The story is the priest was visiting an area that has no EC parish and he wanted to use the RC parish altar to do a private Divine Liturgy I forgot if it was for friends or family or both. This was outside of regular Mass times for the RC parish, he just needed to “borrow” the altar. RC parish priest said no, he’s not RC therefore he cannot use the altar.
AFAIK, Eastern and Oriental Tradition generally does not allow for private DL’s, but Latin Tradition does. So the RC priest responded correctly. What’s the problem with that?
You did not address the issue of concelebrating, which is what sister 5 loaves and I (partly) were talking about. Do you really know anything about the specifics on the concelebrating issue?
I certainly was *not *speculating about the story. Please read my post. I was giving an example.
I would however say that in the example you have now described, which is not concelebrating with the parish priest (and the visiting priest is known personally to the parish priest), but with the priest you are citing acting at the main celebrant, at least in the US that EC priest would have had to go through the diocese chancery to be cleared because of the Safe Environment requirement I was citing merely as an example. Here in the US the parish priest would not have the authority to allow the use of his church in that way by an EC or Latin priest from outside his own diocese. A priest of that diocese, in good standing, which the parish priest can find out himself, could have been offered the use by the pastor. So oddly enough the story you have now described could be an example, I am not saying it was, of this criteria-- you are not a priest of this diocese, therefore I cannot allow you the use of this altar (only the chancery can make that offer to use it).
:byzsoc:I wanted to make a grin, but the system limits the number of images at 8, which you have already used… so… grin, Br Vico !:angel1: :angel1:
:byzsoc:
:angel1: :angel1: :angel1:
Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
The specifics brother Constantine gave indicates also that the RC priest responded correctly.
By private I meant it wasn’t an regularly scheduled Liturgy. But there are people attending that Liturgy, not just the priest by himself. And obviously this excuse you put up is not the case. As I stated plainly, he was denied for not being RC. That is the reason.
I missed one detail, the priest actually had Latin faculties in that diocese. But because he was Byzantine canonically he was still denied by the RC priest.
You guys were speculating scenarios outside of the information I provided. Those priests talked to me, not anyone else on this forum. If you think I did not provide enough information, ask for it rather than trying to come up with scenarios that only deviate from the original story.
Okay, let me go over the 2 stories again
From our previous discussion on the Missa privata and the Missa solitaria, you insisted you knew what the difference was, but apparently you really do not. Here, I use the term “private DL” and you think I am talking about the Missa solitaria?:nope:
So what if he had Latin faculties? Sister 5loaves’ explanation amply addresses this, if you will take the time to read it. The fact is, it is no longer normative in certain areas for priests to concelebrate by mere “favor.” It has to be approved through official channels by the bishop. In that context, the Latin priest saying that he is EC could mean nothing more than “I do not recognize you because you are not in my jurisdiction.” Why would you automatically presume something objectionable in such a story on the part of the Latin priest?
Since the "comprehensive set of procedures established by the USCCB in June 2002 for addressing allegations of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy" have been in place “valid documents of incardination into a Catholic eparchy” held by a priest be he Latin or Eastern Catholic are no longer sufficient and be he EC or Latin he may not celebrate without the necessary recent “Letter of Good Standing” (LGS) from his Bishop or Eparch, and, depending on the circumstance (if he is to be the main celebrant for example), other additional information from his Bishop or Eparch.
What you say is certainly true but this ignorance is not really their fault, they are for the most part uneducated, uncatechised in regard to Eastern branches of the Catholic Church. In the minds of most of them Eastern and Orthodox mean the same thing. This situation is not helped when the various members of the Eastern Churches insist on identifying themselves as Eastern rather than by the name of their particular Catholic denomination ( i.e. Ukranian Catholic, Arminian Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Rutheranian Catholic, Marionite Catholic, Russian Catholic, Byzantine Catholic ( did I miss any?) Do you understand what I’m saying. On top of that we have now the Anglican Ordinariate ( is that correct ) and two special Latin Churches ( the Priestly Society of St Peter and one other whose name escapes me). We simply have not been kept up to date on all these things, it has not been emphasized by the hierarchy, so the laity simply don’t know. And as you say, even the local priests themselves are unaware.
the canons mention them. They do fall under the one liturgy per antimension per day restriction, in those churches holding to that.
The priests are bound to uphold the sacramental discipline according the ritual Church of those that come to them for the sacraments, even as they themselves are bound to administer in their discipline or another when faculties are granted. Also the clergy are bound to know their parishioners, so the priest must take the initiative and inquire. I can give the canons if you are interested.
Priests of the Latin Church have a moral obligation to have adequate knowledge of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. In a globalized and highly stratified society where Eastern faithful can be found in almost any parish of any Church it is imperative that the clergy and faithful be adequately educated. There isn’t an excuse anymore.
Thank you. I think we have to keep in mind that we really don’t know the people who post in these forums. But it is pretty clear that some have an " ax " to grind. One thing is certain, it is not good to constantly " pick " at old wounds as some are doing. If indeed there is ignorance on the part of some particular church in the fold or a particular pastor in a parish of that church then the pastor should be approached in a charitable manner and the situation explained or discussed. Perhaps some catechises may be required.
Well, like I said earlier this is not a matter of being undereducated or being bad prieists. I mean, our priest who was educated in the Old Country has a very basic grasp of RC theology. These RC priests have their ministry towards Latin laity. When it comes down to it, they don’t need to know anything about ECs at all. Back in the day when canonical territories were clearly defined and respected, they wouldn’t even come in contact with EC or EOs. Only Bishops would have when they visit one another or during synods across Churches. Seminaries never really talk about other Rites. Some may be fortunate to have an EC bishop or theologian close by that they would have the occasional visit and talk.What you say is certainly true but this ignorance is not really their fault, they are for the most part uneducated, uncatechised in regard to Eastern branches of the Catholic Church. In the minds of most of them Eastern and Orthodox mean the same thing. This situation is not helped when the various members of the Eastern Churches insist on identifying themselves as Eastern rather than by the name of their particular Catholic denomination ( i.e. Ukranian Catholic, Arminian Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Rutheranian Catholic, Marionite Catholic, Russian Catholic, Byzantine Catholic ( did I miss any?) Do you understand what I’m saying. On top of that we have now the Anglican Ordinariate ( is that correct ) and two special Latin Churches ( the Priestly Society of St Peter and one other whose name escapes me). We simply have not been kept up to date on all these things, it has not been emphasized by the hierarchy, so the laity simply don’t know. And as you say, even the local priests themselves are unaware.
So it is a matter if education or catechises. It certainly does not help when disparaging remarks are directed toward one party or the other. That is uncalled for. And it is always untrue. Ignorance yes, malice no. Each of the particular Churches contains the fullness of Truth with the " Roman " church, each is fully Catholic.
There are still a lot of places where there are no ECs. In the Philippines it is exclusively RC.
I do find that the EEOC mentions that (1) A catholic priest can celebrate DL at any Catholic altar (Canon 705), and (2) can celebrate on any day (except those days exempt according to particular law; Canon 704). But it also says that the priest can only celebrate during times established by the norms of particular law for the entire Church sui juris (Canon 707). Is it proper for an EC priest to celebrate a private DL? It’s not really clear from the Canons, though the bishop can obviously grant permission (which would make the issue devolve upon your earlier post).