P
ProVobis
Guest
Which schismatic group is that?
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
Is this what you’re referring to?
From Wikipedia:
Since then the Pope lifted Bishop Williamson’s excommunication. Now what?
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
If the Latin Catholic Church proposed the removal of the stations of the cross, the rosary and the monstrance from the liturgy and parishes of the Latin rite, I would fight just as hard as the SSKJ does against it.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am no one’s judge and can only speak for myself. I understand fighting things that we see as unjust, but I believe in fighting within the framework of the authority of the Church. Prayer is our most effective weapon.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Of course, everyone must decide for himself at what level and course of action he will take to counter injustice. In most cases, both in the secular world and the religious world, disobedience is, and should only be, the final course when other avenues are fruitless. From the perspective of the SSPX, disobedience came after 18 years of attempting to change from within the church.
I have to admit that I only heard about the SSJK in the last few days via posts on this board. Most of my time is spent in the company of Catholics who assist at SSPX chapels and my youngest son is a seminarian. So, obviously, the SSJK is not something that we talk about or have much knowledge of. I really don’t even know enough to offer an opinion as to their situation. I cant find any links to an authoritative website of theirs.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You would be right to fight for it there as they are Latin. They have no place within the Eastern Churches.
There are Eastern equivalent devotions that are being ignored and are just as worthy to replace latinizations.
That you seem unable to understand this is saddening.
But alas, the Church disagrees with you and have excommunicated and declared the SSKJ as schismatics and disobedient.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Very smug, Byz, as usual.
If they’ve been accepted for 100 years in the Byzantine rite, I can understand the devotion. I said that I have not studied the situation and therefore I don’t claim to understand the nuances. I can certainly understand developing a devotional attachment to the rosary, which you Byzantines may snork at, and would have the same reaction, regardless of the rite, if I grew up with it and it were taken away.
I am sure that Our Lady of Fatima, and her requests, came only for Latin riters.
A
Aramis
Guest
But they were NEVER universally accepted in the Ukrainian nor Ruthenian churches. There are plenty of complaints about them from priests and laity. I know one priest who loved the Rosary, but refused to conduct stations or permit public conducting of the stations in his parish, despite the fact that they were on the walls.
I know several ex-patriot Ukrainians of well past the half century who never liked the latinzations; they were not properly part of the Ukrainian praxis, and crept in in latin-influenced areas as liturgical abuses, no different from the abuses of roman laity standing around the altar during the consecration, stoles over the chasuble, and seminarians preaching.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Granted, I don’t know what “Generally Accepted” means in this context. But these Latinizations, as they are called, did apparently find their way into the rite and people became attached to them.
To call the rosary or the stations of the cross a liturgical abuse is quite incredible, if not ridiculous. I would find it equally ridiculous if Latin churches ordered all icons removed from Latin churches. I found it idiotic that the latin church encouraged the elimination of statues, icons, and religious stained glass in favor of felt banners in post-conciliar churches. And to top it off, that a priest would be excommunicated for an attachment to the rosary is the pinnacle of pharisaic stupidity. I can’t wait to see the look an God’s face when he read this sin off at the Final Judgment … “excommunicated for following the wishes of My Blessed Mother”.
O
Onegin
Guest
Right. So, as this is surely an extremely serious issue whereby souls are at stake, why are local bishops and priests silent about this issue? I mean, from the sounds of it, this is a big deal and extends beyond mere semantics - you’re claiming that hundreds - possibly thousands - of confirmations, confessions and marriages have been invalidly concluded. Meanwhile, amidst all this, (and even when relationships between the SSPX and Rome were at their most tenuous) I’ve never heard of a single SSPX chapel-goer being instructed by the local ordinary or Rome about the need to be re-confirmed, re-married or re-confess.
Instead, I’ve heard the opposite. Rome has said that the SSPX Masses fulfill the sunday obligation, that chapel-goers are not schismatic (and cannot be excommunicated as such) and that the status of the SSPX is an “internal matter”.
However, your post suggests that - at least in your opinion - this is more than simply an internal matter and deals directly with serious issues of whether mortal sins have gone unconfessed or marriages and confirmations have been validly concluded. With all due respect, I’ll continue to place my faith in the Pope’s ability to bring these issues to light when (and if) he feels it is necessary.
So far this has not been the case and I think it is a bit brash for people on a forum to jump the gun when Rome has not.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Expected this, thanks for not letting me down.
100 years? I do not think it has been that long but even if it has, will you drop your cries when the Ordinary Form reaches 100 years old?
Private revelations are not part of the public revelation of the Church and is not binding upon the faithful in any way.
A
Aramis
Guest
The latinizations in the Ukraine seem to have been an undercurrent and in isolated parishes for about 1.5 centuries… and in the US for just about a century (trying to avoid canonical suppression). It was apparently never the mainstream in the Ukraine.
The Latinizers seem to have gotten a few parishes here and there; there are Orthodox complaints about them going back to the mid 1800’s. But at the same time, there have been others who commented in the same time frames on the indistinguishability of UGCC and UOC. It’s just never been consistent in the documentation.
What can be said clearly is that by the 1950’s the US Ruthenians had a seriously latinizing bishop, HG Nicholas + Elko. And the Ruthenian-American people complained. And some priests remained very “vostochnik” (eastern). And the Pope removed His Grace, sending his latinizing self to a Roman diocese as an auxiliary, where he was much beloved and apparently quite happy.
The Ukrainians in the US sometimes latinized, sometimes didn’t.
The SSJK are the vocal edge of a minority of the UGCC. In that respect, they are much like the SSPX are to the Romans. Unlike the SSPX, they do not have Tradition on their side. Nor a strong and vibrant community of laity supporting them.
The Latinizers seem to have gotten a few parishes here and there; there are Orthodox complaints about them going back to the mid 1800’s. But at the same time, there have been others who commented in the same time frames on the indistinguishability of UGCC and UOC. It’s just never been consistent in the documentation.
What can be said clearly is that by the 1950’s the US Ruthenians had a seriously latinizing bishop, HG Nicholas + Elko. And the Ruthenian-American people complained. And some priests remained very “vostochnik” (eastern). And the Pope removed His Grace, sending his latinizing self to a Roman diocese as an auxiliary, where he was much beloved and apparently quite happy.
The Ukrainians in the US sometimes latinized, sometimes didn’t.
The SSJK are the vocal edge of a minority of the UGCC. In that respect, they are much like the SSPX are to the Romans. Unlike the SSPX, they do not have Tradition on their side. Nor a strong and vibrant community of laity supporting them.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Well, if they want to be Latins, it looks like Bishop Williamson helped them do that. Obviously he cannot ordain them into any other rite. So lets just let them offer Mass in the rite they are ordained and, with charity, lift the excommunications. They would of course share the SSPX current canonical situation of having no approved ministry until such a time as that is rectified.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Will you let the Baptist Minister who lives next door to me create a nice new liturgy for you that he would also be comfortable saying?
This is an approved revelation that the church has ruled to be authentic. I agree it is not binding but am amazed that you do not follow the Pope in his belief on this. Are we all free to accept or reject that which has not been dogmatically stamped with the seal of infallibility per the formula of Vatican I?
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Since this thread has now taken an Eastern turn I’ll add that many of us Traditional Catholics see the SSPX in much the same way that those who call themselves “Orthodox in Communion” see some of the Orthodox churches. There is quite alot in the SSPX we wish to see in our own churches. And as I said before, we need them with us for what lies ahead.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
It will happen soon although I don’t foresee an immediate change in what you currently have in a diocesan church. Whatever changes you wish to see, either in orthodoxy or TLM availability in your parish will not necessary change by a regularization. It will still be your grassroots struggle of the laity.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Because clearly all parishes have terrible Priests, right? It’s all on us poor lay people to fight against those who shepherd their parishes.
On these boards I’ve seen you so far make blanket statements against Jesuits and now against diocesan priests. Maybe you should make a thread detailing every order you have a problem with (or maybe just the ones you DON’T, that might be quicker).
S
Seamus_L
Guest
We have alot of fine Diocesan priests that say the TLM, but there is the reality that they can be moved every 5 years. And that’s not to say that that’s always a bad thing. For instance, a priest I know, who says the TLM is being moved next month, but the good news may be that he will begin saying it regularly at the new parish, where it is currently offered only once a month.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Wrong - mine has great priests.
You’ll have to ask Shamus about that … I was just replying to his post. But in general, yes, it will be laity that affect a resolution to any bad pastors at the parish level.
Well the Jesuits are covered in another thread and there is plenty of information, opinion, and current jesuit viewpoints by folks other than me both for and against. You will have to make up your own mind.
I solemnly apologize to anyone, aside from yourself, who may have jumped to the conclusion based on my response to the last post, that all diocesan priests are terrible. Many, if not most, adhere to the faith.
For the record, and I hope this doesn’t make you look too foolish, here is what was written
Shamus L:
I was referring to the struggle that most laity must endure to get the EF in their parish.
Conclusion by Melchior_:
Not all, just the ones that allow Life Teen Masses.
- Status