www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Are we really in Communion?

I would say it is a bit more complicated than that.

First, in the early years of Christianity there was simply less of everything in the west: fewer Christians spread over thinly populated areas with poor transportation. The Christian Faith most generally contained in a region from Rome to Edessa (while spreading quickly in every direction).

The seven ecumenical councils were called by the emperors (as the leading citizens) and it was the participation of so great a percentage of the bishops that gave these councils recognition in the eyes of the church of having special universal teaching authority. Bishops from the marginal regions were not excluded from participation on the basis of their being foreigners, all were welcomed. There were even bishops from India to Ireland recorded to have participated in some councils.

Subsequent gatherings of bishops endorsed the earlier councils. Although bishops of Rome never attended they were always asked to sign on. It was hoped that Christians everywhere would find agreement with the decisions of the these councils and sustain a sense of unity in teaching, understanding and practice. The western Councils were called by a self-selected subgroup of Christian bishops, specifically excluding large numbers of bishops. From the perspective of the east the Latin church had gone it's own way.

The 'Greeks' were not included because there was no communion between the churches. Likewise most 'Greeks' did not recognize the bishop of Romes' claim to the sole right to call a council and determine the agenda. There was no concensus.

What's more, the Latin general councils tended to concentrate on issues germane to the Latin church, and not the Eastern churches.

If the synods of the east had subsequently endorsed the results of these western Councils things might be viewed differently today, but they did not for a variety of reasons, including those I touched upon here.

The Council of Vatican I is a particular case that deserves special attention, although I do not have the time or energy to go into it very deeply right now. One could say it was a stage-managed event. Not at all consultative, it was more of a rubber stamp for Pius IX who was very involved from start to (well, it never really finished). The accounts of abuses during that council are well documented and you may run across them yourself without much trouble.

Here [justgoodcompany.org] is a bit for your consumption:
I personally believe that this was one of the background issues behind both the PNCC schism and the Toth schism, so widespread was the mental reservation over it's results that priests of that generation had little trouble renouncing the papal doctrines.

+T+
Michael

I'd also like to remind everyone that even if it is true that the West had comparitively little representation at the REAL Ecumenical Councils, The Roman Catholic Church is only one Church. There are over twenty Churches that are supposed to form the Communion that results in THE CHURCH. The Roman Catholic Church never has, does not, and never will have the right to dominate other Churches. Even though the Pope of Rome is the Prime Patriarch.

Does anyone know what the SSPX believe regarding Papal Infallibility? How about other Traditionalist Roman Catholics that have severed ties with Rome (Or perhaps Rome severd ties with them)? Do they claim Papal Infallibility despite the modernism, Protestantism, etc. that is accepted or promulgated by the Pope of Rome, especially the Novus Ordo?

Father Michael Mary, what does your group believe?

ALL the bishops signed the Documents of Vatican I at the end of the day, no matter how they voted earlier.

Bishops were also aware that the situation was developing in the Rome area that some thought it best to leave while they still could. Italian troops entered the city on 20 Sept 1870 and the Pope was forced to flee in the early hours from his residence (now the palace of the Italian Presidents) in a carriage in the direction of St Peter's, while the Swiss Guards attempted to cover his flight.

ICXC
NIKA

No, Fr Auhustyn Babiak is a greek catholic priest born in Poland. He has a doctorate on University of Lion. He was studying archives of Patriarch Slipyj in Rome. He is now ukr pastor in Gazzadina, Italy. He wrote several books aviable in English, French and Ukrainian.
God bless.

I hate to break this to you, but they were not leaving to save their skins. French troops were stationed in Rome to prevent the entry of the Italian partisans. The French scheduled their withdrawel and the bishops knew how much time they had left, which is why the Pope advanced the discussion over the new Papal doctrines ahead of the previously scheduled topics (matters deemed of less importance to Pius IX), and they concluded their discussions when they did. Everyone destined for points outside of Rome got out safely. There was no mad dash in panic, they packed their things, bought their tickets and left a few each day.

Hard to imagine those cheeky Italians wanting to harm men of the cloth. One theory worth investigating is that the bishops who fled were seeking refuge on the Italian side of the lines to get as far as they could from the Roman police. [Linked Image] Sad that he began his pontificate as such a popular man, and became so hated by the Italian people in general and Roman people in particular.


[Linked Image]

We fully hold that the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is binding on all Catholics. We as Catholics (even though you know we are considered as being 'irregular,' 'vagus' etc we do believe that the Pope is Infallible when he, as Supreme Pastor binds each Catholic to believe his solemn definitions on matters of Faith (dogma) or Morals.

We are in a recognised time of extraordinary crisis in the Church with people leaving the Church in 'Great Apostasy' proportions. This is our battle ground. We must still preserve the Catholic faith in its entirety and without error if we wish to remain in Her and have some chance of going to heaven. But do not believe it from me; take it from the Pope writing to Ukrainian Catholic bishops in the time before Vatican I. :


Pope Gregory XVI to the Archbishop of Kholm in 1840:
�The difference which distinguishes Ruthenian Catholics from Latins, consisting solely in points merely disciplinary and liturgical, and with the permission of the Holy See, in no sense breaks the bonds which unite the true sheep of Christ to one another. On the other hand, non-Catholic Ruthenians are at odds, as much with the Latins as with the Ruthenian Catholics, on matters which stem from the True Faith of Christ, without which it is impossible to please God [Heb. XI, 6]. [�] They differ on the subject of submission to the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter the Prince of the Apostles, to whom, to use the terms of the Council of Chalcedon, �the protection of the vineyard was entrusted by the Lord,� and to the Church to which, as Irenaeus says, �by reason of her eminent primacy, every other church must be in harmony, that is to say, the faithful of the entire world.� Finally, as St Jerome says, �whosoever gathereth not with Him, scattereth, [Lk XI, 23]; that is to say: he who is not Christ�s is Antichrist�s.�
[Letter Has ad te litteras, 1840]

Then this one by the same 'no nonsense' Pope:

Pope Gregory XVI to the Archbishop of Lviv in 1841:
�With God�s help, your clergy will never have a more pressing concern than preaching the true Catholic Faith: whoever, in fact, does not preserve it in its entirety and without error, will undoubtedly go to his eternal perdition; by this very fact they will endeavour to further union with the Catholic Church: for whoever has been separated from Her will not have life; they will maintain obedience to this sovereign See of Peter, upon which Christ the Lord has laid the foundation of this same Church, and where is to be found, consequently, the entire, perfect strength of the Christian religion.�
[Letter Perlatum ad nos, 1841]

It is because they very seriously did believe these points that we have martyrs for Holy Unia beginning with St Josaphat, St Andrew Bolboa, and the heroic sufferings of Mother Macrina and her nuns. Whatever you do, for the good of your immortal soul, do not down play these words of Gregory XVI.

Devotedly yours
Fr Michael Mary, C.SS.R.
Unworthy vagus inside the Catholic Church which is in crisis, but the truth is still the truth even in the midst of the storm

"The election of Pius IX, hailed as the Liberal pontiff, electrified all Rome. The pope saw his power slipping away; the assassination of Pellegrino Rossi and the riots before the Quirinal (25 November, 1848) counselled his flight to Gaeta. The Triumvirate was formed and, on 6 February, 1849, convoked the Constituent Assembly, which declared the papal power abolished. The mob abandoned itself to the massacre of defenceless priests, and the wrecking of churches and palaces. Oudinot's French troops restored the papal power (6 August, 1849), the pope retaining a few French regiments. Secret plotting went on, though at Rome none dared attempt anything (the Fausti trial). Only in 1867, when Garibaldi, the victor at Monterotondo, defeated at Mentana, invaded the Papal States, was the revolt prepared that was to have burst while Enrico Cairoi was trying to enter the city; but the coup de main failed; the stores of arms and ammunition were discovered; the only serious occurrence was the explosion of a mine, which destroyed the Serristori Barracks in the Borgo. Not until 20 September, 1870, was Rome taken from the popes and made the actual capital of the Kingdom of Italy."

As you can see there was no love for the clergy in Italy. All Church property had been ceased by the new Italian kingdom about 1860 and only 20 years before the city fell to the Italians they had been killing priests in Rome. So those attending the Council would have been paying attention to international politics of the day very closely. French troops were withdrawn on the 8 August and the Emperor Napoleon III was captured on 2 September. Events then took off.


ICXC
NIKA

I can't see how any organisation that does not obey the Pope can put forward that it upholds the fullness of Catholic teaching. Clearly they dont believe or they would not have separated themselves and promoted themselves as the last bastion of the true faith, which obviously can't be found anymore in the Papal communion. They are so Catholic that the Catholic church has been engaging with them to bring them back from outside the Church. The same dialogue has of course been going on with the Old Cathlics and other similar groups for some years.

ICXC
NIKA

Indeed Pavel. It is sort of like being "kind of pregnant". You either are, definitely, directly, and visibly in communion, or you are not. It's really quite simple. To say "we believe in the Pope and Papal Infallibility" and then reject the visible Pope and the Magesterium, is, well, schismatic schizophrenia.

Personally, although I greatly disagree with their position, the sedevacantists actually have a more straightforward philosophical position. They don't think there is a Pope, and they act accordingly. With the SSPX, one hears platitudes about the "true Rome", belief in infallibility, the Magesterium, etc. etc. - but what we see is direct and outward refusal to submit to that Rome and that infallibility. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. One can't be a little bit schismatic.

All of this "crisis" business puts individual vagus priests and bishops in the position of judging Mother Church and the Magesterium. They decide what and whom is "Catholic", not the Church.

They decide when the "crisis" is over, as it were. "Cafeteria Catholics" do not only occur amongst the far-left liberals, I assure you.

Salutory letters to bishops are one thing, and I appreciate the posting of those above. I believe you will find those to be local letters, in the first case written to a Latin bishop. These are just that - local letters, and not encyclicals or even Apostolic Letters or Bulls.

I did not see in any of these anything to diminish, abrogate, or otherwise limit, explicitly or implicitly, our obligations under the Union of Brest, starting with Article I: That union is visibly expressed in the canonically consecrated successors of Vl. Mikhail Rahoza, which extends down through Metropolitan Sheptytsky, to Patriarch Josyp and his hand-picked successor Patriarch Lubomyr (whom he wanted installed even before Cardinal Lubachevsky, immediately after his death) and the current hierarchy of the Church of Rus', whether in the diaspora or in Europe.

Back to the SSPX - the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei has clearly indicated the canonical state of the four bishops of the SSPX: ipso facto excommunicated. They no longer enjoy full communion with the Catholic Church. It's that simple. Don't take any wooden nickels.
FDD

Just in case anyone has not read Ecclesia Dei put out on 2 July 1988 here is the text.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...tu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

In reference to the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre it is very clear.

"c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.(8)"

Do read it all.

ICXC
NIKA

Dear friends
I was asked what we believe, I replied.
On course my two closest friends on the Forum rush in to condemn my position with the excommunication, vagus and Never equal scales here. While people are askingthemselves if then need to be in communion with Rome the deacons are sitting back watching and saying nothing. When I offer an orthodox statement the statements are ignored and we are howled off the forum with the good old names of the Ecumenical Movement. These two people have a mental block on SSPX (inside the Church) and the most amazing tolerance/friendship in the realm of Ecumenism with our separated brethren who are considered to be outside the Church. There must be words to describe this approach but I do not have them.

DIAK you have already calumnated me and refused a retraction on the grounds of your ongoing research into who I am although I wrote you a PM giving you the direct contact references for those who can vouch for my having had faculties from the UGCC. This point alone is the matter demanding retraction; this point is historical fact. Nothing has been forthcoming and you do not seem to want to retract. This is very strange behaviour.

(Entertaining aside:
DIAK, And I thought you claimed to love the Old Believers Avaakum was lucky that DIAK was not in power in his time. DIAK only really likes cyber-Old Believers with long beards and listovkas ; but he cannot appreciate anyone that for conscience and for the love of Christ takes a path different from his own. He does not really seem to have any tolerance for the Old Believers of his own era. Our Latin Rite reforms were so much more drastic than anything Avaakum could even dream of. :rolleyes: If our Latin reforms had been given their equivalent in the Byzantine rite the SSPX reaction would be nothing compared to the revolution we would have from the Orient. ....... end of entertaining aside )

Then, DIAK, having already unjustly wounded my reputation you continue to hurl abuse that you would not use on our separated brethren.

Having been told again and again that this matter is with the Pope right now you continue to ignore the information.

Having been asked by the Moderator to be charitable you continue on, and on, and on with the same tired stuff.

Is this really the style of Catholic Ecumenism?

Well, if this is the way you deal with those who are inside the Church what will happen to those who are considered to be outside should they venture to come into your parlour.

Bref!

Return to the subject matter raised: the quotations from Pope Gregory XVI to the Bishops of Kohlm and Lviv.

The person above asked your to provide details of what the beliefs were of those who had broken with the Church of Rome around infalibility and you did just that.

You keep inserting youself in the ranks of people from another Church, as if you belonged there. You can't be in among the ranks of those who died for union with the Pope of Rome and in your own life refuse to be obedient to the same Popes.

The comments you put out there from Pope Gregory apply to you as well. I can't see how you can't see this. You are not in Communion with the Pope and the Pope is not in communion with you and yours.

It may interest your to know that the Eparch of Kholm (Chelm) was in trouble with the Pope when he tried to introduce the Byzantine Liturgy sans Latinisations the following year. "In 1841 Bishop Felix Szumborski (d. 1851) consented to order a return to the rite which had been in use before the union with Rome; but, admonished by the pope, he recalled the order." See he did not get his way and was still obedient. Later Popes were to see things differently.

You go on about how we Byzantine Catholics get on very well with the Orthodox. I see that with us (yes it is us and you [Latins] here) we have clear boundaries between us we also share common Liturgy, spirituality and Ecclesial structures & traditions. We are sort of on the same wave length and we know where we stand. That is a very good basis for a good working relationship between anyone.

To Make matters worse you are proping up men like Basil Kolpak (who rumour has it is now himself a secret bishop from the hands of Bishop Fellay) who have divided portions of the laity from the the hierarchs of their Church.

ICXC
NIKA

Again,

I think that this thread has run its course and nothing of any value is being posted. The more recent points in this thread have been well established in recent threads. The posts are getting to be redundant.

This thread is being closed to give all a cooling off period. I would strongly suggest that the period would be heeded by all parties.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Moderator