www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Lefebvrites?

As for the Orthodox, they are not in "schism." They are our "separated brethren!"

Amado

"Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

Sounds like the Orthodox to me.

The Orthodox do not submit to the Roman Pontiff only for his claim of "supreme jurisdiction."

However, the Orthodox regard the Pope as having a "primacy of honor," if not "of jurisdiction." I think they regard him as "primus inter pares," the "first among Patriarchs who presides in love."

The SSPX do not recognize the authority of the Pope, despite advertised protestations. They consider themselves as the "true Church" and not the post-Vatican 2 Catholic Church with its Novus Ordo Mass.

Amado

Wellll ... actually, technically, they ARE schismatics. But they're nicer than the SSPX so we don't hold it against them.

I have heard differently. Trent only Codified (spelling?) the liturgy. From what I understand it is the oldest liturgy, older even than the Liturgy of Saint James.

Hi,

Technically, yes.

However, we must understand this definition might not pre-date the sad events of 1054, and therefore, we cannot attach the "guilt" of that lack of communion to any member of any Orthodox Church present or past.

With regards to the Orthodox, Schism seems too strong a word. If anything, I would say we are in Schism from each other.

Shalom,
Memo

"Wellll ... actually, technically, they ARE schismatics. But they're nicer than the SSPX so we don't hold it against them."

So the unity of the Church depends on whether or not people are nice or if you like them? What a very Christian sentiment! How do you know the SSPX is so mean that you can exclude them from the Church and not the Orthodox? That is very judgemental of you.

"However, we must understand this definition might not pre-date the sad events of 1054, and therefore, we cannot attach the "guilt" of that lack of communion to any member of any Orthodox Church present or past.

With regards to the Orthodox, Schism seems too strong a word. If anything, I would say we are in Schism from each other."

Huh? This is fuzzy logic at its best.

So if you are born into an SSPX household, you are not a schismatic, then, by your logic?

I'm pretty sure the definition of "schism" has not changed since 1054.

"Schism from each other"? Who is the authority that needs to be submitted to for there to be a schism in the first place? This is a total non sequitur.

In the case of the SSPX, THEY are the ones who are judgmental, not the Catholic Church.

By ordaining their own bishops WITHOUT the approval or assent of the Pope, which is the regular way of doing "it" in the Latin Church, they have arrogated unto themselves the "authority" in the Church ad versus!

Amado

Hi,


Not by my logic, that is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually says.

Well, the problem is you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

The SSPX was originally an organization within the Latin Church, and they violated the legitimate Code of Canon Law and, in doing that, placed themselves in schism.

The Orthodox were never part of the Latin Church, they have always been their own churches Sui Iuris, and therefore, the relationship between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Churches should be one of fraternal communion, not one of canonical authority.

That is why using the same word to describe both situations of lack of communion is misleading at best.

Shalom,
Memo

The Eastern Catholics would not exist if the Roman church didn't believe the Orthodox are in schism.

Andrew

[edited to add the groups that came back during the Counter-Reformation specifically that is]

Theist Gal,

No, being a Roman Catholic is not all about believing the Pope to be infallible in every decision he makes. Ask any of the Eastern Catholics here; they're certainly fans of conciliarity and the de-centralization of the Catholic Church. Any, the stuff contained in Humane Vitae is the perennial dogmatic Teaching of the Church; the consecration of the four SSPX bishops is not at all analogous.

Memo,

Your post confuses me. Of course the Orthodox weren't ever part of the Latin Church but, as we see it, they were part of the Catholic Church. "The Latin Church" is not synonymous with "the Catholic Church."

I've heard this argument before, the one that says, "Well we can't really term the Orthodox 'schismatic' like we can the clergy of the SSPX because the Orthodox of today are simply born into it, whereas the SSPX was founded just 17 years ago and so are schismatics by their own free will." This is funny because, for one thing, there have been people born into the SSPX since then (anybody 17 years old or less!), and in a very, very short time, according to this reasoning, we can no longer call the SSPX "schismatic," for the majority of its members will have been born into the group, like the Orthodox.

It's picking and choosing, pure and simple.

And, for the record, I certainly do agree that many SSPX-ers are fanatical. At the same time, it is unfair to generalize and this cannot be said of many of them. We could say the same about ROCOR, but why should we? Many "Novus Ordo" Catholics are fanatically modernist and liberal - so what? That doesn't invalidate the entire group!

The Traditional Latin Mass predates St. Gregory the Great, although he left indelible marks on the Liturgy (good ones!).

Logos Teen

Uh, Teen, no it is not complicated. Every competent authority thinks they are in schism. Only they will tell you differently.
And there clearly is a distinction between folks whose ancestors broke communion [though I know it was not that simple] a thousand years ago and those who broke communion oh, fifteen minutes ago.
-Daniel

The little contact I had with the Pope Pius X society allowed me to witness a grave confusion. They are ultrapapalists--Vatican I is their creed, BUT they vehemently maintain that the chair of Peter is vacant and only antipopes rule the church. Yet how do they come to this nonrecognition...why, by the opinion of a bishop or two who now sit in judgement over popes?! See what I mean. And, oh, they love calling Orthodox heretics and schismatics too...by extension they make no distinction for Eastern riters who use "heretical rites." LOL!

Andrew,

Certainly at the time of the unions the Latin Church felt the Eastern Orthodox were in schism. While this belief has changed, that does not change the fact that there now exist Eastern Christians in communion with Rome who cannot be forced out of communion with Rome in order to achieve a greater union with the Orthodox. The Orthodox are asking that, Eastern Catholics, against their consciences, be forcefully reintergrated into their sister Orthodox counterparts, not have communion with Rome and then reunion talks can start in order to achieve what we Eastern Catholics already have: communion with Rome.

This position is in my view ridiculous, untenable, and unjust.

Fr. Deacon Lance