Author Topic: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?  (Read 585 times)

Vinny Zee

The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« on: December 28, 2017, 11:30:41 AM »
You can read my original comments to Awkward Customer on his intro. After some back and forth debate, it was suggested I start a new Thread. I did so, utilizing everything that I had written in two posts on the Introduction to AC. 

Once that discussion got going, (some where around December 22, 2017) it was suggested, after about 5 days of debate, I be banned for “schismatic” theology and threatening to ruin this form. I in turn decided I would quietly depart.  While figuring out how to delete my account, I deleted the entire post (approximately 9 pages) of what was debated there under this title, "The Catholic Church - Where is it? What is it?". As I have already stated, I regret this happened, but I have no problem sticking around to re-address some issues raised and whether the Eastern Catholics are schismatic or I am being schismatic. I will even do my best to re-post, to answer any new questions raised as any issues I raised in every reply I either quoted from the Canon Law of the Eastern Churches, The Catechism of the Ukrainian Catholic Church or both.  I will do my best to stay true to what I originally posted.

I feel not only that freedom speech on the internet is an important right we have to enjoy, but freedom of information gleaned from it for future readers.  I know there may be some who wish the original thread could have remained to see how it formulated, but what is in the past is in the past and again I regret this deletion happened. However, below represents nearly as verbatim as possible what was the original post to the Thread, “The Catholic Church, Where is it, What is it?” My hope is that even after I and/or others are gone that the integrity of your forum remain intact as the various sides presented their opinions, viewpoints, facts, etc.  It was never my intention to destroy the integrity or community of thetradforum.

My hope is that the main objector(s) to my points will repost their questions. Perhaps this site can even benefit from clarity on this newer post of what was being asked and this leaner version will cut out some of the misconceptions that were had about what was being asked and this discussion can move forward in a clearer fashion.

Below is the original post. I believe my first sentence may have been a bit different. Everything below, "I am an Eastern Rite Catholic and I would like to just present a few points," should be exactly verbatim of what it was in the opening comment of the new and now deleted thread that was started after it was suggested theological discussions be moved from Introductions to a New Thread.

---------

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.


Regarding the liturgy:

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.

I will reserve a discussion on the Sensus Fidelium for another time.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 11:37:04 AM by Vinny Zee »
 

Rubecorks

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2017, 12:51:40 PM »
I have never seen that any traditional Catholic has had a problem with, or misunderstanding about, the schismatic Easterns rejoining the Church and keeping their liturgies. That is an easy historical understanding.

But, this topic thread is useless in our present circumstances since if the Easterns try to rejoin today, after Vatican II, they will be just as bad, or worse off, because they will be guided by a false universal pastor. They will not be required to correct their doctrinal problems, from what I understand concern something with Our Lady, purgatory, and the Trinity (filioque). They will also naturally view Rome more closely because of the union, and be scandalized and corrupted by what they see they have joined in union with.

The added problem the schismatics have today is their doubtfully valid orders. This wasn't the case until the blackout of information started with the erection of the Iron Curtain in the mid-twentieth century, with the infiltration, murder and replacement of prelates with false priests in those schismatic churches.

« Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 01:08:14 PM by Rubecorks »
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

Vinny Zee

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2017, 01:38:18 PM »

They will not be required to correct their doctrinal problems, from what I understand concern something with Our Lady, purgatory, and the Trinity (filioque).


I spent time yesterday re-reading Allatae Sunt, On the Observance of Oriental Rites, Pope Benedict XIV - 1755, and noted with what great care he detailed the return of the churches and dealing with the various corrections that needed to be made in various parts of the East. I also was struck by the timing of it all and when it happened and considered what it would be like for any Eastern Churches to return today.

However, do you not think it would be possible that The Eastern Catholic Churches today would be able to assist them as well as to what would need to be corrected, seeing that there are Eastern Churches that returned after accepting the Catholic faith and shedding off any errors?
 

Rubecorks

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2017, 04:45:35 PM »

They will not be required to correct their doctrinal problems, from what I understand concern something with Our Lady, purgatory, and the Trinity (filioque).


I spent time yesterday re-reading Allatae Sunt, On the Observance of Oriental Rites, Pope Benedict XIV - 1755, and noted with what great care he detailed the return of the churches and dealing with the various corrections that needed to be made in various parts of the East. I also was struck by the timing of it all and when it happened and considered what it would be like for any Eastern Churches to return today.

However, do you not think it would be possible that The Eastern Catholic Churches today would be able to assist them as well as to what would need to be corrected, seeing that there are Eastern Churches that returned after accepting the Catholic faith and shedding off any errors?

In a normal world, such as before John XXIII, any converts would be directed to approach Rome. Today, Rome would simply say, 'don't bother and just keep doing what your doing'!

Conversion of clergy, post-Vatican II, from an anti-papal sect to true Catholicism, is expected to be EXTREMELY rare, and practically not worth talking about until the time actually comes.




 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

TKGS

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2017, 05:59:42 PM »
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.

Before Te Deum went dark, Voxx posted a problem of many "Novus Ordo"-type innovations being introduced into East Rite liturgies.  Several other members with experience in the Eastern Rites also posted examples.  The only innovation I remember was the novelty of "altar girls" but other problems were presented as well.  Evidently, based on what a number of members wrote, this is a wide-spread problem.  Yet one Te Deum member still said that these were mere local abuses--sounding, frankly, just like what "conservative" Catholics used to say during the early years of the Crisis.  It seems to me, sometimes, that Eastern Catholics are intent upon making the same mistakes today that Latin Rite Catholics made in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

I don't believe any sedevacantists don't think the East should not reject innovations inspired (or demanded) by Modernist Rome.  The question, instead, is are the Eastern Rites rejecting them?

But we also need to remember--and I think this is where you are most mistaken--the problem is not primarily one of liturgy.  The problem concerns the innovations of the Faith.  And if the Eastern Churches truly recognize the Conciliar popes as their rule of faith--which is what a pope is--then they are becoming corrupted for the Conciliar popes are, indeed, innovating the Faith.

 
The following users thanked this post: 2Vermont, Nick, Rubecorks

2Vermont

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2017, 07:23:35 PM »
We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis.

How so?
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

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

Rubecorks

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2017, 07:34:40 PM »
We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis.

How so?

it is not clear. Let it be know that you are quoting Vinny.
 

2Vermont

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2017, 07:39:36 PM »
We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis.

How so?

it is not clear. Let it be know that you are quoting Vinny.

Hopefully Vinny will clarify it.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

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

Rubecorks

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2017, 07:43:23 PM »
We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis.

How so?

it is not clear. Let it be know that you are quoting Vinny.

Hopefully Vinny will clarify it.

Good luck.
 

Vinny Zee

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2017, 09:04:36 PM »
We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis.

How so?

2Vermont, here is the problem. I have learned to be very careful with the questions brought back to me. I made the statement you quoted as a conclusion to a very long post.

You took it out of its context, quoted it and ask, "How so?"

Therefore, I will ask you how you understood it in light of all that I said. Then we can have a discussion as to whether you followed why I said what I said. It is not confusing in context of what I wrote.