www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization SUNDAY RUN-IN

Dear kl, there is also a story of a parish council actually chasing a now former bishop of the Eparchy of Chicago to his car and he had to flee at a fairly high rate of speed...

Dear Mark, I can completely understand your frustration but we have to always remember we are icons of Christ. It is hard to have patience, but I have found that giving these rigidists some definite canonical prescriptions such as Orientale Dignitas of Leo XIII since they don't ascknowledge anything post John XXIII sometimes helps. But sometimes getting in their face is inevitable if they continue to arrogantly push the issue when they have absolutely no theological, spiritual or liturgical footing.

I taught in an SSPX school for several years (many years ago now) and had a very difficult time with treatment from some of them. I still can't believe they hired me. It is unfortunate but some of these people I have found thrive on controversy and confrontation.

But, the ol' St. Nicholas trick of clocking Arius did get his attention.

Christos Voskrese!

Just an observation,

Medved, You seem like a very violent person and, as I recall, have expressed much disdain in the past over what you term "sspx'ers.

I am sure that there were much more pastoral ways to handle people like this then chasing them out of the Church with an Ikon.

Many Traditional Catholic's like to feel a kind of sympathy with Greek Catholics because the latter Churche's tend to be on the more traditional side as opposed to those of the present Roman rite.

But people like you, who are already pre disposed in hatred for the Latin Trads seem to take great delight in ridiculing them and chasing them out of your parishes because of your increasing fear.

Do you somehow feel that this one family worshiping in your parish will somehow spread their "latinism" around and perhaps "infect" other parishioners with it? I understand that for Eastern Catholics, it has been an uphilll climb to restore Eastern traditions to their Churche's. But such displays of crude violence and emotionalism toards newcomers (No, I am not trying to justify their actions either) Is very unbecoming of one who should know better.

I can only wonder what actions you have commited against those already existing members of the parish who were from the "old school" and supported Latinization's (Yes, believe it or not, I have actually heard of Byzantine Catholics who either did not mind or actually supported the use of Latinizations in their churches).

Sensitivity, sensitivity...

Robert

Forum members who know Mark, know that he is a kind person. These people have caused trouble in their own churches, and now they want to come and start trouble in our churches during the holy season o.f Pascha? Mark, I would have done the same. These people need to be confronted, sometimes in a stern manner . Thanks for standing up to these trouble makers!!

X.B.! B.B.!

Ung-Certez

I re-read the initial post and what really got me was: "Well, he went off like a rocket about how the Devil organized the 2nd Vatican Council and how John Paul II was the Devil..."

Apart from being incredibly rude, it would seem to me that these folks are no longer Catholic. While Catholics (and Orthodox, and other Christians) can disagree, even vehemently, to make statements like that only validates the perception that they have actually left the Catholic Church and are now their own little sect of 'protest-ants' no matter how "Catholic" they believe themselves to be.

John-Paul is the Devil?!?!

Christ is Risen!

Post deleted by author since it only distracted.

Joe Thur

"The doors, the doors!"

Maybe we should bring back the tradition of shutting the doors? Maybe new members and/or catechumens should be escorted out of the liturgy/temple? Maybe our 'open-ended' invitations for allowing just anybody to attend (even those who aren't ready for it) is our own darn fault? It is also reflected in our culture of baring all before commitment and understanding.

Many want to "see" the Mass. Our temples are even designed to expose the mysteries. I think we can channel our respect for the mysteries by linking action, words, and architecture in the liturgy. Nobody would think of keeping the master bedroom door open while the parents enjoy the marital privelege if children are around, yet we think nothing of making an theatrical production open to all of the sacred mystery of the Divine Liturgy. Call our style of worship 'liturgical pornography.'

When we permit visitors to attend the liturgy freely and then witness their departure half way through the service (maybe they figured out that our form of worship didn't fit their expectations), then we allow the lack of respect we so abhor. Liturgy becomes not a moment of Heaven on Earth, of Communion/Partaking of the Divine Nature via the Mysteries, but a "Peep Show." Nothing is sacred and everything is on display.

Bring back the rite of dismissing the catechumens. Bring back the rite of keeping non-members or penitents in the narthex. Bring back the curtain and the iconostasis. If we can't bring these back then we just have to accept the actions and reactions of all 'imbedded' visitors, whethere hostile or not.

The fact that people can waddle in and enjoy something without commitment and/or support is like the prevelant notion of: Why buy the cow if one gets the milk free? When 'privelege' cometh before 'commitment' we have problems - in all manners of life. Should insurance companies freely pay claims if one didn't have a policy beforehand? Should educational institutions freely grant degrees to those who never showed up for one class? Why should that which we hold so sacred and meaningful be held to lower standards of commitment? There are laws that regulate and protect companies and customers doing business. There are WRITTEN contractual agreements stipulating every little quirk of those agreements. Yet. YET! Our temples, though made out of wood and/or concret and/or steel, are treated like glass buildings where one doesn't even have to purchase a ticket to watch the show.

Maybe the early rites of the church (now long lost) were there for a reason? It began when the Apostles were together behind locked doors.

If our temple is designed with all this theology in mind, but we invite everybody in with no thought or considerations anyway, then it is no wonder why we have episodes mentioned in the first post. We invite folks in with one hand, then slap them on the wrist with the other hand when they don't like what they see. We failed miserably here. Does anyone recommend intercourse between two strangers on the first date? There is always a learning process/curve for newbies. We even have Pre-Cana classes just in case things fall through the cracks. A period of time must be spent to demonstrate commitment and stability before having any marriage blessed before the community. Would anyone think it odd have a family reunion at their home and allow total strangers to enter their domain, have them look around in your home checking out the turf, and then simply leave? Why is it so different in our churches? Are we so hard up for new members that we have an 'Open House' policy everyday for whoever blows in on the whim?

I remember when my wife and I attended our Pre-Cana conference over 11 years ago. The question posed to us was this: Who will take care of a sick child? We remembered hearing one couple really debating this issue quite passionately (the guy thought that it was naturally her responsibility since she was the woman). Don't know how far they got in their mutual understanding. But can you imagine if the topic was never discussed BEFORE they got married, then they had a child that was born sickly? Can we not consider proper catechesis in liturgy too?

The couple who blew in and began declaring heretics everywhere is like the couple who wasn't ready for the proper commitment and responsibility that comes with marriage. Worshipping at church is NOT a private affair no matter how we immunize ourselves.

Consider this: No couple can simply invite themselves into the church to get married. Even our rite of marriage has them greeted AT THE DOOR and led in. Consider the Initiation mysteries of Baptism and Chrismation. The one being baptized is also greeted AT THE DOOR (with sponsors) and led in. Same for ordination, folks. Nobody, even those opting for the sacred mysteries of Initiation, Marriage, and Holy Orders has a RIGHT to access.

There is always instruction, a time period, acceptance, an invitation, and an actual physical greeting AT THE DOOR.

Our current problem is a 'set up' of our own doing. When the priestly prayers went silent, we needed longer melodies and hymns to keep the people busy/pre-occupied; liturgical symbolism triumphed over the natural and mutual relationship between rite and word. When we relaxed our rules with an open-door policy we allowed anybody to blow in without catechesis, which, BTW, IS our responsibility, but not one when we wish to chase them away. When we dismissed the diaconate as a 'ministry unto itself,' we lost all touch with those safeguards of worship - the cry "The doors, the doors!" became as meaningless as "Catechumens, depart!" Should we have expected better?

Let me reflect further on the doors: In the early church, Byzantine Christians waited OUTSIDE the temple and were led in AFTER the bishop, hence why they deposited their gifts in a separate annex/room (skeuophylakion) unlike the Western Christians who deposited their gifts inside while remaining for their bishop. Our current liturgical practices and customs (and naturally the slavish inorganic tradition of having our bishops enter the temple last) are sometimes far removed from the tight relationship of liturgical action and meaning. Today, we plop ourselves down on comfy pews (if padded!) and wait for the bishop to enter the temple LAST (so unlike us!). In the case of the bishop processing last, the bishop fails to lead. Ho hum!

What does this mean? The DOOR of the temple is where it stops for some and where it begins for others. This DOOR is akin to the door of our homes and the door of our master bedrooms. It serves as a means to regulate: to INVITE or to DISMISS.

Maybe we should restore one more tradition long lost if we DO consider our worship important?

"The doors, the doors!"

Joe Thur

Dear Joe,

What you say does make sense. What you call for is a major overhaul in the way we see our Liturgy (and how that is reflected). I have heard of some Orthodox parishes and Monasteries where the uninitiate are not permitted to cross the Royal Doors (the older sense, between the Narthex and the Nave), but can view the Liturgy from outside the community, i.e. the spacious Narthex. Perhaps we can go one step further, and restore the order of the Doorkeeper, the prototype bouncer. Does this mean that we ought to be insular? By no means. This was the way of the Church for centuries, and in those days, there were more catecumens that we can shake a stick or, or imagine.

Adam K

Dear J Thur:

I certainly would have been tempted to join those throwing something at the pro-celibacy activists.

Yours,

kl

Ah, Medved, you have displayed a little of the temper of your namesake critter.

I, for one, am glad you could not - at that moment - get your hands on a holy image with which to clock these poor, lost folk.

Were you wrong to be angry? I don't know - but I don't think so. I guess it might have been best to gently direct them towards a priest or deacon. (These folk seem to need some direction.) But hindsight is, as they say, 20/20.

Peace and all good, Medved!

Well, Jesus got angry, too, and He sure thought it was justified.

Remember how He overturned the tables of the moneychangers. He must have been physically very strong. He was angry and my guess is his words at that time were not spoken in a whisper.

Just my observation.

We have our share of visitors who wander into our Episcopal parish expecting a "standard brand" protestant service who are quite surprised and confused by such things as sanctus bells, kneeling for the consecration, people crossing themselves, bowing to the cross etc... This is where a "tract rack" with literature come sin handy...most churches have a "Welcome to the ______ Church" pamphlet to hand soemone w/ questions. I doubt if this would hav ehelped you since this guy seemed bent on being a cross of thorns. Can't you just hear him telling his friends about it? "And when he couldn't answer my questions he tossed me out of his church..."

I'd observe that Jesus got angry and He KNEW it was justified. The rest of us have not got His divine level of insight.

As a recovering SSPX seminarian, I thought I should weigh in on this topic. Firstly, I should say that I left the SSPX on EXCELLENT terms, without making a scene or throwing manifestoes in their face. I do believe that they are 80% right in most of what they say. For example, much of the problems with the Church today come through ambiguous clauses of Vatican II documents that the liberals have used to their advantage. Every liturgical, spiritual, and doctrinal obscenity that we all lament has some basis, no matter how flimsy, in some Vatican II document. Does this mean that the Council is "evil"? Of course not, there were many good things that came out of it. But it did not do its job as being the "Second Pentecost". The Tridentine Catholic triumphalistic Latin tradition of our grandfathers may have been flawed, and even seriously so. But a Tradition cannot be made by a Vatican Commission, no matter how "inspired".What the Latin Church is going through is a profound crisis of identity. And I think its only solution can be in its past.
I would also like to say that I know living breathing saints in the SSPX, although like their ROCOR and Old Calendarist counterparts in Orthodoxy, their main sin is pride and blindness towards their neighbor.
For this reason, they can potentially have a fit when they find out that we don't kneel at "the Consecration". Or that we have rightfully thrown out the Filioque from the Creed in our Liturgy. The problem is that they are not ready for diversity in worship, spirituality or doctrine, because they feel so defensive about their Tradition being attacked. Let us remember that their are liberal elements in the Latin Church who want to remove kneeling during the Consecration in the Mass, as well as many other changes that would be contrary to Catholic Tradition as it has developed in the West. In this sense, one should be very patient with them. They feel very attacked, and it is our Christian duty to make them feel welcome and try to explain to them that we too revere the "Blessed Sacrament", the Virgin, among other things. Maybe if they see us being meek and loving as Christ was when He was on the earth, maybe they won't see us as so "modernist" after all. Maybe these SSPX'ers would come out of their secret bunker caves/chapels and say, "Maybe their is a place for us in this official Church."
I spent two years in an SSPX seminary in South America thinking everyday about the small Byzantine Catholic Church I had attended right up to entering seminary. (Of which, by the way, I am now a parishioner.) Their kindness, hospitality, and commitment to Eastern Christian tradition led me to finally realize that there is where I really belonged and I left seminary to return to that little church, with flaws and all. Please do not turn the Lefebvrists away. If you are ever going to err, as my spiritual director in seminary said to me, err on the side of kindness.

Yours in Christ,
Arturo

Excellent insight, Arturo - thanks for sharing it. There is an excellent book entitled *What Went Wrong with Vatican II.* I think it's a great read and - fear not, loyal Catholics - it is totally in the mainstream tree. I get the feeling that it is as Arturo says - liberal elements hijacked elements of the Council's work and really introduced serious confusion.

There are some devout Roman Catholics who prefer the post-Vatican II church - my older brother and his family fall into that category. (He is actually old enough to remember the old Latin Mass - but I came along after the vernacular was adopted and, until fairly recently, I had never even seen a woman with a veil on her head in a Roman Catholic church - except of course, statues of the Blessed Mother, St. Veronica and various other female saints.)

At any rate, I asked my brother, who is quite conservative, about his preference for the post-Vatican II Mass. Basically, he feels much more involved in the celebration. His wife converted to Roman Catholicism a couple years ago - again, the post-Vatican II Mass appealed to her, as did - of course -the basic tenets of the faith. His kids are in college. His son is Eucharistic minister, his daughter is studying theology in hopes of becoming a professor and she has already sponsored one of her friends in RCIA. Really mainstream Catholics who live the good parts of what came out of Vatican II - i.e., they live as participants in the community of believers. They have a daily prayer life. They are charitable and kind folks.

Like me, he was raised with Roman and Orthodox traditions. He attended services under both since we had parents who grew up in those traditions. But whereas I was drawn more to the Eastern, "old" ways of worship, he was drawn to Western, "new" ways.

My guess is that the SSPXers that Medved encountered are probably very much in a searching mode and perhaps are a little frustrated. Although an unpleasant experience for him, perhaps they did learn something about the variety of Catholics worship.

Dear Arturo
I liked all of your last post, but I especially liked what your spiritual director said "Err on the side of kindness". It warms the heart to hear that.

denise