www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Former Byzantine Catholic Monastery received into Orthodox Faith

No sooner the clerics at Uzhorod signed the Unia agreement they had to go looking for a bishop. They got him consecrated by a Romanian Orthodox bishop. Did the Unia end in schism with the first episcopal consecration?

Will you recognize ANY bishop Rome picks for you? or will it be considered schismatic to ordain bishops and married priests without Rome's permission? Just wondering.

Joe

Daniel,

I think you are on dangerous ground here.

Please, even if you do not consider his actions justifiable , be a little more discreet in your terminology.

Everyone...

I respect your veiws and would never ever ptu them down. i wish you would treat me with the same Christian love.

I never claimed that the SSPX was in good standing with Rome but the SSPX is not schismatic and one who atrtends SSPX masses are not excomunicated I

Everyone...

I respect your veiws and would never ever ptu them down. i wish you would treat me with the same Christian love.

I never claimed that the SSPX was in good standing with Rome but the SSPX is not schismatic and one who atrtends SSPX masses are not excomunicated I have given my proof yet you refuse to listen.

Daniel....

I had not idea somone could be sooo hateful!!!! You claim that he is just as good as dirt to you, and I find that truly un-christian. Every human being was created in the image of our Lord, no matter what color, religion or anything else we are all equal. God loves us all even those who sin and go against his will. Jesus tuaght us not to judge and to pull the plank out of our own eye before point out the speck in our bother's, I suggest you do this.

You say you have no tolerance for heretics and schismatics...but if you study your history yo0u will find out that until recently the RCC tuaght all Eastern Orthodox Christians were heretics and schismatics.

God is the judege, he is the king, he decides, not you!

After your most hateful comment about the archbishop, I no longer wish to be a member of this community.

God bless and Good luck!

I understand that Daniel and most of you disagree with the SSPX, but I find that no reason for the treatment that I have given. And Daniels remarks about the archbishop eing just as good as dirt...I can't believe this! I will no longer be poasting here, I am running away from this site and byzantine Catholicism for good....GOOD BYE ALL AND GOD BLESS!

Daniel,

Please reflect on your use of language. Although, you might disagree very much with what Archbishop Levfebre did in his schism with the Roman Church, remember that he was still an Archbishop (according to the Roman teaching, licitly consecrated) and was former Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers where he did much good. Who knows also if he did not reconncile himself with Rome before his death??? There are always things that "balance out" the record, so to speak.

Brian

Daniel,

The primary rule on The Byzantine Forum is one of charity. Charity demands that we refer to people from legitimate, legally recognized organizations according to the title that is appropriate for that individual within that group. To do so for an archbishop of a Church that has split from the Catholic Church is charity. It is not in any way an endorsement of their religious beliefs.

Let me make this clear. If you continue to be uncharitable towards people of other Christian denominations you are invited to stop posting. Please do not force me to suspend your posting privileges.

Admin

Dear Cantor Joseph,

I think the two cases are different since the SSPX belonged to the Roman Patriarchate jurisdictionally and ecclesially in a way that we EC's do not.

Patriarch Josef Slipyj, as I understand, also consecrated bishops without Rome's permission - he did so by invoking his rights as the Patriarch he and many in his Church believed him to be.

Patriarch Lubomyr Husar was one such bishop consecrated by Patriarch Josef. He is today a Cardinal and Major Archbishop and the Pope even gets him to read his conference papers (Soloviev).

The SSPX would, under normal circumstances, hold quite the ultramontanist view of the Papacy - a view it could hold as the Pope is their ecclesial Patriarch and governor over their internal affairs.

He is not ours.

In any event, Rome warned the Archbishop with excommunication and then excommunication was pronounced, as I understand it, following the consecrations, which were canonical but illicit.

The SSPX is in schism from Rome primarily because Rome says it is.

Alex

Dear: Ben and every buddy eles,

I apologize for my use of words, but as you can see this is a very touchy subject for me, i apologize if I offended any of you.

In Christ
Daniel

Lord Jesus Christ son of God, Have Mercy on me a SINNER!

I, for one, was under the impression that Catholics may go to an SSPX Mass without the fear of incurring excommunication.

Alex,

Yes, Rome does say that the SSPX is in schism from the Church. However, I don't know if there's been an official declaration other than the fact that Pope John Paull II claimed that Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated post ipso facto. Did the Pope mean to say that only Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated, or that the new bishops, his followers, and his Society as a whole were excommunicated as well? As Ben stated earlier, this supposed statement of the existence of an excommunication (not the process of excommunicating Lefebvre, which I suppose never even happened, since it was thought this happened post ipso facto...) seems to be misplaced because of Abp. Lefebvre's motives (i.e., acting out of a case of necessity, which Canon Law says is justifiable.)

I think discussing the SSPX on an Eastern forum might an explosion waiting to happen!

But let's find out wait and see.

Logos Teen

How does the - LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION "ECCLESIA DEI":Under Signature of Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary May 28, 1996; repeated in Protocol N. 236/98 of March 6, 1998 - compare with the rules and regulations governing those Eastern Catholics who communicate in Orthodox Churches? Is there consistency here? Just ruminating.

Without losing sight of the thread's topic, can a Byzantine Catholic attend the new Orthodox monastery in Florida and communicate if he/she feels that the liturgy being celebrated looks too much like a Latin Tridentine Mass? Just wondering.

Joe Thur

Dear CJ,

"Consistency?"

We are talking about Rome here . . .

Alex

Dear Teen Logo,

Your avatar - I've seen it before.

It relates to the Tridentine Canon where the priest asks that the Sacrifice be taken up by the Angel of the Lord etc. Correct?

Yes, I echo CJ's issue over consistency with respect to Eastern Catholics becoming Orthodox vs Latin schismatics.

Even my Jesuit Shrine director told me the SSPX are not "schismatic" only not in communion with Rome . . .

Any Latin documents in your file on any of that, Big Guy?

Alex

Yes, Alex, I believe so. Mainly though, I just find it really aesthetically striking.

Wait, I'm confused. What do the SSPX have to do with the Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholics? If you're referring to my statement about discussing the SSPX on an Eastern forum, it was not to imply anything other than the fact that the SSPX and Eastern Christians have some issues between them (i.e. the ECs view the SSPX as Latin triumphalists, which they sometimes are) that need to be remedied.

The SSPX "schism" in relation to the Eastern Orthodox "schism" is a whole different can of worms.

Respectfully,
Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

I think it goes something like this from Rome's perspective:

SSPX - schismatics, but, wait, one may attend Mass etc. at their churches and chapels etc.

EC's who become Orthodox - schismatics, bad people, bad, bad, bad...

Something like that.

But, on the other hand, it is good that Rome doesn't see the SSPX as beyond hope etc.

The only thing wrong with them, apart from the Roman obedience thing, is hygiene.

Didn't someone mention something about dirt . . .?

Alex