www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Society of St. Pius X UGCC excommunication

Dear Father DIAKone,

I did read in one place that Kovpak may have been consecrated a bishop - did you hear or see anything to that effect?

I also received an email from one of his partisans who leads a, believe it or not, student movement of opposition to Pat. Lubomyr in Poland . . .

Kovpak's movement seems to be exploited by the SSPXer types. The "Kovpaks" appear to be defending their Latinizations as our Church's liturgical "normalcy" and even going so far, as per usual, to say that Easternization is akin to "Russification" and leads down a "slippery slope" toward "schism."

The SSPX/SSJ supports him not on the grounds that his Latinized EC brand is truly "Ukrainian" somehow, but on the grounds that it promotes the "unity of all Orthodox Christians" in Russia especially (the use of Slavonic in particular). So they are actually using him to promote an agenda that Ukrainians would find offensive i.e. using the Ukies as a stepping stone to "convert" the Russian Orthodox. Yeah right, like that will happen!

Alex

Considering Patriarch Lubomyr was Patriarch Josyp's right hand man in Rome in administering the Underground Church of the Confessors, the accusations are foolish beyond belief. But remember, the SSPX can only exist with the justification that there is a crisis in the Church that only it can respond to - and sadly that polemic has passed from Williamson and Fellay over to Kovpak.

Dear Fr. DIAKone,

Extremely well said! Bravo!

Alex

I do think that since people are so quick to quote John Paul II, when he exhorted us to "breathe with both lungs," those who support this request should not be content in our little Roman Catholic or Eastern Catholic enclaves.

We Romans are encouraged (and rightly so) to experience what the East has to offer, at least time to time, in terms of devotion and liturgy. Not using just one lung, basically.

Easterners as well are held to this same standard, i.e. to experience what the West has to offer in terms of devotion and liturgy.

We are all enriched when we participate in the various traditions of the Church and aren't totally shored up in our own little havens.

Alexis

P.S. Not that that's to confuse the roles of the two, or to support latinizations or byzantinizations.

Dear Alexis,

I don't understand what you quite mean . . .

Alex

Alex


The road to schism I guess takes some unexpected turns

Maybe they can join up with the Latinized Orthodox now.


It's probably a mixed bag historically. Fr. Alexis may have been flexible, but the parishes he led in to the Metropolia were expected to or themselves decided to Russify in order to fit in. My diocese obviously took a different course, and were basically left alone to do as they saw fit.

In terms of "correctness" and piety, people still do go around about that. Pews vs. no pews, what style of icons are appropriate or really "Eastern" and so on. People also get all worked up about the WRO. Evening liturgies are either a reasonable accamodation or the worst thing ever, etc.

Among converts I have heard and seen hand wringing over various forms of piety and whether or not they're appropriate, both from priests and lay people. Much of it in my opinion over rather mundane and/or innocuous stuff.

Dear AMM,

As always, I thank you for your thoughtful commentary and observations!

There was a Western Rite Orthodox book of devotion that contained a Stations of the Cross from before the tenth century. That version obliged one to make a Sign of the Cross o the floor at each Station. I guess no one checked out that this practice was among those in the West condemned by the East as an abuse

My Western Orthodox Antiochian priest acquaintance tells me that as long as he explains the meaning behind a Western devotion in full to his bishop, he never has any problems obtaining permission to practice it.

My salutations!

Alex

I think people are failing to realize the mentality of the SSPX and the SSJK.

The SSPX are opposed to the changes of Second Vatican Council. Many deny it as a valid council. Others state, and somewhat correctly I might add, that it was a "pastoral council" and therefore one can be opposed to it while still being a Catholic. While this is true, it is certainly a sin against charity on the part of the laity and a sin aganist their vow of obedience on the part of the clergy. For us Latin Catholics, most of the (visible) changes are disciplinary e.g. the changes to the liturgy, re-establishing the permanent deaconate, etc. As for many of the other documents, they are either relating to pastoral issues or �cumenical issues.

Persoanlly, I accept the council, but feel (like the Holy Father) that it has been mistinterpreted by many of the Latin clergy as a free license to do just about anything.

I do, however, understand the mindset of the SSPX since many of my family attend their chapels. (It must be pointed out that the Holy Father has made reconciliation with them one of his top priorities.) Essentially they are reacting to change and, as they see it, bad change. (In some ways they are correct.) This is not purely about rebelliion or a rebellion against certain people. It's more of a rejection of a council and all who seem to support it and the worst of its fruits. I'm sure many Eastern Christians understand this (Chalcedon, etc).

The SSPX have found a willing ally in the SSJK who seem to have a similar mindset, thus it was an natural alliance. But as we know the Holy Father is working toward resolving this issue with the SSPX. Rather than excommunication, perhaps the UGCC addressing the issues and working toward reconcilliation with the SSJK is the answer, no matter how awful the rhetoric of the other side.

How can that be when two very significant dogmatic constitutions ( Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum) were promulgated by the Council? "Pastoral Councils" do not promulgate dogmatic constitutions. This is one argument frequently made by the SSPX that simply does not hold water.

To the best of my reasonably well informed knowledge, Vatican II did not claim to attribute infallibility to any of its pronouncements - which is not to say that they are dogmatically worthless, nor is it to say that they do not teach anything. In the normal Catholic vocabulary, calling Vatican II a "pastoral council" means that it was not summoned to anathematize anything in particular, but rather to address matters of a pastoral nature, which is indeed primarily what it did. This does not entitle us to ignore it with blithe indifference.

Fr. Serge

Dear Byzantophile,

While I certainly understand where the SSPX is coming from liturgically and in other areas, the Society of St Josaphat goes well beyond individual Catholics going off to follow their own consciences.

That group is fostering direct disobedience to the Primate of the UGCC and is openly helping to foster division and discord. When a parish rejects three priestly reps from His Beatitude Lubomyr and tells them to leave - this is quite a different and serious matter.

In addition, that group (and the SSPX would certainly agree with their perspective) maintains as the status quo the woeful state of Latinization prior to the second world war when EC's were considered little more than "Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite" - if there was anything "Byzantine" or Eastern in that rite that remained.

They also promote a form of Russification on the basis of insisting that only the Slavonic language should be used in the liturgy of the UGCC (very much as Latin was used in the West). This is the exact same position of the ROC that is likewise against the use of modern/anachronistic Ukrainian in the liturgy.

That group is certainly guilty of disobedience toward their Primate and they are also guilty of sowing the seeds of discord. There attitude toward the Orthodox, at a time when Ukrainians are coming together, is the old-style "schismatic" and "you better convert."

The hypocrisy of Rome to date is that if the Unia are no longer considered a model of East-West unity, then how is this group allowed to go on its merry way in this manner?

After repeated attempts, it is clear that they and they alone know better and that they are defending the right on the basis of scripture, tradition, Catholic antiquity and the like.

I'm surprised the Vatican overturned our Primate's first attempt to excommunicate you know who. This is yet another example of Rome putting its nose where it does not belong.

Sorry, but the UGCC hierarchy, including those who belong to traditionally pro-Western Orders like Basilians and Redemptorists, understand FULL well what the situation there is all about with this group and what must be done to oppose this group that sows discord on the basis of outdated perspectives that harm the internal life of the UGCC.

ANATHEMA!

Alex

For us it would be Anathema sit.

I understand what you are saying, BUT as a member of group of Catholics who have dealt with this situation for much longer, I think that charity is the better part of valor (if you don't mind the paraphrase). From what I have read about this, it seems that nothing but rash decisions have been made on both sides. Prayer and dialogue might be more useful.

BTW, why would you say that Rome is "putting its nose where it doesn't belong"? While I understand that Patriarchs, or in this case Major Archbishops, of a sui juris church have full jurisdiction to settle internal business, isn't it perfectly in line with the Eastern Christian view of the primacy of the pope to settle disputes when they are appealed? Some of my Orthodox friends have stated such (granted they say that this is the ONLY way in which he should wield his primacy). LOL.

Don't you think that while we all agree that it's wrong to support Latinization and bad liturgy, the group might be right in some points?

The followers of the group have even argued that Archbishop Lubomyr is pushing an agenda that would allow him to become Patriarch of a United Ukrainian Church, and that this is also the intention of the Vatican in Ukraine, to unite the Churches in Ukrainian-nationalist fervour. They claim that once this is achieved, Ukraine would become a Pro-Western country and defend Capitalism.

The Society of St. Josaphat seems to be Pan-Slavist and Pan-Orthodox, that's the reason why they support the preservation of a Slavonic Liturgy like the Moscow Patriarchate. In this they might be right, because it's easier and fairer for non Ukrainians to worship in a church where a neutral, Slavonic liturgy is held.

There is also one thing, the support of Latinizations does not seem to be a SSPX policy, they have a community in Latvia and a community in Russia that follows the Byzantine Rite without Latinizations. That's what I learnt from a SSPX priest.

Dear Byzantophile,

There's nothing in what you say that I can disagree with!

Cheers,

Alex

Hehehe.