Rorate Caeli

Unauthorized Episcopal Consecrations in Ukraine

News is now spreading of the consecration shortly before March 23 -- Easter Sunday according to the Gregorian Calendar -- of four Ukrainian Greek Catholic priests as bishops, without being nominated by the Major Archbishop of Kyiv and head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, and without receiving the necessary Papal blessing.

The UGCC has issued a communique condemning the consecrations. At present, secrecy and uncertainty cover the identity of the consecrating bishop. Some have even questioned whether this bishop (whoever he is) is a real, validly consecrated bishop in the first place. (However, it does not seem likely that these four bishops would have sought consecration from a bishop of doubtful orders.) Speculation on the identity of the consecrating bishop currently centers on Michailo Osidach, who claims to have been clandestinely consecrated by the late Metropolitan Volodymyr Sterniuk C.SS.R. during the Soviet era.

This comes a little more than four months after the excommunication of Fr. Basil Kovpak, founder and head of the Society of St. Josaphat (SSJK), a Ukrainian Greek Catholic society of priests which is currently associated with the Society of St. Pius X. Fr. Kovpak was excommunicated by Cardinal Husar for attending the ordination of two SSJK priests and five SSJK deacons by SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson.

While the two events do not seem to be related, both have their roots in the same controversies now shaking the UGCC. In their Open Letter to the Holy Father the new bishops profess filial devotion to Rome while justifying their consecration as a necessary action in the face of the alleged modernism and hyper-ecumenism of the current Major Archbishop. In particular, they denounce the Balamand Agreement of 1993, which rejected Uniatism as a model for the future. They also condemn what they consider to be the schismatic and apostate attitudes of the Cardinal Husar and of the UGCC hierarchy, as well as the negative attitude being shown within the UGCC to Latin devotions such as the Rosary, Way of the Cross, Devotion to the Sacred Heart, etc. The letter also declares that theological modernism is beginning to pervade the UGCC and speaks of its "practical schism" from the rest of the Catholic Church. The letter, thus, reveals a theological and spiritual position that is identical at least in certain important points with that of the SSJK.

These consecrations seem to be the latest sad chapter in the theological and liturgical debates currently besetting Ukrainian Greek Catholicism (as well as certain other Byzantine-Rite Catholic Churches). One of the important issues around which these debates revolve, is the question of whether the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church should return to a purely Byzantine liturgy and theology and should attempt to be as close to Eastern Orthodoxy as possible (even sharing the same theology -- a position that Cardinal Husar has publicly endorsed while expressing his belief in the necessity of communion with Rome), or whether it must keep the Latin elements that were introduced from the 17th to the early 20th centuries into the UGCC's liturgy and spiritual life, and continue to emphasize its Catholic identity and mission vis-a-vis Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy.

More analysis of this event can be found here.

36 comments:

schoolman said...

What a mess.

New Catholic said...

May God bless the Ukraine.

Reports about this matter seem to be extremely confusing at the moment...

bobby barker said...

They should get rid of all the Latinization. How would we in the Latin rite feel is some big daddy Eastern Rite existed that forced itself upon our traditions and theology?

Klasztor said...

the problems in the Ukrainian Church are more complicated than just latinization and easternization. Those are old categories that have metamorphasize and pollarized along other lines. this particular group springs from the cancerous body of the Ukrainian Basilian Order, once the bastion of fidelity to the Pope.

A Simple Sinner said...

"They should get rid of all the Latinization. How would we in the Latin rite feel is some big daddy Eastern Rite existed that forced itself upon our traditions and theology?"

That analogy doesn't really hold up... It isn't just about de-Latinization. Although in the process of getting rid of some of the Latinizations, very little prudence was shown, and in some ways the baby was thrown out with the bathwater...

All of these men came of age when the Church was in the underground, when people met out in the woods for holidays, and all ordinations were secret...

Some of the modern direction that says that the UGCC is just the same as an Orthodox and the pope has no more authority over them then the next...

That is leaving some to wonder why they suffered in the underground since the USSR stole their churches in 1946.

from the pew said...

These modernists are all the same - even in the East. They need to get their act together and be faithful to the See of Peter. I blame the Basilians and I will never give them another dime for what they allow.

jp

David L Alexander said...

In some parts of Eastern Europe, "latinization" served to distinguish those Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome, from those that were not (that is, the Orthodox). In the USA, we associate "latinization" with attempts at assimilation with Roman Rite Catholics. 'Taint necessarily so.

Anonymous said...

the Basilian's influence comes from their considerable financial reasources. cut that off and you cut off their infleunce.

A Simple Sinner said...

"the Basilian's influence comes from their considerable financial reasources. cut that off and you cut off their infleunce."

Easier said then done! They have been a significant group in "the diaspora where they have raised funds "for the motherland" among a population in Western Europe, North America, South America... That at times has been significantly wealtheir than Ukraine...

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

This is not about de-Latinization or restoration of the Kievan Rus' Byzantine Rite to its Medieval (original) state per se. The post-1991 reforms in the UGCC consisted of vernacularization, unthinkable in separated Orthodox churches, and of discarding legitimate devotions such as the Rosary. Not about restoring the original Byzantine Rite of the Eastern Slavs!

And when the author here speaks about the "Orthodox theology" it means in practice, as with some more or less deviating Melkite Catholic prelates, of denying the Ecumenical and universally binding character of the "post-1054" Councils, e.g. of discarding the sacred Council of Trent or the Council of Florence as mere "Latin regional councils" with no value in the universal Church of Christ. This is a false "theology" and pure heresy if brought to an end. The Orthodox churches, who are not part of the Mystical Body of Christ as institutions, as they are outside the Roman Catholic Church (which is "one and the same thing" as the Church of Jesus Christ, Humani generis, par. 27), share this false "theology", but Ukrainian Catholics cannot uphold their positions without falling from the Faith.

The debate is not about the Byzantine Slavonic Liturgy, or about de-Latinization. The Society of Saint Josaphat Kuncevyc (SSPX-allied) has only kneeling etc. retained, but not Latin churches without iconostasis per se.

It is all about false (not hyper-) ecumenism, about the betrayal of the Balamand Agreement (supported by John Paul II and the Vatican too, which these new Bishops do not seem aware of....) to the Eastern Catholic Churches, and also about institutionally embraced neo-modernism permeating (since 1991) even the native Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church which so long was a martyrs' church.

I am awaiting the response of the Vatican, though I fear excommunication, reprimands, and talks about the obligating character of ecumenism for the "unification of all Christians" (as if the Church of Jesus Christ did not yet exist fully and perfectly in the Catholic Church which according to Orientalium ecclesiarum, 1964, Vatican II, par. 2-3 "ís the Church of Jesus Christ", not merely "subsists"). I fear the Vatican will not take this issue seriously, and will support Cardinal Husar, who himself in 1976 was consecrated against the papal will of Paul VI too at Castel Gandolfo, by Cardinal Slipyj.

But thát Husar does not mention when relating to the SSPX, SSJK or these "schismatic" new Bishops.

These Consecrations, probably conferred by the deposed Bucach Eparchy emeritus bishop, are most certainly valid Consecrations. I do not think Rorate Caeli should question this.

This is epikeia, because the lawgivers are either void of authority through public and pertinacious heresy against the Catholic Faith, or because the lawgivers are trapped in their own minds in subjectivism and subjectivist philosophy and no longer able to speak clearly. (More or less material heresy, which does not depose automatically though.) You choose.

This all proves that the hugest Crisis ever in our holy Catholic, apostolic and Roman Church, currently increasing even, is universal and not something of the Latin Church only or only of the Latin liturgical deformation (1969-70), but something deeply doctrinal and ecclesiological. It is a combat against false or hyper-ecumenism, supported officially by Vatican leaders even, not reprimanded by the Roman pontiffs, and also a combat against theological neo-modernism.

Archbishop Lefebvre died in 1991, while the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was re-emerging from clandestinity and the underground only, and when it became obvious that they had kep the Catholic faith inviolate during the underground time, the "updating" and the "reforms" began to be decreed for the Ukraine too.

Let us pray for the universal Catholic Church. Let us remain faithful to the Holy Roman Church and the Bark of St. Peter, the only Ark of Salvation, but let us not fall into the modern-aggiornamento-Roman temptations of neo-modernism and ecumenical compromise, and the sacrileges against the Most Holy Eucharist. We have the testimony of Archbishop Pandabendige Ranjith and bishop Athanasius Schneider O.A. that even in the Vatican Square, particles of the sacred Hosts were found trampled by the cheering "papally faithful" crowds during the Papal eucharistic celebrations.

This depth and severity of Crisis was not imagineable to saints like St. Francis and not even to Pope St. Pius X.

May they intercede for us, along with Ste. Jeanne d'Arc, who was also found to be "excommunicated" for her fideltiy.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

This is not about de-Latinization or the Liturgy. Those are false categories imposed by the modernists in order to mask the doctrinal revolution and the revolt against the Councils of Trent, Vatican I and especially Florence. If you act like them, then the Papal definiton of papal infallibility and papal primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of Jesus Christ, becomes a dead letter.

These controversially consecrated Byzantine Catholic Bishops are not the problem, but the leadership in Vatican and UGCC. These new bishops are only acting in order to preserve the Catholic Faith in true communion with the Apostolic See, not in false Hegelian thesis-antithesis-pseudo-communion ways prevailing since Vatican II.

People like schoolman should come to see that the Church is in a mess. Not due to Lefebvre or these Bishops, or due to Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, or Bishop de Castro Mayer, but due to the underground neo-modernist revolution destroying the Church since and during Vatican II.

Sedevacantism etc. are all the logical theological and even psychological (confusion, protection from heterodoxy) consequences of this hugest Crisis ever.

But Our Lord will save His holy, apostolic and Catholic Church from total destruction.

But already we are seeing the Crisis in proportions of the Arian heresy under pope Liberius.

Let us stay in the bark of St. Peter but especially also of St. Athanasius of Alexandria. During pope Liberius' reign of course, the Roman Court was full of Arian extremist heretics demonizing the orthodox Catholic Christians of Athanasius. So sometimes a seemingly "separation" may be present, without a real schism.

Of course neo-conservatives and self-appointed inquisitioners from the Charismatic or ecumenist crowd will now suddenly come up condemning these Bishops as schismatics outside the Church, while they are themselves always seeking to proclaim Protestants and separated Orthodox as "part of the Church".

It is a controversy about Good Will too.

God bless the Ukraine (Kievan Rus'), God bless Holy Russia. God bless Christian Europe and may He restore it and purify by chastisement.

From Burgos to Plymouth to Dublin to Vienna to Rome to Stettin to Danzig to Königsberg to L'viv (Lwów) to Warszawa to Moscow. And from thence around the world.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

Why is Mr Palad and Rorate Caeli questioning the validity of these consecrations, and why are they - without any in-depth knowledge - already ridiculing these bishops' efforts or choices taken in conscience? I thought Rorate-Caeli was a traditional Roman Catholic blog, with objective reports without any prior condemnations, as can be seen at more neo-conned sites.

I think these priests know who is a valid bishop of their UGCC and who consecrated them. They did not seek consecration just like that from a weirdo. I think again, it is the recently deposed, very orthodox Catholic Exarch of Buhac.

Rorate-Caeli please maintain objectivity first. This is your strenght!

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Why is Mr Palad and Rorate Caeli questioning the validity of these consecrations, and why are they - without any in-depth knowledge - already ridiculing these bishops' efforts or choices taken in conscience? I thought Rorate-Caeli was a traditional Roman Catholic blog, with objective reports without any prior condemnations, as can be seen at more neo-conned sites.

I think these priests know who is a valid bishop of their UGCC and who consecrated them. They did not seek consecration just like that from a weirdo. I think again, it is the recently deposed, very orthodox Catholic Exarch of Buhac."

Mr. Wojtiech, did you carefully read the post? I most certainly tried to be as objective as possible in describing the crisis. Precisely because I am trying to be as objective as possible here, I mentioned that "there are questions" about the validity of the ordinations. These questions have nothing to do with Rorate Caeli upholding Traditional Catholicism, and have everything to do with the fact that NO ONE even knows WHO the consecrating bishop REALLY is. At least, in the reports I consulted for this post, there is no conclusive proof as to WHO ordained the four. Even you can only say that "YOU THINK" it is the deposed Exarch of Bicach. That is NOT proof.

In genuine Traditional Catholicism, I still have to hear about the identity of a consecrator being hidden, in a situation where there is no danger of physical violence against the consecrator. It is not as if the FSB is waiting in the shadows to liquidate whoever the consecrating bishop was.

The four SSPX bishops were certainly consecrated in the clear light of day and everybody knew WHO consecrated them. Even the SSPV and Thucite bishops do not hide who consecrated them. At the very least, the fact that the identity of the consecrating bishop is being hidden does not aid the credibility of the four new bishops' cause, regardless of their love for the Catholic Church.

Again, regarding objectivity: it is precisely the reason why I have NEITHER labeled the new bishops as "schismatics", NOR definitively sided with them in their campaign against Cardinal Husar. I have scrupuously tried to avoid favoring any one side in my description of the events, preferring to chronicle the events as the LOOK from the outside, and reporting the statements and opinions of both sides. I do not think this is the place for me to editorialize regarding who is right or wrong between the two sides -- although I certainly have my opinions regarding this crisis.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

I apologize then for reading things into your post, Mr Palad. Sorry. But I think writing "bishops" instead of bishops, seems like a judgement.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

http://www.apostolische-nachfolge.de/ukraine.htm

Eine Sonderstellung nehmen drei weitere Geheimbischöfe ein. Am 2. April 1977 konsekrierte Kardinal Slipyj alleine (andere Quellen nennen als Mitkonsekratoren die Bischöfe Isidore Borecky und Ivan Prasko) und ohne päpstliches Mandat Ivan Choma, Stefan Czmil und Lubomyr Husar. Diese Weihen fanden in Castel Gandolfo statt und verursachten beträchtliche Irritationen. Erst am 22.02.1996 wurden diese Bischöfe anerkannt; Hintergrund von Slipyjs Schritt war offensichtlich der Wille, seine Autarkie als Patriarch zu manifestieren. Keiner der drei Bischöfe war in der Ukraine tätig. Bischof Husar ist heute Oberhaupt der ukrainischen Kirche und Kardinal-Großerzbischof von Kyiv-Halyc.

A special position three further clandestine bishops occupy. On April 2nd, 1977 Cardinal Slipyj consecrated on his own (other sources mention co-consecrators Isidore Borecky and Ivan Prasko) and without the pontifical mandate Ivan Choma, Stefan Czmil and Lubomyr Husar. These Consecrations took place in Castel Gandolfo [Papal Summer Residence in Italy] and cause considerable irritations [at the Vatican]. Only on February 2nd, 1996 were these bishops recognized; background of the action of Slipyj ostensibly was to manifest his autarky as Patriarch [of Kievan Rus']. None of the three consecrated bishops were active as secret bishops in the Ukraine [at the time]. Bishop Husar is now Head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Cardinal-Major Archbishop of Kiev-Halyc.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

the problems in the Ukrainian Church are more complicated than just latinization and easternization.

I do not think anyone here would oppose the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church going back or introducing even the Nikonian Slavonic Byzantine Rite edition, or a Medieval form, or some more recent but Church Slavonic liturgy, with all the iconostasis and Byzantine splendour. No orthodox Catholic Eastern bishop would either.

One note: the Rosary is not a Latinization, nor is kneeling in that region per se. It was an influence already from the Middle Ages (Latin Slovaks neighbouring them). And the Stations of the Cross should never be forbidden as something "Latin". The Rosary is universal too, although one can also say the Byzantine Rite variation on the prayer, with 150 Hail Marys too.

Those are old categories that have metamorphasize and pollarized along other lines.

It has come to mean that those maintaining all Catholic dogma are "Latinized", while those favouring Cerularian schismatism allege they are "Eastern". Nonsense. One can (legitimately) de-Latinize, while upholding Church Slavonic, and also respecting the Holy Rosary, and yet remaining doctrinally Catholic. Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation, not dialogue with Alexej II. (Per se. I really do respect the separated Russian Orthodox, but not to imitate their doctrinal errors or their schism.)

this particular group springs from the cancerous body of the Ukrainian Basilian Order, once the bastion of fidelity to the Pope.

These four bishops are not cancerous elements, they are confused and act in necessity of conscience as far as I can judge. Since when is opposing theological modernism and false ecumenism with heresy and schism, and deposing the Council of Trent or the Council of Florence as non-ecumenical, to be "not faithful to the pope"? Yes, the Balamand Agreement. But I hold Pope Paul IV and Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent and the (first) Council of the Vatican to be more sacred, than the ecumenist compromise tactics of John Paul II and certain modern cardinals. And more binding in conscience too. The Balamand Agreement was a mistake, a grave error, bordering on or even favouring heresies.

In it, for ecumenical purposes, the phenomenon of recognizing converted Catholic, in communion with the Apostolic See remaining, Christians of the East as proper particular Churches in the Catholic Church (which IS the Church of JEsus Christ, Orientalium ecclesiarium [Vatican II], par. 2), was condemned as a wrong thing.

Of course converting the entire Moscow Patriarchate is better, like at the Council of Florence, but that does not mean the Eastern Catholic Christians cannot have their own Catholic particular Churches recognized by the Pope.

So many martyrs for Unity between East and West are thus trampled under own neo-modernistic, ungrateful foot. And I mention Walter Kasper and Sandri by name too...

stanislas wojtiech said...

The Per Christum Blog sadly is very ecumenist, and has an Orthodox separated priest as a contributor. Of course they attack these new four bishops who oppose false ecumenism and who uphold Catholic dogma against Orthodox denial of these....

The Per Christum ancient-future.net blog (of "future Catholics" - whát future, I ask myself? a pan-religious world union of all creeds and religions by dialogue?) is not a reliable source.

It also knows nothing of Eastern Canon Law, as it claims the bishops are already ipso facto excommunicated, which is impossible under the new OECIC (Eastern Code of Canon Law).... (A tribunal must be first set up)...

Nevertheless I fear that modern Rome will condemn these four. And what will they do then????

As for the principal consecrator of these four, he is unknown. But as with other secret bishops from the communist underground period, I dare say that even Husar was not recognized by the Vatican until 1996. More than 19 years after his consecration which took place at Castel Gandolfo, before the pope's front door at the summer residence almost!

Klasztor said...

"As I can judge..."

Mr. Wojtech, if you knew these men personally and their story more accurately, you would not be so quick to defend them. They are not pro SSPX and, in fact, describes themselves as charismatic. They are a strange mix of traditionalism and other things from the cupboard of marvels which has so often manifested itself in the former Czechoslovachia.

A Simple Sinner said...

"The Per Christum Blog sadly is very ecumenist, and has an Orthodox separated priest as a contributor. Of course they attack these new four bishops who oppose false ecumenism and who uphold Catholic dogma against Orthodox denial of these.... "

Stanislas how are we "ecumenist" and where do we have an Orthodox seperated priest as a contributor?

Who is he? This are out contributors:

David Bennett - Catholic convert
Jennifer - Catholic cradle
asimplesinner - Catholic cradle
Fr. J. - Catholic
Chad Toney - Catholic convert
Jorge Flores - Catholic cradle
Jonathan B - Catholic convert
carmelbennett - Catholic convert
nicenehobbit - Catholic convert
Jason S - Catholic
jaybird68 - Catholic convert
papaz - Catholic convert

So who is this Orthodox priest that is part of our ecumenist movement? Where are out blog have you seen any evidence of a "Orthodox separated priest" to out blog? Where do you see this mytery Orthodox seperated priest contributor to Per Christum?

You don't, sir, because we do not have one.

The Per Christum ancient-future.net blog (of "future Catholics" - whát future, I ask myself? a pan-religious world union of all creeds and religions by dialogue?) is not a reliable source. "

We certainly are a reliable souce, ad hominem attacks won't change that. One is left to wonder who is "stanislas wojtiech and what makes him a reliable judge?"

Please demonstrate with citations from the blog the utterly ridiculous, baseless, and invective claim you make "a pan-religious world union of all creeds and religions by dialogue?"

That is another thing you will not be able to do, because it is not true. I doubt very much you had ever been to our blog before you read this. That is the most charitable explination I can come up with your your scathing ignorance on who and what we are.

Anonymous said...

Klasztor, thank you very much for your comment, which clarifies some points. I was already worried when I read on the French Forum Catholique a note from a certain Prudencio, in which he says that these bishops are close to the SSPX. PRUDENCIO, si me lees eres un calumniador.

Klasztor said...

You're welcome. The fact is that this strange group share some opinions of the SSPX but they are completely an animal of their own. For instance, they have no concept of what "new age" means, and confuse it with modernism. I am almost certain that Bilyk had anything to do with their ordinations.

Klasz said...

I mean had NOTHING to do with their ordinations.

A Simple Sinner said...

"The Per Christum Blog sadly is very ecumenist, and has an Orthodox separated priest as a contributor. Of course they attack these new four bishops who oppose false ecumenism and who uphold Catholic dogma against Orthodox denial of these.... "

BTW, for the record most of that post is from the press release of the men claiming to be bishops - if you feel it is an attack, your issue is with them...

Ad hominem attacks on us aside, do you support Catholics demonstrating their loyalty to Rome with unmandated episcopal consecrations?

stanislas wojtiech said...

How I came to that conclusion? Because of this post:
http://blog.ancient-future.net/2008/03/28/guess-who-wrote-this/#more-1158

Why are the Orthodox and Catholic Faith considered the same by a Catholic priest. They are officially not the same. Sadly. This is not correct ecumenism. Ecumenism must be targetted towards unity in truth, that is by converting the Orthodox churches to Catholic communion and to profession of Catholic dogma, including papal primacy and a correct understanding of the Filióque.

And because of the biased report about these four bishops consecrated under pressure of their own conscience facing the present immense, hugest Crisis ever in our beloved universal, apostolic, Catholic and Roman Church.

False ecumenism, theological modernism, New Age, immorality, they are rampant in the modern Vatican too.

@SimpleSinner:
No I do not think it is wise, but there are scenarios thinkable of the obligation in conscience to take such steps, when the sanctification duty if no longer performed by any official shepherds and if they unanimously poison the Christian Faithful with schismatic or heretical sermons and spirits.

The question of course is: whát is Rome today? Where does pope Benedict XVI come from? What is the vision of "unity" and "unity of all Christians"? Is is unity in Catholic truth, or some kind of compromise. Do you know Benedict XVI in 2005 in Cologne said he did not want the "ecumenism of return" to the Catholic Church, but some other unity? Who appointed all these bishops?

stanislas wojtiech said...

I apologize for the incorrect statement about the contributor of the Per Christum blog. I formally apologize and say I am sorry.

But the ecumenical and unclear tendency at this blog, remain. Where is there a call for conversion of the separated Orthodox and Protestants, where a call for conversion of Jews etc?

The typical neo-conservative forms of post-conciliar catholicism confuse the faithful, because no longer clear commands and dogmas orient them.

Carlos Palad said...

I've somewhat modified the OP.

A Simple Sinner said...

I accept your apology over the error you made on our contributor ship. I am now going to offer you an opportunity to retract or clarify some new misleading statements you have made about us and our character.

"Why are the Orthodox and Catholic Faith considered the same by a Catholic priest. They are officially not the same. Sadly. This is not correct ecumenism. "

That Catholic priest - along with myself - have been banned from several "ecumenical" and "open Orthodox" forums for expressing our loyalty and allegiance to the truth of the Catholic Faith and the authority of the Pope of Rome.

The post we did on the writing of Pat. Athenagorus was actually a bit of a rebuttle against some Orthodox we were debating who like to pretend that Orthodoxy has a coherent, cohesive, cogent, unified stance on the Catholic Church. Truly it does not!

That is why the Pat. of Const. took the Johnstone Greek Catholics "into Orthodoxy" with the stroke of a pen, whereas a few decades later, monks who were - supposedly - beholden to the Pat. of Const. on Mt. Athos would actually insist on re-baptizing Catholic priests and even Orthodox priests who had been baptized by Catholics!

So don't go thinking that because we posted a quote of an Orthodox Patriarch that confounded the "common wisdom" of some EO who were trying to paint their position as unified... Don't go thinking we are indifferentist or into false ecumenical initiatives. In fact just the opposite - we have been working to refute anti-papal claims in EO and sadly, even in Eastern Catholic circles for some time. That was posted to demonstrate that the anti-Roman sentiments and contrarian and contradistinctive attitudes found in the East are NOT mandated and anti-Catholic parties who labor in Orthodoxy to try to present them as such do so out of ignorance or hate.

Again, this has gotten us banned for "not being ecumenical" or "being polemic".

Note that we were the first blog to write about - and support - Mar Bawai Soro and his petition to enter unia with the Holy See out of the Church of the East which has been in schism for 16 centuries!

"But the ecumenical and unclear tendency at this blog, remain. Where is there a call for conversion of the separated Orthodox and Protestants, where a call for conversion of Jews etc? "

No, Stanley, they do not.

If you think we are not calling for the conversion of all non-Catholics, you are simply NOT reading us, but only cherry-picking quotes you think support your false argument that we are "neo-conservative false ecumenists". I don't get the impression you have read one single Post related to Orthodoxy. You must clearly have ignored all of the work in reference to the Greek Catholics and the Greek Catholic and English Martyrs...

I doubt you ever read a single word of all the material we have covered - as volunteer bloggers mostly made up of converts from false creeds to the Frue Faith - about Humanae Vitae...

I don't follow a lot of dissident and repudiators of the Catholic faith in the blogosphere. Are they currently writing a lot about Humanae Vita or posting the hagiographies of martyrs for Catholic Unia? Are they? I hadn't seen it!

If you are unhappy with the fact that out of almost 1000 post we don't begin each one with "All Jews, Orthodox, Protestants, Heretics and Pagans must convert!" before we write about the necessity of adhearing to Humanae Vitae... Well maybe you should start your own blog. No one who reads us - actually reads us - and follows the comboxes and posts - would ever think we are "false ecumenists" as we call for conversions to the Catholic faith and regularly challenge our non-Catholic readers to make haste to become Catholic for the good of their souls.

Maybe spend some time actually reading our blog before you accuse us of such ridiculous falsehoods.

Better still, if you want to write these libelous things about us, come do it at our blog - we will set the record straight for you every time.

Go after the REAL false ecumenists - we are not them.

stanislas wojtiech said...

I retract, I retract. Apologies again. Your position has been clarified. I was confused though by several articles. Nevertheless, thank you for your clarification. But I would also like to point out that the denial of the Filióque (Holy Ghost from Father and Son as from one principle, Ecumenical Council of Lyon 1274) and Roman primacy, as well as (in case of the Monophysites) the human nature of Our Lord Jesus Christ in perfect hypostasis with His Divine nature in the Divine Second Person of the Trinity, are heresies. With the Church of the East or the Chaldean Nestorian church, things are different, and linguistical difficulties and Persian agitation historically caused the schism. I am glad you support conversions back to Catholic unity from the separated churches, ecclesial communities and incorrect religions.

But please, watch out for the false one-world-ideology of e.g. Focoláre and Chiara Lubich, and of the Assisi Interreligious Prayer Conferences (1986 and 2002), which alienated many sincere Christians from the Catholic Church, because there pope John Paul II and sadly even the Roman Catholic Church as such, were associated with pan-religious ideologies, syncretism, indifferentism, and other anti-dogmatic Masonic concepts of religion and Truth.

And continue to cover the resurrection of the traditional Roman Rite.

I remain confused, not about you, but about the former theological works of Joseph Ratzinger as a theologian. Principles of Christianity e.g. and 2005 when he called for non-dissolution of Protestant sects and claimed Protestantism today is no longer a heresy, and that the papal primacy could not be demanded from the Eastern separated Christians.... Do you know how many sincere Catholics are driven intellectually into sedevacantism because of the post-conciliar popes, the ambiguity and contradictions (seemingly?) in the Second Vatican Council, the liturgical deform (with protestants in the Consilium), the uncertain changes to the New revised Rite for Episcopal Ordination (1968), the doctrinal changes and a pope kissing the Quran.

I admit I was too embittered towards you. I apologize again. I should more presume good faith, although one is often saddened or cynicalized....

Anonymous said...

Something tells me that 'bishop' Richard Williamson of the society of Lefebrve may be behind the so called illicit 'episcopal ordinations.'

Jamie

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Dear Jamie;

Richard Williamson of the SSPX may be too extreme in many of his views for more than a few (I daresay most) Catholic Traditionalists, but he is most assuredly a true, validly consecrated bishop. And he has not, to my knowledge, denied a single dogma of the Catholic Faith -- unlike not a few bishops.

I too have heard of this angle, but I haven't seen a shred of proof that would go towards substantiating this claim. If you have any proof, you are welcome to post it here.

stanislas wojtiech said...

Do not bother. Jamie seems like a typical neo-conned moderately modernized Catholic who thinks he has to imitate everything the post-Vatican II popes did or allowed to happen, as something "from the divine John Paul II". And then of course the Society of St. Pius X goes from controversial and irregularized to "schismatic" and auxiliary bishop Richard Williamson FSSPX becomes a pseudo-bishop to them. After all, for a valid sacramental consecration under the New Regime no longer Words of Institution seem necessary, but to be a valid bishop you will have to have a personal blessing from the Ecumenical and Charismatic John Paul II of the new revived New-Catholic religion of Vatican II....

It is their line of thought. Not mine.

The SSPX would never consecrate bishops "in the secret", nor at this stage. Maybe only once e.g. Williamson and Tissier de Mallerais die, or if a huge Third World War occurs cutting off all inter-national and inter-continental means of transport. Only then. Under a new emergency. But to them, for now this emergency situation does not exist. And Bp. Williamson himself ordained in the (true, traditional!) Roman Rite five Byzantine Rite Ukrainian Catholic priests of the Society of St. Josaphat Kuncevyc at Warsaw (Poland), last October. Out in the open. He would never consecrate without any public attendance or publication. Episcopal consecrations are an act of the universal holy, apostolic Catholic and Roman Church of which Bp. Williamson wants to be a faithful member, as he sees compromise and material heresy in Vatican II and the post-1965 line of practice of the "new, revised Vatican". But he upholds all Roman Catholic dogma.

In the neo-Catholic opinion of course one can be a Muslem and a member of Opus Dei, and better than a Roman Catholic "schismatic", paid by the Church as a Muslem, but do not dare to receive Confirmation from a "schismatic" bishop (sacramental bishop, the SSPX does not claim ordinary jurisdiction). Then you are out in the "We are Faithful to the Pope and especially the Divine, Great Pope John Paul II and the Vatican II Rite and Vatican II Reforms Church" and Holier-than-thou world of these neo-conned people.

They mostly err in good faith, I know. And I consider them my erring brethren, but I do think I have to wake them. I was once a "Pope-faithful pro-Vatican II" ecumenical Catholic too, until realizing the (tendency to) rupture even in the highest place of the Vatican and Holy See hierarchy. Up until Paul VI and John Paul II themselves.... And now up until including Benedict XVI himself.

Anyway, the SSPX is not behind these consecrations and is not a secret bishops' network like those existing in former Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, because the Vatican in 1991 denied honour to the secret clergy and martyr churches, in order to thank Gorbachev and other "ex"-Communists.

Anonymous said...

Look Stanislas this guy Williamson would never have been a regular priest within the Church let alone a Bishop ! He thinks he is a catholic traditionist but in reality is no more than a 'protestant' relying on subjective judgement on questions like authority. He rejects in practical terms, although he of course would deny it, the Primac of the See of Rome on questions of faith and morals. I would never ever accept any 'sacraments' from him even if I were dying !
Just wait and see he is behind those illicit, illegal and possibily invalid episcopal ordinations. You say that Williamson does everything publicly - well let me tell you he has 'repeated' so called ordinations in secret on priests ordained in the New Rite of Pope Paul VI. This I know for certain.
Truely,

Jamie

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"You say that Williamson does everything publicly - well let me tell you he has 'repeated' so called ordinations in secret on priests ordained in the New Rite of Pope Paul VI. This I know for certain..."

This is not surprising since the SSPX is already on record as stating that it is reserving the right to conditionally ordain priests (after examining each individual case) who were originally ordained according to the rite of Paul VI. Had these conditional ordinations been performed, nobody should be surprised.

Some faithful from the SSPX have also told me that Bishop Williamson performed conditional ordinations in the Philippines, but I have yet to see solid proof that these indeed happened.

Anonymous said...

Dear Carlos,

Only the relevant Roman Congregation has the compenance to decide whether or not a Sacrament is Valid and not the society of Lefebvre or Williamson . They are usurping then the Authority of the Roman Congregation.

Jamie

Matthew W. I. Dunn said...

stanislas wojtiech said...
Do not bother.


Exactly. Why bother talking about something you clearly have no experience of? I canonically transferred from the Roman Church to the UGCC several years ago while living in Toronto, ON.

Most of the people here (including yourself) don't seem to be members of the UGCC . . . yet, feel comfortable making all sorts of comments and judgments about what it should be teaching; what are and are not its legitimate traditions; what its relationship to the Holy and Ecumenical Pontiff is; etc. and so forth; how it should view itself in regards to the Orthodox churches. But, this is how many Roman Catholics have operated for centuries: telling the East what it could do and what it should believe.

The UGCC is a church sui juris just like the Roman Church. So, yes, don't bother.

Anonymous said...

I was at the Ukrainian Catholic Seminary in DC. I left specifically because of these things. The disbelief in hell, real sin, modernizations in the liturgy. As well as theologically, Kung and Rahner take stage now. It seems than any heresy rejected and fought in the east, is now required to be eastern.