www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Becoming an Eastern Catholic

Hi in the next three years I'm going to be moving to Ontario to attend Military college while there I'm going to be within a 1 1/2 to 2 hour drive to a SSPX Chapel, Ukrainian Catholic parish and a Melkite Catholic parish. Due to the revolutionary changes in the Latin rite of the Church, I've decided to either attend a SSPX chapel (occasionally attending the Divine Liturgy) or switching rites. From what I have seen of the Divine Liturgy and traditions of the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church I would be able to do so most joyfully. I ask is this possible under ,Canon Law and if so how to do this?

The short answer is, don't bother switching. Just show up and go to Mass where it is convenient, or interests you, or is most conducive to your salvation. Whatever. You don't need permission or a reason to fulfill your Sunday obligation anywhere you please. Your rite is not your underpants. Don't change it readily or lightly. Others have provided kinder, gentler answers to similar questions. Nose around a bit for one of those threads. All the best. Regarding the Roman mass, I feel your pain, Bro.

As a Catholic, you are free to attend any Catholic parish and receive the Holy Mysteries.

You need not worry about switching until you find yourself definitively at home in that particular sui iuris Church and have discerned that God has called you there. There is lots of time to find a church home within the Catholic Communion if you no long feel at home in the Latin Church.

If you are anywhere near Kingston, there is a UGCC parish right in Kingston itself and Ottawa (just up highway 16) has 2 GREAT UGCC church communities (http://ottawaeasterncatholics.com/), not to mention the fabulous Sheptytsky Institute
http://www.sheptytskyinstitute.ca/

Welcome!

Hi Ian,

As a Catholic you are free to attend a Ukrainian, Melkite or any other Catholic Liturgy and receive the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick from their ministers as frequently as you wish/need without going through the canonical process of switching from one Church Sui Iuris to another.

In case you're wondering, attending the Divine Liturgy at any of these does fulfill your Sunday obligation.

On the other hand, since the SSPX is NOT in full communion with the Catholic Church, you are strongly discouraged to make an SSPX chapel/parish your spiritual home, you most probably do not have a good reason to receive the sacraments from their non-Catholic ministers and you would NOT fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending their illicit (even if valid) Masses.

Now that you have all the information, the decision is yours.

God Bless!

Shalom,
Memo

Just be aware that there is more to being an Eastern Catholic than appreciating our very lovely Liturgy. There is a whole patrimony of theology, spirituality, doctrines and disciplines that emanate from that Liturgy and flow back into it. We are not Tridentine Catholics in fancy dress. Do not go into a Divine Liturgy with any preconceived notions along that line.

As a Catholic, you are free to attend the Ukrainian and Melkite liturgies, which are indeed very beautiful and highly recommended. But, to clarify things, perhaps you could say something about why you are considering attending an SSPX chapel? You should be aware that the SSPX are not in full visible communion with the Apostolic See of Rome, and therefore, despite appearances, not fully Catholic.

Ian,
I concur with Herbigny. There is 2 really nice UGC communities in Ottawa. The University of Ottawa Eastern Catholic Chaplaincy runs from Sept- April -May. It a younger community, mainly university students. Saint-John Baptist Shrine has 1 community, larger and older. You will have the choice of attending the Divine Liturgy in Ukrainian( Julian Calendar) or in English(Gregorian Calendar).
I've been attending both communities, but more the Shrine( in English) since 2008.
Welcome to Ottawa and in the military....
Kingston used to have Fr. Bob Anderson. Unfortunately he passed away dec 2010. I think Fr. Roman Rystar is serving there. It is a smaller community than the Shrine.

Thank you all for your advice. I'd just like to mention that I'm aware that (although the accepted dogmas are the same) Theology in the Eastern rites is different, and that the Divine Liturgy is quite different from the Tridentine Mass. I'm perfectly fine with and understand this, although I am somewhat ignorant of expressions of theology in the Eastern Churches (does anybody know any good resources?) I am quite enthusiastic to learn.

When it comes to the SSPX and my feelings towards them, the Latin rite of the Church has been rocked by sex scandals, and a revolution in the Liturgy which was in violation of canon law defined by dogmatic councils (it's infallible), and faith in the Roman Church has been in general decline since these changes. I'm not some sedevacantist who denies popes, however I think it's hard to deny that there's a problem. The SSPX seem to be the only ones in the Latin rite who acknowledge that there is a very real problem which needs to be dealt with.

The Eastern rite however seems to have endured with all of it's traditions (thankfully) still in general use. It is because of this endurance in the East while the Roman rite has been experiencing these terrible troubles that I've become interested in attending a Sui Iuris Church.

Once again thank you all for your advice especially the information on those communities, it will give me much to think about while I pray over this matter.

I have read here countless comments supportive of the notion that Eastern Christians must defend, near or to the point of schism, their legitimate traditions.

I have read here countless comments sympathetic to the plight of Eastern Catholics in the United States, especially in years past. Fr. Alexis Toth is referred to as a Saint by Catholics and Orthodox alike. Blame for the tragic situations that tore apart families, parishes, and the unity of the Church are laid at the feet of Roman bishops who had no knowledge, interest, or respect for Eastern Traditions.

Ruthenian priests who refuse the RDL are praised, and their Bishops are encouraged here forcefully to claim back from Rome the rights of their tradition.

But the SSPX is viewed very differently, and I'm not sure why. If you knew for a moment what it is to be a Catholic attached to the traditional Roman rite, theology, and discipline... Our traditions and rites have been torn from us, mocked, and forbidden. Very nearly all our bishops and almost every one of our priests are John Irelands to us.

But I do not forget that I, a Latin, am a guest here and in my Eastern Parish. There are other places online for this topic and I will not pursue it here further.

I cannot speak for others, but I view the SSPX very differently because they are schismatic. Their priests do not validly celebrate the sacraments of marriage and confession. If you regularly attend Mass at an SSPX chapel, you risk falling into schism. This is very different from attending an Eastern Catholic Church, and the situation regarding the RDL is also different.

That said, like most traditional-minded, conservative Catholics I feel great sympathy for those who adhere to the SSPX and would like you to return to the full visible communion of the Catholic Church. What are the obstacles that you are experiencing? Perhaps it has to do with the liturgy in your local parish? If so, please be assured that things are gradually getting better, even though it will take perhaps a generation to root out all the abuses that were introduced during the '70s. If it has to do with the interpretation of certain parts of the documents of Vatican II, please know that Pope Benedict XVI insists that Vatican II be interpreted in light of the whole tradition of the Catholic Church.

I am sorry, but there are limits to dissent, and while I pray for the reconciliation of the SSPX with the Catholic Church (something which would be very good for the Catholic Church as well), adhering to schismatic priests and bishops is not a real option for Catholics.

I say all this conscious of the fact that I have the luxury of attending a parish where the Mass is celebrated reverently and properly, without the more egregious abuses that are common in many parts of the world. So, again I sympathize with your predicament, but would ask you to not do anything that might lead you into open schism from your local bishop and the Apostolic See of Rome. In particular, do not believe that the Missal of Blessed John XXIII is the only true expression of the Mass, but please accept the Missal of Paul VI, especially in a proper translation, which (40 years too late) is coming soon to the English-speaking world.

Sorry for ranting like this, but the topic is close to my heart.

It's not Vatican II which I have issues with. The Second Vatican Council was a valid pastoral council which pronounced no dogmatic statements. Sure some of the documents were (very) poorly and ambiguously worded, but not exactly wrong par say. But again, still a valid council.

As for the Mass of Paul VI, there lies the onion. In canons set forth by the Council of Trent which were infallible dogmatic statements, which may never change it states:

CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only;... let him be anathema.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn [Page 56] administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html

Again these are dogmatic statements which may never be changed, and must be adhered to by all Catholics including the Pope. It is worth noting that for the second canon I listed, the Pope is both a minister and a pastor (albeit the highest ranking one), and is also bound by this. The Mass of the Latin Church may also not be in the venacular, such as English.

I don't want to get into an in-depth discussion over the Novus Ordo on an Eastern Christian forum, however while I thank you for your sympathies, I hope you understand my position on this matter.

God Bless

You have serious problems, Ian A.

Ian,
I'm sorry to say but if you approach Eastern Christianity with a legalistic view you will be disappointed.
It is about finding a spiritual home, not a theological or a Canon law battlefield.....

Ian,

First of all, the term "dogmatic" refers strictly to revealed truths, which are matters of faith and morals. Matters of discipline and usage simply do not fall into this category.


Frankly, I would be surprised if even an SSPX priest would try to defend this notion. As you quote it, Canon IX states:
The key word here is only--the canon is merely defending what was then the normative practice (and no, "normative" does not mean "unchangeable"). This canon does not forbid the use of the vernacular, only the insistence that Mass be celebrated in the vernacular exclusively!

The Western mindset seems to be much more focused on law and legalities, while the Eastern is inclined towards tradition and mystery.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

IMO the biggest problem with the SSPX folks is that in the name of tradition their bishops have done some mighty UN-traditional things, like getting themselves excommunicated by being ordained to the episcopy without an apostolic mandate from the Pope of Rome.

Folks who participate in their Liturgies are in communion with excommunicated hierarchs. I don't know what the exact canonical status of their lay adherents is but I bet it ain't exactly kosher.

Please permit me to suggest you flee from this well-intentioned but misguided parachurch. And in the meantime, pray for me, please.

Dear Ian:

I'm afraid I cannot (and I don't think I Should) discuss the internal struggles of the Latin Church. First and foremost I am not a member of the Latin Church, so I don't want to interfere in the internal matters of one of my Sister Churches (and I would hope that they would extend to my Church the same courtesy and respect). Secondly I don't know much about the internal logic, canons, theological dynamics of the Latin Church; I'm having enough trouble figuring that out for my own Church.

So for me, the question of your going to the SSPX and the canons relating to the Novus Ordo of the Latin Church are beyond my ken.

All I can say is, if you are searching for God and seeking to worship God, you would be very welcome to worship with us in the UGCC and receive the Holy Mysteries from our presbyters - all things being equal.

If you find yourself not at home or estranged by your local Latin Church parish, I would welcome you to consider making our Church your ecclesial home - if the Spirit so leads and your heart & soul find rest in our way of understanding and living Christianity and Catholicism.

It is true what you say about the Latin Church being more legalistic over many issues than the Eastern rites, this is true and part of the reason why aspects of the Roman Missal are defined in canons. The other reason, is that at the time these canons were proclaimed the Protestants were trying to do away with the Mass. The use of vernacular in the Latin rite may also be allowed by indult; I know Pope St. Pius X issued many to Croatian Catholics. I also know that the Eastern Churches handle issues such as these differently, and should not be approached in the same way the Roman Church on them.

One would also be correct in saying that canon law may be changed as it is disciplinary. However when an Ecumenical Council proclaims something to either be dogma or anathema, it is an infallible statement which cannot be changed and we must believe; to say otherwise would be to say that the Holy Ghost erred, of course this is impossible. The canon which forbids changes in the "received and approved" rites of the Church clearly has an anathema, and is thus infallible. It is also worth noting that it refers to the Church as a whole, and refers to all rites not just that of the Roman Church.

You must also believe me when I say that I'm not approaching the Eastern Church with the intent of turning it into some sort of theological battlefield, or seeing it's parishes as dogmatic bunkers. I am genuinely interested in Byzantine traditions, and feel drawn to them. Even then I'm not planning on actually starting the process of changing rites until I learn much more about these traditions, and pray over the matter (preferably with spiritual guidance from a clergyman), and am certain that I should go through with it.

Thank you Herbigny for your kind words regarding this, from what I have seen and read of the spirituality and customs of Ukrainian Catholics and Eastern Catholics (I still have much to learn though), I think there is much I could find spiritual nourishment in; both in your liturgy and theology. Even (in the likely even) if i don't switch rites, I do have every intention of learning more about the customs of my Eastern brethren and attending the Divine Liturgy on occasion.

Thank you,
Ian

Learning more about the Eastern Catholic Churches is always a very good idea. I wish more people would do so. Good luck!

Praised Be Jesus Christ!

It's funny how I often read on this forum the love the Eastern Catholics have for the Orthodox Churches, the non-Chalcedonians, etc... There is even a part of the forum dedicated to the Old Believers (and after all they went through, they deserve it!) Yet, whenever the SSPX comes up, they are ANATHEMA! Oh, please! I guess we excuse everyone except the SSPX.

If you ever got to know any SSPX priest, you would soon find that they consider themselves in union with Rome, love Pope Benedict XVI as their father, (even defend him publically from attacks by liberals), pray for him constantly in their Churches, pray for their local hierarch, etc...

There ARE some real problems with Vatican II, and the reforms(de-forms) which followed. It's great Rome FINALLY decided to encourage the Eastern Catholic Churches to be who we really are-Orthodox in communion with Rome, (return to our traditions)-but, at the same time, this same council decided to "can" it's own ancient Divine Liturgy, and replace it with a "new creation" as Archbishop Annibale Bugnini called it. A local Russian Orthodox priest I know, told me with regard to the Roman liturgical "reform" that, "It was terrible what they did", even though he actually gained by it, as GREAT NUMBER of his flock are former Roman Catholics. With what has happened in the Latin Church following Vatican II, I can understand why they joined, confused and broken hearted.

Archbishop Lefebvre DID NOT WANT to consecrate bishops without papal mandate, he requested it from Rome again and again, but they kept delaying it, again and again-and, his health was failing. It was only the events of the 1986 Assisi world religions meeting that he decided he could not wait any longer, or really trust WHO Rome would offer. I always questioned why Archbishop Lefebvre did the consecrations,(how could he justify that!, I said) but after I finally saw what happened at Assisi I thought to myself, no wonder! He wants bishops who are not going to support such nonsense! What happened at Assisi in 1986 was, quite honestly, demonic. I'm all for being charitable and helping in every way a person of ANY religion especially to help lead them to the true faith, but that event clearly showed Christ Jesus was NOT considered to be the one Lord and Saviour.

Metropolitan Sergius signed his infamous declaration, and accepted the regime of one of the most demonic systems ever on the face of the earth which slaughtered countless faithful Christians. As the Shamordino martyr nuns declared,"our spiritual father says your the Antichrist-we REFUSE to work!"Thus, ROCOR was later born and refused to compromise with working with the offical Church which accepted the "adaptation to atheism".

The SSPX is very similiar. Archbishop Lefebrve had no intention to start a parallel Church, but thought, how could he work with hierarchs who are compromising the faith? A Pope who allows pagans to worship their gods on Catholic altars-even if just ONCE-how can we work together, we are clearly thinking in two different ways! Pope Honorius did not even get close to what Pope John Paul II did, yet he was anathematized by the Third Ecumenical Council!

I read on this forum how many Eastern Catholics are against the idea of the Pope being infallible-but I see again and again modern Catholics justifying basically everything the recent Popes have been doing, giving a kind of "infallibility" to the Pope that not even Pastor Aeternus talked about-its like the Pope can basically do no wrong-and those who raise objections, like the SSPX, are shouted down, and told, "so, you think you are more Catholic than the Pope!?" If Pope Honorius could make a mistake, than the post-conciliar Popes can to. Let's be fair.

I know personally several SSPX priests and can say I have never met such devoted and fervent men of God! I have seen what their work has done, souls just amazingly transformed, pulled from the gutter of sin. Lives TRANSFORMED by the Holy Spirit. No wonder several Roman Cardinals have said the Holy Spirit is definitely working with them! Or, why, for example, the former Maronite Archbishop of Damascus gave the SSPX chapel in Geneva, Switzerland, several major relics of the Blessed Massabki brothers last year in a solemn Liturgy, followed by a conference on the glory of martyrdom. Clearly not all the hierarchs believe the tale that the SSPX is "outside the Church" or scismatics to be avoided at all cost. Other examples could be mentioned.

It seems like the mindset of some on this forum is, give the group a hundred years or more, whether they be Old Believers, Old Catholics, Polish Nationals, etc... and we will start praising and justifying their stand to the injustices of the time. I guess the SSPX will have to wait a hundred years before anyone on this forum will start speaking about them with respect.

It is not a question of like or don't like, but of the truth. The SSPX is far from perfect. I have spoken before, with their priests, of objections I have to how the SSPX handles certain issues. But, there ARE real problems in the Church and these problems must be fixed. They ARE right on some things, and are thus bringing it to the attention of Rome, who they consider themselves in union with. Their canonical situation is not perfect, but this has happened in Church history many times, most recently during the persecution of the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine, when consecrations had to be done, even without papal approval, due to the situation. It's obviously not exactly the same as the SSPX, but I believe Archbishop Lefebrve will be justified some day, as, he acted in good faith with no intention to "stick it" to Pope John Paul II,-he just could not trust the man.

If one is a Roman Catholic who wants to attend a parish where the priets love God greatly, work hard to save souls, teach the true faith according to the Latin Roman tradition, are very balanced and not fanatics, and be around some of the most kindest and self-sacrificing lay people around, I reccommend attending an SSPX chapel. Visiting them on occasion, and having gotten to know them well over the years, this is what I have found.

God Bless, and may the Theotokos protect!
RussianCath

I disagree. The SSPX is dangerous and ought to be avoided. Many of these remnant-type Roman Catholic defectors after Vatican II came into our churches and caused many problems. Their whole reason for existence is rooted in a misguided notion that they (mere thousands) are right and the other billion Catholics in the world are wrong. Talk about pride, no?

You can't be a church in exile by exiling yourself. You can be a church in exile if your church is made illegal and tens of thousands of your priests, bishops, nuns, and faithful are brutally tortured and murdered and you are forced underground or abroad for their faith in Jesus Christ. That is exile.

Vatican II happened. It is 2011. Get over it. The Mass changed from an "Ancient" one as you say (I guess a few hundred years is Ancient). Either stay out of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and remain an insignificant remnant, self-imposed exile "church" whose concept of Catholicism flawed, or come home by fleeing the sin of martyrific pride.

Stop bringing your grievances to Eastern Catholic parishes and faithful. Stop coming to our parishes because we have Sacraments that you, in your Sacrament GPS, deem as valid. Thanks, I am glad we meet the bear minimum. We are our own Church and not a displaced persons camp. Stop trying to impose your heresies on us. We are Catholic and those outside of the Church are not. We worship Jesus Christ and not the remembrance of your version of the Catholic Church prior to 1962.

It might have something to do with the SSPX denying our right to exist as true particular Churches and our right and obligation to return to the fullness of our authentic Tradition. In short, the SSPX wants a return to uniatism tout court, and this is just not acceptable, sorry. It isn't just the liturgical issue, it's their whole ecclesiology which is dangerously defective. Add to that a large dollop of nostalgia for a lost Roman Catholic past that never really existed, and you have the recipe for much mischief making.

You should read these canons as responses to 16th-century protestantism, not to the 1970 Missal of Paul VI. But allow me to comment on them anyway.

Regarding Canon IX. In the Missal of Paul VI, the words of the Canon (eucharistic prayer) are said aloud, but there is no condemnation of the earlier practice, which remains valid for the Missal of Blessed John XXIII (which every priest is free to use thanks to Pope Benedict XVI). Nor is there any requirement that Mass should only be celebrated in the vernacular. There are plenty of Masses celebrated in Latin according to the Missal of Paul VI.

Regarding Canon XIII. The Catholic Church does not permit individual ministers to change the words of the liturgy or the sacraments. This is a serious abuse which must be corrected whenever it happens.

A key concern of Trent was that it is for the Catholic Church, not individual ministers, to decide and regulate the liturgy of the Church. That's one of the main differences between Catholicism and protestantism. I know that there are individual Catholic priests (especially among those ordained during the '60s and '70s) who don't get this. Thankfully, many younger priests seem to be of a different and more traditional mind.

In saying this next bit, I'm not accusing billions of heresy it's just a wonderful parallel. Are you familiar with St. Athanasius of Alexandria? He was the Bishop of Alexandria and was excommunicated for a time by Pope Liberius for upholding the Trinity against the Arian heresy. At this time according to St. Jerome (with slight exageration) " The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian". Again, I'm not accusing anybody of heresy, as much as it is possible for the minority of opinion to be right at times, or was St. Athanasius just being proud?


When have I said I was an exile? When has the SSPX tried to set up their own Church? Frankly I have no further comment on this.


Yes Vatican II happened, I never said it didn't nor that it was invalid. The most I can really say about it is that some of the documents were poorly worded. Are you saying that the Tridentine Mass is not ancient? Specific rubrics may have "only" been mentioned in canon law at Trent, but the Mass is much older than the Council, in fact I believe that much like the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine rite, the Mass has been developing in the Roman rite since the time of the Apostles. Why the disdain? Why the hostility to traditional Roman Catholics?


Are you serious? I never even intended to discuss them on this forum, let alone start raising debates about the state of the Roman Church at an Eastern parish. As for this "Sacramental GPS" thing, I'm honestly confused. Do you want me to deny that Eastern Catholics are also part of the Church, and that the Divine Liturgy is the liturgical equivalent of the Mass (and vice versa)? Or that you have Holy Orders? It's never going to happen, and I think that it would be heresy to say so.

And what's this about the Byzantine rite meeting the "bear minimum"? I have not said any such thing, on this forum or in my life! For future reference I regard the Eastern rites of the Church to be the equals of the Latin rite, also thank you for not putting words in my mouth! As for the "displaced persons camp" I'm glad that you are being so charitable to those seeking a new spiritual home.

What heresies are Traditional Catholics trying to impose on you? What heresies am I trying to impose on you? I'm glad that you are Catholic, and I'm glad that I'm Catholic and that neither of us are outside of the Church. Who do you think I and all traditionalist Roman Catholics worship if not Jesus Christ? I don't think it's un-Catholic at all to want to retain the traditions and Liturgy of your own rite!

Ian A.,

I was responding to RussianCath, not you.

Then maybe you should have made that clear and saved Ian the trouble of answering you.

Your post was Re: Ian A.

Really, the post seemed to be directed to a traditionalist of the Latin rite? Still my points remain the same.

I agree with this but many in the SSPX want the opposite for us. Look at what their official website says about the Orthodox and how they distort the history of married clergy. They also support the schismatic Society of Saint Josaphat in the Ukraine.

But I also think we should return to the original topic of becoming an Eastern Catholic and move away from this divisive topic

When it comes to Latinizing the Eastern Church, I am adamantly opposed to it. The Byzantine rite doesn't need to be "improved". If anybody in the SSPX (or anywhere else) want to push Latinization, I would gladly stand against them on it.

Also I agree, enough time has been spent on this topic. I had no intentions of starting a debate on the SSPX here.

Latin Catholic,

I just started typing in the box at the bottom of the page and my post is the one right after RussianCath's so my apologies to Ian for going through the trouble to respond.

IanA.,

"Really, the post seemed to be directed to a traditionalist of the Latin rite? Still my points remain the same."

There is a difference between a traditionalist of the Latin rite and those who have placed themselves out of the Latin rite. Once you have placed yourself out of the Latin rite, you placed yourself out of the Church, which means you are no longer a traditionalist of the Latin Rite.

----

Now, there were a bunch of sedevacanists at our parish. They were a spiritual cancer and never attempted to become Eastern Catholics. They were there only because we had a "Valid Mass." As soon as a priest came in who was not quite valid enough (married), they took off and are gone with the wind. They were in our parish for a long time but it was unhealthy for both the founders of the parish and those who truly converted, and did not just use us for our "Valid Mass."

They would frequently accost those of mixed marriages-- Roman and Eastern--as the wedding being invalid and they rendered the children as illegitimate. They believed that the Papacy ceased to exist at whenever they said so. And they would argue their points ad nauseum with the original members of the parish for no reason. It was an all-encompassing sickness. I could type a whole book of information on how these SSPX parishioners would come and go in and out of the parish-- of course depending how valid the current priest or bishop was.

Thankfully, they are out of the parish. The older priests were enablers for letting them stay. They were not Catholics and still aren't.

I am sorry if this offends people, but Eastern Catholic Parishes across North America were infected with this spiritual cancer.

The irony was that they still attended the Divine Liturgy and heard the Pope being prayed for three different times during the service, yet they said no such Pope existed. Further irony was they would complain when not enough English was done during combined services, yet they wanted their Mass in Latin.....

It is mind boggling.

Dear Ukrainian Catholic,

I am sorry to learn about the difficulties you have experienced with sedevacantists and the like. I understand many other parishes have had similar experiences. It must have been very distressing, and it is very regrettable.

If you use the "Reply" button, it is easier to know who you are replying to.

Errrr...... No, they are not dogmatic.

They can't be, because their matter is not a matter of faith, but rather a matter of rite.

If they were a matter of faith, then they should apply to all Catholics and CLEARLY, they do not apply to anyone outside the Latin Church.

Nothing that applies only to one Particular Church (or for that matter, to any number of Particular Churchs, but not to all of them) can be considered dogmatic.

The Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, the Hypostatic Union. The core of doctrines do not change from Church to Church (even if different Churches express them in their own "language").

The way to say Mass. That changes from Church to Church and therefore cannot be dogmatic and therefore it is reformable.

Jesus did NOT preside the Last Supper in Latin!

God Bless!

Shalom,
Memo

True enough for the first canon, which can be given an indult to have in the vernacular. And it applied only to the Roman rite.

But the second referred to the rites which were received (from the traditions of the Apostles, and organic development), and approved by the Catholic Church; and did not specify a rite. This canon is infallible (as was the previous) due to it using the language of infallibility; which in this case is "anathema". It applies equally to somebody trying to change the Liturgy of the Roman rite, as it does to somebody trying to replace or "reform" the Divine Liturgy; it protects all rites of the Catholic Church.

God Bless you too,
Ian

You do know the Latin Church only became the "Latin" Church in the late 4th century, and that Latin was the vernacular, and that Greek was the original language of the Gospels and the Old Testament (for Christians, at least)? And that it's a medieval heresy to believe that the Liturgy can only be celebrated in the three languages on the stipulum of the Cross?

And you do know that what you call the "Traditional" Roman rite is no such thing, but merely a 16th century canonization of a late medieval Romano-Frankish liturgy that enshrined in it a whole host of medieval innovations and abuses, including private Mass, low Mass, silent Mass, subsumption of the role of the people by the celebrant, etc., etc., ad nauseum?

And you do realize that the liturgical life of the Latin Church was pretty moribund by the late 1960s, which is why there was a need for a reform? You may not like the way it was done, but something had to be done, because, to be honest, the Tridentine rite is just bad liturgy from a patristic perspective.

What do they teach them in the schools these days?

Yes, I'm aware of the liturgical history behind the development of the Roman Church and Her rite. I in no way condone that heresy, I believe that a Mass or Divine Liturgy may be said in any language that it's rite allows or by indult.

As for the Tridentine Mass, if you say that it was "moribund" and littered with abuses and thus in need of change you could be very well in an opinion which was anathamized by Trent. If you don't mind me asking are you Eastern Catholic or Orthodox?

Our two Liturgies are both beautiful, and both swelling with Apostolic tradition, they are equal and thus compliment each other in their respective rites.

Ian, you're speaking Greek here, or maybe they are and you aren't. Whatever, I think your experience will be more fruitful if you drop it, or at least stop making reference to Trent.

The new Roman Mass is unbearable. Trent or no trent, the new Mass is idiotic. I get it. I'm in the same boat. I don't especially care about switching rites or adopting Eastern spirituality, and their controversies have more baggage than you'll ever grasp. They're still mad about stuff their grandfathers' grandfathers' called ancient history.

I don't care about any of it.

I go to a Ukie parish and I love the blessed result: I can tell I'm praying. That's the point. I've found space to pray. I really recommend it. Forget Trent. Forget the new Mass. Pray. It's terrific.

As everybody here knows, the answer is "Yes".

LOL. For some reason, this had me rolling for a few minutes.

For me, I answer "Yes" as well.

This thread has served a purpose - which purpose seems to be to remind us that this is an Eastern Christian (Catholic and Orthodox) forum; what it is not is a place to argue the relative merits and spirituality of the Latin Church's praxis, liturgical languages, canonical constructs, etc.

It has been long established here that discussion of these matters, and the attendant challenges to them by such entities as the SSPX, serve no valid purpose in our own spiritual growth, knowledge, education, or understanding. For these reasons, we've given short shrift to such threads in times past - and the tone, tenor, and content of this thread demonstrates the wisdom of having done so.

It is to be expected that, when someone comes here to express their interest in exploring the Catholic or Orthodox East, there will be some background offered as to why they see such a possible move as more spiritually edifying or efficacious to them than continuing in their present Church - be it the Latin Catholic Church or any other faith. Invariably, some such threads will delve into points of comparison between the spirituality, theological understanding, and even praxis between the Churches involved. I'll even grant that historical considerations may be expressed as having relevance to an inquirer.

However, threads that seek to demonize another Apostolic Church do not and will not fare well. It is patently absurd to declare that 'anathema is the language of infallibility' - a declaration for which I can find no supportive citation anywhere. The concept of infallibility is well-defined, albeit interpretation of how the term is to be understood and applied (and even its validity as used in the common parlance) can be debated. Yet, that single phrase has become the raison d'etre for the continued existence of this thread.

In simple terms, the decisions of the Latin Church relative to whether the vulgar languages are an acceptable medium by which to serve its liturgical forma is an internal matter for that Church - as are the decisions of each of our Churches regarding the same matter. If one subscribes to the concept of infallibility, it is well established that such is a construct which applies to matters of faith and morals - all else are matters of discipline - and matters of discipline, including ritual form, rubrics, and praxis can and do evolve.

If one can legitimately grant an indult, as has been acknowledged (and is not, that I see, argued to have incurred an anathema) as was done in the cited instance of allowing the Service Books to be written in the Glagolitic alphabet and the Mass of the Latin Church to be served in Slavonic, then the base argument that an infallible declaration exists that the said Mass can only be served in Latin fails in and of itself. No logical argument can be made that infallibility can or should be subject to modification by indult.

All that said, the thread has long since ceased to address its titled subject, 'Becoming an Eastern Catholic'. It is, instead, serving as a pulpit from which to denounce the ritual praxis of the Latin Church. There are myriad on-line fora in which such discussions are the bread and butter of everyday discourse. This is not one.

If the OP wishes to explore his original premise - to learn about Eastern spirituality, praxis, theological understanding, etc, he is welcome to initiate another thread on the matter. I'd strongly suggest that the Faith & Theology forum would be an appropriate place in which to do so. This thread, however, is closed.

Thanks to all who participated.

Many years,

Neil