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

Hi,

Truth is not the issue here at all.

Schism is not about Truth, it is about discipline and authority.

Because communion was broken way before the issue was doctrinally defined, and we cannot hold them accountable for things we decided after they left.

Of course, in the event of a reunion, we would have to reach a point in which both sides are mutually acceptable to each other, that *that* will have to take into account any developments done or failed to do on both sides since communion was broken.

This is simply not true. If it was, the definitions of Vatican I would have been superfluous.

That the Pope enjoyed such authority from the very beginning, well, yes, we believe he has. That we had defined such as a formal teaching since the beginning, I do not know, I am not so sure.

Oh, that's an easy one. Cardinal Humbertus was wrong when he excommunicated Patriarch Michael for things that were superfluous to begin with, but also entirely within the legitimate tradition of the Byzantine Church.

Cardinal Humbertus was wrong when he exercized the autority of a Papal Legate, when in fact the Pope had already died (although, of course, he can claim ignorance on this one).

Everything that happened subsequently was based on these two gross mistakes on our side.

Maybe the reaction by the Greeks was also sub-Christian standards, but I find that understandable, given our side was the one that escalated the misunderstandings out of proportion.

I still believe the One Church of Christ subsists entirely in the Catholic Church, however, I also believe the entirety of the constitutive elements of the Church are also found in the Orthodox Churches.

The only thing they lack is communion with us, and that is our fault as least as it is theirs, therefore, I am not ready to call *them* schismatics, because I would be spitting upwards.

It is a different kind of submission. Constantinople owes Rome the submission of love and eucharistic communion. The SSPX, in addition to that, owes Rome the submission of canonical discipline.

I don't want to be nice to the Orthodox and mean to the SSPX.

I just want to acknowledge the SSPX place itself in a state of Schism, while WE were the ones who kicked the Orthodox out, and we were wrong to do so.

I cannot hold the Orthodox accountable for what MY Church did to them.

Shalom,
Memo

Regarding your first paragraph, Rome has spoken, causa finita est. "Ecclesia Dei" et. al.

A read of Cardinal Newman's "Development of Christian Doctrine" seems to be in order. It would seem that you imply revelation has stopped with the First Vatican Council. According to Newman's thinking, it cannot be divorced from subsequent Councils.

Vatican II occurred, had real bishops there, with a real Pope, and wrote real documents as much as some would like it to just go away. And these documents of Vatican II must be taken in the CATHOLIC sense of development of doctrine, as Pope Benedict XVI has reminded us.

It would seem, rather, the opinions expressed by Adversus to be the ones with "situationalist ecclesiology". As has been amply demonstrated, there is in fact a great difference between the situation between Rome and Orthodoxy relative to Rome and the SSPX.

You can return to the recent Catholic documents of Vatican II as well as Orientale Lumen etc. if you want to see the Church's position on Orthodoxy, and "Ecclesia Dei" to see her position on the SSPX. Your position is not shared by the last or current Pontiff nor the vast majority of Catholic bishops.

As far as I can tell from my own experience, and personal questions of all of the four bishops of whom I met in my time with the SSPX, the SSPX have become Machiavellian masters of "situational ecclesiology", using their own twist of "situational ecclesiology" with their tired and relativistic argument of "church supplies" and "state of emergency" to justify an increasingly ridiculous position, completely outside of the authority and communion with Rome. As one example, in a diocese where the Fraternity of St. Peter or other trad Latin group has been given permission to offer ALL of the Sacraments according to the traditional Latin ritual, and the SSPX persists in that diocese, that is not only schismatic but to me, in a more personal sense, goes against exactly what Msgr. Lefebvre wanted for the SSPX when he was alive, and that was simply to offer the sacraments in a regular diocesan setting.

Removed anathemas, centuries of separation needing healing and active dialogue compared to ipso facto excommunication and overt refusal of authority are obviously distinct and are reality, and not "situational ecclesiology".

Continued flaunting of Papal authority while portraying themselves to represent "true Rome", whatever that is. Hanging pictures of the Pope within some of their chapels, I've seen them, while continually refusing his authority. More recently, I'll point out Bishop Williamson's disclaimers and threats to break with the other SSPX bishops who later caved to his paranoid extremism before the recent audience with B16.

On the other hand, I see good wishes from Constantinople and other Orthodox quarters to the last and present Pope, etc. and continued dialogue.

If I actually believe what the Gospels and St. Paul say, as well as the entirety of Catholic doctrine, there is a very large difference between the two.
DD

You seem to be implying by this that there was some sort of contradiction (or at least formal disagreement) between the Magisterium of Vatican I and the Magisterium of Vatican II that has to somehow be reconciled. Why else even bring this up? It smacks of Hegelianism to me (Vatican I: thesis, Vatican II: antithesis, synthesis: ?)

When I read, there is a "great deal of difference between," that sounds like situationalist ecclesiology, just as, "there is a great deal of difference between having an abortion in a Third World country than having one here", sounds a lot like situationalist ethics. You are accusing the SSPX of not being in union with Rome yet conceding that the Orthodox aren't either, but that's okay. You are putting mitigating circumstances on one simply out of personal preference and denying it to someone else.

And you seem to be implying that I have said anything to defend or oppose the SSPX, and I have not. You seem to be implying that I am somehow affiliated with them, and I am not. Please keep your assumptions to yourself.

So unity of the Church depends on "good wishes"? If you are willing to talk, then that makes it okay? What of Bishop Fellay's meeting with the Pope last August? He was willing to talk then. If Patriarch Bartholomew came and talked to the Pope, they would find a thousand year rift of doctrine separating them; with Fellay, it would only be forty. I still don't get your point.

All I see here still is mental gymnastics.

My dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

I quite agree with you that this demand is ridiculous, untenable, and unjust.

But would you kindly specify who among the Orthdox is asking for this?

I readily admit that a letter by the monks of Mt. Athos to the EP mentioned:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/athos_bal.aspx

But this demand, while also pretty strong, is really not the same as the one you mentioned.

Also, I would point out that monks of Mt. Athos are some of the most conservative, with regard to ecumenism, Orthodox there are. I suspect that the demand you mentioned comes from an even more radically conservative group.

Thanks and God bless,
Peter.

What Adversus wants to know is what would be the best solution to all this schism, if I'm not mistaken. And so as we talk about SSPX being more schismatic than the Orthodox (in our minds, anyway), his Latin mind cannot comprehend what we might possibly mean, because Rome has spoken, as it is written, so shall it be done. The law is the law.

Here's the deal in a nutshell. The Orthodox Churches believe they are just as right as the Catholic Church does.

And now, because Rome went and made all these laws (since the Seven Ecumenical Councils) without the approval of the UNIVERSAL Church, and then claimed they were the ONLY True Church of Christ, it puts them in a pickle, now that they've acknowledged the legitimacy of Orthodoxy. If they rescind any laws, they go against the will of God, as spoken through His Church, and then they corrupt the idea of Truth and all this other divine stuff.

So, it puts the Catholic Church in a dilemma. One attitude is that Rome is right all along, and that the Orthodox will just have to agree.

Another attitude is that the Catholic Church reinterprets its ideas on the Filioque (which is sort of has, allowing the Eastern Churches to get rid of it), the Papal Primacy (which Benedict has hinted about doing), and the Immaculate Conception (which should be simple if the Latin Church learns Eastern Theology).

Most of us here look towards that second attitude, I think, as our hope. However, many Latins think that attitude 2 is directly on the path of error, heresy, and schism.

As for the SSPX, they're not necessary. The indult Mass is offered most places. The SSPX should just return to the fold, disband, and try to get special Tridentine-only privilages from Rome and the local ordinaries. Or would the SSPX be giving in, then?

"More schismatic" sounds about as logical as "more pregnant" or "more dead". This would apply to either side of the Catholic/Orthodox divide.

As for my "Latin mind", I have spent plenty of time in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches, so I am well aware how they think (or how often, they fail to think).

Filioque: I actually think there is no problem, as long as both sides don't doubt the orthodoxy of the other.

Immaculate Conception: the Byzantine Church practically has no coherent concept of original sin. Have you ever tried reading Romanides' "Ancestral Sin". It's kind of like trying to read Husserl or Heidegger: lots of twists and turns and it goes nowhere.

Someone once told me that Cabasilas wrote
"Life in Christ" as a Byzantine response to St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo. But Cabasilas never does posit a reason why God had to become man. He just floated around using lots of nice symbolism, but never answered the question. (Still an enjoyable read, though.)

My point is that Byzantine theology seems to be more apophatic (this almost seems a cliche, by now). It's not what's defined or believed differently, it's what is not defined at all. So I find it really hard to understand why the Orthodox have to get so worked up over something the Catholic Church has defined but they haven't. Their objection almost seems to be like: "You're wrong, I don't know why, you just are."

In the end, however, I don't see any real problems with the Immaculate Conception vis a vis the Orthodox, if we just live and let live as well. Saying the Virgin has no personal sin might be close enough.

Papal primacy is just left then. And I don't have an answer to that one.

I think if the Catholic-Orthodox official dialogue will get hung up, it is because of this (although as I understand it, it was the "Uniate" question that stalled it for quite some time). And I do not think there are any simple solutions to this.

No sir, that is your implication. I have not implied NOR stated any contradiction between the two. If you will recall, I recommend Cardinal Newman's "Development of Christian Doctrine". It is the clear Catholic position that Councils develop doctrine throughout time. If anything else was the case, nothing would be necessary after Nicea.

By your implicit or explicit support of the SSPX, it seems you who imply such a contradiction as you have not yet responded to any of the references to either Vatican II or post-VII Catholic documents. And where Hegel or any other erroneous Enlightenment philosopher fits into the Catholic documents I have cited please let me know.

Negative. An IPSO FACTO excommunication by the True and visible Rome is what we see. Here I will quote the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, Chapter 3:
Quite clear and recent. Neither is there any rescinsion of this Motu Proprio on the books in Rome. Grave penalty says enough.

On the other hand, the Catholic document Unitatis Redintegratio speaks specifically to the matter of the Orthodox in Paragraph 17:

Neither has it been rescinded.

And what about Bishop Fellay's visit? Within a couple of weeks nearly all of the SSPX publications were making it clear the SSPX was not "compromising with Modernist Rome" (an actual quote authored by an SSPX priest).

Imperfect communion working towards reunification and excommunion resulting from overt refusal of the Magesterium and Pontiff are not the same thing. If any mental gymnastics are being applied, it is to equate the two.

At this point, I also do not consider Bishop Fellay handing a unilateral set of demands to the Holy Father the same as fraternal dialogue between Orthodox hierarchs and Rome.
Deacon Diak

I agree with the quote but all it says is that their heritage belongs to the Catholic Church, not that they belong to the Church.

I think I need some clarity on "imperfect communion". I thought communion was communion; you can't be a little in communion anymore than you can be a little dead? Yes, I understand, same sacraments, many of the same doctrines, etc. , etc. But was St. Maximus Confessor in "imperfect communion" with Bishop Theodosius during the Monothelite heresy in Constantinople? Same rites, a lot of the same doctrine, but the differences still remained.

Would the Fathers of the Church take as lightly not being able to receive Communion from one another as we are doing here?

Dear Diak,

What if tommorrow Patriarch Bartholomew told the Vatican to go fly a kite, would you call him a schismatic then?

Flying a kite is not mentioned in the Canons. One would not only have to look at the Patriarch's statements BUT what Rome would declare as well. Again, in the case of the SSPX it is clear. Ipso facto, is very clear, and you obviously seem to be quite proficient in Latin.

Regarding the Fathers: I do sincerely think they would look differently on two Apostolic brothers in charity who have been separated a millenium discussing the restoration of communion vs. a surly brother who adamantly refuses communion with his elder brother, took his ball and left, and then pretends he somehow is still part of that church and somehow still respects that older brother.
DD

The Catholic Church is the Universal Church. The Catholic Church was not lacking a "Universal Church" when it did these things after the separation. We are it. One of the marks of the Church is unity, remember? The Church is not and cannot be divided.

Logos Teen

Wow! Thank you! Somebody talking some real sense! I wish I had thought of saying that.

Schisms don't affect the unity of the Church anymore than the presence of sinners affects its holiness, or the passage of time affects its apostolic nature.

A Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox monk from Etna when he was in Berkeley was told that it was a great scandal that Christians were separated from each other. His only reply was that it was an even greater scandal that Christians are separated from Christ.

As someone mentioned already, the Council of Trent effectively codified the already existing Roman liturgy, cleaning it up so to speak.

The pre-Vatican II Roman liturgy is, properly, often referred to as the "classical" Roman liturgy. The most common way to hear its antiquity expressed is:

"in essentials, it dates to the time of St. Gregory the Great"

This in particular refers to the Eucharistic portion of the liturgy and the Roman Canon specifically.

What, of course, must be remembered is to say that it is an ancient liturgy is not to suggest that this liturgy was frozen in time without changes. The principle of "organic development" is very strong in the Roman rite. Thus, changes and accretions in times like the middle ages, or the codification of Trent do happen.

For a good look at the history of the classical Roman liturgy I'd recommend people read the CIEL (International Centre for Liturgical Studies) colloquium proceedings which are scholarly and non-polemical, but from an orthodox, traditional Latin rite perspective, as offered by academics, clergy of traditional Latin rite priestly societies in communion with Rome, as well as Bishops, Cardinals and Abbots.

A good one to begin with for this topic would be "Theological and Historical Aspects of the Roman Missal".

Such books can be seen here: www.ciel-uk.org [ciel-uk.org]

I came on this thread rather late, just read it through from start to last post, and have come away truly scandalized by the TONE that is exhibited by some of the posters. I don't know what has happened, but this does not represent the Byzantine forum that I have known the past few years. The tone and tenor of the posts here demonstrate that the prayer of Christ will NEVER be realized as long as the hearts that can generate this type of underlying hostility to another live.

A simple question was asked at the beginning and off it went onto tangents of liturgy, papal authority, schism, and the whole range of emotions and arguments that have kept us separated for the last 1000 years.

I posted once before on another thread that the same thing can be said in many ways--some with vitriol and some with kindness. There has been a substantial lack of charity shown here in some of the posts--in the way in which they are stated. This forum's charity has been violated and that is something we risk losing, somthing far more valuable than beating each other over the head with harsh statements.

I'm leaving for awhile, but I'm leaving two prayers I wrote for the prayer portion of this forum. They remain part of what I pray for every day. I don't have the answers, but the Holy Spirit does. However, He can't pry His way into hearts closed in the way some here seem to be.

In Christ,

BOB
_________________________________________
Prayer for Ecumenical Understanding

Lord, may each of us who calls himself Your servant take time today to remember that there are others You have placed in this world and in places that are directly opposite to where You have placed us. Let us with Your Grace learn that these may also call themselves Your servants. Let us remember that we have no corner on You, Your Grace, Your Great Mercy, or Your Promises. Let us remember that we do have the same command from You, that we love one another as You have loved us. Help us to remember that Your commandment of love does not release us from living and preaching Your Good News as we have received it, but let us also remember that our brother who may be opposite to us has also been given the Good News even though we may not recognize it in the form he has received it.

Shine into all hearts and let each one speak the Truth as he has received it and be charitable to others in listening to them speak. Grant to us the day when the Holy Spirit will cut through the Tower of Babel we have erected in Your Vineyard by our own sin. Let each one remember that his brother does not hold his understanding of the Truth as a heretic, but rather as one who has been placed in another place than oneself.

Grant all these things, Lord, so that the healing of Your Holy Body, the Church, may come quickly. Through the prayers of the Holy Mother of God, who is by Your Gracious Gift on the Cross our own mother, Lord, save us. AMEN.
___________________________________________

Prayer for the Unity of Christians

(Introductory Meditation) Our Lord Jesus Christ prayed that all of us might be one as He and the Father are one. And here we are. Allow me to propose that we begin to pray for the unity of the Faith and the unity of the faithful with particular fervor and not stop from this day onward. Let's pray that the Lord Jesus will take over this work since we cannot seem to get it right by ourselves.

Lord Jesus, You came to earth to break the bonds of death for us and to show us the Way to the Kingdom where You and the Father dwell. Send the Holy Spirit to us and let us see that Your Kingdom is within each of us to the extent that we let the Spirit in. Help each of us to see that there are others that You have called who are not of the particular flock that You have placed us in, but that they are our brothers and sisters nonetheless because they are Your followers just as we are. Grant us the grace to let the Holy Spirit heal the terrible wounds that we have all inflicted on Your Holy Body, the Church, just as we have inflicted the wounds on Your Physical Body by our sin, though we may be centuries in time removed from the time You suffered. Help us all to rise from the tombs we have constructed around ourselves that seal us in with our own self-righteousness and the Holy Spirit and our brothers and sisters out. Expand our vision and make our love so grow that we will see each one who calls himself your servant as our brother or sister rather than "one of them" that is "separate from us." Show us Your kindness and have patience with us and with the mess we have all made.

Lord, may each of us who calls himself Your servant take time today to remember that there are others You have placed in this world with theological and doctrinal positions that are directly opposite to what You have given us in the place where You placed us. Let us with Your Grace learn that these may also call themselves Your servants. Let us remember that we have no corner on You, Your Grace, Your Great Mercy, or Your Promises. Let us remember that we do have the same command from You, that we love one another as You have loved us. Help us to remember that Your commandment of love does not release us from living and preaching Your Good News as we have received it, but let us also remember that our brother who may be opposite to us has also been given the Good News even though we may not recognize it in the form he has received it. Shine into all hearts and let each one speak the Truth as he has received it and be charitable to others in listening to them speak. Grant to us the day when the Holy Spirit will cut through the Tower of Babel we have erected in Your Vineyard by our own sin. Let each one remember that his brother does not hold his understanding of the Truth as a heretic, but rather as one who has been placed in another place than oneself.

Grant all these things, Lord, so that the healing of Your Holy Body, the Church, may come quickly.

Through the prayers of the All-holy, Ever-Virgin, Mother of God, Mary, who is also our mother by Your gracious Gift from the Cross, through the intercessions of the holy apostles, saints, martyrs, and of all the blessed spirits You have gathered into Your Kingdom from every age, land, and culture, through the intercessions of the holy Choirs of angels who have one will in doing the Will of the Father, O Savior, save us all. AMEN.

I ask forgiveness for any harsh tone I may have portrayed in this thread.