Jump to content

Talk:Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Dear Lima, please note that: "as long as reconciliation with the Holy See has not been achieved" has got nothing to do with the SSPX Priests. A good number of them retain an incardination in a French or Swiss diocese, never revoked since the 1970s. The most famous example of this is Fr. Aulagnier. (Some German examples are there too. Only Fr. Schmidberger was dis-incardinated) These are all, though officially part of the SSPX, legally able and allowed to confer the Sacraments in their diocese and others, even if most French bishops would not allow them to do so in the traditional Roman Rite and wanted them to use the reformed liturgical books. But please note that your formulations tend to allege too much. Maybe Gantin and some of the French bishops like such formulations, but they are beyong reality. I advise you to e-mail Fr. Aulagnier: he knows the names all SSPX Priests retaining an incardination in a certain diocese. Until that, please leave my formulation in. (And please note: I know of delegations for marriage and even Mass conferred upon non-incardinated SSPX priests in the Netherlands, UK, Ireland and Spain. So the generalizing saying "they are not allowed to function" is incorrect in EVERY CASE, even if applicable to the SSPX Masses in their own chapels normally.)Smith2006 15:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I'm dear to Smith2006. Let us discuss the question amicably. I, with no doubt excessive simplicity, thought that in this context "SSPX priests" meant priests ordained by the SSPX bishops, like the two St Josaphat priests who have been told they cannot function in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. My little mind never gave a thought to those other (less numerous?)priests who, after being duly incardinated by ordination into a diocese, later joined SSPX. Smith2006 tells me that the Father Aulagnier who last September reconciled with the Holy See is one of these latter priests. (Or are we thinking of two different Aulagniers?) In fact, it seems that the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, though wiser than I am, thought the way I did, when he wrote: "The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated." I have no idea of the exact canonical situation of the priests Smith2006 has in mind and imagine it may well vary from individual to individual; I simply bow to Smith2006's knowledge of the matter and only ask him to explain to me the difference between the position of SSPX-ordained priests (new phrasing) and that of the two Ukrainian priests in question?
Between us, and with the help of others too, we should be able to keep improving this article. So I make bold to try out a rephrasing of the formulation that he has asked me to leave in, a rephrasing that I hope Smith 2006 will find not incorrect. Lima 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a rephrasing must be done, as even priests ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre himsélf in Ecône until 1976 were incardinated occasionally. Aulagnier was a founding member of the SSPX and ordained by Abp. Lefebvre too.Smith2006 17:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionalist? I think not

[edit]

The reforms of the Ukrainian Church are not the reforms of the latins. Ukrainians as well as the rest of the Churches of the East have been charged with a traditionalist set of marching orders, to turn (gently, gently) our forms and devotions to eastern modes and let western imports fall by the wayside, disused in our churches. The SSJ are the modernists in this fight, supporting the introduction and continued observance of outside elements that were imported in order to create more division between Eastern Churches in communion with Rome and those who remain outside Rome's formal orbit. These introductions have a few decades or at most a few centuries of observance and the older forms, the one that Vatican II promotes often are over a millenium in age.

The SSPX's traditionalism is a curious one and its hypocrisy shows up exactly here, in their support for the Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat. It is a traditionalism that only wants to go back so far, to the 1950s, but not so far as to honor centuries and millenia old papal commitment to the independence, dignity, and honor that are rightly part of the Eastern Churches. This article as currently written utterly fails to capture this reality. TMLutas 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm trying to do what I can, but Latin triumphalists and pseudo-Traditionalists keep pushing their agenda. InfernoXV 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Bits

[edit]

First, I've omitted the 'Fr.' bits for two reasons. One, this article is in British English, which uses no period after a contraction. Two, there isn't a need to use honorifics all through the article.

Second, I've tried to clean up links and regularise things.

Now, the controversial bits...


No proof exists that the SSJK promotes abbreviated liturgical services, as is claimed by its opponents, except that it retains the Medieval Ruthenian custom of using a form of Low Mass during weekday celebrations if no choir is present.

Would you like to try proving that low mass is not a Latinisation and that it's a 'Mediaeval Ruthenian custom'? You won't find it happening before the 1600s, which is pretty far from the mediaeval period. Next, let's see, the SSJK uses the Basilian Chasoslov, which is severely abbreviated - 1 psalm at Matins instead of 6, omission of most stichera , a curtailed liturgical calendar, and much much more. The SSJK abbreviate the Proskomedia at Divine Liturgy, abbreviate the Antiphons to a single verse, never do the double Prokeimena/Epistles/Alleluia/Gospels as the Typikon specifies, omit Psalm 33 after Communion, and so on.

Given the continuing use of Church Slavonic in virtually all other Slavic Eastern Orthodox Churches, most notably in the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, this criticism at least has no ecumenical value in dialogue with separated Eastern Christians.

Not true. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Belarusian Orthodox Church, the Polish Orthodox Church, as well as the Orthodox Churches of Slovakia and Hungary, now make extensive use of the vernacular. Perhaps you might like to try, as did Pius X, to try to decree Greek the liturgical language of the Hungarian Greek-Catholic Church. The vernacular is the rule, and trying to enforce the use of anything that isn't the vernacular is a Latinisation.

The accusation of "eschewing the Byzantine tradition" obviously refers not to the SSPX, which has adopted no such attitude, but to Father Kovpak's championing of Latinising elements which were allowed into Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church practice since the 17th century, but slowly purged from it again since the late 1980s.

The SSPX has adopted no such attitude? Are you quite sure? I have, at this point, to ask if you're at all familiar with the Byzantine rite. Your edit history shows no effort to edit articles to do with the Eastern Churches, aside from this one. I was an SSPX chapel attendee for years, and I was frequently told that the Byzantine tradition was inferior to the Roman, and that the closer the Greek-Catholics imitated the Romans, the more Catholic they were, and that the Greek-Catholic Churches were only a means for Easterrners to become Catholic, and that one happy day, all would belong to the one same superior Roman Rite. As far as the SSPX mindset goes, the Roman rite is the Universal and superior rite as it is the rite of the Pope of Rome, and the others are merely ethnic oddities. InfernoXV 06:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility precludes a proper response but whoever told you such nonsense was very confused and quite possibly not a true Catholic. The basis of the rapprochement between the eastern sui iuris churches that spent some time apart from full communion and Rome was that such efforts would not happen and to go against this is to effectively attempt to annul the decrees of union. I like being Catholic, thank you and would hate to follow my Orthodox bretheren out in the Cold. Fortunately the Popes have not been fools and driven us out, though many of the latin bishops have not been so wise, most recently the illegally provoked schism in the US in the 20th century.
In addition, if a cleric would say such a thing he is, essentially running afoul of a papal encyclical issued in 1894 which addressed the problem of inducing a transfer of rite. Even more ambitious than stealing an individual sheep is the wholesale elimination of an entire flock. I trust that any SSPX friends monitoring this page agree that whatever rot happened, the late 1800s have no such problem? The relevant document is Orientalium Dignitas. TMLutas 15:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TMLutas, of course, my paragraphs were directed towards Smith2006, not you! =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfernoXV (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contested statements removed

[edit]
  • Teaching is given by Polish SSPX priests and by sympathetic local Greek Catholic clergy. {{Fact|date=February 2007}}
  • [The suspention] however does not apply to all priests of the SSPX. {{Fact|date=December 2006}}

Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed SSPX excommunication paragraph

[edit]

added "originating" in "[SSJK is made up of] priests and seminarians from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church" to make it more neutral. I get the feeling the article has a slight bias towards SSJK although it's worded subtly enough that nothing is unreasonable. My major edit concerns the removal of a paragraph about the SSPX bishops "unexcommunication" which was located in an area about Fr. Kovpak's excommunication. Since Fr. Kovpak's excommunication is totally unrelated to the 1988 excommunications I see no reason why to include anything about the SSPX status. Zantorzi (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Lubomyr

[edit]

Really just a small point, but Lubomyr did not act as Cardinal, but as Major Archbishop of the UGCC. That is why he could act for the excommunication of such a person. The Pope in Rome can give him all sorts of honors, but they are irrelevant. I suggest this be changed. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thesis-making

[edit]

Wherever the word "however" occurs, the article veers into an argumentative mode that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. E.g. "however, Metropolitan Andrey opposed the use of force" implies that the rise of the PSSJ is not required. But this article is not about whether delatinization is good or not, it is about the PSSJ. Likewise "The Holy See, however, has argued since before the Second Vatican Council" - this is an argument for delatinization, not relevant to this article. "However, critics[who?] claim that the essence of Eastern liturgical practice is to pray in a language which is understood by the people" - really? Do the Russians and Greeks agree?

and "In rejecting these reforms, they also reject the right of the Church authorities to make these reforms; thus who controls the formate of liturgy becomes an important point of debate." Pure original research, someone's idea that has no textual basis.

I encourage someone to edit the article keeping a clear focus on the topic of the article - not delatinization, not ecclesiology, but the PSSJ.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Priestly_Society_of_Saint_Josaphat&oldid=1201128272"