Author Topic: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?  (Read 589 times)

Vinny Zee

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2017, 03:16:28 PM »
I have to say that, having never seen John Lane before, he most certainly does not look like how I pictured him in my mind from his voice and that I know his age.  Interesting.

Not sure I have the time to watch the debate nor am I sure I even have the inclination to do so.  I prefer to listen to such things while I am walking or otherwise employed.  I'm not so excited about having to sit down and watch videos of such things for a couple hours.

I listen to YouTube all the time while driving. I have a long commute. I find the content I need to listen to and then drive. I don't need to watch the debate, even if there are diagrams, etc. I can follow, listen and analyze just from listening. You Tube often has the best content that does not interrupt on download.
 

Vinny Zee

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2017, 10:36:32 PM »
I *think* what I meant was a post-Vatican II Eastern Catholic.  I believe I was merely trying to distinguish one that is in the Eastern Rite before and after Vatican II.

By the way, if you use the preview function you should be able to figure out what is wrong with the formatting of the post, if there is something wrong.

I guess what I need to know is what you think has changed for the Eastern Rite post Vatican II, particularly what you feel they have said we should or must change that we are ignoring?

I do not want to put words in your mouth of what you're asking. You have said we are post Vatican II Eastern Catholics that I think are allowed to reject Pope Francis (and his predecessors) and his Vatican II teachings because of the fact the Eastern Churches came back pre-Vatican II without having to change our rites, traditions, etc. and this gives us carte blanche to do as we please in line with our own traditions and theology. Do I understand this correctly? 

Do you have an example of what this particular change is that was commanded that we have ignored?  You have to give me something to work with here that you are citing or thinking.   
 

Vinny Zee

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2017, 11:28:41 PM »
Quote from: VinnyZee
“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.

Hey Vinny,

I think that the main popular rallying cry of traditionalists was a response to the New Mass, but there aren't any sedevacantists (except perhaps for the more recent brand of resignationists, who say that Francis is anti-pope but Paul VI-Benedict XVI are legit) who think that the anti-papacy began when Paul VI published the Novus Ordo.  This is important to keep in mind because while we can certainly discuss the illegitimacy of the New Mass without ever mentioning Paul VI (i.e., we can just look at the rite itself), from a sedevacantist P.O.V. there's the added (and probably more significant) ammunition that Paul VI wasn't pope.  So when push comes to shove, we can reject the New Mass without ever even looking at it, the same way that we might reject the canonization of Fr. Kolbe, a truly saintly priest, but who simply has never been canonized.  Likewise, even if the N.O.M. had nothing intrinsically wrong with it (as I would say is the case with the 1962 missal), the mere fact that it lacks the sort of approval required for use is as strong an argument as any to reject its use.  I say this simply as a way of showing that once one is convicted that Paul VI was not pope, the question of revising the missal doesn't even come up.  Because if he's not pope, it doesn't matter at all what the actual contents of the N.O.M. are, they can be rejected on the grounds that they lack the sort of approval required, and we can just stop there if we want (this isn't to cede that the N.O.M. is orthodox, because it certainly isn't, but just to really emphasize that bringing up prior revisions to the missal of Pius V is really only something that has a bearing on non-sedevacantist arguments, like those of Fr. Tauok.)

Next, if we do look at the N.O.M., it's clear enough that it is not a revision, but an entirely new rite altogether, and at that, one which replaces Pius V's missal in fact.  Unlike the other revisions (legitimately done up until the death of Pius XII), those revisions contained Quo Primum while Paul VI's missal doesn't.  That alone should tell you the mind of the authors.  But add to that, it was devised (literally) by a non-Catholic religious committee, and as many, many authors have shown, it stripped the mass of everything uniquely Catholic-- no Prayers at the foot of the altar (makes sense, given that there's no altar), no offertory (makes sense, given that there's no sacrifice), completely new canon, bereft of sacrificial language, new words of consecration, new prefatory prayers (which are more Jewish in nature than Catholic), etc.  So even from the position of Fr. Tauok (who is an SSPX priest and not a sedevacantist), one could mount a very strong case for the illegitimacy of the N.O.M. based on it being a new rite rather than a revision. 

So to sum it up,

1) If sedevacantism is our starting point, there's nothing to be said about the N.O.M. since it was never legitimately promulgated regardless of its content

2) Even otherwise, it is clearly not a revision and definitely not a case of special pleading.  The "line drawn" at the N.O.M. is anything but arbitrary.

Mithrandylan there was a reason I brought up the liturgical changes. I know it may look like, from the structure of my introductory post on this thread that I was making the liturgy the main point of the issues sedevacantists have. In actuality, both the (now deleted) thread and this one I res-posted here were started with the exact same comments. Initially I had responded on an Introduction from Awkward Customer, which was the first part of my post. The second part came from a response to the comment, "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."

In response to this, I provided my response about the liturgy. After it was suggested it be moved to a new thread, I combined my initial reply to Akward Customer and my reply to Rubecorks in one opening comment. I fully understand that Mass/Liturgy is not the only issue for Sedevacantists and is actually, as I think I understand you are saying (and others have said) it is one of the many issues and is really an outgrowth of what was the apostasy of Vatican II. Digressing here for a second, I guess you all would say traditionalists have the same problem people who escape over to the Eastern Rite have, i.e. they believe if you just fix the liturgy part of the problem the problem is fixed? Not sure if that is the overall conclusive point on that. 

Anyway, continuing on to my last points.  I have raised this before and because there has been some recent discussion here about terms and how they are used, I will reiterate my point on something.  I often hear the Eastern Catholics are "Novus Ordo" or there is reference to the "Novus Ordo Catholics." My understanding is that Novus Ordo related specifically to the change of the mass itself. However, it has become a term that has become synonymous with every single Catholic who is in the Post-Vatican II church.  It is, from my point of view, the same type of derogatory term the Eastern Orthodox gave to us by calling us Uniates.  Therefore, "Novus Ordo" or "N.O." has become a term of derision for referring to someone who is not a Sedevacantist.  Perhaps maybe there are traditionalists, who not being sedes, use this term too, but by and large this is a term I almost universally here Sedevacantists use.

So I would just like to say the term "Novus Ordo" is not helpful when dealing with what one sees as a larger problem beyond the liturgy, perhaps "post-Vatican II" is more helpful? I think if Novus Order is being used it should always be used only in reference to the change in the mass.  Any other usage of discussing issues should be referred to as "post-Vatican II."  Someone recently had some issues with me mentioning the issues of "painting one into a corner" as if I was using this as an excuse to get out of a discussion.  This was not it at all. The point being is that "Novus Ordo Catholics" is as divisive as the term "Uniate."  I see it akin to something like in politics, when someone calls another a "racist" or "bigot." It may not be a 100% successful tactic, but it immediately tips the scales and the accused is quickly put on the defensive. Even though they may not be a racist or a bigot, there will be some level of effort given to dispelling this attack, which grants the attacker some level of success. This is why the first thread got out of hand quickly, once the term "schismatic" started getting thrown around.  So even if one feels boiling post Vatican II to down to its lowest common denominator naturally leads to just calling someone part of the "N.O." it is still not helpful (or fair) particularly if that person comes from a position of saying that saying the sedevacantist position is more than just the changes in liturgy and should not be viewed from this one singular point.  Your point was well made and well taken on the sedevacantist position in regards to the liturgy. 

In conclusion, the other point I was making is that Quo Primum, if I remember, was bound on any liturgy no older than 200 years old.  The liturgy of St. John Chrysostem, that we use, is from the 4th century in addition to those times of the year we use the liturgy of St. Basil or St. James and therefore, Quo Primum would not have been binding on the East anyway.  Just before I moved my comments on the intro to the new thread, the following comment was put to me, "I really don't know what's so difficult to understand about the Eastern Rite Catholics being no alternative to the N.O., since they are part of the N.O." If we are in agreement that Novus Ordo specifically applies to the changes in the mass itself, and we also agree Quo Primum would not have ever been binding on us anyway and finally that the Eastern Liturgies were left intact even after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, I still don't understand how some say the Eastern Catholics are, "Part of the Novus Ordo?"
 

Rubecorks

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #23 on: December 30, 2017, 10:30:30 AM »
Quote from: VinnyZee
“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.

Hey Vinny,

I think that the main popular rallying cry of traditionalists was a response to the New Mass, but there aren't any sedevacantists (except perhaps for the more recent brand of resignationists, who say that Francis is anti-pope but Paul VI-Benedict XVI are legit) who think that the anti-papacy began when Paul VI published the Novus Ordo.  This is important to keep in mind because while we can certainly discuss the illegitimacy of the New Mass without ever mentioning Paul VI (i.e., we can just look at the rite itself), from a sedevacantist P.O.V. there's the added (and probably more significant) ammunition that Paul VI wasn't pope.  So when push comes to shove, we can reject the New Mass without ever even looking at it, the same way that we might reject the canonization of Fr. Kolbe, a truly saintly priest, but who simply has never been canonized.  Likewise, even if the N.O.M. had nothing intrinsically wrong with it (as I would say is the case with the 1962 missal), the mere fact that it lacks the sort of approval required for use is as strong an argument as any to reject its use.  I say this simply as a way of showing that once one is convicted that Paul VI was not pope, the question of revising the missal doesn't even come up.  Because if he's not pope, it doesn't matter at all what the actual contents of the N.O.M. are, they can be rejected on the grounds that they lack the sort of approval required, and we can just stop there if we want (this isn't to cede that the N.O.M. is orthodox, because it certainly isn't, but just to really emphasize that bringing up prior revisions to the missal of Pius V is really only something that has a bearing on non-sedevacantist arguments, like those of Fr. Tauok.)

Next, if we do look at the N.O.M., it's clear enough that it is not a revision, but an entirely new rite altogether, and at that, one which replaces Pius V's missal in fact.  Unlike the other revisions (legitimately done up until the death of Pius XII), those revisions contained Quo Primum while Paul VI's missal doesn't.  That alone should tell you the mind of the authors.  But add to that, it was devised (literally) by a non-Catholic religious committee, and as many, many authors have shown, it stripped the mass of everything uniquely Catholic-- no Prayers at the foot of the altar (makes sense, given that there's no altar), no offertory (makes sense, given that there's no sacrifice), completely new canon, bereft of sacrificial language, new words of consecration, new prefatory prayers (which are more Jewish in nature than Catholic), etc.  So even from the position of Fr. Tauok (who is an SSPX priest and not a sedevacantist), one could mount a very strong case for the illegitimacy of the N.O.M. based on it being a new rite rather than a revision. 

So to sum it up,

1) If sedevacantism is our starting point, there's nothing to be said about the N.O.M. since it was never legitimately promulgated regardless of its content

2) Even otherwise, it is clearly not a revision and definitely not a case of special pleading.  The "line drawn" at the N.O.M. is anything but arbitrary.

Mithrandylan there was a reason I brought up the liturgical changes. I know it may look like, from the structure of my introductory post on this thread that I was making the liturgy the main point of the issues sedevacantists have. In actuality, both the (now deleted) thread and this one I res-posted here were started with the exact same comments. Initially I had responded on an Introduction from Awkward Customer, which was the first part of my post. The second part came from a response to the comment, "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."

In response to this, I provided my response about the liturgy. After it was suggested it be moved to a new thread, I combined my initial reply to Akward Customer and my reply to Rubecorks in one opening comment. I fully understand that Mass/Liturgy is not the only issue for Sedevacantists and is actually, as I think I understand you are saying (and others have said) it is one of the many issues and is really an outgrowth of what was the apostasy of Vatican II. Digressing here for a second, I guess you all would say traditionalists have the same problem people who escape over to the Eastern Rite have, i.e. they believe if you just fix the liturgy part of the problem the problem is fixed? Not sure if that is the overall conclusive point on that. 

Anyway, continuing on to my last points.  I have raised this before and because there has been some recent discussion here about terms and how they are used, I will reiterate my point on something.  I often hear the Eastern Catholics are "Novus Ordo" or there is reference to the "Novus Ordo Catholics." My understanding is that Novus Ordo related specifically to the change of the mass itself. However, it has become a term that has become synonymous with every single Catholic who is in the Post-Vatican II church.  It is, from my point of view, the same type of derogatory term the Eastern Orthodox gave to us by calling us Uniates.  Therefore, "Novus Ordo" or "N.O." has become a term of derision for referring to someone who is not a Sedevacantist.  Perhaps maybe there are traditionalists, who not being sedes, use this term too, but by and large this is a term I almost universally here Sedevacantists use.

So I would just like to say the term "Novus Ordo" is not helpful when dealing with what one sees as a larger problem beyond the liturgy, perhaps "post-Vatican II" is more helpful? I think if Novus Order is being used it should always be used only in reference to the change in the mass.  Any other usage of discussing issues should be referred to as "post-Vatican II."  Someone recently had some issues with me mentioning the issues of "painting one into a corner" as if I was using this as an excuse to get out of a discussion.  This was not it at all. The point being is that "Novus Ordo Catholics" is as divisive as the term "Uniate."  I see it akin to something like in politics, when someone calls another a "racist" or "bigot." It may not be a 100% successful tactic, but it immediately tips the scales and the accused is quickly put on the defensive. Even though they may not be a racist or a bigot, there will be some level of effort given to dispelling this attack, which grants the attacker some level of success. This is why the first thread got out of hand quickly, once the term "schismatic" started getting thrown around.  So even if one feels boiling post Vatican II to down to its lowest common denominator naturally leads to just calling someone part of the "N.O." it is still not helpful (or fair) particularly if that person comes from a position of saying that saying the sedevacantist position is more than just the changes in liturgy and should not be viewed from this one singular point.  Your point was well made and well taken on the sedevacantist position in regards to the liturgy. 

In conclusion, the other point I was making is that Quo Primum, if I remember, was bound on any liturgy no older than 200 years old.  The liturgy of St. John Chrysostem, that we use, is from the 4th century in addition to those times of the year we use the liturgy of St. Basil or St. James and therefore, Quo Primum would not have been binding on the East anyway.  Just before I moved my comments on the intro to the new thread, the following comment was put to me, "I really don't know what's so difficult to understand about the Eastern Rite Catholics being no alternative to the N.O., since they are part of the N.O." If we are in agreement that Novus Ordo specifically applies to the changes in the mass itself, and we also agree Quo Primum would not have ever been binding on us anyway and finally that the Eastern Liturgies were left intact even after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, I still don't understand how some say the Eastern Catholics are, "Part of the Novus Ordo?"

There's the "Novus Ordo Missae" and there is the "Novus Ordo". The former is obvious; the latter describes Vatican II innovations, heresies & apostasy lead by a false pope. The most horrible thing on the face of the earth. This is simply the way it is, and has been used for decades, quite casually.  Clergy of any rite who consider themselves Catholic and acknowledge Francis as pope and doesn't fight it, are considered Novus Ordo. It was the same any time in history; if any clergy were subordinate to Bishop Arius, and didn't fight his heresy, they were considered Arians.
 
The following users thanked this post: 2Vermont, Nick

TKGS

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #24 on: December 30, 2017, 12:46:39 PM »
Frankly, I question whether most Eastern Catholics can truly verify that "nothing has changed" in the Eastern Liturgies.  There are so many subtle changes that could be made that would likely not be noticed by the faithful.  Additionally, few Eastern Catholics who make the claim that "nothing has changed" really aren't old enough to have any personal memory of the Liturgy as it was before Vatican 2.  Finally, if one searches the internet, one can easily find many references and discussions of liturgical changes since Vatican 2 so it seems that there have been changes so the claim that "nothing has changed" is simply false.

However, liturgical changes really aren't the point in any of this discussion.  If one recognizes the Conciliar popes as true popes, then one must accept that he has the "authority to ... prescribe a rule of faith obligatory on all" (Catholic Encyclopedia).  If they accept the rule of faith prescribed by the Conciliar popes, they are heretics.  If they reject the rule of faith prescribed by the Conciliar popes but, nonetheless, claim that he is the pope, then they are schismatics, and, if they raise this attitude to doctrine, they are heretics as well; in effect, they are R&R.

But frankly, I don't believe that the bishops and priests of the Eastern Rites have maintained the true Faith as most sedevacantists have because the Conciliar popes have proven that they will not tolerate dissent from their Satanic program of ecumenism and other heresies within the ranks of those who submit to their jurisdiction.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, annamack

Vinny Zee

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #25 on: December 30, 2017, 01:24:01 PM »
Frankly, I question whether most Eastern Catholics can truly verify that "nothing has changed" in the Eastern Liturgies.  There are so many subtle changes that could be made that would likely not be noticed by the faithful.  Additionally, few Eastern Catholics who make the claim that "nothing has changed" really aren't old enough to have any personal memory of the Liturgy as it was before Vatican 2.  Finally, if one searches the internet, one can easily find many references and discussions of liturgical changes since Vatican 2 so it seems that there have been changes so the claim that "nothing has changed" is simply false.

However, liturgical changes really aren't the point in any of this discussion.  If one recognizes the Conciliar popes as true popes, then one must accept that he has the "authority to ... prescribe a rule of faith obligatory on all" (Catholic Encyclopedia).  If they accept the rule of faith prescribed by the Conciliar popes, they are heretics.  If they reject the rule of faith prescribed by the Conciliar popes but, nonetheless, claim that he is the pope, then they are schismatics, and, if they raise this attitude to doctrine, they are heretics as well; in effect, they are R&R.

But frankly, I don't believe that the bishops and priests of the Eastern Rites have maintained the true Faith as most sedevacantists have because the Conciliar popes have proven that they will not tolerate dissent from their Satanic program of ecumenism and other heresies within the ranks of those who submit to their jurisdiction.

TKGS, your entire argument is a deductive fallacy, as right as you want to believe your argument to sound. Your premise is this, "I don't believe that the bishops and priests of the Eastern Rites have maintained the true Faith as most sedevacantists have." Therefore, you deductively attempt to argue anything that is not sedevacantist is false, heretical and schismatic. All the buzz words like racist, bigot, "sexual predator."

"Additionally, few Eastern Catholics who make the claim that "nothing has changed" really aren't old enough to have any personal memory of the Liturgy as it was before Vatican 2." This is a fallacious argument because of the fact it completely denigrates apostolic succession. Soon, there is going to be no one left on earth that was alive before Vatican II. I could say there is not one sede today who was around at Vatican I. Or there is no one left that was around at the Council of Trent. What does that prove? It proves nothing. Your argument then is that only the sedes have kept apostolic succession? The reason I spent so much time on "latinization" was the fact that I am sure there were plenty from the West who felt the East needed to be latinized, but the Popes said "no."  The East, though it has been 500 years, has never been warmly received into the Catholic Church.  You apparently have no issue with sending us down the river either. 

I have asked, what are these changes you are adamant were made? You are begging the question by saying, "there are subtle changes that could be made, without the faithful noticing." Ok, fine, like what? Please tell me what these subtle changes are? I already addressed the fact that people rabbling on the internet are not the authority for the Church. That is just the way it is. People grumbled in the desert against Moses. So what, they were not in authority, and God sided with Moses, not the people raising a fuss.

How can you say liturgical changes are not the point? Why not, because you (and others say they are not?) It is like me saying, because Vatican I stated, "therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema" that sedevacantism is not even an issue that can be discussed, I'm sure you'd have a retort or a reason why you can raise it or it is an issue that should be discussed. You cannot tell someone, "that is not an issue" because you don't think it is so.

Basically what you are saying to me is there were changes, just accept the fact there were without any evidence of what they were and also the conciliar popes and bishops are all heretical because of ecumenism and therefore even if the East showed there were no substantive changes, the East is still heretical anyway.
 

TKGS

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #26 on: December 30, 2017, 01:44:15 PM »
TKGS, your entire argument is a deductive fallacy...

Please note:  This wasn't an argument.  I did not frame this as an argument.  I was merely explaining that I still have questions that none of your posts have answered.  I did not intend to convince you or anyone else of anything.

As for liturgical changes not being the point, I state it as merely a point of fact.   It is not an opinion that the liturgical changes are not the point of the argument.  The fact that you keep bringing them up is indicative that you do not understand the Crisis and each time you raise the point your credibility falls.

But since you insist on discussing liturgical changes:

In the Western Church, the introduction of hand missals that the lay faithful began to use in the early 20th Century with the encouragement of the hierarchy is how we lay faithful know that liturgical changes were made and how we lay faithful know that the Conciliar sect no longer worships according to the Roman Rite. 

I am wondering if the Eastern Rites use hand missals or used them before Vatican 2.  If so, it would be interesting to compare hand missals from the early 20th Century with a hand missal published recently.  Anyone know?  I've not looked for an Eastern Rite hand missal but I note that I've never seen them advertised.
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

Vinny Zee

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #27 on: December 30, 2017, 04:23:47 PM »
TKGS, your entire argument is a deductive fallacy...

Please note:  This wasn't an argument.  I did not frame this as an argument.  I was merely explaining that I still have questions that none of your posts have answered.  I did not intend to convince you or anyone else of anything.

As for liturgical changes not being the point, I state it as merely a point of fact.   It is not an opinion that the liturgical changes are not the point of the argument.  The fact that you keep bringing them up is indicative that you do not understand the Crisis and each time you raise the point your credibility falls.

But since you insist on discussing liturgical changes:

In the Western Church, the introduction of hand missals that the lay faithful began to use in the early 20th Century with the encouragement of the hierarchy is how we lay faithful know that liturgical changes were made and how we lay faithful know that the Conciliar sect no longer worships according to the Roman Rite. 

I am wondering if the Eastern Rites use hand missals or used them before Vatican 2.  If so, it would be interesting to compare hand missals from the early 20th Century with a hand missal published recently.  Anyone know?  I've not looked for an Eastern Rite hand missal but I note that I've never seen them advertised.

Fine point and thank you and I most definitely do not want to be argumentative, because I don't think it will get either of us anywhere. Your question on the missals is a good one and I will definitely research it and ask about it deeper.  I definitely do not want to turn this into a discussion about the liturgy only as I do understand what Sedes have said that for them the issue is not just about the liturgy.  My contention has always been to understand this is one of the many parts of the sede position, because I have seen several sedes discuss the liturgy, changes in the 1955 missal vs. 1962 missal, etc.  So I have seen it discussed, but I never said this is the singular position for you all that defines your position. I am not saying your point about anyone who was around pre-Vatican II was not pertinent, because it is to an extent and I get what you meant by it.  We have missals in the Ukrainian Church. My priest is Ukrainian from Ukraine (born and raised). He was recently telling us that when he was a child the liturgy was in Slavonic and even though he speaks Ukrainian and English (and I assume he speaks Russian), he had a very difficult time with the Slavonic and the liturgy was hard to follow as a child, but he remembered the liturgy being in Slavonic. I do not know what form her learned in seminary, but I would have to assume he learned the Slavonic version.  As I understand the issue related to the liturgy in the east, all of the churches were encouraged to restore their ancient liturgical traditions. To some extent most of them have made some changes, namely the two Byzantine-Slavonic churches in the U.S.A. (Ruthenian and Ukrainian) changed their liturgies to the vernacular.  For the Ruthenians and Ukrainians the change was from Old Church Slavonic to English or Ukrainian though many Slavonic chants remain.   

When the liturgical books were translated into the Slavonic tongue, the main reason was the apostolic desire to reach the hearts and the minds of a common people, since Slavonic culture developed outside the sphere of Latin and Greek. The only possible way to reach Slavic peoples was through their own language. "Slavic" Christianity with the Slavonic Liturgy came to the Slavs from SS. Cyril and Methodius. The oldest liturgical text is from the eighth century, called "Codex Barberini". It is written in Greek and at the present time it is preserved in the Vatican Library. Besides the above Divine Liturgies I mentioned (St John Chrystostem and Liturgy of St. James), the code contains some prayers from Vespers, Midnight Service and Matins, as well as some parts of the Euchologion (the administration of the Sacrements and Sacrementals). In the monastery of Mt. Sinai, there is preserved another code, also in the Greek language, called "Codex Porphirianus," from the time of SS. Cyril and Methodius.  Thus we know exactly how the Apostles of the Slavs celebrated their Divine Liturgy.

In 880, St. Methodius defended the Slavonic Rite before Pope John VIII (872-882) a staunch defender of the liturgy, who on that occasion issued the bull "Industriae Tuae," dated June, 880. The Pope absolved St. Methodius of all false accusations of heresy and confirmed him once again as Archbishop of Moravia and Pannonia. He also imposed on Methodius' adversary, Bishop Wiching of Nitra, to submit to the jurisdiction of St. Methodius as to his Metropolitan. Pope John VIII also reconfirmed the use of the Slavonic Liturgy. These two papal documents, the breve of Pope Adrian II "Gloria in Excelsis", issued in 869, and the bull of Pope John VIII "Industriae Tuae", issued in 880, were the canonical basis of the Slavonic Rite, which was initiated by the Apostles of the Slavs, SS. Cyril and Methodius, at the dawn of their Moravian mission in 863.

The Cyprian Liturgical Reform became more effective after the invention of printing. The first liturgy in the Slavonic language was printed in Venice, in 1519, according to Serbian tradition. The second edition, published in 1638, was somewhat improved and became the typical formulary of the Divine Liturgy among all Ruthenains in union with Rome (including Ukrainians and White Russians). Since subsequent editions began to introduce some liturgical changes without any authority, the Liturgical Commission of Rome published a typical text of the Holy Liturgy in 1940, which binds all the Rusthenians to the present time and pre-dates Vatican II. Liturgical services were once again brought back to the standards of the Kievan tradition. 

I personally am not aware of any additional revisions, but I will do what I can to find out if any revisions were made, like the example of the Novus Ordo and 1962 Missal, but to my knowledge there is not.  Again, my understanding is that the only change was from the Old Church Slavonic to the vernacular, not any changes in form or practice. 

Finally, my only point about liturgy has always and hopefully been to discuss the importance of the liturgy in the life of the Church and practice of Catholics of that Rite. 
« Last Edit: December 30, 2017, 04:27:11 PM by Vinny Zee »
 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS, Nick, Troubled Teen

TKGS

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #28 on: December 30, 2017, 09:16:11 PM »
Staying with the subject of the Liturgy:

I'd just like to point out that when the Latin Rite began in Rome, it was in the vernacular or Rome.  The Eastern Rites have generally translated their liturgies into the vernacular languages wherever they are located, and we should remember that when St. Peter came to Rome, he came from the East.  (If I am not accurate about translations in this regard, please correct me.)

I've never had a problem with the translation of the various Rites.  If the Conciliar sect had used the very good translations that Catholics had already become accustomed to (in all of the old hand missals I've seen, the translations are very close) instead of creating a completely banal and very modern translation that even lay Catholics could see wasn't really a translation but, rather, were completely new compositions, I don't think there would have been nearly the abandonment of the Novus Ordo.  The changes in the Liturgy really were what clued a lot of people into the Crisis as it was the most visible of the Changes.

In retrospect, it is good that the Latin Church never permitted the Latin Rite to be translated for liturgical use.  The major heresies in the West, i.e., Protestantism, were a result of and spread, in large part, due to the perversion of the Liturgy which were developed and spread in vernacular languages.  The Eastern world has a different culture and it's people a different worldview on many things.  This is why (though I offer no evidence here) that the vernacular liturgies in the East have never been damaging to the people as they have been in the West.

This is also why, in retrospect, that it is good that the Vatican heresiarchs thought they could change everything at once.  Their hubris made it absolutely clear that what they were giving us was a new religion.  The Eastern Rites, on the other hand, didn't make noticeable changes quickly.  This has kept most Eastern Catholics comfortable in believing nothing has changed.  Yet, they accept men as popes over the years who have gone out of their way to change the faith itself.  Something has changed.  Either they don't really accept these men as popes, or they are gradually accepting the new faith while keeping their liturgies--at least for the most part.

But this is why I also question why Westerners (i.e., Americans and Western Europeans) are in the Eastern Rites.  While I know a paltry few Eastern Catholics, all of them are culturally as Western as one can get in all things with one singular exception:  Where they go to Church.  It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, annamack

Vinny Zee

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #29 on: December 31, 2017, 10:43:45 AM »
Staying with the subject of the Liturgy:

I'd just like to point out that when the Latin Rite began in Rome, it was in the vernacular or Rome.  The Eastern Rites have generally translated their liturgies into the vernacular languages wherever they are located, and we should remember that when St. Peter came to Rome, he came from the East.  (If I am not accurate about translations in this regard, please correct me.)

I've never had a problem with the translation of the various Rites.  If the Conciliar sect had used the very good translations that Catholics had already become accustomed to (in all of the old hand missals I've seen, the translations are very close) instead of creating a completely banal and very modern translation that even lay Catholics could see wasn't really a translation but, rather, were completely new compositions, I don't think there would have been nearly the abandonment of the Novus Ordo.  The changes in the Liturgy really were what clued a lot of people into the Crisis as it was the most visible of the Changes.

In retrospect, it is good that the Latin Church never permitted the Latin Rite to be translated for liturgical use.  The major heresies in the West, i.e., Protestantism, were a result of and spread, in large part, due to the perversion of the Liturgy which were developed and spread in vernacular languages.  The Eastern world has a different culture and it's people a different worldview on many things.  This is why (though I offer no evidence here) that the vernacular liturgies in the East have never been damaging to the people as they have been in the West.

This is also why, in retrospect, that it is good that the Vatican heresiarchs thought they could change everything at once.  Their hubris made it absolutely clear that what they were giving us was a new religion.  The Eastern Rites, on the other hand, didn't make noticeable changes quickly.  This has kept most Eastern Catholics comfortable in believing nothing has changed.  Yet, they accept men as popes over the years who have gone out of their way to change the faith itself.  Something has changed.  Either they don't really accept these men as popes, or they are gradually accepting the new faith while keeping their liturgies--at least for the most part.

But this is why I also question why Westerners (i.e., Americans and Western Europeans) are in the Eastern Rites.  While I know a paltry few Eastern Catholics, all of them are culturally as Western as one can get in all things with one singular exception:  Where they go to Church.  It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Regarding Westerners in the Eastern Rites, I think it is a hard thing to analyze in the U.S. because first off the country is such a melting pot and second there are so many options. In Ukraine, by and large, it appears your main two choices are the Ukrainian Orthodox Church or the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (how they term it.) I am not saying those are the only two, but by an large, they are the two most prominent. One would think the Roman Catholic Church is the largest in Italy, but there is a fairly large presence of the Italo-Albano Eastern Catholic Church in Southern Italy.  Also, there was never really any regulation that only individuals of a particular nationality should belong to these eastern churches and they should never take in new converts.  I think it is a larger issue of many westerners, because of the prominence of the Latin/Roman Rite, they were unaware of the Eastern Rites. I always ask individuals in my parish how or why they ended up in a Ukrainian parish. Some are from Ukraine, many others however, were raised in the Ukrainian Rite or married someone with it.

I think the biggest confusion for some people is the calendar issue.  There are some parishes that follow strictly the Western Calendar and some that follow the Eastern Calendar.  I don't know if it was ever dogmatically defined which calendar to follow, but in the U.S. I find the Eastern Calendar a bit odd. Fortunately my parish follows the Western Calendar. Regarding changes, the biggest complaints I have heard from people in the know, have been among the Ruthenians, but mainly many complained their rite became to Latinized. I don't really know what that means, because I've never been to the Ruthenian Rite. Tragically, however, what that caused was many to leave the church and go to an Eastern Orthodox Church (again from what I've been told.) Therefore, I think this is the bigger issue for Eastern Catholics (and I think this is what Benedict XIV was talking about) was that the Eastern Orthodox were so tied to their customs, rites and traditions, that they should stay intact (even if it could be argued they were inferior.) So it is with these Ruthenians, (and probably the Eastern Rites) they want their traditions and practices left intact, so it is not an issue of accepting or rejecting the Pope as much as it is not wanting their traditions and practices changed.

I can't sit here and say I can delineate out all of the details on this. I had a long talk with one of our deacons about many of these issues today. It was an interesting discussion, particularly for Eastern Rite Catholics, which is the distinctness of the eastern traditions and communion with Rome. He is very familiar with the Ruthenians and in fact he was talking about changes to their missal, which was a unique discussion. Also, we had a discussion about people he knew who openly admitted to him that they went to the Eastern Rite to "escape" the Novus Ordo. So these are all good points and it is not like it is not known these things happen. However, I personally do not like the word "escape" over to or even questions of why, "westerners are among the east" only for the fact the Popes were clear from what I've read is that the east and west, in communion, were one church.  I guess this argument could be made for churches that offer 3 or 4 Novus Ordo masses and 1 Latin Mass. In a way, it could be argued, those in the parish who only attend the Latin Mass are escaping and want nothing to do with the Novus Ordo mass and should they be required to attend both?

What I was never able to get into a discussion with Rubecorks about on the last post was the discussion on "different theology." I was not saying different theology as in we do what we want.  I only was able to partly make my point that for example, the Eastern Catholics can't be monophysites, and remain Catholic. However, there are differences in how East and West view the assumption, both saying Mary was assumed, but the east saying it was after her dormition. There are differences in the administration of the Eucharist (even among the Eastern Churches themselves), there are differences in how salvation, sin, redemption, etc are all explained. How the east explains it and practices it is not at variance with the Catholic Church and this is what Benedict XIV was ultimately saying. Again, I used the example of trying to explain to a protestant that every time the word "work" is used in the Bible, it is not talking about dead works, because James is showing in the book of James that Abraham performed a true work. So there is a distinction that needs to be made. Therefore, not everything the East practiced had to be thrown out or tossed aside upon the East and West coming into communion. All this to say, I think there are Eastern Christians (as well as Western) who become very protective of their practices and feel threatened if they suspect any change.

I do very much appreciate civil discussion, because it is helpful and it is the only way so many people of so many backgrounds can come to learn from one another and hear one another.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick