Author Topic: Eastern Rites (Read 16971 times)

poche · « **Reply #30 on:** March 13, 2019, 04:21:53 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on March 12, 2019, 08:55:35 PM

Ok, I'll bite.
All you (2-3 members in this thread actually) Catholics who opt for the Eastern Rite the same way 99% of Trad-leaning Americans head for a Tridentine Latin Mass chapel (Roman Rite) --

There's just one problem.

You're a small minority. What are the chances there's a nice young lady at that ONE Eastern Rite chapel for your son, or a nice young man for your daughter to marry?

In the Trad world, at least we have the TLM to unite us. There are a lot of Trads nationwide, and even worldwide. We are all comfortable with the same Mass.

If you/your son/daughter DID meet a good spouse at a different Rite, which rite would you go to as a family and raise your children in?

This is alone a good reason to stick with Western ways and the Roman Rite.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law stipulated that the rite of the husband would be the rite of the children. The 1983 code leaves that decision up to the couple themselves.

Stubborn · « **Reply #31 on:** March 13, 2019, 06:31:18 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on March 12, 2019, 01:17:00 PM

My opinion on the Eastern rites is the same as my opinion of other cultures.

1. I'm largely ignorant about them, and I prefer to only open my mouth when I'm an authority or an expert on something: when I know what I'm talking about.

I'm with Matthew, only having gone to a Byzantine service in desperation once or twice in the 1970s. I didn't understand it then, and since then, thankfully having had no reason to pursue it further, am still happily ignorant of the Eastern Rite as a whole.

Not sure if I missed it, or if the Easterners were/are so untouched by crisis that there aren't any eastern rite priests who have ever spoke out or speak out on the crisis as the trad priests have done throughout the years, but are they so far separated from us that the crisis missed them and their liturgy so completely that they have no need to, or no one to condemn the crisis, or what has and is happening to the Church, the pope, the hierarchy etc, at all?

I know that today the TLM is in many places still celebrated in basements, hotels, and other makeshift locations - but I never heard of going to an Eastern Rite service anywhere other than one of their official diocesan(?) churches.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** March 13, 2019, 07:54:17 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 12, 2019, 09:16:21 PM

I'm referring to normal times, i.e. pre-V2 days. The days when you had to go to your parish church of your neighborhood and you weren't even allowed to go to the neighboring parish church 5 miles away, without permission. The days when your parish priest had ultimate authority over all Catholics in his parish and Catholics weren't allowed to pick-and-choose which Church they could go to on Sundays. The days when everyone knew and grew up with the same families for decades (assuming they didn't move houses). We've lost all of this order, community and harmony since V2.

In those days, yes, you'd have to get permission to attend the Eastern church on sundays, unless that was your parish church.

Nonsense. You never had to get permission to assist at Mass at any Catholic church. To formally enroll in the parish and become a registered parishioner, yes. To attend Mass there, go to Confession there, most certainly not. Now, if you wanted to get married or have your children baptized, then you would have been required to stay in your parish.

ihsv · « **Reply #33 on:** March 13, 2019, 08:10:11 AM »

A Latin Rite Catholic who attends an Eastern Rite church, even if he enrolls in the parish, goes every Sunday, etc., is still bound by the laws of his own Latin diocese/rite (days of abstinence, rules of fasting, Holy Days, etc.), and is not bound by the Eastern Rite rules (e.g., The Great Fast, etc). He can voluntarily choose to follow them, but he must follow the laws in force in his own diocese. If he goes through the process of changing rites, which entails getting released by his own bishop and accepted by the Eastern Rite one, then he would be bound by the Eastern Rite rules.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** March 13, 2019, 08:43:04 AM »

Quote from: ihsv on March 13, 2019, 08:10:11 AM

A Latin Rite Catholic who attends an Eastern Rite church, even if he enrolls in the parish, goes every Sunday, etc., is still bound by the laws of his own Latin diocese/rite (days of abstinence, rules of fasting, Holy Days, etc.), and is not bound by the Eastern Rite rules (e.g., The Great Fast, etc). He can voluntarily choose to follow them, but he must follow the laws in force in his own diocese. If he goes through the process of changing rites, which entails getting released by his own bishop and accepted by the Eastern Rite one, then he would be bound by the Eastern Rite rules.

Correct. That's why I distinguished between just Mass attendance and switching over canonically.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #35 on:** March 13, 2019, 09:45:09 AM »

Quote

Nonsense. You never had to get permission to assist at Mass at any Catholic church. To formally enroll in the parish and become a registered parishioner, yes. To attend Mass there, go to Confession there, most certainly not. Now, if you wanted to get married or have your children baptized, then you would have been required to stay in your parish.

Yes, I see what you're saying but I'm thinking of a person, in the 1950s, who owned a house. Wouldn't they, according to Church law, have to belong to a parish and register there? I say yes (based on what i've read) because when you live in a diocese, you are under the authority of that Bishop, and further under the authority of a parish priest.

For example, the diocese also might have Domincans or another order which the Bishop allows (or an Eastern Church) but that doesn't mean that a catholic can attend those masses regularly. During the week, yes (assuming the Bishop allowed them to say public mass. Many times, the Bishop allowed orders like Dominicans to provide confessions and to preach but not offer public masses except during the week.). But on sundays? I think the pre-V2 rules required one to attend their parish because your parish priest was your spiritual father. Maybe it was different for different dioceses?

confederate catholic · « **Reply #36 on:** March 13, 2019, 12:07:40 PM »

Actually the old my catholic faith series stated that all Catholics should attend one eastern liturgy annually fot two reasons one to learn about other Catholics and two to donate at that mass to support them since they are so small. this is of course if one existed nearby

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** March 13, 2019, 12:54:56 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2019, 09:45:09 AM

Yes, I see what you're saying but I'm thinking of a person, in the 1950s, who owned a house. Wouldn't they, according to Church law, have to belong to a parish and register there? I say yes (based on what i've read) because when you live in a diocese, you are under the authority of that Bishop, and further under the authority of a parish priest.

For example, the diocese also might have Domincans or another order which the Bishop allows (or an Eastern Church) but that doesn't mean that a catholic can attend those masses regularly. During the week, yes (assuming the Bishop allowed them to say public mass. Many times, the Bishop allowed orders like Dominicans to provide confessions and to preach but not offer public masses except during the week.). But on sundays? I think the pre-V2 rules required one to attend their parish because your parish priest was your spiritual father. Maybe it was different for different dioceses?

Well, I'm sure they were SUPPOSED to register at their parish. I doubt everyone did, and I don't think there were canonical penalties for not doing so. Now, if you weren't somehow active in the parish, you'd probably undergo some questioning if you requested some of the Sacraments that require certificates and/or preparation ... Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony, etc. But even then I'm sure if you had the priest call the Eastern Rite priest and vouch for the fact that you attend regularly, they would likely not deny you even those Sacraments.

But perhaps someone who was around and old enough to remember those days could chime in on this matter.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #38 on:** March 13, 2019, 02:29:15 PM »

What's particularly important about celebrating a liturgy in a makeshift location?

To be clear, I'm not asking why it happens. As far as the Latin Rite goes, I get that and why some people have serious concerns about the validity of Novus Ordo priests and stuff like that. But why is it inherently a bad thing that a liturgy isn't being celebrated in a makeshift location?

confederate catholic · « **Reply #39 on:** March 13, 2019, 03:00:10 PM »

nothing i think stubborn is referring to the fact that there's no eastern equivalent to the resistance or SSPX.

the reason for that's a completely different ecclesiastical theology. In the eastern canons bishops can't shove you out of the church because you publicly disagree with him and how he runs the eparchy or diocese. Our penalties can not be ipso facto, some ecclesiastical court or meeting of heirarchs must pass an actual sentence so it's rarely done. That's why you could talk about +Williamson's latest comments and basically no one will say anything against it.(this and discussions about Fr Gruner take place all the time with more positive feedback even from more liberal Eastern churches since this type of dussent is seen as healthy). this is my experience anyway. YMMV(your local eastern churcj mileage may vary)

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 13, 2019, 03:02:31 PM »

Quote from: confederate catholic on March 13, 2019, 03:00:10 PM

nothing i think stubborn is referring to the fact that there's no eastern equivalent to the resistance or SSPX.

the reason for that's a completely different ecclesiastical theology. In the eastern canons bishops can't shove you out of the church because you publicly disagree with him and how he runs the eparchy or diocese. Our penalties can not be ipso facto, some ecclesiastical court or meeting of heirarchs must pass an actual sentence so it's rarely done. That's why you could talk about +Williamson's latest comments and basically no one will say anything against it.(this and discussions about Fr Gruner take place all the time with more positive feedback even from more liberal Eastern churches since this type of dussent is seen as healthy). this is my experience anyway. YMMV(your local eastern churcj mileage may vary)

So what would happen if someone tried to do that same thing in a Latin Rite church?

Markus · « **Reply #41 on:** March 13, 2019, 03:19:55 PM »

Is there an obligation to attend an eastern rite mass if no Roman rite mass is available? I'm not sure. I believe Fr. Hesse says, in one of his talks, that among the rights of Catholics is the right to hear Mass in their own rite. If their rite is not available, they are not bound to attend Mass at another rite, even if it is convenient.

Has anyone else heard this claim before?

confederate catholic · « **Reply #42 on:** March 13, 2019, 03:41:25 PM »

byzcat you'd be shown the door.

markus, this is somewhat true, in eastern law you would be encouraged to attend in order
your rite
if not available
another similar eastern rite
the orthodox equivalent
if none of the the above
western liturgy

Stubborn · « **Reply #43 on:** March 14, 2019, 05:17:21 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on March 13, 2019, 02:29:15 PM

What's particularly important about celebrating a liturgy in a makeshift location?

To be clear, I'm not asking why it happens. As far as the Latin Rite goes, I get that and why some people have serious concerns about the validity of Novus Ordo priests and stuff like that. But why is it inherently a bad thing that a liturgy isn't being celebrated in a makeshift location?

The thing I was questioning is that when the revolution of V2 hit and in many places, still today, the *only* places the Mass was celebrated was in halls, basements and other makeshift locations for the Latin Rite. IOW, the true Mass was forced entirely underground.

Faithful priests who refused to say the new "mass" and go along with the new conciliar religion were evicted, kicked out of their rectories by their own bishops, who in turn celebrated the true Mass in these makeshift locations. Some of these priests like Fr. John O'Connor, Frs. Altenbach, Gomer De Paul, Wathen, Sanborn and a slew of many others, would preach to the masses via radio, TV, recordings and the mail, of the heresies and errors that were happening - but not a peep from the Eastern priests? even to this day?

It's just something I never really understood how the whole crisis seems to have missed the Easterners entirely, while effecting every other human being on earth.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #44 on:** March 14, 2019, 10:46:44 AM »

Quote

It's just something I never really understood how the whole crisis seems to have missed the Easterners entirely, while effecting every other human being on earth.

Modernism did affect the eastern rites, but not in the same scope (and not with the same media attention) because each eastern rite is smaller than the Latin rite. I read an article about how there is a "ultra conservative" wing of the Ukrainian rite which did not accept "updates" which happened to the rite in the mid 70s. They stuck with Tradition, just like Trads in the latin rite. The modernists/joos did not leave any catholic rite untouched, eastern or western.

Author Topic: Eastern Rites (Read 16971 times)

poche

Re: Eastern Rites

Stubborn

Re: Eastern Rites

Ladislaus

Re: Eastern Rites

ihsv

Re: Eastern Rites

Ladislaus

Re: Eastern Rites

Pax Vobis

Re: Eastern Rites

confederate catholic

Re: Eastern Rites

Ladislaus

Re: Eastern Rites

ByzCat3000

Re: Eastern Rites

confederate catholic

Re: Eastern Rites

ByzCat3000

Re: Eastern Rites

Markus

Re: Eastern Rites

confederate catholic

Re: Eastern Rites

Stubborn

Re: Eastern Rites

Pax Vobis

Re: Eastern Rites