SSPX

[maryprayforme]

The Mass is indeed beautiful. But as with anything that humans do, it gets mucked up sometimes. I prefer a more traditional Mass, even if it is a NO Mass. When people are clapping their hands to the rhythm and swayin back and forth during the Gloria like they’re in a gospel choir, that is distracting to some people. When I fold my hands fr the Our Father and the person next to me insists we hold hands, that is distracting. When I kneel down after receiving Communion and the peole around me insist I stand because Cardinal Mahoney says we have to, it is distracting (BTW - Pope John Paul II said otherwise). That being said, I still believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist and that the Mass is valid, licit, and all those other terms. But is it necessarily a fulfilling experience. NO!

 

[JReducation]

I’m sort of thinking out loud here. There is so much said about the Ordinary Form not having been organically developed. That seems to be the biggest obstacle for some people.

I see it this way. Organic or not, the Holy Father has said that it is the Ordinary Form of the mass for the Latin Rite and that it will not be replaced by the Extraordinary Form. He also says that it is holy. In addition, the OF and EF are not two rites, they are the same rite.

As far as I can see, from the Motu Proprio, organic or not, the Holy See has brushed that concern out of their minds and have accepted and promulgated the Pauline Mass as the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite.

To discuss whether its development was organic or a conspiracy cooked up in the Vatican kitchen is almost an academic debate. The decision was made for all of us by Benedict XVI in his Motu Proprio. Why can’t we just drop the organic concern? The Church accepts what was done and calls it holy.

The Pope has.

JR

 

[bobzills]

I should have added also that the mutual excommunications between the Orthodox and the Catholics and the anathemas are being lifted as we speak.

So since the excommuniations are lifted, does that mean that a Catholic may join an Eastern Orthodox Church and still be in good standing?

 

[Walking_Home]

They only came out of the woodwork when erroneous information was posted after the correct reply was submitted to the OP. See post #19. I challenge you, W_H, to demonstrate that anyone has “slung mud.” If there was any mud-slinging, it might be the poster who called the OF a frankenstein. Let’s be fair, ok?

---

Joysong, Joysong— one only needs to be familiar in the way you tend to skew information. As to the the OF being referred to as “frankenstein”—well that is the result of priests/laity turning the OF into an aberration of what the OF should be. Oh --and one can’t leave out the “bishops” who turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the aberrations.

 

[JReducation]

So since the excommuniations are lifted, does that mean that a Catholic may join an Eastern Orthodox Church and still be in good standing?

You have to take my statement in its proper context. I was referring to whether or not the Orthodox are schismatics. Pope Paul VI was the first to consider that they were not. Their fathers are, but not today’s Orthodox population.

The Orthodox and the Roman Church are still in schism with each other. We and they are not schismatic. Therefore, unless there is necessity, we do not receive the sacraments at an Orthodox liturgy. On the other hand, I believe that it is not a sin. I could be wrong on this last point. I’m not a Canon Lawyer.

JR

 

[Walking_Home]

Only in this era of the Church can the Catholic Church and the Orthodox be in schism from each other —but neither one is schismatic. It seems it has become quite easy to sell some swamp land.

 

[bobzills]

You have to take my statement in its proper context. I was referring to whether or not the Orthodox are schismatics. Pope Paul VI was the first to consider that they were not. Their fathers are, but not today’s Orthodox population.

The Orthodox and the Roman Church are still in schism with each other. We and they are not schismatic. Therefore, unless there is necessity, we do not receive the sacraments at an Orthodox liturgy. On the other hand, I believe that it is not a sin. I could be wrong on this last point. I’m not a Canon Lawyer.

JR

I thought you said that the excommunications were being lifted? If they are not excommunicated, why should not a Catholic be able to join their Churches?

 

[JReducation]

I thought you said that the excommunications were being lifted? If they are not excommunicated, why should not a Catholic be able to join their Churches?

The excommunications have been lifted. But we are not allowed, by Canon Law to join the Orthodox Churches.

In fact Pope Benedict is lifting more. They go Church by Church. If you noticed he has even given an urbi and orbi lessons with several of the Orthodox popes. There is another coming up soon. I can’t remember with whom. But it was in the Observatore Romano and probably on the Vatican site.

Their ordinations are valid and licit. Their absolution is valid. The validity of absolutioin by an SSPX priest is still questioned because the priests are suspended and do not have faculties. Orthodox priests have faculties. The status of Orthodox Churches is that of Sister Churches, not excommunicated churches.

You can read more about it in Ut Unum Sint by John Paul II, which Pope Benedict has been applying.

JR

 

[bobzills]

The excommunications have been lifted. But we are not allowed, by Canon Law to join the Orthodox Churches.

What is the penalty for a Catholic who joins the Greek Orthodox Church?

 

[JReducation]

What is the penalty for a Catholic who joins the Greek Orthodox Church?

You’re excommunicated, because you’re leaving the Church. The Greek Orthodox are not leaving the Church. They were born Greek Orthodox. The Catholic Church has no jurisdiction over them. They would be excommunicated by the Greek Orthodox if they came into the Catholic Church.

JR

 

[bobzills]

You’re excommunicated, because you’re leaving the Church.

This is the confusing part. If the Greek Orthodox Church is no longer excommnicated from the Catholic Church, how can you be leaving the Catholic Church when you are joining a Church which is not excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

 

[JReducation]

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity and apostolic succesion of the Orthodox Churches. Thus it recognizes that there is a bond of communion between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches.

The Council, for its part, considered the Churches of the East with objectivity and deep affection, stressing their ecclesial nature and the real bonds of communion linking them with the Catholic Church. The Decree on Ecumenism points out: “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,

This was the first of several excommunications that were lifted and erased from the books of the Catholic Church.

**The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby “there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Church”[84] the remembrance of the excommunications which nine hundred years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople. That ecclesial event, so filled with ecumenical commitment, took place during the last days of the Council, on 7 December 1965. The Council thus ended with a solemn act which was at once a healing of historical memories, a mutual forgiveness, and a firm commitment to strive for communion. ** (Ut Unum Sint).

The Churches of the East are now Sister Churches and the mutual excommunications are being lifted.

** 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. **

Pope Benedict has continued the work begun by John XXIII and Paul VI. In light of the fact that we cannot excommunicate the Orthodox, because they have not left the Catholic Church, nor can they excommunicate us for leaving them, it seems that maintaining the decrees of excommunication was not helpful or very meaningful in this day and age…

JR

 

[bobzills]

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity and apostolic succesion of the Orthodox Churches. Thus it recognizes that there is a bond of communion between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches.

The Council, for its part, considered the Churches of the East with objectivity and deep affection, stressing their ecclesial nature and the real bonds of communion linking them with the Catholic Church. The Decree on Ecumenism points out: “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,

This was the first of several excommunications that were lifted and erased from the books of the Catholic Church.

**The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby “there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Church”[84] the remembrance of the excommunications **which nine hundred years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople. That ecclesial event, so filled with ecumenical commitment, took place during the last days of the Council, on 7 December 1965. The Council thus ended with a solemn act which was at once a healing of historical memories, a mutual forgiveness, and a firm commitment to strive for communion. (Ut Unum Sint).

The Churches of the East are now Sister Churches and the mutual excommunications are being lifted.

** 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.

Pope Benedict has continued the work begun by John XXIII and Paul VI. In light of the fact that we cannot excommunicate the Orthodox, because they have not left the Catholic Church, nor can they excommunicate us for leaving them, it seems that maintaining the decrees of excommunication was not helpful or very meaningful in this day and age…

JR

The Orthodox Church is stll outside of the Roman Catholic Church is it not? So is there salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church and inside of the Greek Orthodox Church?

 

[JReducation]

This is the confusing part. If the Greek Orthodox Church is no longer excommnicated from the Catholic Church, how can you be leaving the Catholic Church when you are joining a Church which is not excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

Bob,

I can see how this is confusing. When I first thought about it it seemed confusing to me too. But thinking about it from another perspective actually made sense.

Today’s Orthodox are not excommunicated, because they have not left the Church. Nor are we excommunicated, because we did not abandon them either.

The excommunications of 1000 years ago only applies to those involved in the separation of the Churches, not to those of us who descended from them.

Today, those who break with their respective Church run the risk of excommunication, not those who are born into it. We have no more authority to excommunicate an Orthodox than they do to excommunicate a Catholic.

Nonetheless, we can excommunicate our own and they can do the same to their people until full union is achieved.

The union that we now share is what is called a union in sacris, a sacramental union. We share the same faith, the same priesthood, the same sacraments. Our priesthood (Orthodox and Catholic) is valid and licit.

The differences between us are in certain areas of dogma. But as the Holy Father said, dogma has degrees of assent. Meaning, that there are dogmas that one must absolutely hold and there are others that are necessary, but even without them, one remains in communion with the apostles. For example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Orthodox and Catholics do not share this dogma. But not believing in this dogma does not breach the communion with the apostles, because it was not defined by them. If there were a difference regarding the Eucharist, as there is between us and the Protestants, then you have a serious problem. The Eucharist was handed down to us by the apostles.

The case of the SSPX is very similar to what happened 1000 years ago, where the bishops of the East broke communion with the Bishop of Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre (RIP) and his successor bishops have broken communion with Rome. But they have not denied any dogma, to the best of my knowledge. While they may be excommunicated, just as the Catholics and Orthodox of antiquity, the descendants on both side would not be.

Let us pray that the conditions between the SSPX and the Holy See do not last 1000 years.

JR

 

[JReducation]

The Orthodox Church is stll outside of the Roman Catholic Church is it not? So is there salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church and inside of the Greek Orthodox Church?

Yes, because we are sacramentally united and united by our common bond to the Apostles.

The Orthodox Church is not outside of the Roman Catholic Church nor are we outside of them. We are Sister Churches standing side by side, not quite holding hands (that’s the best metaphor that I can come up with).

However, here is the big part, the Orthodox are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Unlike the Eastern Catholics who are part of the same family as the Orthodox, but are also in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Even though they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, they are not outside the Church. They are in communion with the Apostles. They are legitimate descendants of the Apostles. They are in communion with the Catholic Church in sacrament, faith, and apostolic succession.

JR

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes, because we are sacramentally united and united by our common bond to the Apostles.

The Orthodox Church is not outside of the Roman Catholic Church nor are we outside of them. We are Sister Churches standing side by side, not quite holding hands (that’s the best metaphor that I can come up with).

However, here is the big part, the Orthodox are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Unlike the Eastern Catholics who are part of the same family as the Orthodox, but are also in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Even though they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, they are not outside the Church. They are in communion with the Apostles. They are legitimate descendants of the Apostles. They are in communion with the Catholic Church in sacrament, faith, and apostolic succession.

JR

---

JR – honestly —do you make this up as you go along or are you picking this up from “Spirit of Vat II” type writings.

 

[JReducation]

---

JR – honestly —do you make this up as you go along or are you picking this up from “Spirit of Vat II” type writings.

Neither. You can read these same thoughts in the writings of John Paul II, especially Ut Unum Sint and the Documents of Vatican II on the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

You can also read the words and actions of Benedict XVI regarding the Orthodox. Here are a few.

1. Benedict XVI’s December 7, 2008 Reflection after the Angelus: “H.H. [His Holiness] Alexei II, Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russians, died a few days ago. Let us join our Orthodox brethren in prayer to commend his soul to the goodness of the Lord so that he may welcome him into his Kingdom of light and peace.

The Holy Father refers to Alexei II as "His Holiness and he prays that he will be welcome into the Kingdom. The Pope would not pray for someone who has no hope of salvation. Nor would Benedict refer to him as His Holiness if he did not acknowledge that as his proper title.

1. Benedict XVI’s November 26, 2008 Greeting to H.H.“His Holiness”] Aram I of the Armenian “Orthodox” Apostolic Church: “This morning I greet with great joy His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia of the Armenians, together with the distinguished delegation accompanying him, and the Armenian pilgrims from various countries… Your Holiness, I wish to express my particular gratitude for your constant personal involvement in the field of ecumenism…”

He refers to Aram I as “Your Holiness” and he calls the Armenian Church Apostolic. If they are an Apostolic Church, they are united to us in sacrament and Aposotlic succession.

1. Benedict XVI’s June 29, 2008 Comment: “Moreover, on today’s Solemnity it is a cause of special joy to the Bishop of Rome to welcome the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in the beloved person of His Holiness Bartholomew I…”

The Pope refers to himself as the Bishop of Rome, which is one of the titles that pedates the schism between East and West. He again refers to the another Patriarch, Barthalomew I as “His Holiness”. With this particular visit he and the Patriarch stood at the Papal window and gave the urbi et orbi blessing in unison.

1. “To His Holiness Alexis II Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia- The visit to Russia of His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper offers me a welcome opportunity to extend my cordial greetings, to express my esteem for your ministry in the Russian Orthodox Church and to restate my appreciation for your commitment to fostering relations between Catholics and Orthodox… I extend in this Easter season my warmest best wishes for your ministry, entrusting to the Lord my prayer that the great mystery of our salvation, the Death and Resurrection of our Lord, may ever more deeply guide your life and your service to the Church.”

Observe again the title His Holiness Alexis II. Why would the Catholic Pope express esteem for the ministry of one whom is outside of salvation? Why would he speak of the Patriarch’s service to the Church if the Patriarch were a heretic leading people to hell?

Like these there are many more writings and statements that have come directly from the Holy See that imply our faith in the Orthodox Church’s union with the Apostles.

If they are united to the Apostles, how can there be no salvation for them?

Don’t be so quick to jump at other posters.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Walking_Home]

Neither. You can read these same thoughts in the writings of John Paul II, especially Ut Unum Sint and the Documents of Vatican II on the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

You can also read the words and actions of Benedict XVI regarding the Orthodox. Here are a few.

1. Benedict XVI’s December 7, 2008 Reflection after the Angelus: “H.H. [His Holiness] Alexei II, Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russians, died a few days ago. Let us join our Orthodox brethren in prayer to commend his soul to the goodness of the Lord so that he may welcome him into his Kingdom of light and peace.

The Holy Father refers to Alexei II as "His Holiness and he prays that he will be welcome into the Kingdom. The Pope would not pray for someone who has no hope of salvation. Nor would Benedict refer to him as His Holiness if he did not acknowledge that as his proper title.

1. Benedict XVI’s November 26, 2008 Greeting to H.H.“His Holiness”] Aram I of the Armenian “Orthodox” Apostolic Church: “This morning I greet with great joy His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia of the Armenians, together with the distinguished delegation accompanying him, and the Armenian pilgrims from various countries… Your Holiness, I wish to express my particular gratitude for your constant personal involvement in the field of ecumenism…”

He refers to Aram I as “Your Holiness” and he calls the Armenian Church Apostolic. If they are an Apostolic Church, they are united to us in sacrament and Aposotlic succession.

1. Benedict XVI’s June 29, 2008 Comment: “Moreover, on today’s Solemnity it is a cause of special joy to the Bishop of Rome to welcome the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in the beloved person of His Holiness Bartholomew I…”

The Pope refers to himself as the Bishop of Rome, which is one of the titles that pedates the schism between East and West. He again refers to the another Patriarch, Barthalomew I as “His Holiness”. With this particular visit he and the Patriarch stood at the Papal window and gave the urbi et orbi blessing in unison.

1. “To His Holiness Alexis II Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia- The visit to Russia of His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper offers me a welcome opportunity to extend my cordial greetings, to express my esteem for your ministry in the Russian Orthodox Church and to restate my appreciation for your commitment to fostering relations between Catholics and Orthodox… I extend in this Easter season my warmest best wishes for your ministry, entrusting to the Lord my prayer that the great mystery of our salvation, the Death and Resurrection of our Lord, may ever more deeply guide your life and your service to the Church.”

Observe again the title His Holiness Alexis II. Why would the Catholic Pope express esteem for the ministry of one whom is outside of salvation? Why would he speak of the Patriarch’s service to the Church if the Patriarch were a heretic leading people to hell?

Like these there are many more writings and statements that have come directly from the Holy See that imply our faith in the Orthodox Church’s union with the Apostles.

If they are united to the Apostles, how can there be no salvation for them?

Don’t be so quick to jump at other posters.

Fraternally,

JR

---

Hey JR-- we as Catholics should pray for all --protestant, Orthodox, etc.

Now as to your statement about the Orthodox not being outside the Catholic Church nor are we outside of Orthodox. If the Orthodox Church is not outside the Catholic Church etc. etc. --this in essence means that the Church of Christ a made up of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church --divided (Orthodox not in communion with Rome) but in some way one (Orthodox not outside Catholic–Catholic not outside Orthodox). This is not a view we are permitted to hold.

It seems JR–you are reading your own ideas into what our Pope’s have said.

 

[JReducation]

---

Hey JR-- we as Catholics should pray for all --protestant, Orthodox, etc.

Now as to your statement about the Orthodox not being outside the Catholic Church nor are we outside of Orthodox. If the Orthodox Church is not outside the Catholic Church etc. etc. --this in essence means that the Church of Christ a made up of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church --divided (Orthodox not in communion with Rome) but in some way one (Orthodox not outside Catholic–Catholic not outside Orthodox). This is not a view we are permitted to hold.

It seems JR–you are reading your own ideas into what our Pope’s have said.

Did you read Ut Unum Sint?

Why would our Holy Father pray for the ministry of the Orthodox Patriarch?

It may seem to you that I am reading my own ideas and that is fine. My mission is not to persuade you, only to share with you.

I’m a Franciscan Brother, not a Politician. I’m not here to do politics or to sell an idea.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[bobzills]

---

JR – honestly —do you make this up as you go along or are you picking this up from “Spirit of Vat II” type writings.

I don’t think he is making it up. I think that this is another example of where the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church has changed. Before, it used to be that the Orthodox Church was a schismatic Church and was outside the Catholic Church. Now the teaching is entirely different as you can see from the explanation given by JR.