Roman Curia allows Bishop Fellay FSSPX, to bring into full communion an Orthodox priest.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Old_Salt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What bothers me is that, if this story is true, is that the SSPX is operating as if nothing is happening.

You would think that they would suspend all such activities until they come out with an answer to the Preamble.

Or have I missed something and have they finally given an answer to it?
 
…while he was an Orthodox priest he had valid and licit faculties.
First, if that is so, than what practical difference remains between an Orthodox priest and a Roman Catholic priest?

Further, what if the Orthodox priest has a burning hatred for the Holy See, the Roman Church or the Pope(s), which he has acquired from cultural prejudices, and denies that the Pope is Christ’s Vicar on earth, even publicly? Is his Mass, which makes no mention of the Pope nor, I would suppose, requires in any way an intention to pray for the Pope or even believe in the Petrine Primacy, nonetheless perfectly licit and valid? Is that assumed because the form is valid?

Finally, and only if the above is actually so, when and by what sign or mechanism was communion with the Holy See effectively reestablished? What regulates the relationship?
 
What bothers me is that, if this story is true, is that the SSPX is operating as if nothing is happening.

You would think that they would suspend all such activities until they come out with an answer to the Preamble.

Or have I missed something and have they finally given an answer to it?

From what I’ve read – the SSPX sent a response to the CDF back in December. There was a request for more clarification from the SSPX. The SSPX clarification was sent in January. Latest news via some sites — the CDF --has rejected this latest response — and at this point – it all rests in the Pope’s hands.
 
First, if that is so, than what practical difference remains between an Orthodox priest and a Roman Catholic priest?
There is no practical difference between an Orthodox priest and a Catholic priest. We have the same sacraments. We have apostolic succession. We have communion in sacris between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. With special permission, we can receive the sacraments from each other.

What separates us has nothing to do with the sacraments. Our separation is theological and juridical.

An Orthodox priest can validly celebrate all the sacraments, because he is validly ordained. He can licitly (legally) celebrate them because he has faculties granted to him by his Patriarch. Patriarchs have always had the authority to grant faculties, to suspend and to excommunicate. Even Catholic Patriarchs enjoy such power.

In addition, neither the Eastern Catholic priests nor the Orthodox priests are bound by our Canon Law. Our Canon Law was written only for the Latin Church. The Eastern Catholics have their own code of law. The Orthodox have their own. The Holy See accepts and respects that reality.
Further, what if the Orthodox priest has a burning hatred for the Holy See, the Roman Church or the Pope(s), which he has acquired from cultural prejudices, and denies that the Pope is Christ’s Vicar on earth, even publicly? Is his Mass, which makes no mention of the Pope nor, I would suppose, requires in any way an intention to pray for the Pope or even believe in the Petrine Primacy, nonetheless perfectly licit and valid? Is that assumed because the form is valid?
His mass is still valid and licit. Praying for the pope is only required of Catholics. This is not essential to the matter or the form. If he becomes Catholic, it becomes part of the Eucharistic prayer in the Latin Church. The anaphoras of the Eastern Churches are different. I’m not sure how they do it, because I don’t speak their languages.
Finally, and only if the above is actually so, when and by what sign or mechanism was communion with the Holy See effectively reestablished? What regulates the relationship?
The article is saying that communion with the Catholic Church was established. It does not say the Holy See. In other words, it is saying that he made his profession of faith. His communion with the Holy See will come when he either

a) makes a vow of obedience to a religious superior who has the canonical authority to receive that vow

b) makes a promise of obedience to a diocesan bishop

or

c) makes a promise of obedience to the superior of a society of apostolic life that is in full communion with the Holy See (Maryknoll, SOLT, Missionhurst, Vincentians, FSSP, ICKSP, Opus Dei and a few others that I can’t remember).

We’re not sure that this even happened, because there is no further information. If he did make such a profession of faith, the next question is where is he incardinated? Every priest must be incardinated. If you are incardinated into the SSPX or a religious community that has broken communion with the Holy See, you are automatically suspended.

Only a bishop or a male religious superior have the authority to incardinate. The bishop can incardinate him into his diocese or his prelature. A superior can incardinate him into his institute. To do this, they must have the authority to do so. This requires a canonical place in the Church. This is where this looks bad. Bishop Fellay can certainly witness someone’s profession of faith. He does not have the canonical authority to incardinate a priest into any diocese or any religious order.

As I said above, what a mess.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF 🙂
 
Our Canon Law was written only for the Latin Church. The Eastern Catholics have their own code of law. The Orthodox have their own. The Holy See accepts and respects that reality.
Slow down here.

The examples you have are not equivocal. No particular Church can, for example, unilaterally determine things that by their nature belong to the deposit of Faith in such a wise as to effectively or even potentially alter it, whether denying by word or deed the Commandments of Christ or any of God’s Revelation.

Church law is but the practical application of the Faith. The Eastern Catholics accept the Primacy of the Holy See; the Orthodox do not. They cannot possibly have a completely free reign to draft whatever they like and impose it upon the souls of the faithful, nor can we accept on blind faith that the Orthodox have some unheard of special charism from God that they effectively do not need the Prince of the Apostles; Rome has the right to intervene and ensure the Catholicity of the Christian religion always and everywhere.

The Orthodox do not possess in community their own Petrine Primacy. The Holy See, therefore, cannot be said to accept such a reality where the reality of the Holy See is denied.
 
Slow down here.

The examples you have are not equivocal. No particular Church can, for example, unilaterally determine things that by their nature belong to the deposit of Faith in such a wise as to effectively or even potentially alter it, whether denying by word or deed the Commandments of Christ or any of God’s Revelation.

Church law is but the practical application of the Faith. The Eastern Catholics accept the Primacy of the Holy See; the Orthodox do not. They cannot possibly have a completely free reign to draft whatever they like and impose it upon the souls of the faithful, nor can we accept on blind faith that the Orthodox have some unheard of special charism from God that they effectively do not need the Prince of the Apostles; Rome has the right to intervene and ensure the Catholicity of the Christian religion always and everywhere.

The Orthodox do not possess in community their own Petrine Primacy. The Holy See, therefore, cannot be said to accept such a reality where the reality of the Holy See is denied.
Let me try to explain this another way.

The Orthodox have valid and licit sacraments.

They are valid, because like the Eastern Catholics, who are their real counterparts, the Orthodox have Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church recognizes this.

They are licit (legal), because they are not subject to our Code of Law. Something is legal or illegal depending on the what the law has to say about it. Neither the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church nor the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches have jurisdiction in the Orthodox Churches.

This is why Pope Paul VI lifted all of the excommunications and the anathemas against them and acknowledged their kindness when they lifted the excommunication and anathemas against the Catholic Churches.

Pope John Paul II, went on to give full recognition to the sacraments of the Orthodox Church, because we have one Apostolic Succession and one priesthood.

This is what Pope John Paul II had to say in his decree Ut Unum Sint

"Through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature". It adds, as a consequence, that “although these Churches are separated from us, they possess true sacraments, above all — by apostolic succession — the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in a very close relationship”.

Following the Second Vatican Council, and in the light of earlier tradition, it has again become usual to refer to the particular or local Churches gathered around their Bishop as “Sister Churches”. In addition, the lifting of the mutual excommunications, by eliminating a painful canonical and psychological obstacle, was a very significant step on the way towards full communion.


As you can see, we recognize that we share the same sacraments and there is no longer an excommunication separating us. As far as the liceity if the sacraments, the Catholic Church has no authority to declare them illicit.

I used the example of the Latin and the Eastern Churches, hoping to help the reader understand that Churches have their particular laws. What is legal on one side may be illegal on the other side. One side cannot dictate to the other on matters of law.

As far as sacramental validity and apostolic succession, there is no question in anyone’s mind about this. Nor is there any question in the mind of the Holy See that the communion between the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches still exists in sacris.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Indeed.

Can you explain to me what is meant by “communion in sacris”?
Communion in sacris means communion in the sacred, which refers to the sacraments.

We have communion through the sacraments, because we have valid and licit sacraments. Both sides can trace their priesthood to the Apostles and both sides have bishops with authority to grant faculties to celebrate those sacraments.

What separates us are some theological questions and some juridical questions about the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Those questions are being worked on. There are no questions on the table about the sacraments.

Our relationship is rather strange. While we say that we are in schism with each other, neither side is schismatic. After 1,000 years you can’t be schismatic. You’re born into this Church (Catholic or Orthodox). You didn’t choose one over the other. In other words, you didn’t do anything wrong.

I always explain the relationship like a divorce. Two people are legally divorced, but they are still married.

The Orthodox and the Catholics are legally divorced, but we are still united by the sacraments. Neither side can change that fact.

That’s called communion in sacris, unity through the sacred or unity through the sacraments.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Our relationship is rather strange. While we say that we are in schism with each other, neither side is schismatic. After 1,000 years you can’t be schismatic.
What’s the value in saying we’re in schism with each other? It’s a precise canonical term that outlines a person’s or group’s relationship to the Bishop of Rome, not the Holy See’s relationship with the Eastern Patriarchs. The Orthodox are at least materially schismatic since they refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff and deny his universal primacy as laid out in Vatican I and in Canon 751. They may be sui iuris, but they’re the only ones who fit the bill of schism.
 
One side cannot dictate to the other on matters of law.
That’s the problem. The Church is One. There are no sides. That unity is expressed and manifested especially by the Roman Pontiff, under whom all things are subject. The Pope has the authority to determine all matters touching on Faith, morals and discipline. He is the father of all Christian people, both directly and immediately. If Canon Law is so trivial as to not be considered a matter of faith, morality or discipline, then I am left wondering why people quote from it on questions of faith, practice or belief.

Now it may be possible that matters such as law are of no concern, as the validity of the Sacraments is not a concern; nonetheless, all such matters are, ultimately and necessarily, subject to the Roman Pontiff for approbation.

Furthermore, the Roman Church is not the “sister” of any Chrch; She is “the Mother… of all the Churches.”
 
What’s the value in saying we’re in schism with each other? It’s a precise canonical term that outlines a person’s or group’s relationship to the Bishop of Rome, not the Holy See’s relationship with the Eastern Patriarchs. The Orthodox are at least materially schismatic since they refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff and deny his universal primacy as laid out in Vatican I and in Canon 751. They may be sui iuris, but they’re the only ones who fit the bill of schism.
Pope John Paul relieved them of this burden stating that the canon only applies to a Catholic not to a person who is born outside of the Catholic Church. Those born outside of the Catholic Church are not schismatic. They are not even materially schismatic, because the Church recognizes that they are in union with us in what is most important, which is the faith and the sacraments.

The issue of the Bishop of Rome is more about jurisdiction than about faith. Pope John Paul provided a very interesting way of dealing with this problem. I don’t know much about these things, only what I read in the daily bulletin that we receive from the Vatican Communication Office. Not being a Canon Law or an expert in Eastern Christianity, I can’t explain it all. However, the impression that I get is that the Orthodox Patriarchs and Popes John Paul and Benedict are much closer to an agreement on the role of the pope than they have ever been before. My take is that the faithful from both sides are going to moan and groan until we all get used to it. I mean clergy, religious and laity. There are some people on both sides who don’t want to budge an inch or admit that our ancestors were very cruel to each other.

That’s always been something that has stunned me about Catholic and Orthodox relations. I can never understand why 21st century people want to fight the battles of 10th century people rather than call a spade a spade. That would mean to say what Pope Paul VI said, “Let’s forget what has been said by both sides, because it has nothing to do with us. Let’s deal with what we have before us.” I also like what Pope John Paul said, “Both sides are guilty.” Pope Benedict said, “One body with two lungs.” We don’t have to be the same.

This was very important to both Rome and the Orthodox.

When addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Dimitrios I, I acknowledged my awareness that "for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light. But … it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as Bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry … I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the Pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned"

Bl. John Paul was writing about his dialogue with His Holiness Dimitrios. Two things came forward that were very helpful.

a. The role of the Bishop of Rome is defined with softer and gentler words such as service, communion, protection of the faith and the faithful, unifying the people of God from all the Churches, but keeping the autonomy of the Churches. The language was not that confrontational language that Orthodox and Catholics like to use with each other.

b. The other helpful point was the both sides treated each other with great reverence. Even the fact that both sides refer to each other as “His Holiness”. In the past, they would have said “The Pope” or “The Roman Pope” and we would have said, “The Patriarch”, but each would have said it with a sneer. Today, these men are talking to each other.

It’s important to remember that the Orthodox don’t all get along with each other any more than the Catholics all get along. In fact, may of the Eastern Catholics tolerate the Roman Catholics, because of their respect and love for the pope. They really feel more kinship with their Orthodox counterparts.

To see these men setting the example for their people is a wonderful thing, if only their people would follow the example of politeness, scholarly discussion, and hospitality.

Today schism between Catholics and Orthodox means a legal separation, not a separation on what is holy. Of course there are some theological points to be ironed out, especially: purgatory, Immaculate Conception and infallibility.

If people focus on ironing out these differences instead of claiming to be whatever we each claim to be, we’ll get more done more quickly. Personally, I believe that we the faithful throw the proverbial monkey wrench into what the popes and patriarchs have been trying to do. We’re the ones keeping up a 1,000 year fight, while our leaders are saying, “It’s over. It’s time to find answers, not throw stones.”

Fraternally

Br, JR, OSF 🙂
 
You’re welcome.

Here’s my feeling. I have nothing to gain be defending or throwing stones at the SSPX and their friends. At the end of the day, they are not my problem to solve. I take my cue from Pope Benedict. He has left the SSPX in the hands of Cardinal Levada, his successor. This is not unusual. Pope John Paul also put many things on Cardinal Ratzinger’s desk and said, “Here’s a problem. Solve it or you get no more German chocolate.”

I guess Pope Benedict now says to Cardinal Levada, “Here’s the SSPX’s problem. Solve it or you get no more hot dogs” since Cardinal Levada is an American.

In any case, I’m not going to get a hot dog for solving the SSPX’s problems nor am I going to be deprived a hot dog for not solving the Society’s problems, because my contact with the society is limited to my SSPX priest friend whom I affectionately call, Fr. Calvin. Calvin is not his name and I ain’t telling. But he gets a big kick when I call him that. Of course, I do it when the laity and the other SSPX priest that lives with him are not around. The other guy is a stick in the mud and the laity at that chapel are a little stuffy. But Fr. Calvin is cool. He’s a great chess player too.

But I digress, since my real problem is what to do with 184 expectant fathers who are considering abortions, with 16 terminally ill patients who are threatened with euthanasia by their own family and with a 400 bed hospital that has all kinds of sick people and there are only 11 of us here, not counting postulants and novices, these issues are the least of my concerns.

Anyone who makes these reports a concern in their life must be looking for something to do… How would you like to feed some sick people at a hospital or spend the night with a dying person and his family? You can spend the night with me under a bridge. I go there on Thursday nights. Trust me, you meet many more interesting people and hear many more interesting stories that this one. 🤷

Oh, but you have to bring your own blanket and your own apples. I only get one apple to take with me for the night. Being diabetic, I need to eat. Sowwy. 😦

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
I am very impressed, and humbled by this post …
 
That’s the problem. The Church is One. There are no sides. That unity is expressed and manifested especially by the Roman Pontiff, under whom all things are subject. The Pope has the authority to determine all matters touching on Faith, morals and discipline. He is the father of all Christian people, both directly and immediately. If Canon Law is so trivial as to not be considered a matter of faith, morality or discipline, then I am left wondering why people quote from it on questions of faith, practice or belief.

Now it may be possible that matters such as law are of no concern, as the validity of the Sacraments is not a concern; nonetheless, all such matters are, ultimately and necessarily, subject to the Roman Pontiff for approbation.

Furthermore, the Roman Church is “the Mother… of all the Churches”; therefore, She cannot possibly be any Church’s “Sister”, lest She married Her own son, and so the sister Church’s brother, at which point I think Canon Law might suddenly become rather material. The point, however, is that mothers are greater than their daughters; whereas, sisters are basically equals.
The issue is that Canon Law is not a summary of Christian doctrine. Canon law must comply with Christian doctrine. The pope decides to whom he applies Canon Law, when and to what extent.

If you observe the opening sentence of the two codes of Canon Law, they are very specific. The one code says

Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.

This code does not even apply to the Eastern Catholics, much less to anyone outside of the Catholic Church. This was deliberately done this way by Pope Paul VI, because he felt that no law can be applied to someone who is outside of your jurisdiction. To do so was unreasonable. Later, Pope John Paul would say that to apply these laws to Protestants and Orthodox Christians was not only unreasonable, but unnecessary. They have never pledged allegiance to the Latin Church. They don’t even apply to the Eastern Catholics, because they have never pledged allegiance to the Latin Church. Their allegiance is to the pope.

In the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches, the first code says

Canon 1 - The canons of this Code affect all and solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless, with regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise.

In this code, we Roman Catholics are left out, unless we’re mentioned by name.

In both codes, the Orthodox are deliberately left out so that they can be free to follow their own code of law.

We are sister Churches. There are 23 Catholic Churches, don’t forget that. If you tell the Chaldeans that the Roman Catholic Church is their mother, they’ll stone you.

Holy Mother Church refers to the entire Church, not to the Latin Church.

Sadly, what we have is a Church that is divided or divorced. This has to be resolved not by posturing, but by dialogue. Both sides have been posturing for 1,000 years and they have accomplished nothing said Pope Paul VI.

The term two sides came from Pope Paul VI. Pope Benedict, I believe, coined the term two lungs of one Church. One lung is not greater than the other or more necessary than the other.

As Pope John Paul said, the office of Peter is to serve the entire Church, not to place the Latin Church over all the others. That’s the imagery that Catholics and Orthodox have to get away from. We’ve held that imagery for too long. We have held that someone has to be on top and someone has to be subordinate.

Our leaders are saying that we’re sister Churches and the Office of Peter is to serve the unity of all the Churches. If anyone is going to subordinate to anyone is every to the Office of Peter, not the Orthodox to the Catholics. Just as the Melkites remained Melkites when they signed the agreement for reunification, so it will be with the Orthodox Churches. Each one will come under the authority of Peter, but not under the Latin Catholics.

Latin Catholics were erroneously taught that we were the top dog as if the pope belonged to us alone. Look at how ignorant we are about Eastern Catholicism. Look at how upset they get when we try to Latinize them. The more we push the Orthodox to become Roman Catholic, the more harm we do to the Catholic Church.

The Eastern Catholics are watching very closely. They take great offense when we say anything that sounds like we’re being dismissive of Eastern Christianity. If we push the Orthodox to become Roman Catholics, what is the message that we’re sending to the Eastern Catholics? Afterall, what’s the difference between a Greek Catholic and a Greek Orthodox?

Do you see the problem? It’s fascinating stuff.

Fraternally,

Br. Jr, OSF 🙂
 
Patriarchs have always had the authority to grant faculties, to suspend and to excommunicate.
I believe from an Eastern Church point of view, a bishop has the authority to grant faculties by virtue of being a bishop. But of course if the bishop is not in communion with the Metropolitan and further the Patriarch (and in the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Pope) then the bishop and the priests are not considered Catholic or Orthodox anyway.
In addition, neither the Eastern Catholic priests nor the Orthodox priests are bound by our Canon Law. Our Canon Law was written only for the Latin Church. The Eastern Catholics have their own code of law. The Orthodox have their own. The Holy See accepts and respects that reality.
Yup, although most of whats in the CCEO is similar to what’s in the CIC.
His mass is still valid and licit. Praying for the pope is only required of Catholics. This is not essential to the matter or the form. If he becomes Catholic, it becomes part of the Eucharistic prayer in the Latin Church. The anaphoras of the Eastern Churches are different. I’m not sure how they do it, because I don’t speak their languages.
The Pope is commemorated at different times in the Divine Liturgy, usually when the hierarchy of the Church is commemorated. It varies from Church to Church where the insertion is made. In the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Pope is commemorated anytime the hierarchy is commemorated (the Patriarch, Metropolitan and Bishop) which amounts to 4 times per Divine Liturgy. I think the Melkites commemorate the Pope only once in the Liturgy. This variance is also present in the Orthodox Churches where commemoration of the hierarchy varies from Church to Church, some commemorate the different levels of the hierarchy, others only a certain level. For example the priest will commemorate the bishop and no one else. The bishop the metropolitan, the metropolitan the Patriarch, the Patriarch the other Patriarchs.
 
I believe from an Eastern Church point of view, a bishop has the authority to grant faculties by virtue of being a bishop. But of course if the bishop is not in communion with the Metropolitan and further the Patriarch (and in the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Pope) then the bishop and the priests are not considered Catholic or Orthodox anyway.
The difference is that in the Orthodox Churches, it stops at the Patriarch. Faculties are handed down from the Patriarch.
The Pope is commemorated at different times in the Divine Liturgy, usually when the hierarchy of the Church is commemorated. It varies from Church to Church where the insertion is made. In the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Pope is commemorated anytime the hierarchy is commemorated (the Patriarch, Metropolitan and Bishop) which amounts to 4 times per Divine Liturgy. I think the Melkites commemorate the Pope only once in the Liturgy. This variance is also present in the Orthodox Churches where commemoration of the hierarchy varies from Church to Church, some commemorate the different levels of the hierarchy, others only a certain level. For example the priest will commemorate the bishop and no one else. The bishop the metropolitan, the metropolitan the Patriarch, the Patriarch the other Patriarchs.
Thanks for that. I’ve been to many Divine Liturgies, but only one was in English, a Maronite liturgy. The others were in the Eastern languages and they don’t have the little missalettes with the translations. Not in Europe anyways. I don’t know about the USA.

So basically, the Eastern Catholics do with the pope what the Franciscans and Dominicans do with Dominic, Francis and our major superior.

Francis and Dominic, depending on whether you’re Franciscan or Dominican are slipped in right next to the Blessed Mother each time she’s mentioned. The major superior is slipped in where the bishop would go, unless you’re celebrating for a group of lay people, then you slip in the bishop and leave out the superior. The Eastern Catholics do it the same way. They stick in the hierarch depending on how important it is at that particular moment.

I believe it’s the Syriacs that don’t pray for the pope at all. He’s not in their anaphora. It’s only the Patriarch. They are connected to the papacy, but they’re not in love with the Roman Church and they try to pretend that we don’t know each other. 🤷

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
the canon only applies to a Catholic not to a person who is born outside of the Catholic Church.
Church Law is only ever applied to the members of the Church.

Divine Law, on the others hand, compels all human beings to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation, but Church Law is for the members of the Mystical Body only. That does not, of course, mean that the unbaptized are exempted from the Divine Law, which is written on everyone’s heart.
Those born outside of the Catholic Church are not schismatic.
That’s because only the Baptized are born into and thereby made members of the Church.

Further, only Catholics can become schismatics, hence why heresy, schism and apostasy seperates from the Church, as Pope Pius XII said in Mystici Corpus.
 
Church Law is only ever applied to the members of the Church.

Divine Law, on the others hand, compels all human beings to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation, but Church Law is for the members of the Mystical Body only. That does not, of course, mean that the unbaptized are exempted from the Divine Law, which is written on everyone’s heart.

That’s because only the Baptized are born into and thereby made members of the Church.

Further, only Catholics can become schismatics, hence why heresy, schism and apostasy seperates from the Church, as Pope Pius XII said in Mystici Corpus.
Yes. Or as I tell the brothers whom I govern . . . “Keep it Franciscan and say it simply as Francis would.”

Unless you’re Catholic, you cannot be guilty of a crime in Canon Law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Thanks for that. I’ve been to many Divine Liturgies, but only one was in English, a Maronite liturgy. The others were in the Eastern languages and they don’t have the little missalettes with the translations. Not in Europe anyways. I don’t know about the USA.
Not sure what other parishes are doing, but in our parish it would be hard to follow in Ukrainian if you don’t read Ukrainian because the text will be in Cyrillic. We do have a song book for hymns that have the Ukrainian hymns spelled out with English/Latin letters for everyone to read and follow.
I believe it’s the Syriacs that don’t pray for the pope at all. He’s not in their anaphora. It’s only the Patriarch. They are connected to the papacy, but they’re not in love with the Roman Church and they try to pretend that we don’t know each other. 🤷
Not sure what they do, when I attended the Holy Qurbana with the Chaldeans, it was all in Syriac/Aramaic.
 
PS. St. Boniface said that since the pope is the Living Law of the Church, Canon Law resides in his heart. Therefore, he alone has the power to decide when to apply it, to what Catholic it will be applied, for how long, etc.

The pope can actually say that Canon X applies to Peter, Paul and Mary, but not to Moe, Larry and Curly.

Without taking sides, I’ll objectively state that this was one of the big issues between Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope John Paul. The Archbishop claimed that Canon Law covered him, because of fear, etc. You guys know that whole law that the SSPX always cites. Bl. John Paul was presented with the appeal and said , “It does not apply to him.” He then handed it over to the Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops who wrote the letter explaining the excommunication.

The point that I’m trying to make is that St. Boniface set the standard by which the Pontiff is above the law and is the highest judge. Like any judge, he decides if the law applies or does not and whether you’re guilty or not. It’s rather interesting, because St. Boniface goes on to explain that even though something may not be a sin because it violates Revealed Truth or Natural Law, it can be a sin because the Pontiff imposes the penalty of sin onto the action. I can’t explain it too well, because I don’t translate Latin well.

In a nutshell, the best example of this is the eating meat on Fridays. There was a time when it was a mortal sin. But why? Because the papacy decided that it was. The papacy can bind and unbind. That’s what St. Boniface is trying to say.

That’s how we get the situation where the SSPX are celebrating the sacraments illicitly and the Orthodox are licit. Because the Pontiff decided that the law only applies to Latin Catholics or to Eastern Catholics, depending on which Church you belong to.

While there is one Church, that Church is like a puzzle. It’s made up of many Churches. There are different laws for different Churches. It is the Pontiff’s prerogative to make and change those laws at will.

What he cannot do is bind those who are not born into the Catholic Church. He is the Pontiff, not the Lord himself. This comes out clearly in the letters of St. Clement of Rome. St. Clement argues that while he has no authority to tell the Roman pagans what to do, he has every authority to tell the Roman Christians what to do. The Romans and the Ephesians were a trifle upset with each other. Clement told them both off. Then the Romans complained that he was picking on them, but he did not pick on the Roman pagans.

I guess childishness was already fashionable in the second century. 🤷

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Not sure what other parishes are doing, but in our parish it would be hard to follow in Ukrainian if you don’t read Ukrainian because the text will be in Cyrillic. We do have a song book for hymns that have the Ukrainian hymns spelled out with English/Latin letters for everyone to read and follow.

Not sure what they do, when I attended the Holy Qurbana with the Chaldeans, it was all in Syriac/Aramaic.
The Chaldeans don’t have an ax to grind with the Roman Catholics. They use the Syriac/Aramaic. The Syriac Catholic Church is the one that I understand keep to themselves.

Which is fine by me. I don’t want to disturb them. They’re not bothering me.

We human beings have a tendency to want to rattle people who are not bothering us. I’m not sure why that is.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top