A
Allen_Cox
Guest
Am I wrong, but doesn’t the Orthodox church not recognize the authority of the pope? The SSPX does.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
I think there are two different situations being blended here. On the one hand there is the person who attends mass at an SSPX chapel to fulfill his or her Sunday obligation, but is not a supporter of the SSPX position and conflict with the Holy See. This is the person whose spiritual life is nourished by the EF and has no other place to attend an EF mass. This is not the person to whom the UE is speaking…
On the other hand, there are people who will go to their death arguing and defending that the SSPX are right, that Archbishop Lefebvre was right and that Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict are wrong to discipline them and to withhold all canonical rights from them, and all faculties until they comply with what the Holy See wants. This is the group to whom this point applies.
Pope Benedict has made several very clear statements.
On the other hand, there are people who will go to their death arguing and defending that the SSPX are right, that Archbishop Lefebvre was right and that Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict are wrong to discipline them and to withhold all canonical rights from them, and all faculties until they comply with what the Holy See wants. This is the group to whom this point applies.
Pope Benedict has made several very clear statements.
*]When he lifted the excommunication he made it clear that the excommunication was being rescinded, not that it was ever invalid.
*]At that time, he also made it clear that the SSPX clergy do not have a canonical place in the Church and do not exercise a legitimate ministry.
*]In Light of the World he said that the SSPX had broken communion with the Primacy.
*]In another letter after the lifting of the excommunication he states that the SSPX should not become a scapegoat, but also states that they have acted arrogantly.
*]He also called Bishop Williamson an anti-Semite and said that had he known about the bishop’s position on the Shoah, he would have separated him from the others and not lifted the excommunication. He went as far as describing him as “a very difficult man.”.
When a pope makes all of these statements about a group and members, it stands to reason that Catholics would not want to go down on record as being supportive of their side of this debate with the Holy See. Why not? In the end, all the power rests in the hand of the Holy See. Only the Holy See can give them canonical status. Regardless of what we think, the fact is that the Holy See has the power to bind and unbind. This means that it has the power to legitimate or not a particular group and it does not need to justify itself or prove itself right. The power to bind and unbind does not come with conditions. It is one of those things that simply is.
Let’s give a strange example. If a group wants the EF celebrated in their diocese, but also supports the local SSPX priests disobedience to the local bishop, then that group is problematic. They are asking the Church to give them something, but they are not giving the Church the submission that she’s asking for. This is what is coming through here. The Holy Father is telling the bishops that they have the authority to say “No” to anyone whom they believe is in conflict with the Church or supports a group that is in conflict with the Church.
It actually makes sense. You can’t ask a bishop to give you an EF mass and tell him, “By the way, we’re blowing off the fact that the priests of the SSPX are suspended. We really don’t take this suspension thing very seriously.” Hellooooooo, we can’t do things like this in any organization.
If she says that a priest or bishop is suspended, then we must accept that he is suspended and not blow it off as something insignificant, because it’s not insignificant to the Holy See. Suspension is very serious.
If we accept the Church’s generosity on this point, we also have to support her rules. It’s only fair.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
If I remember correctly, it was/were the SSPX bishops who had asked for the excommunications to be lifted and one of the conditions set by the Vatican was that the SSPX quit bad-mouthing the Vatican and the OF. I’d like to presume at least they (except the one) met their end of the bargain on this. For the UE to ask the SSPX specifically not to criticize the OF would seem to be a little reminder if not be redundant at this point, IMO. Unfortunately the wording is such that it may provoke old hostilities and the same should have been asked for those who refuse to accept the EF as a valid rite, which can be equally if not more damaging because of the numbers involved. We know there are many bishops in communion with Rome who fall into this category, although it can be argued the whole document was served to be a reminder for them too. Just my one penny’s worth.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I’ve asked this question in different ways and have never received a satisfactory answer.
Since the Orthodox church is one lung, and since their sacraments are valid, why can’t one fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending an Orthodox liturgy? I attended a Divine Liturgy recently, but made sure I attended a latin rite vigil mass.
Is it because of the risk of folks converting to Orthodoxy if they feel it’s the same as attending any mass?
V
valoriuslobo
Guest
JReduction,
I always look forward to your erudite observations. Thank you for offering this.
I always look forward to your erudite observations. Thank you for offering this.
L
laszlo
Guest
I have a deep feeling, that if the TLM would be offered in every parish, it will be abused in the same way as the new form is.
There is nothing in TLM or in any form, what in itself would prevent abuses. Only the reverence of the priest can do so.
At this moment only those priests offer TLM who have inclination toward the rules and order. In the sixties and before the innovative abuses were painfully present.
“I welcomed the document that now we had a binding liturgical text, after a period of experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy”
(Joseph Ratzinger Milestones Ignatius 1998 p.146)
There is nothing in TLM or in any form, what in itself would prevent abuses. Only the reverence of the priest can do so.
At this moment only those priests offer TLM who have inclination toward the rules and order. In the sixties and before the innovative abuses were painfully present.
“I welcomed the document that now we had a binding liturgical text, after a period of experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy”
(Joseph Ratzinger Milestones Ignatius 1998 p.146)
J
JReducation
Guest
Pope Benedict said this. He lifted the excommunication, because they asked. We have to remember that it was only the bishops who were affected, not the priests, deacons or seminarians.
I don’t think that Pope Benedict is trying to provoke the SSPX bishops. I think that he’s giving the diocesan bishops a criteria to apply to the laity and priests. It’s as I said above, you can’t go to a bishop to ask for the EF in your community and at the same time stand on the corner and state that the SSPX is justified in disobeying the Holy Father and is justified in celebrating mass illegally. The Church’s view is that no one is ever justified in breaking Church law. If an action is justifiable, then the law has not been broken . . . it simply does not apply. This is the kind of comment that the bishops do not have to accept.
If you have a group that has been attending mass at the SSPX, Old Catholics, SSPV or any other valid mass, to fulfill their Sunday obligation, but do not share their views on the Church, no bishop should turn you away.
On the other hand, if you have been carrying a placard defending the actions of these groups and now you come to the bishop, the UE authorizes him to tell you to come back when you’re ready to submit to the Church on the points mentioned. I work for a diocese. You’d be surprised how much gets back to a bishop. There is always someone who knows someone who know what you said, published on CAF, on a blog or wrote somewhere.
That’s another good reason for not posting your conflicts with the bishop on the Internet. It stays there long after you changed your mind.
Any Catholic may attend mass at an Orthodox parish to fulfill his or her Sunday obligation as long as there is a good reason to do so. If that’s the only church available to you or you’re traveling in an Orthodox city. This actually happened to me in Russia. I was in a small town and everyone was Orthodox.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
MarkThompson
Guest
I don’t believe that’s correct. If there is no Catholic church available, then your Sunday obligation is simply waived. There cannot be any obligation whatsoever to attend a schismatic church. You can choose to go, but you are not obliged to.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
The Orthodox are not a “schismatic church”.
From the CCC;
818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church”
Which is a direct quote from Unitatis Redintegratio 3 § 1.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Your quotation shows that Orthodox people today are not individually guilty of the sin of schism. The churches themselves as ecclesial communities are, quite obviously, in a state of schism from the Catholic Church.
L
laszlo
Guest
You can fulfill your Sunday obligation if there is no other choice
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=298067&highlight=orthodox+church+communion
The problem is with the Easter Orthodox churches is that you should not prefer their rite. The Roman rite Catholics are no supposed to change the rite. In the real life to break one condition (preference of rite) seems to be OK, to break two conditions (rite and full communion with the Apostolic See) is too much temptation for apostasy.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
If there is “no other choice” (i.e., no Catholic church), then you do not have a Sunday obligation.
J
JReducation
Guest
Two points:
To receive Holy Communion, you must have the permission of the Orthodox priest celebrating the mass or another legitimate Orthodox cleric. You should not receive Holy Communion without permission. Our clerics do not have jurisdiction to grant that permission.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- The Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Catholic Orthodox Churches are in schism, not schismatic. The schism applies to both sides, meaning that they are separated from each other. In Canon Law, that is a huge difference. They are not excommunicated. We do have Communion In Sacris (Communion in Sacraments). This is the same legal principle that was applied to the SSPX ordination of the bishops. It was a schismatic act, but the SSPX was not schismatic. You can have a state of schism, a schismatic or a schismatic act. They are three different legal terms. Schism carries an automatic excommunication. But Pope Paul VI and the Greek Orthodox agreed to lift the mutual excommunications. From there, everyone else agreed. The last excommunications were lifted in late 1970s. This was one, among several issues, that set off the SSPV and the SSPX. The SSPV were even more upset than the SSPX. That’s OK. The Orthodox Patriarchs took a lot of heat on their side too and had some breakaway groups that they are dealing with. Conservative Latin Catholics were not the only ones who had a knee-jerk reaction to the lifting of the mutual excommunications. Conservative Orthodox did too. Goes to show . . . you can’t please everyone.
- If you have the opportunity to attend a valid mass, your obligation is not lifted. The law is that you must attend mass in a Catholic Rite. Here is where the Canon Lawyer gets you. Because we have Communion in Sacris with the Orthodox and because they do make valid and licit use of the same Catholic rites as do the Oriental Churches, one cannot legitimately claim that there is no Catholic Eucharist available. Granted, it’s celebrated by an Orthodox priest, but it’s the same Eucharist and the same rite that you would find in its Eastern Catholic sister Church. Remember, they are now Sister Churches.
To receive Holy Communion, you must have the permission of the Orthodox priest celebrating the mass or another legitimate Orthodox cleric. You should not receive Holy Communion without permission. Our clerics do not have jurisdiction to grant that permission.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
MarkThompson
Guest
I beg to differ. “A Catholic rite” means “a Catholic rite,” not “anyplace where the Eucharist is valid.” Fr. Cutié, as an ex-Catholic priest, may well be celebrating the Eucharist validly in his Anglican services, but going to one will never satisfy the Sunday obligation. The Orthodox divine liturgy is, by definition, not a Catholic rite.Two points:
This was a big question for our religious houses of brothers in Eastern Europe. They don’t ordain their friars and until recent years, they did not see a Catholic priest for weeks at a time. The answer that came back from Rome was that there is no excuse, if there is an Orthodox priest available.
- The Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Catholic Orthodox Churches are in schism, not schismatic. The schism applies to both sides, meaning that they are separated from each other. In Canon Law, that is a huge difference. They are not excommunicated. We do have Communion In Sacris (Communion in Sacraments). This is the same legal principle that was applied to the SSPX ordination of the bishops. It was a schismatic act, but the SSPX was not schismatic. You can have a state of schism, a schismatic or a schismatic act. They are three different legal terms. Schism carries an automatic excommunication. But Pope Paul VI and the Greek Orthodox agreed to lift the mutual excommunications. From there, everyone else agreed. The last excommunications were lifted in late 1970s. This was one, among several issues, that set off the SSPV and the SSPX. The SSPV were even more upset than the SSPX. That’s OK. The Orthodox Patriarchs took a lot of heat on their side too and had some breakaway groups that they are dealing with. Conservative Latin Catholics were not the only ones who had a knee-jerk reaction to the lifting of the mutual excommunications. Conservative Orthodox did too. Goes to show . . . you can’t please everyone.
- If you have the opportunity to attend a valid mass, your obligation is not lifted. The law is that you must attend mass in a Catholic Rite. Here is where the Canon Lawyer gets you. Because we have Communion in Sacris with the Orthodox and because they do make valid and licit use of the same Catholic rites as do the Oriental Churches, one cannot legitimately claim that there is no Catholic Eucharist available. Granted, it’s celebrated by an Orthodox priest, but it’s the same Eucharist and the same rite that you would find in its Eastern Catholic sister Church. Remember, they are now Sister Churches.
To receive Holy Communion, you must have the permission of the Orthodox priest celebrating the mass or another legitimate Orthodox cleric. You should not receive Holy Communion without permission. Our clerics do not have jurisdiction to grant that permission.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
More to the point, no. 115 of the 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism explains:
Catholics—but those of Eastern Churches according to their own Law—are obliged to attend Mass on that day and on days of precept. . . . [A]nd it must be remembered that even when Catholics participate in ecumenical services or in services of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, the obligation of participating at Mass on these days remains.
This deliberately superseded the laxer guidelines of the 1967 Directory Ad Totam Ecclesiam:
47. A Catholic who occasionally, for reasons set out below [FN: Cf. n.50.], attends the holy liturgy (Mass) on a Sunday or holiday of obligation in an Orthodox Church is not then bound to assist at Mass in a Catholic Church. It is likewise a good thing if on such days Catholics, who for just reasons cannot go to Mass in their own Church, attend the Holy Liturgy of their separated Oriental brethren, if this is possible.
- Catholics may be allowed to attend Orthodox liturgical services if they have reasonable grounds, e.g. arising out of a public office or function, blood relationships, friendships, desire to be better informed, etc. In such cases there is nothing against their taking part in the common responses, hymns, and actions of the Church in which they are guests. Receiving Holy Communion, however, will be governed by what is laid down above, nn. 42 and 44 [requiring permission after mutual consultation between ecclesial authorities, or special circumstances]. . . . .
As you can see, even under these rules it is quite clear that in the absence of an available Catholic Mass attendance at an Orthodox liturgy is merely suggested, not required—as it would have been if it were needed to fulfill the Sunday obligation. That is because the obligation is waived if you cannot attend a Catholic Mass, irrespective of the availability of an Orthodox service.
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
Ok, wait a minute. Here is where the Canon Lawyers present their argument
Catholics—but those of Eastern Churches according to their own Law—are obliged to attend Mass on that day and on days of precept. . . . [A]nd it must be remembered that even when Catholics participate in ecumenical services or in services of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, the obligation of participating at Mass on these days remains.
What is being addressed here are services, not mass. The Orthodox Churches celebrate mass. Divine Liturgy at a Greek Orthdox is the same Divine Liturgy at the Greek Catholic Church and so forth.
This was said to clarify that attending a service is not the same as attending a mass. That is true. It’s not the same.
However, I think we’re getting way off topic here. But it’s an interesting canonical discussion. :yup:
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
I just deleted a few posts because the conversation is drifting. Please focus on the OP
J
JReducation
Guest
Oops! Sorry. That was probably my fault. 
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status