Can we establish our own church/parish?

[Richardprins]

I feel this is betraying my own hierarchy. If I’m going to burn bridges anyway, I’d rather jump the “communion” line.

I’m flabbergasted by how easy you are willing to exit from the catholic Church. Don’t you know it is Church teaching that it is necessary for salvation to (actually) belong to the Catholic Church, and to be subject to the supreme pontiff (if you know about this)? (Unam Sanctam, fifth lateran council, second vatican council etc.)

 

[Hesychios]

I’m flabbergasted by how easy you are willing to exit from the catholic Church. Don’t you know it is Church teaching that it is necessary for salvation to (actually) belong to the Catholic Church, and to be subject to the supreme pontiff (if you know about this)? (Unam Sanctam, fifth lateran council, second vatican council etc.)

Are you a Feeneyite?

Just curious.

 

[The_Idiot]

I’m flabbergasted by how easy you are willing to exit from the catholic Church. Don’t you know it is Church teaching that it is necessary for salvation to (actually) belong to the Catholic Church, and to be subject to the supreme pontiff (if you know about this)? (Unam Sanctam, fifth lateran council, second vatican council etc.)

It’s easy for an outsider to say this - you are NOT in his head and you do NOT KNOW what has brought him to this.

 

[Richardprins]

No, I am not a feeneyite, why would you say that? Feeney made a caricature of legitimate Catholic teaching, however the legitimate teaching is true. It is grave matter to seperate ones self and to be seperated from the Catholic Church, though of course personal circumstances (ignorance, or baptism of blood or desire), or extreme pressure, can make this not be an actual mortal sin. So theoretically, as Vatican II teaches, it is possible to be saved while not visibly belonging to the Church.
It is easy for me to say that, and I don’t want to be uncharitable, and of course I know very little about Constantine, but sometimes it is necessary to state things like these, and I believed this was the time judging by what was posted and because no one else said anything about this matter.
Please tell where you think I have not displayed catholic teaching correctly, I am just a simple lay person.

 

[Peter_J]

Richardprins, if you’d like to discuss something other than the topic of this thread, you should start your own thread.

 

[Richardprins]

Richardprins, if you’d like to discuss something other than the topic of this thread, you should start your own thread.

Maybe I’m making completely false assumptions, I don’t see the issue, but I’ve said enough.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m flabbergasted by how easy you are willing to exit from the catholic Church. Don’t you know it is Church teaching that it is necessary for salvation to (actually) belong to the Catholic Church, and to be subject to the supreme pontiff (if you know about this)? (Unam Sanctam, fifth lateran council, second vatican council etc.)

Why do I have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff? Isn’t Christianity about Jesus and not the Pope?

 

[Diak]

What “blessing” are you talking about? It simply makes no sense to attend a communion service if a Catholic sacrificial liturgy is readily available.Attending a sacrificial liturgy would not preclude a group of people from otherwise worshiping together.

The Bishop is the competent authority within his diocese to give such a blessing, especially when there is no resident priest. This even happens in Latin parishes, especially in rural areas when a priest cannot attend. Economia in mission situations is not a new thing.

And yes, it makes perfect sense when the Magisterium teaches us clearly to maintain our liturgical and spiritual heritage. Otherwise we risk indifference and the loss of all of our people to the Latins or other particular Churches. Why come back to your Eastern parish when it is more “convienient” somewhere else?

From Paragraph Two of Orientalium Ecclesiarum:

for it is the mind of the Catholic Church **that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire **and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.

Paragraph Four:

1. Means should be taken therefore in every part of the world for **the protection and advancement of all the individual Churches **

Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is,** must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability **

I don’t think abandoning your parish when the Bishop and/or the particular law allows the deacon to celebrate services meeting the “obligation” is in accord with the Magesterial teaching above.

I would again point to the particular Law of the UGCC in the USA which allows the fulfillment of the Sunday and festal “obligation” by attendance at Vespers, Matins or the Liturgy.

Also during weekdays of the Great Fast there is no “sacrificial liturgy” even in parishes with a priest - the daily Liturgy is the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, essentially Vespers with the distribution of presanctified Holy Communion. By your argument we should abandon this ancient and venerable Lenten liturgical tradition simply because it is not a “sacrificial liturgy”.

Our bishops, the liturgical tradition, the particular law and the Magesterium do not seem to agree with you.

 

[lssanjose]

I was meaning to respond to the accusation put forth, against ConstantineTG, earlier. But, firstly, thanks diak for providing those paragraphs, explaining instances, of which, you spoke earlier.

For the person in question saying, he needs to be aligned to the Catholic Church, in order to be saved: I don’t want to engage polemics, but by making the point(s) I’m going to make, it may appear as if, I’m doing just that.

You need to follow the trail of ConstantineTG’s posts to see where he’s coming from, when he says “in order to remain Catholic.” He’s talking about Catholic, big C; and not Catholic, little c. By these I mean, moving to Orthodoxy

 

[Richardprins]

Why do I have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff? Isn’t Christianity about Jesus and not the Pope?

Since the OP is responding to me, I’m going to go ahead and answer anyway, though if you want to discuss this further we should make another thread.
I think there’s three questions involved:

1. Is it infallible Catholic teaching that adhearance to the full Catholic faith is necessary for salvation
2. Is it dogma that allegiance to the bishop of Rome and membership of the Church in communion with him is part of the faith if catholic teaching says the Catholic Church is the church Christ, the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the only catholic church.
3. Why the necessity of adhearing to the catholic faith is necessary for salvation.

I’m going to give my understanding of the answers to the questions according to church doctrine concisely, if I make a factual error, please correct me, I’m not pretending to be a theologian.
I’m just going to give some quotes from magisterial documents to answer questions 1&2
Papal bull Unam Sanctam (1302): ““Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff”
First Vatican council document Pastor Aeternus: “If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema.”
CCC 846:” “Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 336"

More ancient texts: Titus 3:10: “10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: 11 Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sins, being condemned by his own judgment.”
Ignatius of Antioch: “Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion”
Athanasian creed: “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith.”
etc.

Now to answer question three, and your question, I can only guess why this is doctrine, I’m not a theologian, but I would say that as the Church is the body of Christ through which we are saved, and that only the one holy apostolic church is that body. The vicar of Christ, the head of the Church is the bishop of Rome, and so the pope is the measure of what the Church is.

Of course CCC 847 applies “847 This affirmation [extra ecclesiam nulla salus] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church”.

And so to respond to Issanjose, though I hold the orthodox church in high esteem for having valid sacraments, following the first seven ecumenical councils, and not bowing to relativism and secularism like many protestants, I believe that they are not really part of the one Church according to catholic teaching, and so I believe I would put my soul in danger of hell if I would leave the catholic church and join the orthodox church, and that this is church doctrine.

I hope you understand that I don’t post this to pick a flame-war, just to clear up teaching and to discuss it.

 

[Aramis]

What “blessing” are you talking about? It simply makes no sense to attend a communion service if a Catholic sacrificial liturgy is readily available. Attending a sacrificial liturgy would not preclude a group of people from otherwise worshiping together.

Translation time… Byzantine to Roman.

When Father Deacon Diak says he received the blessing to perform a given function, he’s referring to having received the faculties to do so.

The traditional practice is each faculty is granted along with a formal blessing from the bishop before the people. Traditionally, this was the public acknowledgement of the faculties to the clergy and people, as clergy cards and letters delineating one’s faculties are a modern approach to the issue.

It’s worth noting that not even all priestly Divine liturgies are sacraficial - the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts (which Typica with Communion is related to) is a consecrationless liturgy lead by a priest, and including communion.

Typica is a non-eucharistic Divine Worship service.
Typica with communion is a divine worship service without consecration.
Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is a divine worship service without consecration.
Divine Liturgy of St John or St Basil is a divine worship service with consecration.

 

[smad0142]

Why do I have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff? Isn’t Christianity about Jesus and not the Pope?

I know this wasn’t addressed to me and the other person involved left a long response, which I admittedly did not read.But as somebody who has watched you on these forums throughout my time here and has come to appreciate your posts I would like to respond.

It is not the Papacy per se that is important, because even the Pope is just the Vicar to Christ. The Pope’s role always must point to Someone greater. It really is all about Jesus. But if we are called to follow Jesus that must also include obedience. So for many Catholics the importance of Communion with the Papacy is not because of the Pope himself but rather because we believe it to be a part of the Divine Constitution of the Church as willed by our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ. The Communion with Rome, in the final equation, is meant to be a way of following Jesus by obeying His Holy Will.

Be assured of my prayers brother during this time.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I know this wasn’t addressed to me and the other person involved left a long response, which I admittedly did not read.But as somebody who has watched you on these forums throughout my time here and has come to appreciate your posts I would like to respond.

It is not the Papacy per se that is important, because even the Pope is just the Vicar to Christ. The Pope’s role always must point to Someone greater. It really is all about Jesus. But if we are called to follow Jesus that must also include obedience. So for many Catholics the importance of Communion with the Papacy is not because of the Pope himself but rather because we believe it to be a part of the Divine Constitution of the Church as willed by our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ. The Communion with Rome, in the final equation, is meant to be a way of following Jesus by obeying His Holy Will.

Be assured of my prayers brother during this time.

But I feel the same way about my bishop. In fact, we should all feel the same way about our bishops. The problem with the structure of the Catholic Church today is that people think they can disrespect their bishops because they love the Pope anyway. They feel they don’t have to follow their own bishop. If their bishop doesn’t do what they want, they write to Rome. Is that the proper Ecclesiology of the Church? Bishops are just line managers of the Operations Manager in the Vatican?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It’s worth noting that not even all priestly Divine Liturgies are sacrificial …

We in the Eastern traditions also tend to view the Divine Liturgy primarily as a celebration of the Resurrection, while not denying the sacrificial nature of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is a divine worship service without consecration.

The “Presantified” Liturgy is not a “Divine” Liturgy - rather, it’s a Liturgical service which, like the Typika, includes the distribution of pre-consecrated Holy Eucharist. Its formal name is Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts (sometimes cited as the Liturgy of St. Gregory [Diagolos]). It is a modified form of Vespers. The Typika is usually taken after the sixth hour, and does not have all elements present in the Liturgy of the Presanctified (Procession of the Gifts, vesperal prayers and psalms, etc.).

A good overview and text of the Typika service in Byzantine-Slav Catholic usage appears on the St. Elias UGCC website.

 

[smad0142]

But I feel the same way about my bishop. In fact, we should all feel the same way about our bishops. The problem with the structure of the Catholic Church today is that people think they can disrespect their bishops because they love the Pope anyway. They feel they don’t have to follow their own bishop. If their bishop doesn’t do what they want, they write to Rome. Is that the proper Ecclesiology of the Church? Bishops are just line managers of the Operations Manager in the Vatican?

That is not a problem with the Church structure but with the mentality of individual lay people. The complementary nature of the Pope and Bishops working together can clearly be shown in the documents of the last two Ecumenical Councils, when taken together as a whole and understanding that Vatican I had to end early due to outside pressures. The Catholic Church clearly holds dear the unique and important role of both the Pope and the local Bishops.

And as for the current trend of Bishops being reported to Rome. It is a part of the historic role of the Roman Church that it served as a court of final appeal. And while it may be unusual for lay people to be reporting on their Bishops, one must also admit that the widespread indifference or errors occurring among the College of Bishops is also relatively unusual in Church history (at least since the time of the Arian heresy).

 

[ByzKat]

The “Presantified” Liturgy is not a “Divine” Liturgy …

In Slavonic, the formal title IS “The Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts”, and the new (Ruthenian) Byzantine Catholic books title it that way. I know it runs counter to our common use of “Divine Liturgy” to refer only to the the Byantine Rite Eucharist, but I wanted to point out that Aramis was actually correct.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In Slavonic, the formal title IS “The Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts”, and the new (Ruthenian) Byzantine Catholic books title it that way. I know it runs counter to our common use of “Divine Liturgy” to refer only to the the Byantine Rite Eucharist, but I wanted to point out that Aramis was actually correct.

Another way in which current Ruthenian usage is unique? or is this now common Greek Catholic usage?

 

[ByzKat]

First of all, you will find the complete name in broad use among the Orthodox:

From Monachos.net

Second, I think it represents a stylistic choice. The Ruthenian calendar of saints, as given i n the Liturgikon, has the following for today:

Our Venerable Fathers Isaac, Dalmatus, and Faustus (5th Century).
The Holy Myrrh-bearer Salome.

rather than “Issac and others, monks”. In various places, I’m sure we will continue to refer to “the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts” (which is of course also correct), “the Presanctified Liturgy” (though it’s not the liturgy that’s pre-sanctified!), or just “the Presanctified”.

But I think it’s good to use the entire name for a service, at least on the title page. And in this case, the evening Communion service in the Great Fast IS called a “Divine Liturgy”, much as this runs counter to our normal usage of “Divine Liturgy”. It is one of “the Three Liturgies” of our church, and neglect of that fact may have contributed to its disappearance for decades.

Jeff

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I should have said, as intended, that the “Presantified” Liturgy is not a “Divine” Liturgy in the classic sense, as you have also noted.

Thanks for the additional feedback. I see the Služébnik does indeed translate as such, and this translation is seen in English service books of other Byzantine-Slav Churches. (and I admit I’m still used to the three older service books that were in use in parts the Metropolia).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nice Orthodox article which applies to ECs as well

journeytoorthodoxy.com/2012/09/18/why-americans-need-an-all-english-liturgy/