www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Summer '03 Greek Catholic pilgrimages in the Old Country

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Faithful Greek Catholics:

Regarding the issue of Indulgences Father Anthony Holowaychuk, OSBM in his Byzantine catechetical book: "Catholic Faith Guide: Presenting the Catholic Faith in the Context of the Byzantine Ukrainian rite" Imprimi Potest: Raphael Melnyk, OSBM (Provincial Canadian Province), Nihil Obstat: Basil Wawryk, OSBM (Censor Librorum) Imprimatur: +D.M. Greschuk, D.D. (Eparch of Edmonton) May 18, 1988, Published 1990 by the Order of St. Basil the Great, says in Chapter 19 (The Holy Mystery of Penance) pp. 369-370 Section on Indulgences:

The Doctrine of Indulgences is concerned with the remission of the punishment due to sins, while the Sacrament of Penance deals with the remission of sins. An indulgence is the remission granted by the Church of the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven. The Sacrament of Penance remits our sins, but there still remains the debt or penalty of atoning for them. The debt or penalty for having sinned - though the sins are already forgiven - is called "temporal punishment." Hence, God in His divine justice permits temporal punishment to be afflicted either here on earth (in the forms of the trials of this life, of the sufferings and misfortunes endured, of the penances performed, etc) or in purgatory.

The Church is able to grant indulgences because she has at her disposal the spiritual treasury of the infinite satisfaction of Jesus Christ and the superabundant satisfaction of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints. Jesus Christ made an infinit satisfaction for all the sins by His total obedience to the Father, by His holy life, and particularly by His Passion and Death. The Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints made satisfaction through their outstanding and holy lives, and by enduring hardships and sufferings beyond what was required of them. God accepts the satisfaction of His Son and the Virgin Mary and the saints for our benefit, and the Church draws from this spiritual treasury and applies it to us.

To gain an indulgence, one must be in the state of grace, have the proper disposition and fulfill the conditions required by the Church. There are two types of indulgences: plenary and partial. Plenary indulgence is the remission of all the temporal punishment due to our sins, and a partial indulgence is the remission of only part of it. These are, therefore, numerous ways that the Church can prescribe to gain indulgences...the Church's practice of granting indulgences arose from the influence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit's continuous guidance of her, and, therefore, we should avail ourselves of them."

Another source I have to support the view that as Greek Catholics we are required to believe all the Catholic Church doth teach regarding indulgences and purgatory is from the "Euchologion" or Tebnyk compiled by Reverend Father Demetrius Wysochansky, OSBM and published by Basilian Press, Second Revised Edition, 1986.

In the first part I will take from the text for the Ordination of the Priest, pp. 144-145 of the above Ukrainian Catholic Trebnyk:

(Deacon kneeling before the bishop)

"I, N., believe and profess, promise and swear to the Lord my God, one in the Holy Trinity, that: "I believe in one God..."(he recites the Nicene Creed, p.10, and then continues with the oath):

"I also profess that there are but Seven Sacraments in the Church of God...I further believe that in the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist bread is changed into the Body and wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. In believe that there is but one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church, and I swear obediece to the most holy ecumenical Pontiff, John Paul, Pope of Rome and to the most reverend archbishop, N., to the God-loving bishop, N., and to their successors. Furthermore, I BELIEVE ALL THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ROME TEACHES. (caps mine)...(Here the candidate puts his hand on the holy Gospel and continues) That I am swearing honestly to all this may the Lord God help me, one in the Holy Trinity and this holy Gospel."

And now frome the text of the Rite of the Consecration of A Bishop (pp.152-

"Archdeacon: Let us be attentive!
-One of the priests present the bishop-elect saying:

Most Reverend Archbishop! The beloved of God, elected, confirmed, and most honorable Priest, (Name) is led forth for consecration to the Bishopric of (name of City)...

-the Archbishop Consecrator Addresses him, saying:

Why have you come here and what do you request of us?

Bishop-elect: To receive through the imposition of hands the grace of Bishopric to which I have been elected by the Holy Roman See.

Archbishop Consecrator: I have authority to consecrate you bishop. Do you have the decress from the Holy Roman See?

Bishop Elect and the (presenter Priest): We have.

-The Archbishop Consecrator takes the decree which is given to him on a convered silver tray; he kisses it and says:

Let it be read.

-All the Bishops rise and remove their mitres. The decree is read aloud...After the reading of the decree, the Archbishop Consecrator says:

Thanks be to God.

-The Archbishop Consecrator again questions the Bishop-elect by asking:

What is your faith?....

(I will skip to the relevant portions of the Professions of Faith and Oaths) (pp.158-167):

Reveal to us more in detail what...you hold concerning the dogmas of the Catholic Religion; and how you conceive the obedience due to the Holy Roman See and to the Successor of Christ, the Roman Pontiff.

(And the Bishop-elect makes: THE THIRD PROFESSION OF FAITH)

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

I, the Priest, (name), by the grace of God and the favor of the Holy Roman See, Bishop-elect of (name of City) believe...in the teachings and explanations of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church..Furthermore I reverence and accept the Ecumenical Councils as follows: the first at Nicea; the first at Constantinople, but in order the second; the first at Ephesus, but in order the third, the Council of Chalcedon, but in order the fourth, the second at Constantinople, but in order the fifth, the third at Constantinople,but in order the sixth, the second in Nicea, but in order the seventh; the fourth at Constantinople, but in order the eight.

I reverence and alos accept all other Universal Councils legally convoked, held and confirmed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and especially the Council of Florence; and I profess what was therein defined.

In the same manner I reverence and accept the Council of Trent, and I profess whatever was therein declared and defined...I PROFESS THAT THE SOUL OF THE TRULY PENITENT WHO DEPART THIS LIFE IN THE LOVE OF GOD BEFORE THEY OFFER WORTHY FRUITS OF PENANCE FOR THE SINS OF COMMISSION AND OMMISSION, ARE CLEANSED BY THE SUFFERINGS OF *PURGATORY*; (caps mine) Abd that to relieve theirr sufferings the assitance of the living faithful is available by means of Divine Liturgies, prayers, almsgiving, and other satisfactory and pious works which are customary among Catholics according to the guidance of the Church...Likewise I profess that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy in the whole world, and that this same Roman Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Chrsit, the Head of the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the whole Church was given to him in the person of St. Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Council of Florence asserts, and as is contained in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils and in the Holy Canons.

Moreover, I PROFESS THAT THE APOSTOLIC AND ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND REVERED; THAT THE POWER OF GRANTING INDULGENCES WAS LEFT BY CHRIST TO HIS CHURCH, AND THAT THEIR USE IS EXREMELY SALUTARY FOR CHRISTIAN PEOPLE. (caps mine)

In like manner, I accept and profess whatever was declared and defined by the afoerementioned Council of Trent...I reverence and accept the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican and whatever it declared, proclaimed and defined, and especially do I wholeheartily receive and confess its definition about the Primacy and infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff. I also accept and profess whatever else the Holy Roman Church accepts and professes. Moreover, I promise and pledge true obedience to the Roman Pontiff John Paul the Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ... (The Bishop-elect concludes the Profession of Faith by laying his hands upon the Holy Gospel; and the Archbishop Consecrator blesses him saying:

The grace of the Holy Spirit, through my humilty, exalts you, bleoved of God, Priest, (name) elected Bishop of (name of the City)..."

Now just from that it is quite obvious and without contest what all Catholics of whatever Church sui juris are to profess. To add the cherry so to speak here is the Formula in the Byzantine Trebnyk for the giving of the APOSTOLIC BLESSING AND PLENARY INDULGENCE (p. 417):

"BY THE POWER GIVEN ME BY THE APOSTOLIC SEE, I GRANT YOU A PLENARY INDULGENCE AND THE REMISSION OF ALL YOUR SINS, IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. AMEN.

After all that how can any Byzantine Catholic doubt what we actually believe concerning indulgences and Purgatory et al.

Sincerely in Christ and the Catholic and Apostolic Faith:


Robert Horvath

Robert,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605 "As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come."606

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."607 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.608 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: "Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them."609

I don't think that anyone is denying that we believe in the final purification/theosis or that prayer for the dead is effective. I think we as Byzantine Catholics do object to being told our theological teaching and emphasis on the final purification is wrong and that we must adopt Latin theology/terminology, something Basilians and their publications are notorious for doing. We have clearly been called to return to our traditions and to use our own theological emphasis.

The Catholic Church teaches that:
1. There is a final purification for those that need it.
2. Prayer for the dead is effective.

To try and argue that anything more is required, such as picking up Medievalisms of the Latin Church, which they have in large part rejected, is simply wrong.

Also the Basilian Euchologion is not even an official edition but a compilation for private use as the book itself clearly states, so one should not base any arguements on it. In current ordinations rites many (if not most)of the added Latin formulas have been dropped.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Slava Isusu Christu!

Question 1:

How then can these affirmations and delarations regarding indulgences and purgatory be false or half-true or non-applicable to Byzantine Catholics?

Question 2:

The Basilian Euchologion is used by many Ukrainian Priests and by all priests of the Basilian Order which are just as Byzantine as anyone else: then how can this Ordo be outdated or medieval or unofficial; and since it was revised in 1986 How can it be not current or up to specs?

Question 3:

Since you say the Basilian Trebnyk is not currently used or is just private (How can priestly and episcopal rites be for private use, who knows ) then where can I find the "current" Ordo used in the Ukrainian Church and how much of the so-called "Latin theology" in the Professions of Faith has been excized?

Thx.

In Christ,


Robert Horvath

Another Question:

How are the Basilians unfaithful to our Eastern CATHOLIC traditions and teaching. I am currently reading a "Catholic Faith Guide" by Father Anthony Holowaychuk, OSBM from which I quoted at the first part of my post regarding indulgences. This is one of the best particularly Eastern Catholic catechetical materials I have read in years. It is very dialectical and is fair and balanced and yet it is unabashedly faithful in teaching not only Eastern Catholic theology regarding the Mysteries and praxis, but also presents truly what teachings must be accepted by all Catholics and is very faithful to Rome. I like it for its fidelity to Rome and to its fidelity to our tradition.

Anyway, I am sure you mean well.

In Christ,


Robert Horvath

Robert,

1. Have you ever tried to translate something from one language to another? Some words just don't have an equivalent in another language. Latin and Byzantine Theology express the same truths but in different theological languages. I am comfortable with the language in the CCC as it allows for any of the particular Catholic Churches to expound on the truths that there is a final purfication and prayer for the dead is effective in ways that are in harmony with their theological heritage and liturical tradition. The CCC is authoritative. The Basilian publications are not. How the Latin Church chooses to expound on those truths is its business. How the Byzantine Church chooses to expound on those truths are its business. But no Byzantine, priest or no, has any business adopting the Latin explanation and then saying that is the Byzantines explanation or that the traditional Byzantine explanation is deficient.

2. The Basilian Eucholgion is for private use as the book it self states on one of the front pages, i.e. it should not be used for public liturgical celebration. It was not submitted to The Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church or the Congregation for Eastern Churches for approval, therefore it is not official. It was simply compiled and printed. The fact that many use it does not make any difference. Many Byzantine Catholic priest use it as well, mostly for the blessings I would think. Now I am not saying that it is not good in many aspects, but it suffers from Latinizations in areas, especially the ordination rituals.

3. I don't know. Perhaps Subdeacon Randolph can advise you.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Well, see I just purchased the Euchologion from St. Joseph School for Boys Bookstore. When I bought it I thought that even though it said *for private use* that he would of at least translated the texts faithfully? It would be rather dishonest to interpolate things into a translation of a typikal edition; which I what I think he would of used as Father Demetrius' source. It is a very enjoyable book. The rich theology in our Eastern Ritual texts is glorious. Of Course I have Orthodox ritual books as well. I just purchased Isabell Hapgood's Service Book. I never knew she was an Episcopalian. It was rather interesting to find out in her preface that she used the Book of Common Prayer's Psalter for the Service Book and the Prayer of St. John Chrysostom. But it was approved by the Patriarch of Russia and is an approved text for the Antiochian Archdiocese. Very interesting read. Her translation of the Slavonic Service for the Reception of Converts (p.454) is unbelievable. And her translation of the Professions of Faith taken by a priest and bishop-elect are just as stringent as the Basilian translations give.

When I came into Orthodoxy the Priest receiving me used an abridged version of the full Slavonic text. But now I am safetly back in the Barque of Peter

I was hoping that the texts from the Trebnyk were a final confirmation for me that we as Byzantines hold the same Faith as the Church of Rome and must abide by it's defintions and theology expressed in a Eastern manner neverthless not wastering down or obscuring the Truth thereof. Since there is so much confusion and lack of consensus regarding how much of the Roman teachings and conciliar decrees we must accept.

Anyway...just a 20 something with some inquiries that's all...

In the Theotokos and Mother of the Light,


Robert

Robert,

I have the same book and I think it is one of the worst presentations of the Byzantine tradition I have ever seen from the aspect of adopting Latin definitions and then trying to pass them off as part of Byzantine tradition, like the section you quote. The fact that a Basilian priest wrote it does not make it faithful to our tradition. I would suggest you put down the Basilian publications and get some of Archbishop Joseph Raya's books or the adult series from God With Us publication.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Hmmm..."We are all schimsatics"...Huh, that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. It is a heretical teaching to assert that the Catholic Church does not have the pleroma or fullness of unity NOW. To deny that our forefathers in the Greek Catholic Faith did not make a Profession of Faith in the teachings of the Church of Rome is an obvious tactic of revisionist history. Our union with Rome has it's foundations in the Papal Profession of Faith and the approbation of our Eastern Forms and Patrimony by the Pope of Rome. When the unias occured there was a definate taking of the Catholic Faith of the Church of Rome. A restoration of our authentic liturgical praxis does not negate our Profession of Faith in the teachings of the Apostolic See. We are not members of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East nor are we Latin Catholics; we have a special mission to witness of the Catholicity of the Chair of St. Peter. To declare that as an Eastern Catholic I do not accept Florence, Trent, Vatican I et al nor do I accept the Papal teachings and that I only accept what the Eastern Seperated brethren believe, teach and practice is absolute nonsense. When we came into union with the Vicar of Christ on Earth we were completed and made whole by the action and Grace of the Good and All-Holy Life-Creating Spirit. There can be no wholeness or completion seperate from Rome for those who profess and hold the Catholic Faith or for those who do not.

In Christ,

Robert

The theme �we are all schismatics� is not about the fullness of faith. It is about the fact that all have sinned and fallen short. It is about the need for repentance and conversion in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches so that we may again become one in Christ. It is certainly not heretical.

Regarding the other issues, Lance is correct in the points he has made.

Robert,

the above assertions seen more to be in line with the Papal Bull "Unam Sanctam" of Innocent III then "Orientale Lumen" of John Paul II.

Robert,

The title "We Are All Schimatics" is a bit misleading as the title of the original French edition is: "Are We All Schismatics?" Read the book before passing judgement.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Robert, no local or any other Synod has ever mandated the use of Wysochansky's Euchologion nor has ever elevated it above anything other than "ad usum privatum".

The newer Требник or Trebnik printed by the Studite Svichado press in Ukraine is actually the one in most popular use in Ukraine now.

If we want to talk about being "faithful" in translations, Wysochanksy was actually not very faithful to the translations approved by Metropolitan Sheptytsky (and later Rome) in the 1925 Slavonic Trebnik, nor in Patriarch Josyp (Slipyj's) later Ukrainian translation of the Slavonic Trebnik in 1973. He used different sources. The Studite Требник on the other hand is much more faithful to the "official" versions.

An English translation of the Studite Trebnik is in the works. Until then, I recommend the St. Tikhon's Press four volume "Great Book of Needs" if you want a good English translation of a Slavonic Trebnik. When I was tonsured reader and set aside as subdeacon in the Ukranian Catholic Church, this is what the Bishop used for the English portions, not Wysochanksy.

I have read the book and it is certainly an eye opener. Take for instance His "Profession of Faith":

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millenium before the separation.

This clearly goes against the teachings of the Apostolic See and is a tired polemic from a hierarch who probably should of jumped ship to Orthodoxy. "Time Machine" theology doesn't work.

Interestingly enough the Arabic translation was first published by the Greek Orthodox house Al-Nour and not the Melkites

Anyway, happy hunting.

In the Theanthropos,


Rob

Dear God-Beloved Diak:

Since the bishop who ordained you used St. Tikhon's Book of Needs what Profession of the Catholic Faith was used? None? The Roman insertions to the Ritual were done as per the need to protect Church property and make sure the ordinand held to the Faith of the Apostolic See, right? At least this is the inference I get through reading the Basilian Euchologion ritual of ordination for priest and eparch. I know this is an enlightening conversation.

Thanks.

In Christ,


Robert Horvath

Robert, where did you get such an idea? There is nothing unacceptable about Zoghby�s profession of faith. Are you suggesting that the current modalities of papal authority have no roots in the Scriptures or were not implicitly recognized in the Church�s experience during the first millennium?

The only profession of faith required is the Niceano-Constantinopolitan Creed.

This statement is incorrect. The insertions were done because our spiritual ancestors were often treated as if they were Protestants returning to Catholicism. It appears that such additions to the normative Byzantine ritual were added by the local Latin Catholic bishops who oversaw us and that there was no direction from Rome to add them. In fact, the addition of these promises is in violation of the papal directives over the centuries that our ritual perfectly matches that of our respective Byzantine Orthodox Church.