The fact that on paper it says they may give Communion to Orthodox under certain circuмstances, does not equal some kind of “gotcha” moment that the Byzantine Church is heretical. Because to claim it is not Catholic, it would have to be heretical or schismatic. It is not. 

Well, there’s been plenty of books, newspaper articles, Remnant announcements, investigative reports, lawsuits and incarcerations of sɛҳuąƖ predator priests with Latin Rite Tradition.

I’ll take a bearded Father Bob that teaches True Faith any day.

To waste hundreds of words.

That's because he uses AI.  Most of these aren't really his posts, but AI generated content. 

It is never a waste of words to defend the truth. Canon 671 is heretical and the Byzantine churches accept it as law. As for the rest of your comments, I could care less what any said clergy…

You have answered nothing.

Your AI is circling because you have no answer and now you diverge into unrelated points of my perspective, judging me, my motives, etc.

Presence at a Roman rite is not doctrinal submission, and non-reception through unchanged worship is not consent. You’re applying Latin polemical assumptions to an Eastern ecclesiology that has never worked that way.

I just want to point out that I was SSPX before the 1988 consecrations, longtime forum members will remember my international closeness to the resistance and their episcopal consecrations. Others will remember my support for Bishop Da Silva. My views of the East are the only views expressed here. I have not spoken ill of Archbishop Lefebvre and I have no issue with an SSPX mass.

I also want to say that presence at a Novus Ordo concelebration or any of those ideas I am not comfortable with as myself being baptized Catholic, I have never attended a New Mass. My point here I wish to make, again, is that the East is protected because of its heritage and inherent protection mechanisms. The conclusion could be made that the Church did not defect for this reason, as it could not anyway.

Let’s amplify that…

Presence ≠ doctrinal consent


Eastern patriarchs being present at a Roman papal inauguration does not mean:

• endorsement of every theological opinion of the pope
• endorsement of the Novus Ordo as a normative expression of faith for the East
• endorsement of Vatican II’s disputed interpretations

In Eastern ecclesiology, communion is not expressed the same way as in Latin polemics. Presence is diplomatic and ecclesial, not confessional. The East has always distinguished between:

• communion (shared faith and sacraments)
• administration (who governs which church)
• ritual expression (how the faith is prayed)

The SSPX argument quietly assumes a Latin juridical model and then condemns the East for not behaving like Latins.




2. “Sacrilegious, non-Catholic rite” is an assertion, not a premise


Calling the Novus Ordo “sacrilegious and non-Catholic” is the SSPX’s conclusion, one I will agree with, but it’s not something the Eastern Churches are obliged to accept in order to remain Catholic.

From the Eastern perspective:

• They are not competent judges of the Roman rite
• They did not receive the Novus Ordo as their own
• They did not incorporate its theology into their worship

So the question “why did they attend?” assumes the East shares the SSPX’s judgment before the argument has even been proven.

That’s classic begging the question.




3. The East does not believe faith is preserved by denunciations


This is the deepest misunderstanding.

In the Byzantine tradition, faith is preserved by:

• continuity of worship
• unchanged sacramental life
• patristic theology embedded in prayer

Not by issuing condemnations every time Rome publishes a docuмent.

When heresy is imposed on worship (Iconoclasm, monothelitism), the East fights publicly and ferociously.
When it is not imposed, the East practices non-reception, which is an ancient and legitimate ecclesial response.

Silence here is not approval — it is refusal to internalize.




4. Why this argument feels arrogant (and is)


The underlying claim is this:

“Unless you fight Vatican 2 the way we do, using our categories, you are guilty.”

That’s not Catholicity. That’s Latin absolutism dressed up as traditionalism.

It reduces the Eastern Churches to:

• spectators of Latin crises
• moral cowards unless they adopt SSPX polemics
• “pretty liturgy” with no theological agency

Historically false. Theologically incoherent.

Second sentence accuses me of using AI. That’s now the fourth time in this thread, and it’s still not true. I’ll treat it as the final slander.