www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West We love Orthodoxy.

Let's ALL remember to speak respectfully to our priests and to each other too.

Thank you.
Alice, Moderator

Dear Alice - et alii-
It is highly desirable, particularly among Christians, to address one another and speak about one another peaceably and respectfully.

Some of us, alas, sometimes find it difficult to put this into practice all the time. So perhaps I may offer a small shred of a tolerable compromise practice: be rude to people, if at all, only to their faces; always be polite to people behind their backs! It's amazing how that reduces the amount of discourtesy.

Incognitus

Dear in Christ, Incognitus,

You never fail to perplex!

Respectfully and politely to your face,
(as well as behind your back!)

Alice *WINK*

On the New Calendar, that is. Many of us keep the Old Julian.

It seems I won't get an answer to my questions... But I will go on.

On one hand Fr. maintains he is scrupulous about his own observance of the rite. On the other he gives full and very emotional defense of those who maintain the most latinized practices in the entire country - and perhaps the most latinized, modern, hybrid version of the Greek Catholic liturgy present anywhere in the world. Again, the use of Old Slavonic itself doesn't guarantee Tradition at all - there are Protestant Bibles in OCS.

Father, if you are as traditional as you profess to be, I would hope you would be tirelessly working not to divide those people away from the church of Patriarch Josyp and his successor Patriarch Lubomyr, but to instruct them to that beautiful tradition and reconcile them to that tradition. But you will not do that. Perhaps you should begin a Glagolitic Mass - offer the traditional Latin Mass in Slavonic. That would be more genuine, actually - and in the long run a much less divisive option.

No one is asking them to give anything up. Perhaps they could take some time to actually learn their tradition, that of their Fathers of the Union of Brest and not simply their biological fathers. Of Metropolitan Mikhail Rahoza, of the Martyrs of Kostomloty - far before the unfortunate degradation of our rite due to greatly to our own lack of identity around the RC majority. And certain RCs did take advantage of that majority status - and it appears some still do that.

Switch them around as you like? Are they simply "different Masses"? You say you use a "pure form" of the rite, and then switch to the Latin? I don't get it.

No, these people you respect have chosen to dissent from the church of Patriarch Josyp, Metropolitan Sheptytsky, all of them. They have no bishop - as no UGCC bishop, even those retired saints who suffered under the godless, will participate in this schism. That should indeed be very telling to all who read this exchange.

I believe that if a group came to Patriarch Lubomyr with respect and humility - he would dialogue with them.

Please don't misunderstand my comments - while acknowledging a minority of the RCs have not treated us fairly, whether in the "old country" or the diaspora, I want to thank the great contributions of many of our RC brethren. Luckily many like Leo XIII, Cyril Korolevsky and others did not take advantage and worked hard for us to regain many of those lost traditions in places like the Orientalium, St. Sophia's, Grotoferrata, Chevetogne and the Russicum. But you will not be sending anyone to those places, I imagine.

So - you respect those who resist the visible hierarchy, which is attempting to restore the authentic tradition according to the wishes of the Magesterium. If one was adequately grounded in that tradition, I think one would respect that tradition to the point of wanting genuine catechesis for those people who do not understand it. But it seems you have no desire for that - and I posit you do not have the adequate means to ground your vocations in that tradition to even grasp that.

So again, how specifically and why are you different from the UGCC parishes? Plenty of particular Latin usages, like the Gallic, have fallen into disuetude. Why cling to the hybridized? Why not embrace the larger tradition?

And at some point I really would like to know more details about your canonical status regarding the Redemptorists and your Latin or Byzantine faculties.

I understand the vocation situation quite differently than you have described. We continue to import them here because of our own shortages. The UCU up and running - a dream of Patriarch Josyp of which Fr. Borys Gudziak deserves many thanks. To export clergy - well, there has to be clergy to spare.

This especially struck me:
From those who have railed against exactly the same thing in the Roman Rite. What about those wonderful Latins who would like Mass in the vernacular? (even the 1962 in the vernacular?) I have a new term for this sort of thing - SS: Schizophrenic schism.

But it doesn't stop here. There are serious theological, yes, theological issues involved with those who support the SSPX with regards to relations with Orthodoxy. And your sect is clearly in that camp with the SSPX, by your own admissions and claims. If anyone doubts, read this from the great living theologian of the SSPX, Fr. Franz Schmidberger, in Kansas City (I was present at this occasion, actually - you can read the entire thing at http://www.sspx.org/Negotiations/fr_schimdbergers_talk.htm): "Even to a certain point, heretics." I walked out of the talk at that point. So there are different kinds of Apostolic Succession - "formal" and "material"? No, you either have it or you don't. The Orthodox definitely do. The Episcopalians, per Leo XIII, apparently do not.

But there you have it - and we uncover the whole veil of what is going on here as well. Obiovusly Fr. Schmidberger has also not read Article I of the Union of Brest - which guarantees that we accept nothing other than that which has been handed to us by the Greek Fathers, sans Filioque.

Here is Article I of the Union: So for those who profess to be faithful to the Union, let us be faithful - starting with Article I.
FDD

Andrew,

Yes, we have discussed this before. All I can say is that there are bigots everywhere, but thank God there are many more good people and people trying to be good.

-- John

Dear Father Michael Mary,

There is nothing in what you say that I haven't heard before and so there is nothing that offends.

I appreciate the Latinised rite of which you speak and I would myself be loathed to take it away from the people - full agreement. Apart from the papacy, the Immaculate Conception issue could be agreed upon in the sense of the Orthodox having always venerated the All-Holiness of the Mother of God and having never accepted the Augustinian notion if stain of Original Sin - that is another topic.

So what is the problem here? Why the controversy that appears to surround your monastery? Why the view that you are out of communion with Rome?

Alex

I love Orthodoxy myself, I apologize and ask forgiveness if it appears that I don't.

I love the witness that our Orthodox brethren give by sticking to the old ways and not compromising on them. I love the traditions, whether they are religious or ethnic, that they practice. I love how their churches are little communities (the 2 Orthodox parishes I've been to and the 1 Ukrainian Catholic parish I've been to really have a sense that they, and me and my family concerning the Ukrainian Church, are one big happy family!)

Some of the statments by the priest of the SSPX offend me as well, and I'm Catholic!

And I absolutely love St. John Chrysostom!!!


And his Liturgy!

Dear Dr Eric,

I must say that now that Fr Michael Mary has given us a closer view of what he actually does believe regarding certain topics, I'm much less inclined to disagree with him.

There is still the other matter, but that is way beyond me as I'm a layman!

Pay, pray and obey - is my motto most of the time!

Alex

I meant Fr. Schmidberger. The one that FDD links to.

Father, do you have a photo of your Byzantine chapel that you can share with the group?

Thanks!

Dave

Alex, I'm a bit confused at your response considering the dissention and division this has caused in some quarters of the UGCC in Ukraine. What they represent is direct opposition to the hierarchy and authority of Patriarch Lubomyr - and thus to his predecessor, Patriarch Josyp. You can be less inclined to disagree, I am more inclined to disagree after hearing this. Perhaps you are also less inclined to disagree with their consideration of the Orthodox as heretics? I believe it is in for a penny, in for a pound with these fellows.

If they want latinized parishes and usages, they didn't have to break communion and create a parallel church to find those - there are plenty still around and you know this to be true.

Since Fr. Sim hasn't responded directly, I will summarize - he broke away from the Redemptorists in New Zealand, creating his own sect of "Redemptorists" which has no recogniztion by the CSsRs or Rome, and he has no valid jurisdiction as a Catholic priest under a bishop of the Roman Church - I believe the canonical term is vagante.
FDD

Dearest in Christ Diak
1. I posted that I was stretching my time to reply to the questions posted in letters. I began with the first letter and I was working my way through in order. The bell went before being able to reply fully to Alex; so I had to leave it with typos etc because he was waiting. I went to prayers with a good wish which you you did not receive because it was not on your calendar yet. But, actually, the wish was to the person to whom the letter was addressed.

2 Our little island has no power supply except from what we produce with a generator. When the generator goes off, everything goes off: 8pm. You live in America and we, in Scotland, are therefore in fairly serious time zone differences; when the monastery generator goes off, after the 5 minute warning bell; it is over. But you are still wanting to have answers.

3 Then, anxious for your great line on the 'who' "Fr Michael Mary, C.SS.R." is (which has been public knowledge in throughout the C.SS.R. since 1988 and in Ukraine since we started going nearly 10 years ago) you write in your post . Well patience is a good virtue for us all to practise. Monastery life must goes on.

4 Now, here I am: I was born in New Zealand's South Island in 1953 of a Catholic family and I entered the Redemptorists at the age of 17 in 1971; profession was February 2nd 1972. I studied in the Christchurch Seminary for philosophy and in Melbourne at the Yarra Theological Union (the seminary of many religious orders in Australia at the time).
I was subsequently ordained priest by the Bishop of Christchurch, Most Rev B.P. Ashby, D.D. on August 12th 1978.

I was received into the Byzantine rite at the request of Bishop Michael Hrynchshyn in France with whom I lived and after learning the Mass I received the necessary Indult of Bi-Ritualism about the time of the funeral of Cardinal Slipy.

Yes "Sim" is my surname, our family is a sept of the Scottish clan Fraser. The Ukrainains have taught me the truth that in the infinity of numbers my place in life is near the very bottom, above six and below than eight. [Translation: 'Sim' is Ukrainian for 'seven.']

It is a good name to have and I would have kept it if it had not been for a disput with the other Redemptorists after our traditional Redemptorist foundation began. (It was made with the blessing of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.) It was then asked by the Novus Ordo Redemptorists that we distinguish ourselves from them. Thus, one of the concessions was that we took religious names so that we would not be confudsed when we sign our name. Thus the surname was replaced by a religious name in my case: Fr Michael Mary, C.SS.R. to stop any confusion as may be the case did I sign "Fr. Sim, C.SS.R." which is how I used to sign.... but now I only do that for signing checks of money and nobody seems to worry in this case!

In spite of difficulties we have managed to begin our traditional monastery trying to follow the Rule abandoned by the others with whom we share the same claims. That is 18 years ago and the rest of our story is similar to everything other story that is now finally being taken seriously by Rome.

In 1999 we bought this small island called Papa Stronsay where we have our monastery. (My Grandmother and our forebears were from these islands.) Our monastery was named 'Golgotha' after the Golgotha monastery on the island of Anzer in the Solovetsky islands which, like us, is also in the far North. I visited Solovetsky two years ago; I can recommend it.

5. I, and I am sure some of the others who have been following these posts, would be interested to know from yourself Father Deacon the answer to the following questions:
a. How is it that someone with your name comes to be "Rus'" when Rite usually comes through the Father? Are you a convert from a protestant background or were you a Roman Catholic, what were the circumstances that began you on this road?
b. Were you once a follower of the SSPX yourself since you were once a teacher in their school; did you ever attend their Masses; were you ever in their seminary at Econe?
c. Why do you seem to infer that Old Slavonic is not so very important and thence the questions: do you use Old Salvonic principally, occasionally or more or less never at all? Can you read it?
These are questions which I am very interested in and it will help me to speak to you with more understanding when I know where you are coming from. And I am sure that having spoken about myself, by equal measure, you would not find it impolite or unfair for me to ask similar questions.

6. There is no Internet mention of the Byzantine rite on the monastery timetable because this is a bi-ritual community and our Byzantine members are not the majority, only 10 of the 25. The Internet is not the source of all information and even the great Google can only tell you what has been told to it. We have nothing that needs special mention about us. I have told you how we celebrate; so I suppose soon enough even Google will know, which is fine. The Redemptorst Rule can be assimilate any rite. But we had nothing to proclaim to the world; we just quietly carry on our life here, but I'm happy to tell you and anyone else who is interested or needs to know.

7. The Filioque: In missionary places it is not sung and I have no problem with that; and I have celebrated where it is not sung: Volyn, Lugansk etc. That is different from taking it out of what is already sung and already in the texts. And especially this is true, I think, for the oriental who would interpret it as meaning that we did not believe it anymore; now that is different. A suppression in the Liturgy of a point of defined dogma can easily be seen as its possible denial and it would not be right to admit to the liturgy any confusion which disturbs the peace of the soul..... Mir v'sem, the repeated blessing of the celebrant; the constant requirement and prayer of the Divine Liturgy: "Mirom H/Gospody pomolimciya" (our very first petition after the Blahosloven...). So it is a matter of missiology and serious pastoral care to only ordain for the Holy Liturgy what is conducive to the peace of the soul and its salvation: ("i spacennii doosh nashikh" which is the second petition.) This is above and beyond all the plans of mice and men.
This is what I believe; (even though I am only a 'sim' in the great scheme of things and nowhere near the excellence of greater numbers and greater minds.) But Metropolitan Andrew probably always said the Filioque even if people could not hear him for the choir. For a non Filioque Liturgy you would have to go to Bishop Charnetsky and Exarch Leonid in the areas outside of Galicia; hence, as I said we use the 'Volgata Recensione' that prpares us for that and allows just that with the blessing of the Holy See. But that is not the case for Galicia. The Filioque is in all their books of the last century albeit with brackets; and taking it out for no reason would probably be immoral or sinful or at least a serious scandal and the Holy See never permitted it for the good reason of keeping souls united to the Catholic Church and clear about their religious identity.

8. Finally, the faithful who follow the Ruthenian rite as they have received it are not the most latinised in the world at all; have you ever read their rite or tried to understand it. We have a copy of the 1905 edition which is with the blessing of Archbishop Sheptytski and Blessed Gregory; it is very beautiful and sophisticated literally in its own rite. For the most latanised you should go to Romania where they consecrate Latin rite wafers.

Thank you for the source for the Nec plus... I am very grateful to you for giving it to me.
Sorry to be so long.
Devotedly and in the Charity of Christ,
Fr. Michael Mary, C.SS.R.

Father, thank you for your reply. I submit the following response: Be honest, Father - (1) you are not now validly incardinated into any diocese, Latin or Byzantine. You are no longer in any directory of recognized CSsRs or CSsR communities available from Rome or the Redemptorists. That is verifiable to all here who wish to probe further.

You do not now, nor have ever enjoyed valid faculties from the Ukrainian Catholic Church. That again is verifiable for anyone who wishes to write any UGCC bishop. Nor would you likely be able to obtain them, as you are openly opposed to her hierarchy. Vagus.

To answer your questions directly and straightforward:

I am a fifth generation descendent of Austro-Hungarian emigres who came to Indiana as farmers on my mother's side. They all over several generations lost their Greek Catholic identity and became mostly Latins, a few Orthodox. Yes, I was raised Roman, like many Greek Catholics who frequent this forum. In high school I studied my family roots, read several of the Greek Fathers, Kallistos Ware, Archbishop Raya, etc. and experienced Orthodoxy. I received a proper and official transfer of church sui iuris by the validly installed Apostolc Pro-Nuncio who at the time was Msgr. Pio Laghi.

I was validly tonsured Reader and ordained Subdeacon by Bishop Michael Wiwchar, CSsR, and later ordained Deacon by Bishop John Kudrick. I will provide chancery numbers if you wish to verify my status (or you can simply check the current Eparchy of Parma clergy directory).

I originally believed that they would be reconciled with Rome. Yes, on occasion I attended their Masses as I lived and taught at the boarding school; I considered the seminary but did not attend. Nearly all of my friends amongst the clergy joined the Fraternity of St. Peter.

I could not continue to support such a divisive movement that in the end represented schism. As I was already a full-time Eastern Christian via a valid change of church sui iuris , I left my SSPX teaching position out of conscience. I have since repented and sacramentally confessed any potential participation in schism from the visible Catholic Church.

Again I refer to Article I of the Union. Were you as concerned for the "pure form" as you say, and considering your attachment to the SSPX and their absolute adherence to "pure form" of the Latin rite, your reasoning is inconsistent. I don't deny that pastoral sensitivity should be considered - but in reality the current UGCC hierarchy often suggests local pastoral sensitivity. Why are you opposed to them?

Now, if you do, in fact, celebrate without the Filioque, you are then being consistent with the recommended UGCC practice. Why then are you opposed to the UGCC hierarchy, and why do you assist splinter sects who, as you admit, are doing the same thing - but in open opposition to the UGCC hierarchy - if they are doing the same thing? Do you deny we should attempt to follow the tradition handed down to us by the Fathers of the Union?
Father, again the Holy Fathers from Leo XIII have exhorted us to catechize our people to their authentic tradition. We should return them to the full and uncompromised spirit of the Fathers of the Union.

Immoral or sinful? To comply with the Articles by which we are in union with the Catholic Church? The Holy See made the concession to individual bishops to put it in brackets in the translations. This does not mean to continue to actively support concessions - but rather to increase our catechetical efforts to return to the authentic tradition.

I don't believe Rome ever officially gave any approval of the proceedings of the "Synods" of Zamosc or L'viv. The See did not concede to a wholesale deviation from Article I of the Union nor do they now wish us to continue that deviation.

Several bishops have had it struck from the books - I remember when that was done in one diocese in the US the great majority applauded it. A few didn't like it and went to the RCs - but those individuals were RCs already.

I did say "perhaps the most hybridized", and yes, your point about Romania is well taken - although one can indeed find a variations there as in Ukraine. I do say it is still one of the most hybridized usages of the Byzantine rite.

Yes, I have read and was instructed in the Ruthenian historical, spiritual, theological and liturgical development by many excellent experts in my seminary time. I strongly suggest the current Metropolitan of Winnipeg's (Vl. Lawrence Huculak) doctoral dissertation on the historical development of the Ruthenian tradition. It appears from your comments you have not read that work and it is a must read for all clergy celebrating the Ruthenian Rescension.

The entire purpose of the 1944 Ordo by Metropolitan Sheptytsky was a return to the "pure form" before all the latinizations - a process he started when mandated to do so by Leo XIII - and further encouraged by Pius X. He was greatly opposed in this endeavor by Bishop Gregory and others. But in the end the Ordo was approved by Rome. I do not question Bl. Bishop Gregory's motives or actions, but merely state historical fact.

From my perspective - I am in communion with the visible hierarchy of the church of Rus', and Rome. I follow the directives of my visible hierarchy, and the Magesterium, and my conscience in returning to the spirit of the Union, and correcting the modern latinizations present in our Liturgy. When the bishop decrees its removal in the name of tradition, of which it is, that should not be grounds to find a schismatic sect which actually holds to the more modernized, latinized usage.

I do not wish to be disrespectful at all. When someone comes along purporting to belong to a religious order - an order with a venerable history of working in the Byzantine tradition with sainted martyrs, I want to learn more about who they are, why and what they are doing. Especially when they on one hand admit they are doing the same thing as the visible Church, and then on the other hand attempt to create a parallel church - or support those who are.

Again, Father, some very direct questions abput your sitauation: Which province of Redemptorists is your foundation established under? What Latin bishop(s) do you now enjoy faculties under? And from what Greek Catholic bishop do you now enjoy valid bi-ritual faculties?

Regarding your work: How and why are you different from the UGCC? Why are you openly opposed to the UGCC hierarchy, including the visible line of bishops from the Union through Patriarch Josyp to Patriarch Lubomyr?

Thank you for your time and reply.
FDD

Dearest in Christ Dave
Thank you for your post.
Yes, we do have photos of:
the chapel we use,
the progress on the small church we are building,
the Liturgy, the skema of one of the monks
and of our raising up of the Byzantine Cross in memory of the 90th anniversary of the Redemptorists' entry into the Byzantine rite.

They are digital.

The problem is that I do not know how to put a photo on this forum computer system. This is my first time on a Forum and so far I have only worked out how to use the quotes (And ignore certain remarks with a pinch of the virtues of patience, forebearance and charity!)

If you sent me a Private Message with your e-mail address I could e-mail them to you and you could put them up for the group; or if you also do not know how to do it then someone else might know. I can write a script for the photos to explain them and that could be put up with them if you so like.
Devotedly,
Fr Michael Mary, C.SS.R.

From the website http://www.papastronsay.com/Ukraine.htm :

Why is it unreasonable for a Catholic bishop to ask a priest, who is operating in his diocese, and who purports to be Catholic, whom he professes canonical loyalty to?

It would seem the underlying implication is for Fr. Kovpak to not be honest and publically declare to the Patriarch and his flock whom he wishes to be subject to. I think honesty and being straightforward is a much better way for the people.

If he doesn't like Patriarch Lubomyr, and wants his own liturgical vision, fine - say so and be openly schismatic, instead of crypto-schismatic.

The little quip about "self-styled" reminds me of the criticism of Patriarch Josyp - his detractors used that exact line.

Yes, some pictures and description of the Byzantine liturgical life of the community would be nice - along with some descriptions of how the community uses the Byzantine Horologion or is otherwise being educated, trained, and living the Byzantine tradition.
FDD

n.b. What will happen when Bishop Fellay reconciles with Rome? Interesting scenario.