www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Encyclical Allatae Sunt

Andrew,

What an interesting quote on female acolytes! That is the first time I have ever seen that.

Here is another quote from CCC 817 on schism:

Another quote from CCC 838:

How does one define "little" in this case?

Gordo

Gordo, dont be tempted to over define. "Little" is one of those intangibles we dont need to worry about. Just pray it is smaller than we think.

I would think the "little" part is in 2089 itself, which actually represents rather a lot. I would also say if 838 is true, it is true for both sides.

Andrew

I do have to make a comment here on the use of the word "schismatic". About two or three years ago, I read an article in an arch-Traditionalist RC journal by the late journalist Michael Davies, a convert to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism, and a one-time defender of Abp. Marcel Lefevbre. He was taking to task some of the other authors concerning the use of the term "schismatic" when referring to Eastern Orthodox. He quoted a document by a pre-Vatican II Pope (it may have been Pius XI)to the effect that Catholics must stop using that term when referring to Eastern Orthodox. This from a Traditionalist RC Journal (The Remnant) quoting a pre-Vatican II Pope.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Amen! I agree. And it can be buried next to the term "dissident" as well, ala the writings of James Likoudis. I recall reading the words of the Servant of God Pope John Paul II to the effect that "schism" was too strong a word to describe the divisions within the communion of our churches.

Pope John Paul the Great, ora pro nobis!

Gordo

The term itself I have seen still in commun use in traditionalist circles. Actually yesterday I was looking at a blog someone from the FSSP had put together of Catholic Churches in a city near where my family is from. One caption made note of the "schismatic Russian Orthodox Church".

The term actually seems irrelevant to me. The underlying principle is what is important. If either side believes it holds the fullness of faith while the other does not, it has to view the other as being in schism. Whether one subjectively views the margin of schism as wide or narrow.

The Catechism makes clear the Orthodox are in schism from the perspective of the RCC, whether or not there is a preference to use the term itself.

Andrew

In recent years (like the last 500), Catholic authorities have made distinctions between those directly and personally guilty of schism and/or heresy, and those born into churches/ecclesial communities which were the results of those actions. In the latter case, you would hear the term "material heretic", as opposed to "formal heretic". A "material heretic" might be someone born into a Calvinist family, who attended a Calvinist church, and had no obvious reason to doubt that he/she had the fullness of truth. That person is not assumed to be personally guilty of the sin of heresy, unless he consciously and knowingly rejects the truth, and elects to stay in error, despite the promptings of his/her conscience. A "material heretic" of good will, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, can be saved. The same goes to those born into a schismatic Church, but who are of good will. It is because "God reads what is in the heart". I heard one Opus Dei priest make the statement, with which I agree, that "God judges us by how we respond to the lights He gives us".

BTW, the reason that, in recent years, Catholics have been cautioned not to use terms like "schismatic" and "heretic" when referring to non-Catholic bodies, is for the sake of being charitable, especially concerning those not formally and personally guilty of schism and/or heresy (in the eyes of the Catholic Church). Charity toward all is the first, and most important virtue. If there is a firm commitment to Christian unity, how can one expect good results while, at the same time, using provocative, uncharitable, and accusatory language? The preferred way for a Catholic to describe our relations with Eastern Orthodoxy is that there is a "state of schism", or a "lack of full communion". It is recognized that, in the Great Schism, there was guilt on the part of both parties.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Hmmm, I have to say I find invincible ignorance to be a doctrine that can be stretched, interpreted and applied in so many different ways that it�s almost without meaning. That's probably a different discussion though.

Anyhoo

Which I think just points out this is an issue of semantics. Members of a church that are in a church in �a state of schism� are by extension themselves in a state of schism, whether or not you want to argue they have some form of personal culpability for this. The catechism itself says the Orthodox for instance lack the fullness of faith. You can put a nice face on that, but it does mean in schism.

It may not be considered prudent, wise or charitable for traditionalists or anybody else to call the Orthodox schismatics. Nobody has showed me they are fundamentally wrong though, at least in terms of the substance of their belief apart from how it is communicated.

Andrew

This one cuts both ways. I got the following from the OCA website. It is the Q&A section, where Fr.John Matusiak answers questions about Orthodoxy. What I am posting is part of a question asked of Fr. John relative to the "branch theory", and Fr. Matusiak's assertion that Orthodoxy possesses the fullness of the Faith:

In an answer to the question "Is the Orthodox church anti-Roman Catholic" you stated that: "We continue to pray for unity while, at the same time, rejecting any notion that Orthodox Christianity is just one of many 'branches' or 'expressions' of Christianity. To believe this would be to reject our understanding of Orthodoxy as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."

In another spot, Matusiak points out that Catholics will say that Orthodox broke from Catholicism, while Orthodox will say that Catholics broke from Orthodoxy. The bottom line is that restoration of unity will not be easy, and that the first order of things is to be charitable.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Both churches view the other as being in schism. You will definitely get no disagreement from me on that account Fr. Deacon. I agree with you charity is essential, as is honesty.

Andrew

One might, in the spirit of the Christ, ask if the schism is one which is soul destroying in its substance, a substantially objective evil, or if it is at the magnitude of a bickering between siblings?

I think that we've been both at times in our seperateness -in the actions of some of our members-, but I do not think that the rupture has been or is soul threatening in a substantial way throughout the entire Body for the duration of the excepted communion.

One of the things that is always necessary to remember is how we are Church. We are all as individuals and we are as individuals in the divine All.

As each member acts in sin, so the Body is wounded by the acts of each one, in so far as we all are individuals in one Body. But the Church as the Body is not equivalent to the sum of her parts.

The Body of Christ [the universal Church] is not marked with the sin of all for His very Body heals, cleanses, washes whiter than snow. The real question for me in all of this is "How long should we presume on that mercy while knowing in our hearts that we are wrong?"

I won't elaborate here on why we may be able, even now to be as one, primarily because it has been done elsewhere at great length and far better than I could do now.

My goal in this post is to lead one away from a literalist interpretation of schism, to one of order, meaning and magnitude. It is there, resolving those questions, praying for healing of those wounds, where the two confessions, Catholic and Orthodox Catholic, can meet as one, even now, if we choose to do so.

Eli