Saturday, August 12, 2017

SAILING TO BYZANTIUM


As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves. A. Lincoln

Back on July 22, an anonymous commenter asked:
Tell us, what living bishop today would you recommend that Catholics move to his location, if they could, and put themselves under his spiritual guidance and care?
At the time, PL wouldn't recommend a sede or independent "bishop" because none has a commission from the Church to guide and care for Catholics. However, we offhandedly suggested that an Eastern-rite bishop could prove a solution for some people.

Shortly thereafter, "Gene" informed us he'd just completed his in-depth research into the validity of U.S. bishops of ten Eastern rites. (Many of you will recognize the screen name from the incisive comments he's posted on these pages.) As usual, when "Gene" speaks, people with any sense listen.
He ranks among the top pundits of TradWorld, for he grounds his always original, usually transformative, thinking in painstaking documentation and careful analysis. (If only the sede "clergy" had his insight.)

After we read his post, we then realized he'd done much more than yeoman scholarly work: He'd given traditional Catholics a way out of the Tradistani madhouse provided they're willing to do their homework and prepare for a cultural adjustment.

"Gene's" introductory remarks along with his list of Eastern-rite bishops can be found here (and also under IMPORTANT LINKS at the right hand side of this page). Realize, however, that it's only a beginning. As he cautions, you'll still have to perform your own due diligence to assure yourself of the faith of any of these men. (Must-reading is his "Disclaimer and Advice Regarding Eastern Rite Parishes" found here.) The Readers would also add that you'll have to ask yourself whether you can adapt to a markedly different liturgical and socio-linguistic tradition should you decide to attach yourself to one of these rites.  We can tell you from personal observation that not everyone can make the transition, especially those with a sub-optimal education.

However, for those who can, we affirm that the reward — an authentic Catholic bishop — will be well worth the effort. Good, educated, and humble priests of the traditional Latin rite are hard to find. Furthermore, if they're sedes, you never know when they'll revert to type, hysterically screeching prohibitions about una-cum Masses, wantonly manufacturing new mortal sins and dogmas, spitefully withholding absolution* on flimsy premises, masquerading as genuine Roman Catholic clergy, uncharitably trashing rivals, etc. More serious by far is the frightening specter of invalidity lurking behind each one's orders, insofar as there's some kind of problem with every one of the traddie lineages and sub-lineages. (Just look at how the trad kingpins themselves cast doubt on their competition's orders.)

Accordingly, for someone who earnestly longs to escape the dissension, doubt, and deficiencies of Tradistan with its fake "bishops" — remember, they really can't even be called bishops**  — Byzantium-on-the-fruited-plain may offer shelter during this prolonged, unprecedented nightmare. It may possibly become the unknown destination you set out for when you began your journey to tradition years ago.

To weather these radically different times, Catholics must free their minds from the bondage of the past, with its cherished memories and comfortable predilections. The West and its Latin rite are in deep crisis within both the Novus Ordo and Sedelandia. Unfortunately, there's no rescue on the horizon.

Therefore, if you trads in search of an undisputed shepherd are bold enough to think out of the box and act in ways you never imagined, it's quite possible you shall find refuge for your souls. Best of all, you might have a Byzantine-rite parish not too far from where you live now. That means you may not have to "move to [the bishop's] location" at all. Odds are that you're already be within an undoubted, genuinely Catholic bishop's eparchy!

GO EAST, YOUNG OR OLD, MEN AND WOMEN ALIKE: GROW YOUR AND YOUR CHILDREN'S FAITH


* The issue of confession is crucial. Today's post isn't the place to discuss the sedes' disabilities in this regard, but for those interested in exploring the problem of confessional jurisdiction, click here. Some of us at PL found the arguments more than sufficient to begin looking for an Eastern-rite parish we could call home.  (Fear not: we won't stop exposing the cult masters.)

** Unless, of course, we apply to these isolated "bishops" the term episcopi vagantes ("wandering, stray bishops"), irregularly consecrated itinerants in communion with no recognized see, whose microscopic sectlets appear to exist only for their own benefit. But without a see and without authority, that's no bishop at all. Although Western theology tends to accept such consecrations as valid, it hasn't always been so. There's a highly tantalizing, though unreferenced, remark in the Jesuit Bernard Leeming's Principles of Sacramental Theology, affirming that some 12th-century canonists refused "to accept as valid ordinations done by a bishop acting without authorization from any Christian community" (p. 548). It would be a worthy research project to bring those texts to light. 

90 comments:

  1. Forgive my poor education in this area, but I thought Eastern Rite Bishops acknowledge the Roman Pope as the head of the universal Church? How then could they be a refuge for Sedes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, for starters, they're valid.

      But we'll let others comment on your question.

      Delete
    2. The refuge is just for the sacraments, not for solving the crisis which is beyond all of us anyway. What we have to do is save our own souls, and the means of grace are readily available in thousands of canonically established churches throughout the world. As has been said, not every situation is safe, but many are.

      Delete
    3. There are SSPX parishes everywhere. If the sede issue is a non issue, it would seem there's a straitforward solution without all the cultural adjustment.

      I dated a Ukranian Catholic gal, and my cousin was adopted from the USSR though the channels of the very same Church. When I lived in Chicago, I want to their parishes. My memory of them is that they are only different from the Novus ordo in externals, though the potluck food was better!

      Delete
  2. If you were literally "sailing to Byzantium" you would find yourself in a diocese with even less members than all of the traddie world put together.

    Since you mean Uniate communities you present a resolution that back in the 1970s was not without merit. However, many of the Uniates are now deeply pro-Vatican II as has been pointed out here by others and some have altered their liturgies.

    Leeming's interesting quotation is useful as an historic reference but those of us in the know, recognize that the opinion of 12th Century canonists would hardly pass muster in the light of the 1917 Codex or other decisions since then.

    Then you have the problem of "rite" - which is of course derived from one's Baptism. One cannot change rite without the permission of the Holy See. Additionally the Holy See has issued directives (as a Uniate priest informed me) for Uniates not to touch the "traditional question" - shall we call it?

    Of course Trads can attend Uniate liturgies but there's nothing more they can do than that. Juridically their (the Uniates) hands are tied. This isn't a permanent solution, viable for a time, but (canonically speaking) it certainly isn't the mind of the Church that Catholics of different rites should attend liturgies of other rites in a habitual way except in the case of mixed marriage and with the question of the baptism of subsequent issue from the marriage in which case the child generally takes the rite of their Father but can subsequently change rite if they so choose with permission of the Holy See.

    What you suggest seems plausible, but it does contradict the letter of the law. Isn't that what Sedelandia frequently does? Ultimately you are advocating a position that is canonically untenable long term, unless you argue from the state of necessity but that is a different can of worms and highly subjective when fully analyzed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course switching rites isn't the mind of the Church. It's not the mind of the Church to belong to sede sects either. As our epigraph indicates, these are different times, which call for different responses in this never-before-experienced crisis. And besides, Tradistan isn't a permanent solution either. (And we never suggested Byzantium is a permanent solution; it's ad hoc for Catholics sick of Tradistan and the N.O.) In our book, Byzantium beats Tradistan any day of the year even if one can't convert. Quite frankly, we would rather attend a Byzantine rite than be a member of a Tradistani cult.

      BTW, in some areas, with the "bi-ritualism" encouraged by the local authorities, it isn't that hard to join a Byzantine parish. Moreover, it often isn't that difficult to get the required permission to change rites, if you know what you're doing.

      Delete
    2. Oh, I agree entirely - belonging to any sect isn't the mind of the Church, but then it isn't the mind of the Church that her highest authorities would be so caught up in the excesses of the late Ecumenical Council, the Second of that Name. One prelate (ex of the SSPX) used to speak in terms of spiritual "life boats" and I recognize that that is what you are simply proposing here.

      The danger (as I see it is when the "life boat" becomes the Church - as the SSPX certainly became for him, before other arrangements were made for him.

      This is also the case with so much of Tradistan - the life boats have become the de facto Church. It wasn't envisioned that way by the early pioneers.

      Delete
    3. Canon 1249 (1917 Code) is clear that Catholics have the right to hear mass at eastern Catholic Churches. Local ordinaries were not allowed to forbid Catholics from attending eastern rites.

      While I agree with the argument that generally speaking Catholics should attend their home parishes in their area of domicile, that is obviously no longer possible and has not been possible since the time of the beginning if the Novus Ordo.

      Delete
    4. Anon 8/12 9:16PM:

      None of us realized how long this crisis would go on for. Who could have imagined that we now in 2017, with no end in sight?

      Many of us that went to the old (Roman rite) priests trained, commissioned and ordained by the authority of the Catholic Church, never could have guessed that all, or at least almost all, of them would die out with no resolution to this crisis.

      Now, rather than having diocesan and religious clerics using their lawful priestly orders to teach and sanctify those who would not go along with the new theology and the Novus Ordo mess.

      What we have now are groups that train men at centers that are not set up by the Church, therefore not seminaries, men whose fitness has not been judged by the Church, who have received no approval to be ordained, and who roam the earth entering any diocese they like to staff chapels not approved by the Church.

      What currently exists in traditionalism both resistance and sedevacantist are structures built entirely outside of the structure of the Church established by our Lord. If Catholics do not see the extreme danger of this situation, then they have fallen asleep. They rightfully had their guard up against the Conciliar sect and its heresies and false worship, but have not kept their guard up against other dangers. The wolf uses more than one tactic to catch and devour the sheep. The only organization that we can completely trust is the Divinely established Church which can never lead us astray.

      Delete
    5. Gene,

      Did VII lead the Church astray? It seems that an objective outsider looking in would either say:


      1. VII was done by the Church and VII contradicts prior teaching thus the Church has contradicted herself and thus is false.


      2. VII was done by the Church and VII does not contradict prior teaching thus we should all follow the VII teachings.


      3. VII was not done by the “True Church”, but by heretical outsiders and thus the Church does not contradict itself. (i.e. Sede position)


      4. The teaching that the Church is infallible is actually fallible and thus nothing is certain regarding what teachings are correct.


      I am curious to see your feedback as you state the Church cannot lead us astray, but you also speak of the crisis that was started by the Church itself?

      Delete
    6. Gene,

      Can you provide the text or a link to the Canon 1249 (1917) code? I can’t seem to find it with a quick google search and I was always under the impression a Western Rite person could not attend the Eastern rite so I would like to learn more about this.

      Delete
    7. Sure, here is a scan of a commentary on Canon 1249:

      http://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1086/where-mass-heard-canon-augustine

      Delete
    8. Anon 8/13, 8:54PM
      Sir, below is the answers to the questions posed to me.

      Anon 8/13, 8:54PM wrote:
      "Did VII lead the Church astray? It seems that an objective outsider looking in would either say:"

      No, it didn't lead the Church astray, it led individual Catholics astray.

      Anon 8/13, 8:54PM wrote:
      "1. VII was done by the Church and VII contradicts prior teaching thus the Church has contradicted herself and thus is false."

      Not possible.

      Anon 8/13, 8:54PM wrote:
      "2. VII was done by the Church and VII does not contradict prior teaching thus we should all follow the VII teachings."

      It does contradict prior teaching.

      Anon 8/13, 8:54PM wrote:
      "3. VII was not done by the “True Church”, but by heretical outsiders and thus the Church does not contradict itself. (i.e. Sede position)"

      Yes, the Church cannot give evil, or teach error. The man, Paul VI could not have been St. Peter's successor, as he did just that.

      Anon 8/13, 8:54PM wrote:
      "4. The teaching that the Church is infallible is actually fallible and thus nothing is certain regarding what teachings are correct."

      The Church can never lead us astray. The Pope can never in his authoritative doctrinal or moral teaching ever teach anything that is unsafe.

      Delete
    9. Gene,

      Thank you for your above responses. I have a couple more questions:

      So if the Church via VII leads 99.9% of individual Catholics astray isn't that pretty much the same thing as leading the Church astray?


      If the "official" modern church teaching is something that as you stated above contradicts its prior teaching and anybody going to the modern church would be given these false teachings, it seems like that is pretty clearly leading people astray.


      "The Pope can never in his authoritative doctrinal or moral teaching ever teach anything that is unsafe." How do we know this other than the Church telling us this? (i.e. what is the root basis)

      Delete
    10. Anon 8/14 7:31PM

      The size of the Church is accidental. It can be larger or smaller, but it can never disappear. I have never believed that the Conciliar sect has entrapped 99.9% of Catholics. I would agree that a very large number have either certainly, or in some cases apparently defected.

      The "modern church" as you call it, is a sect. This does not mean that all who think it is the Church are part of the sect. What has happened is that a sect has imposed itself upon Catholics. The sect is uncodmened, and for that reason, individual Catholics cannot be presumed members without proof of that fact.

      The fact that the Pope cannot lead us astray, in his authoritative teaching is taught by the Church, which we must hear and believe. It is also obvious from reason. If the Pope could lead us astray in his authoritative doctrinal and moral teaching, and we are bound to believe him, (He who hears you, hears me) then Popes could bind us to heresy, grave errors against the Faith, or immorality, which would be impossible.

      Delete
    11. Acturally Vatican I staked the credibility of the Church on her growth, holiness, unity, etc. One cannot dismiss 99 percent, or even 50 percent of the putative Catholics being led astray as merely accidental without putting aside parts of Vatican I, or at least I can't.

      Delete
    12. What are you relying on in making this judgement? What sources?

      Delete
  3. Sub-optimal? Now that could explain it all! There is an old saying, " As the twig is bent, so grows the tree." Well this old tree has been bent by the best, for well over 60 years, under the strong tutelage of the good old nuns. So I guess the next step for me is.. HOME ALONE, until I kick the bucket.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is entirely possible to attend the Eastern Rites without getting your sedevacantist card revoked. I want to warn people who have identified a suitable situation and decided to attend the Divine Liturgy of the following:

    1. It may be foreign at first, but as you learn it, you will inevitably be amazed at the similarities between the Latin and Oriental rites. There really is no way not to learn the history and development of the liturgical customs and traditions, unless one are dead set on nitpicking that which they do not understand.

    2. There is no desire at Eastern rite parishes to fight with their neighbor in the pew. Of course you can go home after the liturgy, but you can also enjoy coffee and regular, non-passive aggressive social interaction. Going to the Eastern rite is liberating from the controversy and current mess in the Roman rite.

    3. The priests in the East actually make use of traditions and blessings which the traditionalist priests of the Roman rite are either too busy to do, or have ignored. We have many of these in common and I have yet to see any resurrection of them in the Trad World.

    4. Be prepared for traditionalists who have never been to the Divine Liturgy, much less cracked open a book on the history of such, to suddenly become experts on said topic.

    5. If you are a mother of small children, expect to be treated with kindness and forbearance. The parishioners at Eastern parishes are notorious for smiling at small children and not banning mothers to a cry room. There won't be anyone to scowl at your children if they cough or drop a missal. Your children are probably in less danger of being scandalized at the Divine Liturgy than the Latin mass, even if the former situation has a few minor points that are off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well observed, and we can confirm everything you're said by our own experiences. Catholics who make a good-faith effort to learn the customs will find everything quickly becomes familiar, almost second nature.

      Delete
  6. PL just made a blatant self-contradiction, perhaps you should lay off the sauce. (If a sede priest did this you would call it a malicious lie!). Can you bear having your anonymous-PL-selves criticized?

    You quoted something from July 22, and then you say, "At the time, PL wouldn't recommend a sede or independent "bishop" because none has a commission from the Church to guide and care for Catholics. However, we offhandedly suggested that an Eastern-rite bishop could prove a solution for some people."

    Now you just contradicted yourself. Yes, you DID recommend independent clergy. Clearly. Now you deny you did but it is on record in black and white. So, you just changed your position.

    Furthermore, when anonymous said you were promoting the SSPX, you denied it then, now you are affirming it by saying how you, "offhandedly suggested that an Eastern-rite bishop could prove a solution". It was in the very same sentence, so you DID promote the SSPX just the SAME as you suggested the Eastern-rite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's what we wrote:

      "As you'll see later today with this week's post, we can't do as you request because no sede has the brief to guide (oversee) and care for a flock as a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.

      If you're unwilling to go to the SSPX or convert to the Eastern rite, then our best recommendation is to find an independent who is offering valid sacraments. Whether or not the man possesses episcopal consecration is of no import. Just do your research first to make sure you're not getting into a cult. "

      Note two things: (1) the remark about independents occurred after our refusal to name a sede bishop and (2) we did not recommend any specific independent, which is what the the query asked for. We did recommend the inquirer's finding an independent, whether bishop of not, who offers valid sacraments. That's a very different situation. No names mentioned. There was no promotion at all. We merely suggested alternatives, depending on the commenter's disposition.

      M&M — you need to learn how to interpret text.

      Delete
  7. A bi-ritual priest I know lamented that many Roman rite Catholics are going to Eastern Rite churches because they are disenfranchised with the NO, but are not really respecting the Eastern traditions. They are trying to drag their Western traditions into the Liturgy/ Parish (statues, rosaries, ect).

    I hope anyone taking this advice will respect that Eastern rites have their own culture, and not try to force them to Westernize.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have a very good point.

      Anyone who decides to go East must be willing to immerse herself/himself in the culture and never try to Latinize it. In addition, one must have the humility to realize there's much study and listening involved.

      Not everyone has the self-discipline or common sense to refrain from trying to remake a tradition to suit their own comfort level. The one who must change is the traditional Catholic seeking relief from the N.O. or Tradistan, not the Eastern rite members. And we can tell you from experience, it takes no small effort to move from one rite to the next, even if you have a graduate degree. That's why we said the move is not for everyone. The first step is to keep your mouth shut and be willing to be taught. That's a tough one for most trads.

      Delete
    2. Reader wrote, "The first step is to keep your mouth shut and be willing to be taught. That's a tough one for most trads."

      Well said!

      Delete
    3. Do Eastern rite Catholics not pray the rosary?

      Delete
    4. Yes, many do. Some eastern Catholics think the Rosary is a latinization, but many eastern Catholics do not take that view, and love the Rosary.

      Delete
    5. Thank you for speaking on behalf of every self proclamied Traditional Catholic.

      Delete
  8. TARQUINIUS

    Please repost your remark. Only the first line made it to our moderation box.

    ReplyDelete
  9. (Thank you for your note, dear Reader, I'll try again!)

    Maybe one ought to revive the terminology and subtlety of the Decretists. Master Rufinus, for example, distinguishes sharply four separate elements which justify the use of the priestly power, the executio ordinis sive officii as contrary to the veritas sacramenti. All four need to be extant in the priest in question:

    First, there is the sacramental power itself, the potestas aptitudinis, which we will grant at least to a portion of the sede acephalous non-clergy; then the personal traits such as virtue, knowledge and wisdom, which are needed for the priest's functions (potestas regularitatis); then the right to exercise the priestly/sacramental powers (usus officii) and last but not least, the possesion of an office sanctioning the potential use of the priestly power (potestas habilitatis).

    Obviously, only the first element is irremovable, a crime deprives the priest of his potestas regularitatis, suspension cancels his usus officii and deposition annihilates his potestas habilitatis.
    Of course, when it comes to sedes, they lack at least three of the four elements from the get-go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Superb, Tarquinius.

      Everything you wrote boils down to:

      STAY AWAY FROM THE SEDE CULTS, especially those where (1) is in doubt!

      Delete
  10. Since the Iron Curtain was erected, there was a blackout of information & contact while the Communists murdered and installed fake clergy, making the validity of the Eastern clergy doubtful. One would have to verify the lineage before considering one valid.

    Furthermore, the Eastern Catholics accept Vatican II, and are littered with error against the Faith, and terribly trained. In the face of that, the moral obligation is to stay away completely from what is a danger to one's faith.

    The sede clergy are a "cult", or a "sect". Strange how PL pretends to care for pedantic accuracy about dictionary or latin words, yet botch the meaning of these simple words. If you have a problem with validity, that is one thing, but the sede clergy don't teach against the Faith, and they don't profess to have jurisdiction. They let Catholics move to their area, or move away at will. They don't demands loads of money, but encourage the people, if they decided to choose them for spiritual guidance and Sacraments, there is a moral obligation to contribute some money regularly, even besides the general obligation to regularly do good works.

    It's a sin to give scandal for sure, but it is likewise a sin to take scandal...and it sure sounds as if you PL people have taken scandal because your unreasonable reaction to sede clergy really smacks of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, it is impossible for sedes to be considered Roman Catholic clergy, as we have explained in detail. They are "clergy" only in the sense that a pluralistic society, disdainful of the rights of the Church, recognizes Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist etc. ministers as "clergy."

      Second, our use of "cult" and "sect" is absolutely accurate. Again, as we have shown in the past, the sede cabals have all the characteristics of the sociological definition of a "cult." And although "sect" has no precise definition, its designation of bodies that minimize virtue outside their own group and praise the work of their fellow travelers irrespective of its merit is a perfect fit.

      P.S. Are you sure you're talking about sedes? We mean, your remark about their not "demanding loads of money" suggests you've got some other group in mind.

      Delete
    2. Scary how detached from reality you have become by taking scandal. I have tested the waters at various major sede centers around the U.S. and never have I seen a demand for money beyond the traditional stipends and Sunday collections. Perhaps you know of one example and now painting all sede clergy with that one example.

      Delete
    3. Then you don't know the SW Ohio-Swampland cult.

      Delete
    4. I see, so you are painting all sedes the world over because of SGG? C'mon! How silly is that!

      Delete
    5. If you will read back posts of this blog carefully, you'll see we freely admit that not all sedes behave like the $GG-Swampland cabal.

      Delete
    6. To be fair, you seem to trash them all except SSPV or Infant of Prague Chapel (Cincinnati). You are certainly no fan of CMRI it seems.

      Delete
  11. Fortunately for us the lines of succession of all eastern rite bishops are all traceable with names and dates of ordination and episcopal consecration. If anyone is casting doubt, let him be specific, whose lines are you doubting, what information are you basing it on, and why?

    Many of the eastern rite bishops and priests who lived during the Soviet era were heroes of our Faith, hardly compromisers. Patriarch Slipyj himself was imprisoned for the Catholic Faith for decades, and never compromised. He was one of the fortunate ones who at least surivived, while thousands of other clerics died in the gulags rather than compromise their Fath which would have been their ticket to freedom. As with the early martyrs, the Faith of these eastern Catholics overruled human motives of survival and personal freedom.

    (It's also worth noting that many eastern Catholics were not behind the iron curtain, that situation only affected some rites.)


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're glad you replied to 3:48's ignorant remarks. It was obvious the Eurocentric fool had no clue about how extensive the Eastern rite is.

      Delete
    2. So careful to criticize priests for decorum, and then you flagrantly violate charity publicly in permanent print. Pretty hypocritical.

      You do not even understand what "doubtful" means. It means that each individual should personally have doubt about any Eastern rite priest until the individual finds out about his lineage. It simply cannot be presumed valid just be the priest NOW lives outside of Russia.

      As well, the Eastern rite should be avoided for danger to the faith. That was well established here, in accord with Church teaching and practice.

      Delete
  12. I can recall the specific case of Monsignor John Naffa of Chicago who was relegated to a side chapel in his own church which he had founded by the Associate Pastor who replaced him. Monsignor Naffa continued to say Mass in Arabic and ad orientem whilst on the main altar (now versus populum) a Mass in English was now offered in which he refused to participate. He was a friend of the SSPX and died in 1998. He was no friend of the destruction of the Maronite Rite. He gave me some keen insights into the Novus Ordofication of his particular Rite in 1993.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I do know for a fact Eastern Rites holy orders were conferred by some Novus Ordo "Bishop's" starting in the very late 1980's.
    Please be diligent in doing research into who and where these Bishop's and Priest's received Holy Orders.
    I hold the Sedevacantist opinion and attend a traditional chapel.
    YES the author is correct when saying some of these clerics either withhold or threaten to withhold absolution.
    I am content with where I am BUT this has happened to me twice in under 18 months.
    I thank God for our chapel but there are problems,which is only natural.
    We need to discuss problems instead of pretending everything is perfect.
    A humble cleric will talk,listen, and willing to not be above reproach.
    God bless you all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What I am seeing here is disgruntled people against one Church in Cincinnati, and often speaking generally bad about sedes as a whole because of it. Then promoting the Eastern Churches that have error against the faith, and are terribly trained. Whatever problems you think you perceive in that one Church in Ohio, they are minuscule compared to the problems of the Novus Ordo Eastern rites clergy. Yet you are directing souls to associate with dangers to their faith there....a mortal sin itself!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problems at $GG are hardly "minuscule," beginning with the question of holy orders and malformation. As for your other wild and unsubstantiated charges, perhaps "Gene" will weigh in to set you straight.

      Delete
    2. How about, now, can't you read correctly? I didn't merely say minuscule, and qualified that with "compared" which entirely changes the meaning. You obviously have no response to the fact you are promoting something much worse for souls.

      Delete
    3. This is why Catholics were warned, that some eastern Catholic parishes do pose a danger to their Faith, while some do not. Many eastern Catholic priests are holding down the fort, it is a fact. It is a rash assumption against them to assume that they are all heretics or doctrinally unsound without evidence. Due diligence was urged in checking out parishes, caution was urged. That part of the equation cannnot be left out.

      To the other comment above, regarding Maronites, from my experience they are the most far gone of the eastern rites, and their beautiful liturgy has been wrecked.

      Delete
    4. Sal,

      We have no response because we are not promoting something worse than Tradsistan for souls. Tradistan is the abomination of desolation.

      Delete
    5. In the time of St. Athanasius, there was no such thing. The Arian clergy as a whole was avoided completely just by the fact that the clergy were directly associated with the error. The Church's moral teaching is that due diligence in that case precisely meant staying away completely from the association, because it is a near occasion of sin against the Faith, a mortal sin.

      Delete
    6. Sal, didn’t it ever occur to you that the Reader doesn’t respond to you because he doesn’t want to waste his time (and everyone else’s) by acknowledging your annoying presence? Crawl back into your rodent-hole (or onto your dung heap, whichever the case may be), and let the rest of the commenters engage in serious, meaningful discussion.

      Delete
    7. The Reader & PL,

      You constantly complain about the formation of the sede priests compared to how things used to be. You don’t like their seminaries, how the priest are selected, etc. You imply that before VII there was always some very rigorous system that only admitted ultra-holy intellectuals into the priesthood. You claim that the sede priests would never have made it in the old days. Without debating the particulars of your position (which I disagree with in this regard) are you not being selective to the time period and location of your comparison? The Catholic Church has 2000 years full of examples of priests/bishops that run the gamut from totally incompetent and evil to genius and holy. Same for seminaries. You continually compare our priests of today with some make believe fantasy history.

      To be clear I think many sede priest are well formed and I agree some would have had better and longer training in better circumstances, but then that could be said of the majority of priests throughout history. To say that “Tradistan is the abomination of desolation” is absurd.

      Delete
    8. You're wrong (and you obviously were not an adolescent or adult before V2). Our standard of comparison is not make-believe: we lived it and witnessed it. You're the one living in a fantasy land. BTW, your sedes of today are not Roman Catholic priests.

      Delete
    9. What you witnessed was the “well formed” priests that caused VII. Regardless, read my post, you are ignoring 2000 years of history and picking a very narrow window in a very narrow part of the world to compare it too. Even in your period of discussion, your statement does not hold true throughout the world.

      Delete
    10. No, they didn't cause V2. That resulted from their well-formed masters, who were planted in the hierarchy.

      Anyway, we've always been talking about the U.S. and comparing today's substandard, malformed American sedes to the well-formed Americans of our era. Let us add that we also know for certain that many priests from other countries at the time were far better formed than the Americans we knew. For instance, the Latin American priests from the great seminaries of the South American capitals were marvels of learning and probity. Only our college professors were equal to those men.

      But we'll also have to say that even priests from backwater seminaries in the U.S. and abroad were giants next to the midgets of Tradistan.

      Delete
  15. This blogger has just done a great job, IMHO, of ripping Fr Cekada's arguments apart regarding "Una Cum" Masses. Would you please read and comment? I'd like your opinion.
    https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/08/prayers-for-non-catholics.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coming here to ask such a question about Fr. Cekada is like consulting a pack of wolves on whether sheep taste good or not!

      Delete
    2. It's pleasant to learn that Introibo is not squarely in Cekada's camp. Good for him. Let's hope he soon completely stops admiring and respecting the Blunderer.

      Delete
    3. I'll said it in the past but I said it again: Why not listen to P. Guérard des Lauriers, the prime witness when it comes to the una-cum-matter? The learned Dominican proposed the formula "una cum Sede apostolica" as the lesser evil which in the same time professes the (apostolic) nature of the Catholic Church.

      An excerpt from the Frère's Christus novum instituit Pascha se ipsum ab Ecclesia per sacerdotes sub signis visibilibus immolandum (1980) in a quick and rough translation (my English is a little rusty these days):

      The priest may leave out the whole formula "una cum ..." or he may not mention a name. In this way, it is alleged, one does not introduce any change [as in the proposed form]: "una cum Sede apostolica". One acts as if the Apostolic See were vacant. However that may actually be, if one acts in a way as if the See were vacant, even though the vacancy has not been officially declared, then, in regards to Canon Law, one contracts just the same irregularity [...]. If one omits the "una cum..." wholly or in part, even though the canonical clause has not been fulfilled, it equals an arbitrary omission in the Canon [of the Mass].

      Delete
    4. Excellent point, one that deserves repetition. True, the celebrant's leaving out the words famulo tuo Papa nostro N., but is that as egregious as ignoring the holy see altogether??

      Delete
  16. Anon 12:26 PM

    And just as you can rely on accuracy of the wolves' opinion of sheep flesh, so you can rely on ours with respect to the ineptitude of Tony Baloney and the una-cum-as-dogma myth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really think you should stick to reading, Reader. I wasn't talking about accuracy at all. I was telling the responder about doubting what PL would say to a question about Fr. Cekada. There is no doubt - you would say the worst, most unfair and uncharitable thing imaginable to attempt to whet your disaffectedness.

      Delete
    2. No, you're absolutely wrong. Whatever we would say would be the truth. The truth may be hard, but it's not uncharitable.

      Delete
    3. What arrogance declaring you are impeccable and infallible when it comes to your opinions of the truth about Fr. Cekada. You just demolished your own reputation with such arrogance.

      Delete
    4. My discovery of his Una Cum catechism was the begining of the end of my family's brief attendance at that place. If it wasn't in the bulliten, I would have probably never known. It's so obviously nonsense it provoked me to find discussion, and led me here, to sgginfo, and John Lane's forums. So, it was good for something I guess!

      Delete
    5. 7:42

      If we say 2+2 = 4, we're not arrogant: We're merely asserting facts. Our reputation is completely intact. Checkie's a blunderer, pure and simple.

      Delete
  17. What about Sanborn's institute? How is he the head? Is he going to declare himself more than a bishop?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since Ttradzilla made his big announcement, he's been as quiet as a church mouse. Like you, we're waiting for "Tradnado."

      Delete
    2. How silly is that! Anyone can be the "head" of any organization they want to form. One does not have to be "more than a bishop" to do so!

      Delete
    3. Two vultures in the eye of the storm; one black one red.

      Delete
    4. Anon 7:53, you missed the point. Of course anyone can head any organization, but Sanborn is probably intimidating his seminarians (past and present) to join his organization. By doing so, he gets control of their churches and even something as small as how they decorate them. I bet control of their bank accounts too. The meaning was, that he is trying to gain power and will probably self appoint himself archbishop, Cardinal, or pope next. I am not "schooled" in how the Church works in such a crisis, but I would assume that he can't appoint himself titles.

      Why haven't Dolan, Cekada, Ercoli, Zapp, and Neville joined his phony organization?

      Delete
    5. He shouldn't even call himself the "superior general." Despite the laughable name of his new organization, it is not a religious institute of the Roman Catholic Church.

      Delete
    6. Anon 9:30, "probably...probably..." Not too sure of yourself! Nobody gets control of a bank account without freely being given the control.

      Delete
    7. Don't forget he he also tells them what to preach - so he can reach into your minds through them. Talk about a megalomaniac and control freak! One sick cookie.

      Delete
    8. No, I'm not sure of what he will do, but I can guess based on his history, which is why I say probably. Well, in his institute guidelines, I think anyone who signs up is under him in all matters. So, I suppose that they knowingly sign up granting him access to the bank accounts?

      Didn't St. Clare's have someone who helped with the bank accounts, but Cekada was on there too and cleared the bank account without consulting anyone? I doubt St. clare wanted him to have full access to that, but he was obviously within his legal right to steal it?

      Delete
  18. The Reader/Pristina Liturgica


    What a interesting article and topic.

    I was once a very strong sede and supporter of CMRI till I started to see many problems which you have made comments on many times.

    I do attend a Eastern Rite Parish.The Rite is the Syro-Malankara Church.They are very traditional and I feel quite at home.The late Father Adrian Fortescue remarked-it is one of the most beautiful and profound liturgies in Christendom.The priests are very well trained.The women cover their heads.Much singing and incense.

    A word of caution regarding several other Rites.The Chaldean,Maronite and the Syro-Malabar have followed the NO in regards to priest facing people,etc.I would not attend them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The priests are not well-trained if they think Vatican II is good and Francis is a true pope!

      Delete
    2. Anon 8/14 10:30 PM
      Some Syro-Malabar eparchies did not switch to mass facing the people, but many did as you state.

      That particular problem only exists in the rites you mentioned. It wouldn't affect validity, but I agree it is a step towards "Novus-Ordoism."

      I agree with that the Syro-Malnkara rite is beautiful and for some reason they seem to have kept out Conciliar influences completely. I also agree with your other comments. It is for this reason that caution has been urged for any Roman Rite Catholocs considering eastern Catholic parishes, and your comments are a reminder of that.

      Delete
  19. I have been attending the Divine Liturgy had a Ukranian Church for some time. It is more Ukranian than Catholic. Very Nationalistic in the Homily. During the socials after the Liturgy they sell all things pro-Ukranian, coffee mugs, car decals, etc. and no Catholic sacramentals whatsoever. We quit attending. They are Ukranian first and Catholic second.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Traddie Land sermons of every stripe are exactly the same: promotion of their sectarian culture and the traditions of their tribalistic enclaves.

      The difference is that the Ukrainians are actually a legitimate people with a history, language, and culture. It is better for all of us in the lifeboats that the Ukrainians guard themeselves and their rite in this way.

      The nationalistic aspect, while not ideal, is certainly not heretical or scandalous, even when given in a sermon. If you are going to any place for the sermon and coffee hour in these times, the problem is on your end.

      Bottom line: you are not going to hear a good sermon nearly anywhere. Most Latin Catholics already have practice ignoring sermons and going home after mass, so should they jump into the Ukrainian lifeboat, they already have a specialized skill set to cope.

      Delete
    2. That's what happened to us too, Anonymous August 15, 2017 at 2:31 AM
      The Ukrainian Church was more than culture shock. They were every bit as warped as the Roman Catholic Church. I think anything that is tainted with that Pope eventually will go "Belly Up".

      Delete
    3. Attendant - I am Anon 2:31 and you assume a lot. I have never been to Traddie Land nor will I ever attend Traddie Land. I have been attending a real Latin Mass with a real and valid 89 yr old Priest until he became ill and retired a few months ago. I am used to real homilies and real liturgies with a real Eucharist. I think the problem is on your end with your assumptions.

      Delete
  20. So, in the opinion of this blog author, why would someone want to avoid the SSPX and prefer Novus Ordo Eastern rites? Please include in your response whether PL believes Francis is a true pope or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grammatici certant et adhuc sub judice lis est.

      Delete
    2. Iticscray ontendcay ethay udgejay illstay underway isputeday.

      Delete
    3. Somewhat close, but definitely no cigar. We would advise against using machine translators before converting. And BTW, didn't you mean to write "etyay," not "ethay"?

      Delete
  21. Wonder why Sal Monella didn't post last week when discussing Dolan's sick animal torture and Easter sacrifice bulletin posts. Probably because Sal Monella and Robert Rawhide are the same person.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If an idiot gets up and declares that 1+1=2, that does not stop him from being an idiot,
    it just means that the idiot stated a fact.

    The same thing for "una cum", why would anyone want to be in league with anything that Rome is promoting?
    Consider this one. A bishop out of Brazil yesterday declared that "Homosexuality is a gift from God." This bishop is in league with the Pope, and I am sure well formed.
    So one could assume that anyone that wants to be in union with that kind of thinking, will not be asking whether they are valid or invalid? They will be asking, " Does he, or doesn't he?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 2:12 AM, concerning your statement, “If an idiot gets up and declares that 1+1-2, that does not stop him from being an idiot, it just means that the idiot stayed a fact”: what if that person (who says 1+1=2) is not an idiot? What if that person is a genius? Well, he’s still a genius! Your statement proves nothing. It is pointless. What you seem to be trying to do here is to “manufacture an idiot.” Well, you did, -- yourself!.

      Delete
  23. Anon 8/16 2:12PM:
    X = clerics who are still Catholic while thinking they are in union with Francis.

    Y = clerics who are openly adhering to the Conciliar sect by professing its beliefs and hatred of Tradition.

    You are assuming that X is the same as Y.

    ReplyDelete