Author Topic: Fellow sedes: ec church in communion with Rome? (Read 1536 times)

curiouscatholic23 · « **on:** September 06, 2011, 02:54:42 AM »

I need to confess ASAP. There is a byzantine catholic church in communion with Rome very close to my house. Much closer than a sede chapel or sspx chapel. Can I confess there? I know this is kind of a grey area.

Also, can I go to their services even though the priest accepts Vatican II and accepts Benedict XVI as pope? I would like to hear opinions on this since there is no set sedevacantist position. I am leaving for the military next week and will be without the sacraments for quite some time so I want to frequent them as much as possible before I leave.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #1 on:** September 06, 2011, 03:01:48 AM »

I would say: Yes, but make sure the Byzantine priest has valid orders, i.e. that there is no NO-Prelate in his line.

Uniates, especially in Western countries, are often strongly influenced by modernism and also differ in their liturgical practice. You probably want to make sure that this specific Church follows a more conservative course.

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 06, 2011, 10:27:35 AM »

I just called the byzantine priest and he said he was ordained in 1963. I asked him if this was the Novus Ordo Latin rite and he said he thought it was. Was it? I thought the new rite of ordination wasn't pushed until the late 60's???

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #3 on:** September 06, 2011, 10:36:50 AM »

He thought it was? :roll-laugh2:

Well, no doubt then if he was ordained in 1963, whether as a Latin or Byzantine. The New Rite of Ordination was promulgated in 1968.

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 06, 2011, 10:43:20 AM »

Ya he didn't seem too confident but he definetly said 1963.

Sigismund · « **Reply #5 on:** September 06, 2011, 05:20:41 PM »

Wasn't he a bit offended by the question?

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 06, 2011, 06:08:22 PM »

Yeah Sigismund, the same way a doctor gets offended when you ask him where he graduated from.

When and where a priest was ordained is of UTMOST importance in today's Catholic climate. New rite, no dice.

Sigismund · « **Reply #7 on:** September 07, 2011, 08:05:29 PM »

Well, if you really believe that, it seem to me that you should avoid the canonical Byzantine rite altogether. It is in full communion with the pope and the "VC II" Church. I asked my son, who is a Byzantine priest, how he would respond to such an inquiry. He said he would reply, "I am a Catholic priest, ordained in the only Catholic Church there is. Take it or leave it."

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 07, 2011, 08:38:46 PM »

Yes I am an open sede and yes I confessed to a byzantine ordained priest the other day. He was actually a latin bi-ritual priest ordained before the new rite. He didnt' get offended when I asked him who ordained him and when.

My reasoning for doing so was primarily to return to a state of grace as soon as possible. I would have preferred confessing to either a SSPX or CMRI priest but due to logistics that wasn't possible. It was the best thing I could come up with at the time.

Do any sedes on here think I should re-confess to a sedevacantist priest at some point in the future?

Another thing is that the penance he gave me was in my opinion too light and not hard enough. Is it spiritual pride to think you know more than the priest and start giving yourself your own penances? What if the priest is a priest like the one I went to and quite comftorable with Vatican II?

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 07, 2011, 08:42:39 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Well, if you really believe that, it seem to me that you should avoid the canonical Byzantine rite altogether. It is in full communion with the pope and the "VC II" Church. I asked my son, who is a Byzantine priest, how he would respond to such an inquiry. He said he would reply, "I am a Catholic priest, ordained in the only Catholic Church there is. Take it or leave it."

Sigsimund, does your son actually know what Benedict XVI teaches? How does he feel about Assisi 3? What about Benedict XVI's statements on ecuмenism, Jєωs, condoms, etc.????

Does he know about Most Holy Family Monastery??? It would be a great use to him I think, it certainly has helped me see things clearly.

Sigismund · « **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2011, 09:15:35 PM »

He does. He went to a pretty through seminary in Rome. He thinks Assisi is a bad idea, that ecuмenism is fine within limits, that Jєωs are people and not demons hiding behind every door, and that condom use is a sin. Pretty much like his old man.

You don't really want to know what he thinks of Most Holy Family Monastery because he would find it difficult to use language befitting a priest. I am not a priest, however, so I will say that he believes baptism of desire is the teaching of the Church and that the Dimond Brothers are heretical nutjobs. Again, pretty much like his old man.

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 07, 2011, 09:20:34 PM »

What does he think about Vatican II stating that the schismatic Orthodox are a part of the church?

For the record I don't agree with MHFM on everything, but I sure trust trust them more than some of these vatican II people.

Vatican II is unacceptable.

Sigismund · « **Reply #12 on:** September 08, 2011, 07:50:36 PM »

I will encourage him to log on and answer the questions himself, but he is not much inclined to the internet.

I think he would say that VC II was an ecuмenical council of the Church, albeit a pastoral rather than dogmatic one. I am not sure exactly how he would respond to the question about the Orthodox, but I will as him. I would say that they are a Church in the sense that they are Christians and have valid orders, but of course they are schismatic as you said.

Jim · « **Reply #13 on:** September 08, 2011, 07:59:49 PM »

The new rites of ordination were not introduced until June 1968. If he was ordained in 1963 in Latin, he's a priest. If he was ordained in 1967 in Latin and even in English, he's a priest. If he was ordained January 1968, he's a priest.

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 08, 2011, 08:08:08 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

I will encourage him to log on and answer the questions himself, but he is not much inclined to the internet.

I think he would say that VC II was an ecuмenical council of the Church, albeit a pastoral rather than dogmatic one. I am not sure exactly how he would respond to the question about the Orthodox, but I will as him. I would say that they are a Church in the sense that they are Christians and have valid orders, but of course they are schismatic as you said.

Yes it would be great to hear from him. And I apologize if I came off as uncharitable in my earlier posts. Sometimes I get worked up about Vatican II and spiritual pride creeps in.

I guess I was just curious because a lot of the eastern catholics on catholic answers love Vatican II because it gave them more autonomy.

Obviously as a sedevacantist I do not love Vatican II, in partiuclar the parts which allow the Orthodox to receive communion without abandoning their schism. I also don't like how John Paul II and Benedict XVI refer to them as "particular churches" even though they reject the papacy. Yet most eastern catholics like these concessions because most eastern catholics have orthodox friends/relatives/family members.