Author Topic: Are Eastern Catholic priests considered valid by sedevacantists? (Read 3650 times)

Mercyandjustice · « **on:** July 28, 2015, 03:52:16 AM »

Only the words of the Latin rite of ordination were changed, right? Also, does that mean that mean one can confess his sins in an eastern catholic church?

Dolores · « **Reply #1 on:** July 28, 2015, 05:43:09 AM »

There is no universal answer to questions like this. Different sedevacantists will have different opinions.

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** July 28, 2015, 05:47:49 AM »

I have read that after Wojtyla issued the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches in 1990, those Churches also began to update their sacramental rites in the same way the Roman Church did in the 1960s-1970s. I have also read that they have not changed their rites at all. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who has actually made an actual study on the issue and none of the sources I have read are truly authoritative. They seem to simply be repeating what they have heard rather than actually reporting their own research.

I have also read that another problem seems to be that in the West, many Eastern Catholic priests are former Conciliar priests who changed rites. An Eastern Catholic priest who was originally ordained in the Conciliar or by a Conciliar bishop is likely not a valid priest anyway. So, unfortunately, even the ordination of Eastern Catholic priests must be investigated.

Many Catholics have resorted to Eastern Catholic priests since the "Changes" in the Roman Rite began to manifest themselves. This still happens today. Are Eastern Catholic priests still true priests? I really don't know. I would love to see someone who has actually researched the issue of the rites of orders of the Eastern Rites report on the issue.

Bottom line is that one can confess one's sins to any valid priest--even a schismatic priest when in danger of death. These are truly dangerous times.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #3 on:** July 28, 2015, 07:55:13 AM »

A majority of sedes consider Eastern Catholic priests, and all Eastern Catholic Rites, to be valid. The Dimond brothers (probably the most well-known sedes) go to an Eastern Catholic Mass where the priest still sees Francis as "pope".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2015, 09:04:48 AM »

Most of the Eastern Rites made only minor non-substantial changes so that there's no positive doubt whatsoever about their validity.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #5 on:** July 28, 2015, 10:04:46 AM »

If they weren't, the idea that NO hierarchy is invalid would be heresy. Let's put it that way.

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** July 28, 2015, 10:53:00 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Most of the Eastern Rites made only minor non-substantial changes so that there's no positive doubt whatsoever about their validity.

This is a serious question and I don't intend any disrespect. Do you know this because you have personally reviewed the changes made or have you simply read that the changes the Eastern Rites have made are "minor non-substantial"? As I noted above, I've read this elsewhere, but not from anyone who has actually studied the matter.

In any event, why would the Eastern Churches find it necessary to even make "minor non-substantial" changes to any sacramental rite? This penchant for change is itself troubling.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** July 28, 2015, 11:08:26 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Ladislaus
Most of the Eastern Rites made only minor non-substantial changes so that there's no positive doubt whatsoever about their validity.

This is a serious question and I don't intend any disrespect. Do you know this because you have personally reviewed the changes made or have you simply read that the changes the Eastern Rites have made are "minor non-substantial"? As I noted above, I've read this elsewhere, but not from anyone who has actually studied the matter.

In any event, why would the Eastern Churches find it necessary to even make "minor non-substantial" changes to any sacramental rite? This penchant for change is itself troubling.

I have looked at the changes for the Byzantine/Ruthenian wing of "Eastern Rite" and they're very minor ... mostly involving rubrics and translations (which seem more than adequate ... e.g. no "for you and for all" business at the consecration). I have NOT reviewed the Maronite Rite changes; these have become quite liberal in terms of their rubrics but the core structure of the Mass hasn't change. I don't get the impression that the Maronites have done anything to cause positive doubt about validity ... although the rubrics / implementations are less than edifying in many cases (e.g. some use of altar girls, female & lay lectors, bad music, facing the people, having the tabernacle off to the side, etc.). Really the only change that troubles me in the Catholic Eastern Rites it that they dropped the "Filoque" from the Creed (relatively recently) ... no doubt for "Ecuмenical" reasons. That would still not affect validity however.

As for WHY, I can't tell you. Why did Pius XII make changes to the Holy Week Rites? Why did St. Pius X make changes to the breviary? Not all change is bad or troubling. And not all bad change causes positive doubt about validity.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 28, 2015, 11:15:18 AM »

Here's a thread on another forum:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=263201

Again, things like use of the vernacular where there hadn't been in some of these Rites, new translations, different melodies for singing, removal of some "Romanizations" (e.g. kneeling during Divine Liturgy), etc. Nothing at all substantial.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #9 on:** July 28, 2015, 12:03:52 PM »

plus the New code of jp is to force the east to go back to the eastern code of Justinian not exactly modern. essentially the removal of Jesuit insertions into ancient liturgies that never should have been there. for example there is a whole generation of Maronite priests especially in the diaspora who fought for better Syriac not Arabic for the liturgy. personally my studies of Syriac orthodox + catholic practice, syro-malankara, and Maronite basically West Syrian rite practices. shows little difference in actual liturgical textual difference. the Maronite however have always been the lite service. a Chaldean friend said to me recently "its sort of like they cut out all the deacon parts and any of the repetition of prayer. the difficulty with the Maronite is they translated everything from Syriac into Arabic then back into Syriac to new translation. the translation can be crap at times.
from my year and a half + of Syriac (it takes 3+) to be truly proficient. the language is difficult to translate in the first place it is very similar to Hebrew in that you many times must know the text before you read it, no true is etc.
that being said the consecration is always in Syriac as well as the epeclesis.
the rites have a curtain covering the sanctuary in the mother country but not usually in the diaspora

TKGS · « **Reply #10 on:** July 28, 2015, 02:01:36 PM »

Ladislaus: Thanks for your reply. For now on, I will ignore those who tell me that the Eastern Churches made substantial changes to their rites unless they actually produce evidence rather than merely parrot something they heard. If they were as minor as you say, then I agree that there is no problem at all...especially in changes designed to "de-Romanize" the rite. There is no good reason to introduce Roman customs into Eastern rites. My guess (and that is all it is, a guess) is that such customs were introduced for political reasons and they have begun to remove them because the Roman hierarchy has become completely neutered.

JezusDeKoning: I was thinking this, to some extent, as well.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** July 28, 2015, 03:24:48 PM »

"Substantial" is a relative term I suppose. I've never seen any evidence of what I myself would consider substantial change. Again, with the caveat that I don't know enough about the Maronite to know.

Where someone who doubts NO ordinations may wish to beware is that some NO priests are bi-ritual and might show up at an Eastern Rite Liturgy ... especially to fill in for a priest who happens to be away.