Author Topic: New to the forum  (Read 700 times)

awkwardcustomer

New to the forum
« on: December 22, 2017, 07:02:21 AM »
Hello to all you wonderful people. As a convert of over 20 years, I've been through all the phases. Although it was obvious almost immediately that something terrible had happened to the Church, it took many years to untangle the confusion and come to the only conclusion - Sedevacantism - that makes any sense. 

I'm hoping that an alternative exists and we're not at the end. Unfortunately the end times scenario also seems to make sense, given that the 'one who holds has been taken out of the way'.

Meanwhile, a very Merry Christmas to you all.
 
The following users thanked this post: Mithrandylan, 2Vermont, Nick, Troubled Teen, annamack

Vinny Zee

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2017, 09:03:39 AM »
Hello to all you wonderful people. As a convert of over 20 years, I've been through all the phases. Although it was obvious almost immediately that something terrible had happened to the Church, it took many years to untangle the confusion and come to the only conclusion - Sedevacantism - that makes any sense. 

I'm hoping that an alternative exists and we're not at the end. Unfortunately the end times scenario also seems to make sense, given that the 'one who holds has been taken out of the way'.

Meanwhile, a very Merry Christmas to you all.

Hello AC, Merry Christmas and I would like to say that an alternative does exist, and I believe it is still a real and valid alternative.  I am an Eastern Rite Catholic and I would like to just present a few points. One of the arguments of Sedevacantists is what they believe is the error of Cummunicatio in Sacris, which either launched or is the error that has caused the entire Western Rite to go into error. I leave it for them to exegete that.  However, Communicato in Sacris is only used twice in Unitatis redintegratio and in one of those usages, it relates to the Eastern Churches and notes what was always known, these churches possess true sacraments, apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist. We know this from history which predates Vatican II and the return of the Eastern Churches at the Union of Brest. Cumminicatio in sacris should be looked at as it is used according to Orientalium Ecclesiarium, because there is a fine point distinction when dealing with Eastern Rite Catholics and the return of Eastern Orthodox into communion with Rome (who are thus commanded to retain their eastern practices as I’ll cite below.) In the Union of Brest (1595) there are a few points in there that I want to mention from the treaty:

In point 15 of the union, "If in the future someone of our Religion should want to join the Roman Church, denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted, since he is degrading the Ceremonies of the one Church of God, since, being already in one Church, we shall have one Pope."

This refers to Eastern Orthodox return to Rome. They should not abandon their Eastern Tradition. This is due to the fact Rome and the East agreed at the union that the eastern and latin rights, in communion, were one church. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox did not have to become Latin Rite to come into the church.

In point 16,  "That marriages may freely take place between the Roman faithful and the Rus’ faithful, without any compulsion as to Religion, for both are already one Church."

Again, it is one church, two traditions, one church.

In point 31, "And when the Lord God by His will and holy grace shall permit the rest of our brothers of the Eastern Church of the Greek tradition to come to the holy unity with the Western Church, and later in this common union and by the permission of the Universal Church there should be any change in the ceremonies and Typicon of the Greek Church, we shall share all this as people of the same religion."

A union of the two would make one religion; one religion of their distinct traditions and practices.

Pope Benedict XIV On December 24, 1743, in the Constitution Demandatam, prevented the Latinization of the Meliktes and forbade Latin Rite clergy to induce Melkite Catholics to transfer to the Latin rite. Then Pope Leo XIII extended this prohibition to cover ALL Eastern Catholics.

On November 30, 1894, Pope Leo XIII issued the apostolic constitution Orientalium Dignitas and opened the letter with this:

“The Churches of the East are worthy of the glory and reverence that they hold throughout the whole of Christendom in virtue of those extremely ancient, singular memorials that they have bequeathed to us. For it was in that part of the world that the first actions for the redemption of the human race began, in accord with the all-kind plan of God. They swiftly gave forth their yield: there flowered in first blush the glories of preaching the True Faith to the nations, of martyrdom, and of holiness. They gave us the first joys of the fruits of salvation. From them has come a wondrously grand and powerful flood of benefits upon the other peoples of the world, no matter how far-flung. When blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, intended to cast down the manifold wickedness of error and vice, in accord with the will of Heaven, he brought the light of divine Truth, the Gospel of peace, freedom in Christ to the metropolis of the Gentiles.”

Pope Leo XIII later declared, “It is Our will and decree that the aforesaid decree of Benedict XIV originally promulgated respecting the Greek Melkites, now apply globally to all the faithful of any Eastern rite whatever.”

Therefore, the return of any Eastern church (Eastern Orthodox) into communion with Rome is to retain its liturgy, practice and traditions.

Leading up to the time of Vatican II, the Catholic Church did not possess one rite only as there were 23 (sui iuris) Eastern Catholic churches that comprised the entire Catholic Church.

In the words of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Benedict XIV, the Eastern Rite Catholics (and thus any Eastern Orthodox who come into communion with Rome) were to retain their liturgies, customs and practices. So in relation to communicatio in sacris, what was related to the Eastern Churches in Orientalium Ecclesiarium was that, “Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.” It is no secret that the Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox share the same liturgy, have the same customs and things that were once celebrated by those who when they were Eastern Orthodox retained their practices when they returned to communion. Eastern Churches that come into communion do not take on new sacraments, and the practices of their sacraments remain the same. We retain them because this is what the Eastern Catholics asked for and what the Popes demanded. So when Eastern Rite Catholics talk with Eastern Orthodox, this is what we can point to as this is often a point of concern for them. What is harmful, (or schismatic) is not left for “religious liberty” but is forbidden. We do not encourage the Eastern Orthodox to remain schismatic out of “religious liberty!”

Therefore any "innovations" brought to us in the Eastern Rite, which debases or tries to change our traditions or convert us to the “Novus Ordo” in any fashion, we have the permission to oppose and we can oppose. Pope Leo XIII declared, “Any Latin rite missionary, whether of the secular or religious clergy, who induces with his advice or assistance any Eastern rite faithful to transfer to the Latin rite, will be deposed and excluded from his benefice in addition to the ipso facto suspension a divinis and other punishments that he will incur as imposed in the aforesaid Constitution Demandatam. That this decree stand fixed and lasting We order a copy of it be posted openly in the churches of the Latin rite.”

So if the Latin Rite is the Novus Ordo, we do not have to accept it by converting to it and they cannot require us to convert to it. If the Latin Rite is the Sedevacantist/Traditional Catholic Church, we still retain our Rite, Customs, Practices and whatever else belongs to the east. You cannot force an Eastern Rite Catholic to convert to whatever the Latin Rite is, be it the Traditionalist/Sedevacantist or the Novus Ordo. We retain our rite either way. This was not undone by Orientalium Ecclesiarum or any other Vatican II document or decree.

The Novus Ordo cannot bring their innovations to the East and if they attempt to, they are deposed and we, by right, can reject it. We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis. The Vatican II changes happened to the Western Rite.

Second, there has always been a call for the Eastern Orthodox to come into communion and not to continue practicing “religious liberty.” The call for the Eastern Orthodox to come home to communion with Rome far preceded Vatican II. I think there is a narrow scope in the relation between Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and it is to the Eastern Rite to handle this relationship in the proper manner. In the final analysis, our sacraments, rites and even our priesthood is still valid. 
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 09:05:11 AM by Vinny Zee »
 

Rubecorks

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2017, 09:16:00 AM »
Hello to all you wonderful people. As a convert of over 20 years, I've been through all the phases. Although it was obvious almost immediately that something terrible had happened to the Church, it took many years to untangle the confusion and come to the only conclusion - Sedevacantism - that makes any sense. 

I'm hoping that an alternative exists and we're not at the end. Unfortunately the end times scenario also seems to make sense, given that the 'one who holds has been taken out of the way'.

Meanwhile, a very Merry Christmas to you all.

Hello AC, Merry Christmas and I would like to say that an alternative does exist, and I believe it is still a real and valid alternative.  I am an Eastern Rite Catholic and I would like to just present a few points. One of the arguments of Sedevacantists is what they believe is the error of Cummunicatio in Sacris, which either launched or is the error that has caused the entire Western Rite to go into error. I leave it for them to exegete that.  However, Communicato in Sacris is only used twice in Unitatis redintegratio and in one of those usages, it relates to the Eastern Churches and notes what was always known, these churches possess true sacraments, apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist. We know this from history which predates Vatican II and the return of the Eastern Churches at the Union of Brest. Cumminicatio in sacris should be looked at as it is used according to Orientalium Ecclesiarium, because there is a fine point distinction when dealing with Eastern Rite Catholics and the return of Eastern Orthodox into communion with Rome (who are thus commanded to retain their eastern practices as I’ll cite below.) In the Union of Brest (1595) there are a few points in there that I want to mention from the treaty:

In point 15 of the union, "If in the future someone of our Religion should want to join the Roman Church, denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted, since he is degrading the Ceremonies of the one Church of God, since, being already in one Church, we shall have one Pope."

This refers to Eastern Orthodox return to Rome. They should not abandon their Eastern Tradition. This is due to the fact Rome and the East agreed at the union that the eastern and latin rights, in communion, were one church. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox did not have to become Latin Rite to come into the church.

In point 16,  "That marriages may freely take place between the Roman faithful and the Rus’ faithful, without any compulsion as to Religion, for both are already one Church."

Again, it is one church, two traditions, one church.

In point 31, "And when the Lord God by His will and holy grace shall permit the rest of our brothers of the Eastern Church of the Greek tradition to come to the holy unity with the Western Church, and later in this common union and by the permission of the Universal Church there should be any change in the ceremonies and Typicon of the Greek Church, we shall share all this as people of the same religion."

A union of the two would make one religion; one religion of their distinct traditions and practices.

Pope Benedict XIV On December 24, 1743, in the Constitution Demandatam, prevented the Latinization of the Meliktes and forbade Latin Rite clergy to induce Melkite Catholics to transfer to the Latin rite. Then Pope Leo XIII extended this prohibition to cover ALL Eastern Catholics.

On November 30, 1894, Pope Leo XIII issued the apostolic constitution Orientalium Dignitas and opened the letter with this:

“The Churches of the East are worthy of the glory and reverence that they hold throughout the whole of Christendom in virtue of those extremely ancient, singular memorials that they have bequeathed to us. For it was in that part of the world that the first actions for the redemption of the human race began, in accord with the all-kind plan of God. They swiftly gave forth their yield: there flowered in first blush the glories of preaching the True Faith to the nations, of martyrdom, and of holiness. They gave us the first joys of the fruits of salvation. From them has come a wondrously grand and powerful flood of benefits upon the other peoples of the world, no matter how far-flung. When blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, intended to cast down the manifold wickedness of error and vice, in accord with the will of Heaven, he brought the light of divine Truth, the Gospel of peace, freedom in Christ to the metropolis of the Gentiles.”

Pope Leo XIII later declared, “It is Our will and decree that the aforesaid decree of Benedict XIV originally promulgated respecting the Greek Melkites, now apply globally to all the faithful of any Eastern rite whatever.”

Therefore, the return of any Eastern church (Eastern Orthodox) into communion with Rome is to retain its liturgy, practice and traditions.

Leading up to the time of Vatican II, the Catholic Church did not possess one rite only as there were 23 (sui iuris) Eastern Catholic churches that comprised the entire Catholic Church.

In the words of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Benedict XIV, the Eastern Rite Catholics (and thus any Eastern Orthodox who come into communion with Rome) were to retain their liturgies, customs and practices. So in relation to communicatio in sacris, what was related to the Eastern Churches in Orientalium Ecclesiarium was that, “Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.” It is no secret that the Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox share the same liturgy, have the same customs and things that were once celebrated by those who when they were Eastern Orthodox retained their practices when they returned to communion. Eastern Churches that come into communion do not take on new sacraments, and the practices of their sacraments remain the same. We retain them because this is what the Eastern Catholics asked for and what the Popes demanded. So when Eastern Rite Catholics talk with Eastern Orthodox, this is what we can point to as this is often a point of concern for them. What is harmful, (or schismatic) is not left for “religious liberty” but is forbidden. We do not encourage the Eastern Orthodox to remain schismatic out of “religious liberty!”

Therefore any "innovations" brought to us in the Eastern Rite, which debases or tries to change our traditions or convert us to the “Novus Ordo” in any fashion, we have the permission to oppose and we can oppose. Pope Leo XIII declared, “Any Latin rite missionary, whether of the secular or religious clergy, who induces with his advice or assistance any Eastern rite faithful to transfer to the Latin rite, will be deposed and excluded from his benefice in addition to the ipso facto suspension a divinis and other punishments that he will incur as imposed in the aforesaid Constitution Demandatam. That this decree stand fixed and lasting We order a copy of it be posted openly in the churches of the Latin rite.”

So if the Latin Rite is the Novus Ordo, we do not have to accept it by converting to it and they cannot require us to convert to it. If the Latin Rite is the Sedevacantist/Traditional Catholic Church, we still retain our Rite, Customs, Practices and whatever else belongs to the east. You cannot force an Eastern Rite Catholic to convert to whatever the Latin Rite is, be it the Traditionalist/Sedevacantist or the Novus Ordo. We retain our rite either way. This was not undone by Orientalium Ecclesiarum or any other Vatican II document or decree.

The Novus Ordo cannot bring their innovations to the East and if they attempt to, they are deposed and we, by right, can reject it. We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis. The Vatican II changes happened to the Western Rite.

Second, there has always been a call for the Eastern Orthodox to come into communion and not to continue practicing “religious liberty.” The call for the Eastern Orthodox to come home to communion with Rome far preceded Vatican II. I think there is a narrow scope in the relation between Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and it is to the Eastern Rite to handle this relationship in the proper manner. In the final analysis, our sacraments, rites and even our priesthood is still valid.

No traditionalist, or sedevacantist, has ever had a problem with the historical fact that there are eastern Catholic rites, and that some of the Eastern schismatics gave up their schism and joined their Eastern rite Catholics.

However, it is not an alternative to join any Catholic rite where the clergy recognizes Vatican II and its false popes. Communicatio in Sacris is a term that applies canonically to separation from [religious practice with] those who are recognized by the Church as schismatic or heretical. But even besides this canonical imperative there is the separate, serious moral obligation to have no religious association with clergy who accept Vatican II and its false popes.

« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 10:54:58 AM by Rubecorks »
 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS, Nick, MyrnaM, annamack, awkwardcustomer

TKGS

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2017, 11:38:09 AM »
No traditionalist, or sedevacantist, has ever had a problem with the historical fact that there are eastern Catholic rites, and that some of the Eastern schismatics gave up their schism and joined their Eastern rite Catholics.

However, it is not an alternative to join any Catholic rite where the clergy recognizes Vatican II and its false popes.

Welcome to the forum.  For the most part, this is a good forum.  It would be a great forum but for all the Conciliar evangelists who post their non-Catholic nonsense.  (In compliance with Forum Rules, I am not saying, of course, that any forum members are, themselves, non-Catholic.  Only saying that some forum members post a lot of non-Catholic nonsense.)
 
The following users thanked this post: Mysterium Fidei, annamack

awkwardcustomer

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2017, 01:58:47 PM »
Hello to all you wonderful people. As a convert of over 20 years, I've been through all the phases. Although it was obvious almost immediately that something terrible had happened to the Church, it took many years to untangle the confusion and come to the only conclusion - Sedevacantism - that makes any sense. 

I'm hoping that an alternative exists and we're not at the end. Unfortunately the end times scenario also seems to make sense, given that the 'one who holds has been taken out of the way'.

Meanwhile, a very Merry Christmas to you all.

Hello AC, Merry Christmas and I would like to say that an alternative does exist, and I believe it is still a real and valid alternative.  I am an Eastern Rite Catholic and I would like to just present a few points. One of the arguments of Sedevacantists is what they believe is the error of Cummunicatio in Sacris, which either launched or is the error that has caused the entire Western Rite to go into error. I leave it for them to exegete that.  However, Communicato in Sacris is only used twice in Unitatis redintegratio and in one of those usages, it relates to the Eastern Churches and notes what was always known, these churches possess true sacraments, apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist. We know this from history which predates Vatican II and the return of the Eastern Churches at the Union of Brest. Cumminicatio in sacris should be looked at as it is used according to Orientalium Ecclesiarium, because there is a fine point distinction when dealing with Eastern Rite Catholics and the return of Eastern Orthodox into communion with Rome (who are thus commanded to retain their eastern practices as I’ll cite below.) In the Union of Brest (1595) there are a few points in there that I want to mention from the treaty:

In point 15 of the union, "If in the future someone of our Religion should want to join the Roman Church, denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted, since he is degrading the Ceremonies of the one Church of God, since, being already in one Church, we shall have one Pope."

This refers to Eastern Orthodox return to Rome. They should not abandon their Eastern Tradition. This is due to the fact Rome and the East agreed at the union that the eastern and latin rights, in communion, were one church. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox did not have to become Latin Rite to come into the church.

In point 16,  "That marriages may freely take place between the Roman faithful and the Rus’ faithful, without any compulsion as to Religion, for both are already one Church."

Again, it is one church, two traditions, one church.

In point 31, "And when the Lord God by His will and holy grace shall permit the rest of our brothers of the Eastern Church of the Greek tradition to come to the holy unity with the Western Church, and later in this common union and by the permission of the Universal Church there should be any change in the ceremonies and Typicon of the Greek Church, we shall share all this as people of the same religion."

A union of the two would make one religion; one religion of their distinct traditions and practices.

Pope Benedict XIV On December 24, 1743, in the Constitution Demandatam, prevented the Latinization of the Meliktes and forbade Latin Rite clergy to induce Melkite Catholics to transfer to the Latin rite. Then Pope Leo XIII extended this prohibition to cover ALL Eastern Catholics.

On November 30, 1894, Pope Leo XIII issued the apostolic constitution Orientalium Dignitas and opened the letter with this:

“The Churches of the East are worthy of the glory and reverence that they hold throughout the whole of Christendom in virtue of those extremely ancient, singular memorials that they have bequeathed to us. For it was in that part of the world that the first actions for the redemption of the human race began, in accord with the all-kind plan of God. They swiftly gave forth their yield: there flowered in first blush the glories of preaching the True Faith to the nations, of martyrdom, and of holiness. They gave us the first joys of the fruits of salvation. From them has come a wondrously grand and powerful flood of benefits upon the other peoples of the world, no matter how far-flung. When blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, intended to cast down the manifold wickedness of error and vice, in accord with the will of Heaven, he brought the light of divine Truth, the Gospel of peace, freedom in Christ to the metropolis of the Gentiles.”

Pope Leo XIII later declared, “It is Our will and decree that the aforesaid decree of Benedict XIV originally promulgated respecting the Greek Melkites, now apply globally to all the faithful of any Eastern rite whatever.”

Therefore, the return of any Eastern church (Eastern Orthodox) into communion with Rome is to retain its liturgy, practice and traditions.

Leading up to the time of Vatican II, the Catholic Church did not possess one rite only as there were 23 (sui iuris) Eastern Catholic churches that comprised the entire Catholic Church.

In the words of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Benedict XIV, the Eastern Rite Catholics (and thus any Eastern Orthodox who come into communion with Rome) were to retain their liturgies, customs and practices. So in relation to communicatio in sacris, what was related to the Eastern Churches in Orientalium Ecclesiarium was that, “Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.” It is no secret that the Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox share the same liturgy, have the same customs and things that were once celebrated by those who when they were Eastern Orthodox retained their practices when they returned to communion. Eastern Churches that come into communion do not take on new sacraments, and the practices of their sacraments remain the same. We retain them because this is what the Eastern Catholics asked for and what the Popes demanded. So when Eastern Rite Catholics talk with Eastern Orthodox, this is what we can point to as this is often a point of concern for them. What is harmful, (or schismatic) is not left for “religious liberty” but is forbidden. We do not encourage the Eastern Orthodox to remain schismatic out of “religious liberty!”

Therefore any "innovations" brought to us in the Eastern Rite, which debases or tries to change our traditions or convert us to the “Novus Ordo” in any fashion, we have the permission to oppose and we can oppose. Pope Leo XIII declared, “Any Latin rite missionary, whether of the secular or religious clergy, who induces with his advice or assistance any Eastern rite faithful to transfer to the Latin rite, will be deposed and excluded from his benefice in addition to the ipso facto suspension a divinis and other punishments that he will incur as imposed in the aforesaid Constitution Demandatam. That this decree stand fixed and lasting We order a copy of it be posted openly in the churches of the Latin rite.”

So if the Latin Rite is the Novus Ordo, we do not have to accept it by converting to it and they cannot require us to convert to it. If the Latin Rite is the Sedevacantist/Traditional Catholic Church, we still retain our Rite, Customs, Practices and whatever else belongs to the east. You cannot force an Eastern Rite Catholic to convert to whatever the Latin Rite is, be it the Traditionalist/Sedevacantist or the Novus Ordo. We retain our rite either way. This was not undone by Orientalium Ecclesiarum or any other Vatican II document or decree.

The Novus Ordo cannot bring their innovations to the East and if they attempt to, they are deposed and we, by right, can reject it. We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis. The Vatican II changes happened to the Western Rite.

Second, there has always been a call for the Eastern Orthodox to come into communion and not to continue practicing “religious liberty.” The call for the Eastern Orthodox to come home to communion with Rome far preceded Vatican II. I think there is a narrow scope in the relation between Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and it is to the Eastern Rite to handle this relationship in the proper manner. In the final analysis, our sacraments, rites and even our priesthood is still valid.

I have no issue with the Eastern Catholic rites. Are you suggesting that Sedevacantists become Eastern Catholics?

Your post gave many interesting facts. If Eastern Catholics are free to refuse the imposition of the Roman Rite, how have they responded to Vatican II, bearing in mind that the Novus Ordo isn't the Roman Rite but an imposter.

Are there any Eastern Rite Sedevacantists?
 

Vinny Zee

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2017, 03:23:23 PM »
Hello to all you wonderful people. As a convert of over 20 years, I've been through all the phases. Although it was obvious almost immediately that something terrible had happened to the Church, it took many years to untangle the confusion and come to the only conclusion - Sedevacantism - that makes any sense. 

I'm hoping that an alternative exists and we're not at the end. Unfortunately the end times scenario also seems to make sense, given that the 'one who holds has been taken out of the way'.

Meanwhile, a very Merry Christmas to you all.

Hello AC, Merry Christmas and I would like to say that an alternative does exist, and I believe it is still a real and valid alternative.  I am an Eastern Rite Catholic and I would like to just present a few points. One of the arguments of Sedevacantists is what they believe is the error of Cummunicatio in Sacris, which either launched or is the error that has caused the entire Western Rite to go into error. I leave it for them to exegete that.  However, Communicato in Sacris is only used twice in Unitatis redintegratio and in one of those usages, it relates to the Eastern Churches and notes what was always known, these churches possess true sacraments, apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist. We know this from history which predates Vatican II and the return of the Eastern Churches at the Union of Brest. Cumminicatio in sacris should be looked at as it is used according to Orientalium Ecclesiarium, because there is a fine point distinction when dealing with Eastern Rite Catholics and the return of Eastern Orthodox into communion with Rome (who are thus commanded to retain their eastern practices as I’ll cite below.) In the Union of Brest (1595) there are a few points in there that I want to mention from the treaty:

In point 15 of the union, "If in the future someone of our Religion should want to join the Roman Church, denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted, since he is degrading the Ceremonies of the one Church of God, since, being already in one Church, we shall have one Pope."

This refers to Eastern Orthodox return to Rome. They should not abandon their Eastern Tradition. This is due to the fact Rome and the East agreed at the union that the eastern and latin rights, in communion, were one church. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox did not have to become Latin Rite to come into the church.

In point 16,  "That marriages may freely take place between the Roman faithful and the Rus’ faithful, without any compulsion as to Religion, for both are already one Church."

Again, it is one church, two traditions, one church.

In point 31, "And when the Lord God by His will and holy grace shall permit the rest of our brothers of the Eastern Church of the Greek tradition to come to the holy unity with the Western Church, and later in this common union and by the permission of the Universal Church there should be any change in the ceremonies and Typicon of the Greek Church, we shall share all this as people of the same religion."

A union of the two would make one religion; one religion of their distinct traditions and practices.

Pope Benedict XIV On December 24, 1743, in the Constitution Demandatam, prevented the Latinization of the Meliktes and forbade Latin Rite clergy to induce Melkite Catholics to transfer to the Latin rite. Then Pope Leo XIII extended this prohibition to cover ALL Eastern Catholics.

On November 30, 1894, Pope Leo XIII issued the apostolic constitution Orientalium Dignitas and opened the letter with this:

“The Churches of the East are worthy of the glory and reverence that they hold throughout the whole of Christendom in virtue of those extremely ancient, singular memorials that they have bequeathed to us. For it was in that part of the world that the first actions for the redemption of the human race began, in accord with the all-kind plan of God. They swiftly gave forth their yield: there flowered in first blush the glories of preaching the True Faith to the nations, of martyrdom, and of holiness. They gave us the first joys of the fruits of salvation. From them has come a wondrously grand and powerful flood of benefits upon the other peoples of the world, no matter how far-flung. When blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, intended to cast down the manifold wickedness of error and vice, in accord with the will of Heaven, he brought the light of divine Truth, the Gospel of peace, freedom in Christ to the metropolis of the Gentiles.”

Pope Leo XIII later declared, “It is Our will and decree that the aforesaid decree of Benedict XIV originally promulgated respecting the Greek Melkites, now apply globally to all the faithful of any Eastern rite whatever.”

Therefore, the return of any Eastern church (Eastern Orthodox) into communion with Rome is to retain its liturgy, practice and traditions.

Leading up to the time of Vatican II, the Catholic Church did not possess one rite only as there were 23 (sui iuris) Eastern Catholic churches that comprised the entire Catholic Church.

In the words of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Benedict XIV, the Eastern Rite Catholics (and thus any Eastern Orthodox who come into communion with Rome) were to retain their liturgies, customs and practices. So in relation to communicatio in sacris, what was related to the Eastern Churches in Orientalium Ecclesiarium was that, “Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.” It is no secret that the Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox share the same liturgy, have the same customs and things that were once celebrated by those who when they were Eastern Orthodox retained their practices when they returned to communion. Eastern Churches that come into communion do not take on new sacraments, and the practices of their sacraments remain the same. We retain them because this is what the Eastern Catholics asked for and what the Popes demanded. So when Eastern Rite Catholics talk with Eastern Orthodox, this is what we can point to as this is often a point of concern for them. What is harmful, (or schismatic) is not left for “religious liberty” but is forbidden. We do not encourage the Eastern Orthodox to remain schismatic out of “religious liberty!”

Therefore any "innovations" brought to us in the Eastern Rite, which debases or tries to change our traditions or convert us to the “Novus Ordo” in any fashion, we have the permission to oppose and we can oppose. Pope Leo XIII declared, “Any Latin rite missionary, whether of the secular or religious clergy, who induces with his advice or assistance any Eastern rite faithful to transfer to the Latin rite, will be deposed and excluded from his benefice in addition to the ipso facto suspension a divinis and other punishments that he will incur as imposed in the aforesaid Constitution Demandatam. That this decree stand fixed and lasting We order a copy of it be posted openly in the churches of the Latin rite.”

So if the Latin Rite is the Novus Ordo, we do not have to accept it by converting to it and they cannot require us to convert to it. If the Latin Rite is the Sedevacantist/Traditional Catholic Church, we still retain our Rite, Customs, Practices and whatever else belongs to the east. You cannot force an Eastern Rite Catholic to convert to whatever the Latin Rite is, be it the Traditionalist/Sedevacantist or the Novus Ordo. We retain our rite either way. This was not undone by Orientalium Ecclesiarum or any other Vatican II document or decree.

The Novus Ordo cannot bring their innovations to the East and if they attempt to, they are deposed and we, by right, can reject it. We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis. The Vatican II changes happened to the Western Rite.

Second, there has always been a call for the Eastern Orthodox to come into communion and not to continue practicing “religious liberty.” The call for the Eastern Orthodox to come home to communion with Rome far preceded Vatican II. I think there is a narrow scope in the relation between Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and it is to the Eastern Rite to handle this relationship in the proper manner. In the final analysis, our sacraments, rites and even our priesthood is still valid.

I have no issue with the Eastern Catholic rites. Are you suggesting that Sedevacantists become Eastern Catholics?

Your post gave many interesting facts. If Eastern Catholics are free to refuse the imposition of the Roman Rite, how have they responded to Vatican II, bearing in mind that the Novus Ordo isn't the Roman Rite but an imposter.

Are there any Eastern Rite Sedevacantists?

AC, I would like to defer on answering your question on whether sedevacantist become Eastern Catholics until I deal with TKGS (and the normal obligatory sede insult) that people come here espousing "non-Catholic" nonsense.

I would just like to note a few things in the meantime. When you say Sedes (who are normally all in the western rite) "become" eastern Catholic, you make it sound as though it is a conversion to a different religion. This is why I noted what the Popes themselves said about the east and the west are one church. It is one. It is Catholic. We have never tried to draw a distinction. If Vatican II never happened, the Eastern Church would still be the exact same church today it was before Vatican II. That is just the fact of the matter.

I am not aware of any Eastern Rite seeds. If anything, those would most likely be the Eastern Orthodox, but they don't think the seat is vacant either, they just have an issue with the papacy itself. I hope to be in touch.
 

Vinny Zee

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2017, 03:35:22 PM »
No traditionalist, or sedevacantist, has ever had a problem with the historical fact that there are eastern Catholic rites, and that some of the Eastern schismatics gave up their schism and joined their Eastern rite Catholics.

However, it is not an alternative to join any Catholic rite where the clergy recognizes Vatican II and its false popes.

Welcome to the forum.  For the most part, this is a good forum.  It would be a great forum but for all the Conciliar evangelists who post their non-Catholic nonsense.  (In compliance with Forum Rules, I am not saying, of course, that any forum members are, themselves, non-Catholic.  Only saying that some forum members post a lot of non-Catholic nonsense.)

Well placed are your comments where they are, I won't beat around the bush and pretend they were not intended for me. As ambiguous and/or covert as you may have tried to appear, I think we all understand what you were trying to say without saying it. Given the sede position on what they think when they use the term "conciliar" and the evidence is in abundance sedes don't call the "conciliar" Catholic and knowing that Boniface VIII and Eugene IV said those outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved, then what exactly is someone who posts "non-Catholic" nonsense? Are you saying someone can post non-Catholic nonsense and still be Catholic?

Well if that is the case, then why can't Francis have all sorts of private non-Catholic nonsense to say and not remain pope? I know you believe that is not possible, so the only conclusion is that you have immediately gone to the usual sede "trump card," i.e. the minute someone says something you either don't like or agree with they are NOT Catholic, which ultimately makes them NOT a Christian. You can accuse me to reading into it if that is the position you want to hold, but the facts are plain as day. Basically, there is no way I think (or anyone else can think) that your thinking someone who is a "Conciliar evangelists" posing "non-Catholic nonsense" is actually Catholic.

Anyway, what did I say in my reply to awkward customer that was "non Catholic" nonsense? Deal with the facts of my post and we can discuss the merits. If we happen to disagree, so be it. You won't ever hear me call you a non-Catholic or that anything you have to share is "nonsense." I already raised this issue before, this was exactly how John Lane tried to deal with Robert Sungenis and tragically it is the usual sede position (unfortunately.) However, these types of terms are only an attempt to paint one into a corner, but really don't prove anything.

I say all of this, because I was only the second post to this thread. Rubecorks then replied and you replied off of him. There was nothing in Awkward Customer's post that would lead to your comments. Rubecorks was replying to me, so there is nothing in his comments you were saying this to him. So, yes, I am left to conclude your reply on Rubecork's post was a backhanded comment directed at my reply. 
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 03:40:34 PM by Vinny Zee »
 

Vinny Zee

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2017, 04:01:49 PM »
Hello to all you wonderful people. As a convert of over 20 years, I've been through all the phases. Although it was obvious almost immediately that something terrible had happened to the Church, it took many years to untangle the confusion and come to the only conclusion - Sedevacantism - that makes any sense. 

I'm hoping that an alternative exists and we're not at the end. Unfortunately the end times scenario also seems to make sense, given that the 'one who holds has been taken out of the way'.

Meanwhile, a very Merry Christmas to you all.

Hello AC, Merry Christmas and I would like to say that an alternative does exist, and I believe it is still a real and valid alternative.  I am an Eastern Rite Catholic and I would like to just present a few points. One of the arguments of Sedevacantists is what they believe is the error of Cummunicatio in Sacris, which either launched or is the error that has caused the entire Western Rite to go into error. I leave it for them to exegete that.  However, Communicato in Sacris is only used twice in Unitatis redintegratio and in one of those usages, it relates to the Eastern Churches and notes what was always known, these churches possess true sacraments, apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist. We know this from history which predates Vatican II and the return of the Eastern Churches at the Union of Brest. Cumminicatio in sacris should be looked at as it is used according to Orientalium Ecclesiarium, because there is a fine point distinction when dealing with Eastern Rite Catholics and the return of Eastern Orthodox into communion with Rome (who are thus commanded to retain their eastern practices as I’ll cite below.) In the Union of Brest (1595) there are a few points in there that I want to mention from the treaty:

In point 15 of the union, "If in the future someone of our Religion should want to join the Roman Church, denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted, since he is degrading the Ceremonies of the one Church of God, since, being already in one Church, we shall have one Pope."

This refers to Eastern Orthodox return to Rome. They should not abandon their Eastern Tradition. This is due to the fact Rome and the East agreed at the union that the eastern and latin rights, in communion, were one church. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox did not have to become Latin Rite to come into the church.

In point 16,  "That marriages may freely take place between the Roman faithful and the Rus’ faithful, without any compulsion as to Religion, for both are already one Church."

Again, it is one church, two traditions, one church.

In point 31, "And when the Lord God by His will and holy grace shall permit the rest of our brothers of the Eastern Church of the Greek tradition to come to the holy unity with the Western Church, and later in this common union and by the permission of the Universal Church there should be any change in the ceremonies and Typicon of the Greek Church, we shall share all this as people of the same religion."

A union of the two would make one religion; one religion of their distinct traditions and practices.

Pope Benedict XIV On December 24, 1743, in the Constitution Demandatam, prevented the Latinization of the Meliktes and forbade Latin Rite clergy to induce Melkite Catholics to transfer to the Latin rite. Then Pope Leo XIII extended this prohibition to cover ALL Eastern Catholics.

On November 30, 1894, Pope Leo XIII issued the apostolic constitution Orientalium Dignitas and opened the letter with this:

“The Churches of the East are worthy of the glory and reverence that they hold throughout the whole of Christendom in virtue of those extremely ancient, singular memorials that they have bequeathed to us. For it was in that part of the world that the first actions for the redemption of the human race began, in accord with the all-kind plan of God. They swiftly gave forth their yield: there flowered in first blush the glories of preaching the True Faith to the nations, of martyrdom, and of holiness. They gave us the first joys of the fruits of salvation. From them has come a wondrously grand and powerful flood of benefits upon the other peoples of the world, no matter how far-flung. When blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, intended to cast down the manifold wickedness of error and vice, in accord with the will of Heaven, he brought the light of divine Truth, the Gospel of peace, freedom in Christ to the metropolis of the Gentiles.”

Pope Leo XIII later declared, “It is Our will and decree that the aforesaid decree of Benedict XIV originally promulgated respecting the Greek Melkites, now apply globally to all the faithful of any Eastern rite whatever.”

Therefore, the return of any Eastern church (Eastern Orthodox) into communion with Rome is to retain its liturgy, practice and traditions.

Leading up to the time of Vatican II, the Catholic Church did not possess one rite only as there were 23 (sui iuris) Eastern Catholic churches that comprised the entire Catholic Church.

In the words of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Benedict XIV, the Eastern Rite Catholics (and thus any Eastern Orthodox who come into communion with Rome) were to retain their liturgies, customs and practices. So in relation to communicatio in sacris, what was related to the Eastern Churches in Orientalium Ecclesiarium was that, “Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.” It is no secret that the Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox share the same liturgy, have the same customs and things that were once celebrated by those who when they were Eastern Orthodox retained their practices when they returned to communion. Eastern Churches that come into communion do not take on new sacraments, and the practices of their sacraments remain the same. We retain them because this is what the Eastern Catholics asked for and what the Popes demanded. So when Eastern Rite Catholics talk with Eastern Orthodox, this is what we can point to as this is often a point of concern for them. What is harmful, (or schismatic) is not left for “religious liberty” but is forbidden. We do not encourage the Eastern Orthodox to remain schismatic out of “religious liberty!”

Therefore any "innovations" brought to us in the Eastern Rite, which debases or tries to change our traditions or convert us to the “Novus Ordo” in any fashion, we have the permission to oppose and we can oppose. Pope Leo XIII declared, “Any Latin rite missionary, whether of the secular or religious clergy, who induces with his advice or assistance any Eastern rite faithful to transfer to the Latin rite, will be deposed and excluded from his benefice in addition to the ipso facto suspension a divinis and other punishments that he will incur as imposed in the aforesaid Constitution Demandatam. That this decree stand fixed and lasting We order a copy of it be posted openly in the churches of the Latin rite.”

So if the Latin Rite is the Novus Ordo, we do not have to accept it by converting to it and they cannot require us to convert to it. If the Latin Rite is the Sedevacantist/Traditional Catholic Church, we still retain our Rite, Customs, Practices and whatever else belongs to the east. You cannot force an Eastern Rite Catholic to convert to whatever the Latin Rite is, be it the Traditionalist/Sedevacantist or the Novus Ordo. We retain our rite either way. This was not undone by Orientalium Ecclesiarum or any other Vatican II document or decree.

The Novus Ordo cannot bring their innovations to the East and if they attempt to, they are deposed and we, by right, can reject it. We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis. The Vatican II changes happened to the Western Rite.

Second, there has always been a call for the Eastern Orthodox to come into communion and not to continue practicing “religious liberty.” The call for the Eastern Orthodox to come home to communion with Rome far preceded Vatican II. I think there is a narrow scope in the relation between Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and it is to the Eastern Rite to handle this relationship in the proper manner. In the final analysis, our sacraments, rites and even our priesthood is still valid.

No traditionalist, or sedevacantist, has ever had a problem with the historical fact that there are eastern Catholic rites, and that some of the Eastern schismatics gave up their schism and joined their Eastern rite Catholics.

However, it is not an alternative to join any Catholic rite where the clergy recognizes Vatican II and its false popes. Communicatio in Sacris is a term that applies canonically to separation from [religious practice with] those who are recognized by the Church as schismatic or heretical. But even besides this canonical imperative there is the separate, serious moral obligation to have no religious association with clergy who accept Vatican II and its false popes.

I came across an article by Raymond Taouk, (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/qprimum.htm). Taouk argues the entire liturgy was destroyed and he is in no wise complimentary of the Novus Ordo mass. His article caused me to reread again Quo Primum of Pius V from 1570 promulgating the Tridentine Liturgy. Save for rites that had been in place 200 years or longer prior to 1570, he seemed quite clear:

“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.”

“We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.”

“We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.”

“We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding.”

After Quo Primum we have these revisions:

1604 – Pope Clement VIII
1634 – Pope Urban VIII
1884 – Pope Leo XIII
1920 – Pope Benedict XV
1955 – Pope Pius XII

--------------------------
(What Sedes Reject)

1962 – Pope John XXIII
1970 – Pope Paul VI
1975 – Pope Paul VI
2002 – Pope John Paul II

Were the revisions of 1604, 1634, 1884, 1920 (and 1955) valid? If arguments can be made (and accepted by sedes or non-sedes) alike that the changes after 1570 until 1955 are acceptable despite the binding in perpetuity by Pius V, then how can one argue the changes after 1955 (the missal of John XXIII, et al) are wrong? Why do you argue for the changes in the 1955 missal as valid (if you do, I guess I should find out whether you do first?)

What does it mean for you that Pius V bound the mass in perpetuity, yet there seemed to be changes within 35 years of his proclamation in Quo Primum? Unless you can show me otherwise and I am open to seeing the evidence, but Quo Primum was not bound on the eastern churches as their liturgies had been older than 200 years when Pius V promulgated the encyclical.

Finally,  there is the Sensus Fidelium in this situation as it relates to the east.  You are basically demanding the East must react exactly as the west has. I know the consensus of the faithful doesn’t automatically make something doctrine, but doesn’t the consensus of the people in part play a role too? If the Sensus Fidelium accepted the liturgical changes of Paul VI, what does that say? Therefore, yes, sedevacantism is not a position held by anyone in the east. That is the position of all the east. It seems to me sedes say that because the faithful accepted the changes of Paul VI is proof they are all in error too. Similarly, (and you wouldn't be the first sede to say it) but that the entire eastern church is in error because no one holds to the sede position. That is quite a stretch and I think the burden of proof is heavier than what sedes attempt to provide as evidence against the east.

Is it possible Pius V saw that any changes (no matter how gradual) could eventually lead to the problems being debated today and thus why he said “The way we worship is the way we believe” (lex orandis, lex credendi)?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 04:07:52 PM by Vinny Zee »
 

2Vermont

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2017, 04:06:05 PM »
Yay awkwardcustomer has made it here!  Welcome!

As a side note re: this thread, I have been guilty of it in the past, but perhaps we could all try to avoid turning introduction threads into theological debate threads? Mith, what do you think? 
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

Rubecorks

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2017, 04:52:13 PM »
Yay awkwardcustomer has made it here!  Welcome!

As a side note re: this thread, I have been guilty of it in the past, but perhaps we could all try to avoid turning introduction threads into theological debate threads? Mith, what do you think?

Perhaps it can be moved to its own thread, to be continued there.