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

And the rite of Trent was the Franciscan rendition of the Liturgy of St. Gregory which dated back to the Gelasian sacramentary, but the rite of the Leonine Sacramentary which predated was more Gallican in form. In no way possible is this rite older than the the Antiochian school of Liturgy which contributed to its eventual formation, but it (the rite of Rome), specifically is the product of the Alexandrian school, from whence its Canon derives, which developed after the Antiochian school by a few years.

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

I agree with what you say, but I wish to add my thoughts to this matter.

The fact is that the "Unias" have been discredited by even RC theologians in our day - they repent that they even happened and say they are not models for future reunion.

And still we "Uniates" have the right to exist, everyone agrees with that (Thank you, everyone! ).

Our bishops up here recently issued a document urging parishes to drop the "Filioque."

Those Ukrainian Orthodox I've met say they are thrilled with this etc.

Many of our people already say the only real difference they see between our Churches is the pope - and this they ascribe to "historical politics."

And the RC theology recognizes Orthodoxy etc.

What would be so wrong if the EC's reunited with their Mother Orthodox Churches?

Is this a question of repudiating Rome - or is it one of correcting an historic wrong that we can't seem to overcome even in today's ecumenical climate?

What would be so wrong?

Alex

Fr. Deacon Lance, I was simply stating that clearly the church of Rome believed the Orthodox were/are in schism. Otherwise the churches of the Byzantine tradition now in communion with Rome would not exist.

I don't myself believe, nor do I know of anybody personally who believes, coercion is going to be a way to fix the problems of the past.

Andrew

[fixed sentence.]

Kollyvas,

You've got it right that the SSPX loves to throw "schismatic" at the Orthodox.

The schism that exists between the Orthodox and the Catholics is indeed different, I would posit. This is because both Churches walked away from each other, at a time when we didn't view the Pope as we do now -- now, Latins see the Latin Church as a rigid hierarchy and anyone who doesn't fit into that is heterodox. This has to do with historical development, especially with regards to the Protestant reformation. Things are much freer and idependent in the East (for better and for worse), and so the strict adherence to an idea of perfect hierarchy doesn't apply. And historically, while the West developped its rigid hierarchy, the East had the Empire for authority and the clergy for spiritual matters -- they were combined in the Roman Church in the West, especially in Rome at various times. Rome NEEDED a strong central figure, and found it in the Pope. Quite a different history and so a different view of authority in the East.

That being said, many Latins (especially trads) will contend the Orthodox are ultra-schismatic because they refuse the authority of the Pope -- an authority that really grew out of Latin tradition, where it was necessary. While the Orthodox don't see that authority as necessary to communion -- based on their more concilliar and episcopal model of hierarchy.

When the SSPX went into de facto schism, it was because the REJECTED Papal, and Latin Church, authority and canons. This same case does not apply to the Orthodox because these ideas were not ideas, as such, to reject in 1054.

Inevitably, the Eastern rite question will have to receive some adequate answer. It is patently wrong to impose upon the conscience of believers who are essentially Latin in ecclesiological and theological formation. BUT not all Eastern riters reflect this Latin view--a sizeable number to coin a new word are "orthophones" like Melkites and do indeed reflect groups who have broken away from/been torn away from their legitimate ecclesiastical authorities. The challenge becomes then determining who is what and setting up committees to reintegrate some in Orthodoxy, others in the Latin church and still others as Eastern rite go betweens who act as equal partners in reforms & change in the Latin church to facillitate dialogue with the Orthodox. Of course, expansion of the Eastern rite will come to a screeching halt. Rome's current ecclesiological stance does make it difficult for Eastern riters, for carried to its logical conclusion it implies that their canonical pontiff would be the Patriarch of Constantinople. But challenging this undercuts the ecumenical foundation laid, so...Or perhaps Rome as an intermediate step to reunion of Eastern riters with Orthodoxy makes it a point to have the Orthodox be responsible for the theological and canonical reformation of E Rite communities so that they can ultimately make the decision to return to Orthodoxy or fully embrace the Latin church. Either way, the Eastern riters will probably lose their currently perceived identities.

Memo wrote:

"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."

I was not aware that the term sui juris existed in 1054? And I thought the Pope claimed jurisdiction over the Universal Church, and this was embedded into Roman Catholic doctrine since Vatican I and before.

It is not misleading at all to apply schism to both parties: it is not a question of two bishops having a hissy fit, it is a question of obedience to the Vicar of Christ on earth (at least that is how Roman Catholic theology sees it.)

Otherwise all you are saying is, "I like the Orthodox so I won't call them a nasty name like 'schismatic', but I don't like SSPX people because I don't like women in lace mantillas, so I will call them schismatic." That is how much real theology there is in your argument, IMHO.

Regarding papal ecclesiology...this is a great sticking point which I believe has as its solution a return to the Patristic, Counciliar model. Not being offensive, I would dare raise a concept. Perhaps, a solution to the Eastern rite question could begin to arise with ultimate papal acceptance of and definition of "autocephalies."--have tomos, will carry?! Please don't stone me for spiking the punch, for the Orthodox might not be so thrilled either! LOL!!!

Daniel,

How is breaking communion 1000 years ago and breaking communion 17 years ago any different, in your opinion? Based on some Catholics' argument, the only difference is that the people who broke the communion are still around in the SSPX, and so we can call the schismatics (but we can't call the Orthodox that because the ones who break it are dead and gone). Makes you wonder, though, if in eighty years the same people calling the SSPX schismatic today will say, "Oh, no, they're not schismatic anymore, they were born into this!"

I don't think that type of argument holds water anyway because everyone, upon reaching the age of reason, makes a conscious decision to stay in or leave whatever religious community he was born into. It's not like people are forced.

Additionally, it must be re-emphasized, no one holds that those who attend SSPX chapels are schismatics; some do ho hold that the clergy is schismatic, but not the faithful.

Kollyvas,

No, you are gravely mistaken and what you say borders on libel. The SSPX are not Sedevacantists, i.e. they believe that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II were all Popes, valid and all. They believe the same about Benedict, and profess filial loyalty to him (now, how that expresses itself it problematic). "Sedes" and SSPX-ers do not get along at all, actually, and one of the worst things you can say to an SSPX-er is to accuse him of not believing that the post-conciliar Popes are valid.

You should check your facts before you say such a thing! Imagine if none of us knew any better!

Logos Teen

schism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skzm, sz-)
n.
A separation or division into factions.

A formal breach of union within a Christian church.
The offense of attempting to produce such a breach.
Disunion; discord.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English scisme, from Old French, from Latin schisma, schismat-, from Greek skhisma, from skhizein, to split. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=schism

Dear Adversus,

Based upon the definition above, I believe when certain portions of the Creed were modified without approval of all the members of The Church, then a faction was created, thus causing a discord in our Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This was a major point that fueled fires that led towards a schism. We modified items from the original councils. We broke away from our Orthodox brethren, not the other way around. We proclaimed Papal Infallibility without approval from the rest of The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Without approval of the Ecumenical Council, the changes can be considered invalid in the eyes of the rest of the members. Would that be considered a correct assumption?
As an FYI, I love the Roman Church dearly, but also have enormous respect for our Eastern Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and would NEVER call them schismatics! To heal the broken Body of the Church of Christ on earth, we need to LOVE our neighbors, as our Savior taught us. We must put aside our PRIDE. As Father Tim spoke to us this last Sunday, PRIDE is the source of much sin! .
I agree with Amadeus on his point:

Dear Teen,

Based upon the above definition, is the SSPX a "faction"? Is the society causing discord within the Roman Church? The answer lies within. What are some suitable options? Orthodoxy has Western Liturgy. Why not a ...??? Food for thought.

In Christ,

Michael

Actually, I've heard that argument used to explain why we don't anathematize Protestants anymore - it was the first generation that rebelled against the Church, but later generations were born into Protestantism and therefore their culpability wasn't as great.

So it's not at all inconceivable that 80 or 100 years later, relations between the SSPX and the HRCC* might be less strained.

*Holy Roman Catholic Church

Well, I meant not to disinform, but I got what I got from Pope Pius X people, not sedesvacantes, but let's say they are in fidelity to Rome...I can play devil's advocate: What authority do they have to challenge the decisions of a council which has been declared ecumenical and binding from the chair? Essentially, they still follow a sedesvacantes stance, no?! So, the position becomes one of distinction with little difference. Now, the way how their separation from Rome vs Rome's separation from the East differs is that the East was not under Rome's jurisdiction and there were theological and canonical factors quite different. Whereas with these communities, they were bound to the chair and rebelled advancing a need for reaction to "purify the church," a type of ultramontane lutheranism. The differences in assessing Orthodoxy vs Lefebrists, then, are essentially those between Rome & Orthodoxy vs Rome & Protestantism (Jansenism/Old Catholicism with a conservative, papalist hue)...

Perhaps this link might shed some light on this subject.

www.diopitt.org/home_fatimachapelnotification.htm [diopitt.org]

Bill

"Based upon the definition above, I believe when certain portions of the Creed were modified without approval of all the members of The Church, then a faction was created, thus causing a discord in our Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This was a major point that fueled fires that led towards a schism. We modified items from the original councils. We broke away from our Orthodox brethren, not the other way around. We proclaimed Papal Infallibility without approval from the rest of The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Without approval of the Ecumenical Council, the changes can be considered invalid in the eyes of the rest of the members. Would that be considered a correct assumption?
As an FYI, I love the Roman Church dearly, but also have enormous respect for our Eastern Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and would NEVER call them schismatics! To heal the broken Body of the Church of Christ on earth, we need to LOVE our neighbors, as our Savior taught us. We must put aside our PRIDE. As Father Tim spoke to us this last Sunday, PRIDE is the source of much sin!"

Um, I thought the idea that the Pope could modify the Creed all by his lonesome was what Vatican I, the Council of Florence, and the Bull "Unam Sanctam" meant. I hope you are Orthodox, because I don't see how you can be a Catholic in good conscience believing that.

And telling your neighbor that he or she is outside the Church of Jesus Christ (and therefore endangering their soul) is the highest act of charity you can do for them. There is no such thing as pride regarding the keeping the true Faith; it is a matter of salvation or damnation, as simple as that.

Hello,


That he does. However, that claim is a matter of dogma only from Vatican I and on, and therefore, that definition cannot be applied retroactively to the Orthodox.

To consider the Orthodox schismatics because they do not accept the Universal jurisdiction of the Pope would be similar to consider the Maronites heretics because they continued to embrace Monotheletism until communication with Rome was re-established during the Crusades, or to consider St. Thomas Aquinas to be a heretic because he did not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Time does count.

And no, the SSPX will not cease to be a schismatic group when its original founders pass away and are replaced by people born to SSPX households.

The SSPX will continue to be schismatic until they come back to the Latin Church where they belong. The act commited was an act of schism, and time alone will not erase that.

I find your characterization rather insulting.

If you want to call the Orthodox schismatics, hey, it's a free forum.

However, the relationship between be Pope and the Eastern Orthodox is substantially different from the relationship between the Pope and the SSPX.

The lack of communion between the Pope and these two different groups has some things in common, and you could argue they both fall into the current definition of Schism.

However, they have enough differences that I still consider the application of the same word to describe both situation as misleading.

The authority of the Pope and his jurisdiction over the SSPX at the time of the Schism was very clearly established.

On the other hand, the Orthodox claim this is not the case with the Pope's authority over their Churches at the time communion was broken between the Pope and their Churches.

If you read the ridiculous decree of excommunication from Cardinal Humbertus, you will have to agree with me that "our side" was at least as guilty as "their side" in that breaking of communion.

So, although technically you are correct, that "mutual schism" is an absurd term, I find it appropriate to describe an absurd situation: A millenium of division to be credited to stupidity and bigotry.

Shalom,
Memo

"Time does count."

So truth changes with time? Interesting. The Pope had no jurisdiction over the universal Church then, but he does now?

I assume the Orthodox know now that submission to the Pope is part of being in the Church. So what is stopping them from obeying now? If it's the truth now, shouldn't they assent to it?

"The authority of the Pope and his jurisdiction over the SSPX at the time of the Schism was very clearly established."

And it has also been clearly established that Catholic theology has always taught that the Pope has jurisdiction over the whole Church, and he has jurisdiction over the Orthodox now.

"So, although technically you are correct, that "mutual schism" is an absurd term, I find it appropriate to describe an absurd situation: A millenium of division to be credited to stupidity and bigotry."

So who is right and who is wrong? Which is the Church of Christ, since both make claims that are mutually exclusive?

"I find your characterization rather insulting"

I apologize then, but your argument still doesn't hold any water. This is not about two patriarchates (Rome and Constantinople), but the Vicar of Christ and someone who must submit to him. You are totally inventing a new ecclesiology in order to be nice to the Orthodox and mean to the SSPX, and I do not find that fair at all. The Pope has authority over the WHOLE Church.