www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Word Schism

The term schism has been on many lips and screens following the consecration of bishops for the Society of St Pius X. Is this term, which many people find distasteful and out of date, reserved exclusively for Traditionalist Catholics ? I am wondering.
Has the term schism or schismatic been used about any Eastern Orthodox or non -Chalcedonian communions in the last fifty years - since the Second Vatican Council ? I mean in official documents or declarations coming from the Vatican.
I emphasise I am not wanting to stir up controversy (about SSPX) or bad feeling but I thought that it was one of those "bad words" that was no longer used.

[quote=Edmundia]The term schism has been on many lips and screens following the consecration of bishops for the Society of St Pius X. Is this term, which many people find distasteful and out of date, reserved exclusively for Traditionalist Catholics ? I am wondering.

Of course it is not reserved for SSPX. Schism can manifest itself as rebellion against established church authority and the intentional breaking of unity, even if basic doctrines are technically still shared. It just so happens that SSPX fits this definition. Many people may "find the term distastful and out of date," but the burden of this label lies with the schismatics - as they chose the state of schism.

You haven't even attempted to answer my question. I understand exactly what you write and could have found this in any theological dictionary. Thanks anyway, at least someone has written something.

Edmundia,

To my knowledge the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East are not considered by Rome to be in schism. I'm not an expert, but that's my understanding of the situation. This also reflects the modern situation, and isn't true of the pre-conciliar context.

The excommunications between Rome and Constantinople were formally lifted in 1965, by Pope St. Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I. Similar overtures were made to the Oriental Orthodox by both Pope St. Paul VI and Pope St. John Paul II, to the same effect. The situation with the Assyrian Church of the East was interesting, since no formal excommunications were ever issued, and dialogue with them has been continuing to deepen. This is all confirmed in official documents (arguably low-grade Magisterium) published by the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity.

Consider also the Melkites - some theologians argue that the Melkites were in full communion with both Rome and Constantinople until 1724, ostensibly since they never received formal notice of schism one way or the other. This is a very interesting idea.

The point is that excommunication is usually an integral part of how we formally define schism. Excommunication is complicated in itself. The Roman Catholic Church (but not the Eastern Catholic Churches) employs the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication, what we usually refer to as "automatic excommunication". This complicates matters, especially since the excommunication is only valid if the person being excommunicated is aware of the fact.

To come to the SSPX, when Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications against the Bishops in 2009, it marked progress for that same reason. Until 2009, they had been in schism. Then in 2016, Pope Francis further regularised their Sacraments, which was what we had until the events of this year. All that being said, their situation wasn't normal, and few people would speak of "full communion". Instead, theologians speak now of "partial communion" to describe these situations, and we already seem to be in partial communion with the Eastern Orthodox.

Another reason why it is difficult to speak of schism regarding the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Christians is that they are under the governance of Patriarchates, with their own legitimate authority. This comes to the question of how far the Holy See ought to intervene in the affairs of other Patriarchates. In contemporary ecclesiology, it is generally thought that such intervention ought to be minimal. With the recent case of the SSPX, the schism is primarily defined by disunion with Rome - the SSPX are in a particular situation, since they are part of the Catholic communion, and under the authority of Pope Leo XIV. This means that their status is defined by their relationship to the Pope, as the first Bishop of their communion, and not by other factors.

The same logic applies among the Orthodox themselves. We can find various localised schisms, defined only by the relative relationships of local Churches to their centres of communion. In other contexts, we can also find schisms with limited effects - the 2018 Moscow-Constantinople schism applies to Priests and Bishops, but apparently not to the faithful attending the respective Churches.

I hope this at least helps clarify some aspects of your question.

Yes it does clarify things very much as I thought, which means, as far as I can understand it, that the only people who are considered schismatic are the Traditionalist Catholics (those who hold to the integral Catholic faith, moral teachings and worship as taught by the entire Catholic church until the Second Vatican Council. Therefore the only people who are reckoned as schismatic are those who maintain the traditional Faith following the SSPX. Funny.
For an excellent summary of this do look at the SSPX PROFESSION OF CATHOLIC FAITH, (on the Feast of St John the Baptist, 2026) There are 154 points and each one is carefully referenced giving the date and context of the doctrines and moral teaching. It's useful and interesting. Oh and before anyone points a metaphorical theological gun at me I teach in a mainstream Catholic school and go a "Novus Ordo Mass" on almost all Sundays, except when I can go to a nearby Dominican Priory where they celebrate the old Dominican Rite Mass.

And thus, you have exposed the loaded question you originally proposed. The question was not genuine, but had at its purpose your desire to paint the schismatic SSPX as the true Church and the canonical Chuch as rebelling against " tradition". It is common practice to try to turn the tables in order to paint the antagonist as the real protagonist.

Let me purpose a question: does the definition of a traditional Catholic include accepting the authority of the Church and it's Pontiff?

Edmundia,

To be clear, schism occurs whenever there are words or actions that formally break adherence with the canonical authority, and it is fully realised with excommunication. The SSPX are not unique in this category. Associated with schism is the question of heresy. I noted the 2007 example of the "Army of Mary", who were excommunicated by Rome for believing that Our Lady and their founder were incarnations of the Divinity. I'm not sure we can even call this group schismatic, as their case seems to be closer to apostasy, but the point is that there are many examples of other Catholic groups having been excommunicated in recent decades.

Perhaps the strangest case is the "Palmarian Catholic Church", which has managed to have any number of validly but illicitly ordained Bishops, through the ordinations initially enacted by the Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục. This group are certainly schismatic, even if their situation seems to be something worse than schism. They appear to maintain valid Sacraments. They have even went so far as to declare their own Papacy.

All of this being said, the SSPX situation is the most numerically significant to have affected the Western Church in recent decades. The contents of the disagreement with Rome are primarily related to the Second Vatican Council. In my experience, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't take much to do with it, because the controversies that led to this schism aren't operative in these Churches.

In Christ,

A.

Thanks for this. I don't want to go on and on about this. The SSPX issue is complicated and there are excellent arguments on both sides, just as there are for and against SEDEVACANTISM.

I like your sentence:
In my experience, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't take much to do with it, because the controversies that led to this schism aren't operative in these Churches.

Essentially but not entirely the SSPX argument is about the Mass; is it a Holy Supper in which the priest facing the people "presides" often in a casual way, or is the solemn renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, offered for the living and dead, with the priest facing God, symbolised by facing liturgical east.
I am sure you are correct, this issue does not really affect the Eastern Rites because they have maintained their glorious liturgical traditions and their liturgy today looks and sounds like their liturgy in 1926, 1826, 1526, wheras the modern Roman rite of Mass looks and sounds like a new thing.

Edmundia,

Just as a additional point: even in the Eastern Churches, there are very slow changes that take place in the liturgical rubrics. Russian Orthodoxy is a good example. The Slavic tradition became progressively detached from the Greek Byzantine tradition, and devotional aspects soon become normative for Russian Orthodox liturgical practice. I wouldn't have the references to go into the details, but I've been told this by a number of people attached to this Church. All I can say here is that attending a Greek Byzantine liturgy feels quite different indeed from a Slavic Byzantine liturgy.

Even with the Melkites (again I've only been told this, I'd need to verify) the practice of giving Holy Communion directly into the mouth, without spoons, was introduced in 1909. There are other small changes which accumulated over centuries of practice, even if we maintain a very solid Greek Byzantine liturgy. This is before we say anything concerning the "Byzantinisation" of the Antiochian Rite which we had in the earliest centuries. Liturgical change, sometimes quite sudden, has happened before.

On a wider level, every Church has liturgical abuses somewhere, and this creates a diversity of praxis. It seems to be inevitable. If you were a Roman Catholic living in 1726, you may never experience a solemn High Mass during your entire life. Instead, in your local village, and in the villages neighbouring it, you may only have had access to the Low Mass. Priestly formation being what it was, the catechetical instruction may also have been minimal. While the Mass would have always followed certain rubrics, your experience as a Catholic may have been deeply impoverished. This all reflects a very serious liturgical issue, and one which the Roman Catholic Church strived to resolve.

Part of the wider debate also concerns the Council of Trent. Pope St. Pius V seems to have fixed the Roman Canon, to be applied universally. Some theologians have argued that this was problematic in the longer term, because it sacrificed a legitimate liturgical diversity within the Latin Rite (consider again the diversity present in the Byzantine Rite) that helped everything to develop organically.

The Latin Rite of Pope St. Paul VI provokes controversy, it seems to me, because of the diversity of praxis that it allows. Unlike the liturgical diversity of the pre-Tridentine period, this liturgical diversity often seems to be taken to the limits of what is possible. Hence, the issue of liturgical abuses and poor catechesis comes back to the fore.

I was interested when you wrote: "Is it a Holy Supper in which the priest facing the people "presides" often in a casual way, or is the solemn renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, offered for the living and dead, with the priest facing God, symbolised by facing liturgical east?" On this point, the Byzantine tradition gives us even more to think about: not only is the Mass the Sacrifice, it is the eschatological banquet, it is the adoration of the Risen Lord. We face the liturgical Orient, because we hope to witness His Parousia, when He comes again from the East. That's also why Churches were usually built facing East, and the Sun shines through the windows placed over the Altar, while the Mass is being celebrated. Additionally, the Mass is not only offered for the living and the dead, but also for the Angels and the Saints, for Our Blessed Mother in a special way, and finally for the greater Glory of God. This is clarified when you witness the Proskomedia, and the division of the Lamb (i.e. the Host) into separate parts. The Mass therefore works not only for our sanctification, but also for our glorification.

In Christ,

A.

What an excellent and very interesting post. Thank you. I agree with almost all of it.

I agree that there has always been gradual development in the liturgy (see for example; Dom Alcuin Reid O.S.B. The Organic Development of the Roman Rite) but it has always been slight, slow and organic. I believe that in the Byzantine rite there have been developments, based on popular devotion, in the Holy Friday service with the un-nailing of the figure of our Lord and the procession. You will know far more about this. The problem with the 1969/1970 new Roman Rite is that, as far as I know, it is the first example of a NEW rite being largely constructed from nothing (for example the new "Offertory" and two of the Eucharistic prayers written fresh by Belgian monks). The only other examples of a newly constructed Eucharistic rite have been when a new denomination has started - they have torn up the old books and started with a clean page. Many of the old collects in the Old Missal were changed and purged in their proper latin forms, excluding the miraculous and supernatural. Some good scholarly work has been done on the new re-written Orations.

I don't agree with your interpretation of Penal Times' liturgy. You are right, they were almost all reduced to occasional Low Masses but not by choice or decision. In our first foundation (that is the school where I work) the English College of Douay, they had splendid liturgies and William Byrd was writing musical settings of the Mass to be used in England, especially at Ingatestone Hall (Essex). There was a terrible development of the anti-liturgical "Low Mass Mentality" which has continued (adding in the anti-liturgical Irish influence).

I don't agree that the priests were inadequately formed - I am proud of our ancestor - the English College of Douay which gave a very rgorous training for priests, especially emphasising scripture and controversy. The college was inspected by Roman authorities and followed the Tridentine regulations.

I agree with everything else you say - especially about the Eastward position. So, just two slight disagreements between us ...................not bad at all.

Edmundia,

I'm not an expert in this, but it seems interesting to research into how the ancient anaphoras (Eucharistic prayers) were first composed. Some anaphoras are barely used at all: an anaphora attributed to St. Ephrem the Syrian was recently published, in a critical edition, and few people even know that such an anaphora existed. I doubt that a Mass celebrated with this anaphora would be invalid as such, but it seems unlikely that it will be attempted.

You mentioned that a "New Rite" was created, and I think this is where the issues become complicated. As a first principle, it must be said that we can't associate a Rite with just one anaphora: the Byzantine Rite can use the Anaphora of St. Basil, or the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom (like an abbreviated version of St. Basil). I suspect that the Anaphora of St. Ephrem would either be an anaphora of the West Syriac Rite or the East Syriac Rite. We might even argue that the anaphoras supposedly associated with the "Celtic Rite" are actually Antiochian.

The Roman Rite now has the Tridentine anaphora (Roman Canon) but also the recent anaphoras designed at Vatican II. Theologically, the Roman Catholic Church has insisted that the Tridentine Mass is not part of a different Rite than the Mass of Pope St. Paul VI. Instead, they are part of the same Rite, but different expressions of it. One of the difficulties is that we speak of the "Tridentine Rite", the "Dominican Rite", and the "Sarum Rite", rather than just the "Roman Rite". The word "Rite" is clearly being used in different ways. One liturgist suggested recently that we should instead speak of "ritual families", if we attempt to define what this word really means. I suppose that we could also associate these ritual families with different Patriarchates, developed under definite canonical authorities.

Osmosis can often happen - the Churches associated with the Byzantine Rite are usually permitted to use the Anaphora of St. James, on rare occasions, which is Antiochian. Of course, we also have bi-ritual Priests, so there can be a Roman Rite Priest celebrating in the Byzantine Rite, or the Armenian Rite, or the Alexandrine Rite, despite remaining under the authority of the Pope. We equally have the Western Orthodox tradition, now being developed, which allows some Eastern Orthodox Priests to celebrate older forms of the Roman Rite.

All of this suggests that the issue of Rites, or ritual families, is associated with the wider unity of Apostolic Christianity. No one Rite is truly the property of any one canonical authority, but part of the universal Church. Of course, some variants like the Sarum Rite (or Sarum Use) and the Anaphora of St. Ephrem may simply disappear over time, or may have met with limited success. I'd venture to suggest that some of the Eucharistic Prayers developed at Vatican II may go the same way, but perhaps they won't. History tends to resolve these sorts of issues.

That's all for now.

In Christ,

A.

Thank you. I am all for diversity and not rigid monolithic conformism. I wish that the Vatican was a little bit more flexible. Tomorrow morning we will be going to an (Old Rite) Dominican Mass. I take much of my thinking from Dr Geoffrey Hull's monumental [plenty of reviews online] THE BANISHED HEART; THE ORIGIN OF HECTOPRAXIS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He is fascinated by and know much about the eastern rites and some say far too sympathetic to the Orthodox.

To Hutsul.

It was a real question. I am a teacher in a Catholic school and go to the New Rite of Mass celebrated in English by a diocesan priest in our school chapel with the students. That is not very schismatic or SSPX.
My question is quite genuine and has nothing to do with opposing the SSPX against the Vatican.
I am merely asking whether there are any official uses of the word schism or schismatic since Vatican II apart from SSPX. That is a reasonable and not a controversial question. I had hoped for an answer; I have done some research but my resources are limited. As far as I know the word schismatic was often used about our Eastern Orthodox brethren and friends but since Vatican II it seems to be no longer used. Maybe I am just too curious.
Sorry Hutsul, oh and by the way I am not acting as an agent for a SSPX priest, in fact I do not know any.

It is s a common practice, in the region in which I live, for Anti- Vatican 2ists" to try to get sympathy for their disenchantment among us Eastern Catholics. They incorrectly assume that we somehow are the " trads" that they want to be-primarily because we use an older form of the Liturgy, older than their new Mass. ( and we remain Catholic....how convenient!) However, they have no idea how much we owe to Vatican II. Through the decree "Orientalium Ecclesiarum", the Council ( Vatican II) affirmed the equal dignity of Eastern Churches, ordered them to recover their ancient traditions, and encouraged rolling back centuries of "Latinizations".

It was obvious to me that your question contained a sentiment of support for the SSPX and that is your prerogative. It also became apparent, via your subsequent comments, that you believe Vatican II to be detrimental to the Church. Again, that is your prerogative. I do not hold to these views, and that is my prerogative.

Furthermore, in our region, there are a number of these discontented Latin Catholics attending services in Byzantine Churches. Their reasons are varied, but in general, they claim " tradition" -( whatever that might mean to them) They are Catholics dissatisfied with post Vatican II reforms, the Pope, modernity, liberal ideas, or all of the above. Most of them express superficial views about both Latin and Eastern Rites. In general though, they are Catholics incapable of understanding, or coping with , the nature of change and how it relates to the Church.

The ultimate irony is this though. These Vatican II rejectors bring with them their Latin Catholic luggage. Instead of trying to understand our Rites and practices, they expect the Rosaries, Mercy Chaplets, and Lourdes statues. They want Novenas not Molebens, Expositions and Adorations and not Vespers and Vigils. They genuflect, not bow. They load the vestibule with pamphlets about Fatima, Medjugorji, and Matthew Kelly. And some priests, either starved for parishioners or not knowing better themselves- allow it.

The ultimate irony of all of this is that Anti- Vatican 2ers are once again, slowly, Latinizing Eastern Rites, at least within the geographical horizon that I see.

These Vatican II rejectors bring with them their Latin Catholic luggage. Instead of trying to understand our Rites and practices, they expect the Rosaries, Mercy Chaplets, and Lourdes statues. They want Novenas not Molebens, Expositions and Adorations and not Vespers and Vigils. They genuflect, not bow. They load the vestibule with pamphlets about Fatima, Medjugorji, and Matthew Kelly. And some priests, either starved for parishioners or not knowing better themselves- allow it.


I agree with all you say and what you refer to in this paragraph is the besetting fault of what some of us call (disparagingly) "Tradiland" all the worst side of modern post Tridentine Catholicism. All the liturgical acts which you mention are what attracts me to Eastern Christianity. Novenas, Expositions, Adorations, Fatima ,visions, viosionaries are exactly what Latin Rite catholics want and like and that is especially true of those who follow the Old Tridentine Rite AND the New Vatican II rites. That is why some Catholics, like me, who have traditional liturgical spirit are attracted to eastern Christianity; I can think of at least four friends of mine who are now very happily members of the Eastern Orthodox church, principally because of "devotional, modern Roman Catholicism".

May I recommend Dr Geoffrey Hull's monumental book [lots of reviews for and against it online] THE BANISHED HEART. Among other issues he deals with is the gradual, post-reformation anti-liturgical spirit but plenty about the latinizing of the Eastern rites, which he examines and criticises vehemently - and he is a strongly "traditionalist" Catholic. It is one of the few modern Catholic books worth reading. It will not go with your theory that it is the trad.catholics who are trying to wreck your glorious Eastern heritage, but rather the 20th century Vatican.

Thank you for your thoughts and reflections, they are very welcome and valuable.