0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So the Maronite ordinations and episcopal consecrations are valid? They're not the same as the Novus Ordo?
I could be wrong, but I don't believe they changed those substantially. With the Mass, they did move to vernacular, allowed various other reforms like lay participation, but they kept their Canon intact, including the immediate passage around the consecration being spoken in Aramaic. I wouldn't want to attend one because of all the modernizations, but I have no reason to believe it's invalid. With these Eastern Rites, they just didn't have the resources to set up a large commission to study changing everything and come up with a new version ... like the Roman Rite Bugnini commission ... and they really had no real reason/motivation to change them.
Thanks for your response. It's helpful in case I ever have the only option to assist at a Maronite Mass or receive Sacraments from them.
The Maronite church was already rather westernized before V2 and they adopted some of the N.O. externals.Unless you're in a Lebanese community, odds are there will be other Eastern liturgies around that look less like the N.O.
There were no substantial changes. Maronites messed with their Mass in terms of facing the people, having lay readers, even altar girls in many places, etc. but it's still a valid Mass, despite many Novus Ordoisms in terms of custom. Ukrainians are nearly unchanged except for some chant melodies.
Do the Ukrainians have any masses done in honor of the heretic Palamas?
The Eastern churches are not free of the effects of Vatican II. See JPII's 1990 Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches:http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.htmlThe Religion of Ecumenism is alive and well in the Eastern arm of the Novus Ordo....even if the orders are valid.
Would you like to cite any particular Canons? No one has the time to read the entire Eastern Code. "Ecumenism" isn't actually even a precise term. When people criticize "Ecumenism" it's more about the implicit theology of religious indifferentism.
All one has to do is search for some of the typical offensive words/terms associated with the Vatican II/ JPII's 1983 Code of Canon Law theology/ecclesiology like "full communion" or "dialogue" or "unity".
Still need context. "Dialogue" and "unity" are legitimate terms and depend on context. "Full communion" can be also understood in a number of different ways. So, with a quick glance, the first use of the term constrasts the baptized with catechumens, stating that the baptized who profess the faith are in full communion, but that catechumens are united to the Church (in less than full communion due to lack of Baptism). This is not illegitimate, as Catholics theologians have referred to catechumens having a partial or imperfect membership in the Church. So it's not enough to find a buzzword to establish your case.This shoot-from-the hip hurling of heresy accusations is one of the worst aspects of dogmatic sedevacantism.
