www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Books New Book: His Broken Body by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck

Dear Father Deacon,

This quote from the online Catholic Encyclopedia is so patronising and quite offensive to the Orthodox! Without even bothering to look it up I would guarantee it is from Adrian Fortescue whose disdain for Orthodoxy shines through all his contributions to the Encyclopedia. One of the really awful examples is his article on Hesychasm.

Dear Father Deacon,

This quote from the online Catholic Encyclopedia is so patronising and quite offensive to the Orthodox! Without even bothering to look it up I would guarantee it is from Adrian Fortescue whose disdain for Orthodoxy shines through all his contributions to the Encyclopedia. One of the really awful examples is his article on Hesychasm.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

...I am not worthy!

Can. 843
§1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

§2. Pastors of souls and other members of the Christian faithful, according to their respective ecclesiastical function, have the duty to take care that those who seek the sacraments are prepared to receive them by proper evangelization and catechetical instruction, attentive to the norms issued by competent authority.

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

They have not been updated, because around 1965, a new edition, still protected by copyright, was published in replacement.

The version in English is both a product of its time and contributors; by 1960, it was an embarrassment, for it was clear it didn't teach the faith well in light of Popes Pius IX-XII and their promotion of the Eastern Rites and Churches in the US.

Canon Law defines a schismatic as "anyone who, after receiving baptism and while remaining nominally a Christian, rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him.” [35] Technically a schismatic differs from a heretic as one who sins against obedience or charity differs from a person who denies the faith. In the strict sense, a schismatic still admits the whole body of revelation but refuses to acknowledge the de facto authority of the Roman Pontiff or to share with the rest of the faithful in their practice of the Catholic religion. Since the Vatican definitions on papal authority, however, it is scarcely possible for a person to be only a schismatic without also being a heretic. And even before the Vatican Council, it was common knowledge that those who originally broke with the Church's unity for disciplinary reasons, before long ended by questioning certain articles of faith. An outstanding example is the so-called Eastern Orthodox Church, now split into a dozen or more factions. Beginning in the eleventh century as a rebellion against Roman autonomy, it now rejects the teaching of the Councils of Trent and Vatican, and widely professes doctrinal errors that are objective heresy; universally denying papal infallibility and, following the Protestant Reformers, commonly permitting remarriage after divorce between Christians.

It does appear there are differing views on this. Fr. Laurent, in his book, cites the well-known Roman Catholic priest John A. Hardon [therealpresence.org], of blessed memory:

I post this not to flame anyone, but to show that there exists those who would take a different view than the writer of the earlier Catholic Encyclopedia articles.

I hasten to add that I do not agree with Fr. Hardon's statements.

I always marvel how such sweeping statements can be made and with such omniscience. With an understanding of when it was written, I'd sooner rely on it as a reference for facts rather than the massive re-writing of the faith that occurred in the mid 60's onward by a crowd that acted as though Pentecost had only just taken place.

Sure it's not current; its publication dates are no secret. The point is that this ca. 1915 publication is saying "It [Eastern Orthodoxy] is not a heresy..." Is that correct or not?

I post this not to flame anyone, but to show that there exists those who would take a different view than the writer of the earlier Catholic Encyclopedia articles.

Sure it's not current; its publication dates are no secret. The point is that this ca. 1915 publication is saying "It [Eastern Orthodoxy] is not a heresy..." Is that correct or not?

I thought I was making it clear that this presented a view and one that could not be construed as a new-fangled, kinder, gentler to the Orthodox ecumenist view.
...
The point, perhaps missed: "It is not a heresy, but a schism." Say what you will, there it is. This is in a ca. 1915 article in a publication that received a nihil obstat and an imprimatur.

Is this accurate or just meant to be inflammatory? Even a conservative, pre-VC II, old style approach has this to say about the "Eastern Schism":

"It is not a heresy, but a schism."

I am not so sure of Fr. Laurent's thesis, but, unlike many ecumenists, he is able to present an honest picture of how Orthodox (not just some Orthodox) view the Catholic Church- as a heresy.

Likewise, he says on P. 124, referring to the definition of Papal Infallibility: "It is therefore preferable and more honest to present things as they really are: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Churches are in a state of schism and heresy, under Papal anathema."