing that applies only to one Particular Church (or for that matter, to any number of Particular Churchs, but not to all of them) can be considered dogmatic.

The Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, the Hypostatic Union. The core of doctrines do not change from Church to Church (even if different Churches express them in their own "language").

The way to say Mass. That changes from Church to Church and therefore cannot be dogmatic and therefore it is reformable.

Jesus did NOT preside the Last Supper in Latin!

God Bless!

Shalom,
Memo

True enough for the first canon, which can be given an indult to have in the vernacular. And it applied only to the Roman rite.

But the second referred to the rites which were received (from the traditions of the Apostles, and organic development), and approved by the Catholic Church; and did not specify a rite. This canon is infallible (as was the previous) due to it using the language of infallibility; which in this case is "anathema". It applies equally to somebody trying to change the Liturgy of the Roman rite, as it does to somebody trying to replace or "reform" the Divine Liturgy; it protects all rites of the Catholic Church.

God Bless you too,
Ian

You do know the Latin Church only became the "Latin" Church in the late 4th century, and that Latin was the vernacular, and that Greek was the original language of the Gospels and the Old Testament (for Christians, at least)? And that it's a medieval heresy to believe that the Liturgy can only be celebrated in the three languages on the stipulum of the Cross?

And you do know that what you call the "Traditional" Roman rite is no such thing, but merely a 16th century canonization of a late medieval Romano-Frankish liturgy that enshrined in it a whole host of medieval innovations and abuses, including private Mass, low Mass, silent Mass, subsumption of the role of the people by the celebrant, etc., etc., ad nauseum?

And you do realize that the liturgical life of the Latin Church was pretty moribund by the late 1960s, which is why there was a need for a reform? You may not like the way it was done, but something had to be done, because, to be honest, the Tridentine rite is just bad liturgy from a patristic perspective.

What do they teach them in the schools these days?

Yes, I'm aware of the liturgical history behind the development of the Roman Church and Her rite. I in no way condone that heresy, I believe that a Mass or Divine Liturgy may be said in any language that it's rite allows or by indult.

As for the Tridentine Mass, if you say that it was "moribund" and littered with abuses and thus in need of change you could be very well in an opinion which was anathamized by Trent. If you don't mind me asking are you Eastern Catholic or Orthodox?

Our two Liturgies are both beautiful, and both swelling with Apostolic tradition, they are equal and thus compliment each other in their respective rites.

Ian, you're speaking Greek here, or maybe they are and you aren't. Whatever, I think your experience will be more fruitful if you drop it, or at least stop making reference to Trent.

The new Roman Mass is unbearable. Trent or no trent, the new Mass is idiotic. I get it. I'm in the same boat. I don't especially care about switching rites or adopting Eastern spirituality, and their controversies have more baggage than you'll ever grasp. They're still mad about stuff their grandfathers' grandfathers' called ancient history.

I don't care about any of it.

I go to a Ukie parish and I love the blessed result: I can tell I'm praying. That's the point. I've found space to pray. I really recommend it. Forget Trent. Forget the new Mass. Pray. It's terrific.

As everybody here knows, the answer is "Yes".

LOL. For some reason, this had me rolling for a few minutes.

For me, I answer "Yes" as well.

This thread has served a purpose - which purpose seems to be to remind us that this is an Eastern Christian (Catholic and Orthodox) forum; what it is not is a place to argue the relative merits and spirituality of the Latin Church's praxis, liturgical languages, canonical constructs, etc.

It has been long established here that discussion of these matters, and the attendant challenges to them by such entities as the SSPX, serve no valid purpose in our own spiritual growth, knowledge, education, or understanding. For these reasons, we've given short shrift to such threads in times past - and the tone, tenor, and content of this thread demonstrates the wisdom of having done so.

It is to be expected that, when someone comes here to express their interest in exploring the Catholic or Orthodox East, there will be some background offered as to why they see such a possible move as more spiritually edifying or efficacious to them than continuing in their present Church - be it the Latin Catholic Church or any other faith. Invariably, some such threads will delve into points of comparison between the spirituality, theological understanding, and even praxis between the Churches involved. I'll even grant that historical considerations may be expressed as having relevance to an inquirer.

However, threads that seek to demonize another Apostolic Church do not and will not fare well. It is patently absurd to declare that 'anathema is the language of infallibility' - a declaration for which I can find no supportive citation anywhere. The concept of infallibility is well-defined, albeit interpretation of how the term is to be understood and applied (and even its validity as used in the common parlance) can be debated. Yet, that single phrase has become the raison d'etre for the continued existence of this thread.

In simple terms, the decisions of the Latin Church relative to whether the vulgar languages are an acceptable medium by which to serve its liturgical forma is an internal matter for that Church - as are the decisions of each of our Churches regarding the same matter. If one subscribes to the concept of infallibility, it is well established that such is a construct which applies to matters of faith and morals - all else are matters of discipline - and matters of discipline, including ritual form, rubrics, and praxis can and do evolve.

If one can legitimately grant an indult, as has been acknowledged (and is not, that I see, argued to have incurred an anathema) as was done in the cited instance of allowing the Service Books to be written in the Glagolitic alphabet and the Mass of the Latin Church to be served in Slavonic, then the base argument that an infallible declaration exists that the said Mass can only be served in Latin fails in and of itself. No logical argument can be made that infallibility can or should be subject to modification by indult.

All that said, the thread has long since ceased to address its titled subject, 'Becoming an Eastern Catholic'. It is, instead, serving as a pulpit from which to denounce the ritual praxis of the Latin Church. There are myriad on-line fora in which such discussions are the bread and butter of everyday discourse. This is not one.

If the OP wishes to explore his original premise - to learn about Eastern spirituality, praxis, theological understanding, etc, he is welcome to initiate another thread on the matter. I'd strongly suggest that the Faith & Theology forum would be an appropriate place in which to do so. This thread, however, is closed.

Thanks to all who participated.

Many years,

Neil