|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 12, 2009 8:11:44 GMT
Happy Easter to all! But not every Catholic is celebrating Easter today. Many Greek-Catholics in union with Rome continue to use the old calendar as the Orthodox do, so the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic are having a full schedule of Holy Week ceremonies between St Kevin's Oratory and St Mary's Procathedral in Dublin. Details are here: ugcc.ie/ua/latest/bishop-milan-of-mukachiv-uzhhorod-serves-in-dublin.html I would recommend to anyone in Dublin to attend even one of these ceremonies, if only out of curiosity. No doubt the greatest is the midnight Divine Liturgy of Easter Sunday, which begins with a procession at 11 pm on Saturday evening (our Easter Saturday; their Holy Saturday). And I can tell you the Pro-Cathedral will be packed to capacity by Eastern Catholic immigrants from Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and other eastern European countries (and some from the middle east too) for the occasion.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Apr 22, 2009 11:59:08 GMT
How many there?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 29, 2009 11:25:41 GMT
About 1500. Predominantly from Ukraine, but with increasing numbers from Russia and Romania. Also from Belarus.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 2, 2009 13:08:28 GMT
This comment from Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog (in a discussion about a priest who ordered his congregation to stand during the Consecration and accused those who knelt of committing venial sin) may be of interest in reference to the tendency of some modern Western liturgists to selectively copy eastern practices. I have posted the link to the full discussion at the bottom. There seems to be what one might call a conceit among certain types of modern liturgists, to copy elements from Eastern Christianity, without at all emulating its spirit of reverence. My Ruthenian Catholic parish has recently (a little over a year ago) changed its practice to be in accord with that council of Nicea canon. This is supposed to be part of getting back to our Eastern roots. Most people are not all that happy about it, as they have absorbed the Western sense that kneeling is more reverential. I myself have great difficulty with no kneeling to pray after communion. But in an Eastern Catholic church this does make sense; it is in accord with the tradition and with the Orthodox who worship according to the same rite. It makes no sense for Western rite Catholics. Why don’t they import ad orientem celebration, an iconostasis which no one who is not serving at the altar goes behind, which means no women, communion administered on a golden spoon by the priest only, which means no EMHC’s, changed liturgies even at daily mass, multiple signs of the cross by laypeople during liturgy, prostrations, and so on? No, they choose the one practice to import which to a Western sensibility implies less reverence. Susan Peterson Comment by Susan Peterson — 1 June 2009 @ 4:17 pm wdtprs.com/blog/2009/06/priest-bully-at-consecration-lest-we-commit-venial-sin-let-us-continue-to-stand/#comments
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jun 23, 2009 14:55:43 GMT
It infuriates Eastern Catholic clergy and faithful to hear Latin liturgists appealing to Eastern tradition to justify the latest innovation.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jun 24, 2009 9:21:17 GMT
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Coptic) are having Pontifical Divine Liturgy in the Catholic Parish Hall in Rathmines this coming Sunday (June 28) at 10 am. This will inaugurate an Ethiopian Orthodox parish in Ireland. I am informed their sacred music is beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jun 24, 2009 19:51:14 GMT
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Coptic) are having Pontifical Divine Liturgy in the Catholic Parish Hall in Rathmines this coming Sunday (June 28) at 10 am. This will inaugurate an Ethiopian Orthodox parish in Ireland. I am informed their sacred music is beautiful. Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but would this fulfil the Sunday obligation for Catholics?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jun 24, 2009 21:28:48 GMT
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Coptic) are having Pontifical Divine Liturgy in the Catholic Parish Hall in Rathmines this coming Sunday (June 28) at 10 am. This will inaugurate an Ethiopian Orthodox parish in Ireland. I am informed their sacred music is beautiful. Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but would this fulfil the Sunday obligation for Catholics? In certain circumstances, Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Orthodox churches or at Old Catholic churches (though this is becoming problematic due to their ordination of women who cannot have valid orders) or at High Anglican or High Lutheran churches where the minister is unequivocally a priest in valid orders. - if there is no Catholic Church around for a considerable distance, if the time of Mass is inconvenient or if the location of a Catholic church is unknown -if there is some grave reason why the Catholic does not wish to attend Mass said by a particular priest (this is usually in circumstances where Catholic churches and priests are thin on the ground). -in the case of the Orthodox, on an occasional basis to witness their liturgy from the point of view of broadaning one's perspective on Christian worship. So one may fulfill one's Sunday obligation there on an occasional basis, for example on this occasion, but not every Sunday. And one may not receive communion. However, one may unequivocally fulfill one's Sunday obligation at Eastern rite Catholic liturgies such as the Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy at St Kevin's Oratory in the Pro-Cathedral at 4 pm on Sundays. And receive communion subject to the usual conditions.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jun 24, 2009 21:31:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jul 3, 2009 9:41:44 GMT
Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but would this fulfil the Sunday obligation for Catholics? In certain circumstances, Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Orthodox churches or at Old Catholic churches (though this is becoming problematic due to their ordination of women who cannot have valid orders) or at High Anglican or High Lutheran churches where the minister is unequivocally a priest in valid orders. - if there is no Catholic Church around for a considerable distance, if the time of Mass is inconvenient or if the location of a Catholic church is unknown -if there is some grave reason why the Catholic does not wish to attend Mass said by a particular priest (this is usually in circumstances where Catholic churches and priests are thin on the ground). -in the case of the Orthodox, on an occasional basis to witness their liturgy from the point of view of broadaning one's perspective on Christian worship. So one may fulfill one's Sunday obligation there on an occasional basis, for example on this occasion, but not every Sunday. And one may not receive communion. However, one may unequivocally fulfill one's Sunday obligation at Eastern rite Catholic liturgies such as the Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy at St Kevin's Oratory in the Pro-Cathedral at 4 pm on Sundays. And receive communion subject to the usual conditions. Ok - the follow up question is when can one fulfill one's Sunday obligation at the SSPX?
|
|
|
Post by mcallister on Jul 6, 2009 18:11:38 GMT
Hi beinidict9, this letter should answer your question!
Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses
January 18, 2003
Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response.
Oremus pro invicem.
In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ, Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins
Msgr. Camille Perl's response:
Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response. In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here. 1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated. 2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church. Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was: "1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating: "2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin." His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection at a Pius X Mass" to which we responded: "3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified." Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus: "This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the 'traditional' Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it. "You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right' to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a 'right'. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church's law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice." We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us. With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain Sincerely yours in Christ, Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jul 7, 2009 10:12:26 GMT
Hi beinidict9, this letter should answer your question! Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses January 18, 2003 Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response. Oremus pro invicem. In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ, Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins Msgr. Camille Perl's response: Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response. In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here. 1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated. 2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church. Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was: "1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating: "2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin." His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection at a Pius X Mass" to which we responded: "3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified." Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus: "This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the 'traditional' Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it. "You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right' to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a 'right'. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church's law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice." We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us. With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain Sincerely yours in Christ, Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary So, it appears that attendance of SSPX Masses is in the same category as attendance of Orthodox liturgies. 'You may fulfill your Sunday obligation, but....' This is one of the justifications of occasional attendance at an Orthodox liturgy. Funny, that one may go to SSPX Masses, for ecumenical reasons. But the question remains - you can't go to Orthodox liturgies in preference to Catholic Masses habitually where there is adequate provision for the Eastern Liturgy (unless you have grave reasons to do so - if for some reason or other, you cannot approach Mgr Ó Céileachair in St Kevin's Oratory of the Pro-Cathedral, you can go to Father Zavershinsky instead in Ss Peter's and Paul's, Harold's Cross). Now with the SSPX, there was a distinction between Bishop Ferrario's excommunication of the 'Honolulu Six', six lay people who brought an SSPX bishop in to confirm their kids, which was over-ruled (and is frequently mentioned in SSPX and other trad literature) and Bishop Bruskewitz' excommunication of all the SSPX adherents in his diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, which was upheld and is barely mentioned. The difference - Bruskewitz was generous to trads and Ferrario wasn't. The point - nobody can rely on the defence of going to Mounttown as long as St Kevin's in Harrington St is a possibility - unless they have grave reasons for not approaching Fathers Deighan or Richardson or Nevin. But even this is becoming obsolete - there is Father Smith in Newtownmountkennedy and Father Jones in Stamullen and on a monthly basis, Father Leworthy in Newbridge. The Bishops of Cork, Belfast and Newry have moved in a modest direction in their cities, but still fall short of SSPX provision there - and there has been no action in regard to Athlone - but Kerry and Cashel match SSPX provision and there are many other dioceses providing the Mass in the absence of the SSPX. So if the Motu Proprio means anything, it is that as long as there is no rapprochement between the Church and the SSPX, there is less and less justification for going to the SSPX.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 7, 2009 11:10:45 GMT
I am responding to this on the present thread because the point was made here, but I suggest that if we continue the discussion it should be on one of the SSPX threads on this board - otherwise we may swamp the specific discussion of Eastern liturgy.
I wonder was the lack of provision in Honolulu the reason why Ferrario was overruled? Given his reputation as ultra-liberal and negligent, I suspect he made some mistake of canonical form which Bruskewitz avoided (e.g. excommunicating for a specific act without providing sufficient advance warning). As the law then stood, I don't see that he was under any legal obligation to make any provision for trads; it was left to the bishop's discretion.
Remember also that the 'Honolulu Six' did not merely attend a SSPX Mass - they had their children confirmed by a schismatic bishop who had personally and knowingly incurred excommunication. Given that everyone in a diocese is supposed to be in communion with the bishop and that confirmation is one of the central expressions of that communion, I am quite honestly surprised that Rome did not uphold Ferrario.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 7, 2009 12:49:13 GMT
Correct, Hib - this is for discussion on Eastern Rite Christianity in Ireland whether Catholic or Orthodox (or other - the Orthodox do not consider Copts, Armenians, Assyrians and a few other eastern groups to be Orthodox). Though there are parallels between the SSPX and the Orthodox, this is not the place to discuss them.
Still, I don't think McAllister thought Beno was laying a trap for him when he answered his question. Beno, don't ask leading questions anymore.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 8, 2009 13:12:33 GMT
To try to get back on track, I'd like to call attention to Philip Jenkins' new book THE LOST HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY - THE THOUSAND YEAR GOLDEN AGE OF THE CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AFRICA AND ASIA (available in Veritas for E15.30). Jenkins surveys the long history of the Syriac-speaking churches known variously as the Monophysites, Jacobites or Nestorians (they do not use these names themselves) who do not accept the Christological definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. (They are often referred to as the "Oriental Orthodox" though the Eastern Orthodox in communion with Constantinople would object to that name.) He discusses their remarkable history (they sent missionaries as far as China, and I was surprised at his descriptions of their former learning and vast literature - most of it now lost) and how after surviving and even thriving for centuries under Islamic rule they were crushed in the late middle ages as a result of persistent Islamic pressure (which did not necessarily involve incessant persecution but which drained their resources, gradually dismantled their "sacred landscape", and sapped their ability to recover from disasters such as the Mongol invasions). Once their great monasteries had been wrecked or gone into decline, they survived (with the partial exception of the Egyptian Copts) as marginal people of the mountains, ministered to by a semi-literate clergy, lacking the energy and will to expand as it took all their efforts to survive.
One point that this suggests is that those numerous contemporary theologians who argue that the Constantinian settlement was an unmitigated disaster for the Church and that it would have been better if Christianity had never been a state religion but had always remained on the margins should be careful what they wish for. The defects of integrisme have been quite fully addressed on this forum, but there is some truth in the old integrist statement that a state which is not Catholic eventually and necessarily becomes anti-Catholic.
The second point is that the fate which befell the Nestorians may well await both us and the SSPX. The Pixies, as often noted here, are rapidly developing into an introversionist sect and its clergy's intellectual standards are dropping also - one reason why those like Fellay and Schmidberger wish to reconcile with Rome before it's too late. The quality of the clergy, as well as their numbers, is dropping here in Ireland (I have heard secular academics remark that 50 years ago Maynooth seminarians used to be the brightest students, and now they're generally the dullest) and the attitude in certain quarters that religious life in any but the most tenuous form is and ought to be on the way out, and that we can get by with a skeletal secular clergy supported by lay assistants does not give cause for confidence either. We've seen a massive dismantling of Ireland's spiritual landscape over the last 50 years, seemingly with no end in sight; and where, in the modern world, is there an equivalent to the "mountains"?
|
|