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

Forgive me for butting in and (perhaps) somewhat hijacking this conversation, and I hope my one-post tangent can be accepted here.
While I agree that many Latin traditionalists do disparage or misconstrue our ritual tradition as part of their liturgical warring, I wonder if there is some more to be said. Edmundia here mentioned Dr. Hull, who's work I have been told is worth reading and still haven't gotten around to (and so, will not speak on) - but, in some ways, both Conciliar traditionalists and reformers (I will not speak of those who reject it altogether, for the very questionable ecclesiological state they are in) offer their own points of unity and contention when it comes to approaching their brethren.
Traditionalists, of course, can often persist in a post-Tridentine stasis, die on hills of universal clerical celibacy and, at worst, disparage the Eastern traditions for Latin supremacy or demand liturgical submission (just look at the SSSJ, schisming even before the SSPX decided it was in fashion again!). Some of these issues, however, still remain with post-reform Latin Catholicism, and other points of conflict emerge. The main one I have struggled to settle with is the need for changes like facing the people or cutting 'vain repetition' for the sake of adaptation - why is it that the new rite brought changes meant to 'adapt' or 'renew' the liturgy for mankind and for the world today that we have not made, and where does that leave us? Are we, then, somehow antiquated or outdated in our practice, and meant to be left to the side as 'those other 23' in the Catholic club? It seems a strange, strange compromise, and I do not want to think of it as exceptionalism, but it sometimes strongly feels that way; they do the heavy-lifting, we sit back and pray prettily.

It feels, too, that this has some connection to the subsequent pervasive Latinisations still visible in the East, and why the Coptic or Syriac churches have switched to unleavened bread, facing-people, meshing in musical instruments, etc. while Byzantine Catholics have made strides in the opposite direction. The problem is not simply following Orientalium Ecclesiarum, or the earlier Orientalium Dignitas - it feels as if it is moreso the bigger feeling that we are peripheral, less-than-sufficient Catholics merely existing as a concession for unity, and not the independent practice of traditions founded by the Apostles, strands of the Catholic Church in themselves. Some Latins, of course, have insisted on this being the case and pushed in their traditions. I know just as well, however, parishes where Slovak laity kneel at the Anaphora or Ukrainian priests strike their chests thrice for the prayer before the Eucharist; all without a single Latin in attendance.

Things certainly differ, and forgive me if I seem to underplay your concerns; I just seek to bring a different perspective into light here. Perhaps these issues of Latin influence still come down to the same problem: that, we should mind the Latins a bit less (whether in vitriol or in adoration), embrace our ritual tradition, and, as a certain Eminence once said, have the 'courage to be ourselves'...

Thanks for this. I am glad that you refer to Geoffrey Hull's book THE BANISHED HEART it really studies these questions thoroughly and from a non-Tradiland perspective. He explains that it is NOT the latin rite traditionalists who want to latinize the eastern rites It was all done by conservative Romanist conservatives and Roman imperialists who hated the idea of Married priests, Holy Communion under both kinds, confirmation of small children. Many of the eastern customs and liturgical practices are admired by the real liturgically minded traditionalists.

They are certainly not keen to propagate Medjugorje as Hutsul so wrongly suggests - most traditionalists loathe it. Fatima ; yes, Medjugorje; Mega-forgery ; no leaflets about it in Eastern rite churches.

Hull suggests that we need to restore the traditional sacred Liturgy (Mass and Divine Office) both Eastern and Western and get away from the rationalist, counter-reformation, Jesuitry, man-centered, Pope-centred, intellectual, catechetical approach of the modern west and restore the Banished Heart [the liturgy] , before the Popes and reformers , especially the Pope Piuses, of the early and later 20th c. damaged it by their Papal fiat.

Reading these recent posts, especially the evocative question from turaŭski about the 'other 23' Churches being seen in a certain way, I think there is an important point to be noted here.

I've met Latin Rite liturgists and theologians who actually hope to see the "Liturgical Reform" spring to life in the Eastern Catholic Churches, not in a Latinised way, but in the same "spirit of the Council" that progressive theologians have often evoked. What does this mean, for them? It means tearing down the Iconostases, it means the Priest facing the congregation, it means a gradual pruning of those elements of the liturgical symbols and texts which suggest a supernatural liturgy that undergirds the earthly liturgy.

Paradoxically, this in itself is a form of Latinisation, since the whole initiative stems from a Rationalist epistemology (developed from William of Ockham through to Descartes) which is foreign to the Mystagogy that usually characterises Eastern liturgy.

I've been told that the real issue here is about how we understand God and His action within the world. I quite agree. What we have are two opposing existential stances - one is based on symbolism, a sense of the sacred irrupting into the world, and especially into the Church, and an awareness of the Mystery, without any pretension to explaining it. The other perspective understands religion through modern anthropology (the human being is placed at the point of origin, not God) and believes in the progress of culture and civilisation towards ever greater enlightenment, such that older expressions of religion become redundant.

Edmundia did mention the references to the supernatural in the liturgy, and this is a real issue. To take one example, the Cherubim and Seraphim are represented with liturgical fans in many of the Eastern Rites, referring us to an awareness of the cosmic liturgy celebrated eternally in the presence of the Most Holy Trinity. The difficulty is this: in Latin Rite seminaries, and in many Pontifical Universities, students are taught that the Cherubim and Seraphim don't exist! In the liturgical sphere, this thereby makes their presence in the ritual an anomaly to be "updated".

I could continue to cite examples, but I come back to my initial observation. Are we really just part of 'those 23 other Churches' and under what terms? It has been said recently that the whole East/West distinction is flawed, and it inevitably biases the Western model. In reality, we have not 2 lungs of the Church (Pope St. John Paul's image) but multiple. The Armenian lung, the Coptic lung, the Assyrian lung, the Byzantine lung, the Latin lung etc.

As an additional point, it seems clear that some of the 24 sui iuris Churches are near extinction. Some don't even have their own Bishop! Six of them have a Patriarch or a Catholicos. If we were to really analyse where each Church stands in relation to the others, this seems like a place to start, without prejudicing the rights of those more endangered Churches to assert thenselves.

In Christ,

A.

The difficulty is this: in Latin Rite seminaries, and in many Pontifical Universities, students are taught that the Cherubim and Seraphim don't exist! In the liturgical sphere, this thereby makes their presence in the ritual an anomaly to be "updated".

I agree with all this and go back to my original comment that there is a clear division between those who see the Mass as a kind of casual "Holy Supper" the priest as a President (joining with the people) facing the people in a happy kind of circle and those who see the Mass as a solemn sacrificial Offering to God by the priest at the Altar. I do think that this sums s ss s up the crisis in the church - not entirely but principally. There is a real division between those who see worship as a kind of people pleasing entertainment and those who see it as an offering to God and this division is seen in all Christian communions.

************
Another difficulty is this. Most Latin Catholics who despise Vatican II engage in hyperbole akin to the above. They would have the listener believe that the Council set out to purposely destroy the Church's teachings, its' Mass, and all that makes it holy. Vatican II was, in large part, the Church's attempt to re-state It's message to a 20th century that just experienced two World Wars, Communism, the atomic age, and the Holocaust. This was a jaded world, whose people were in desperate need of a refreshed view of the Faith. It was an exhausted world crying out for fresh air in order to breath again. Additionally, and because of factors as these, it addressed a world rapidly entering a global community, a community that necessitates an acknowledgement of diverse ideas and faiths. In short, the Church needed to make its message relevant and healing.

The last thing it needed, or needs now, is to tuck It's head in the sand, and pretend we live in the 19th century of Saint Pius X ( Of eternal memory, and of whom I respect, by the way)

I've been watching this thread for some days, and I must say that I'm tired of this particular trope in general (not just in this thread).

Yes, I'm canonically a Maronite Catholic now, and have been a parishioner at various Byzantine and Maronite parishes for nearly two decades. But I grew up in the Roman Church and served daily Mass in the Ordinary Form from the time I was eight years old until I went to college. While in college (at an orthodox Roman Catholic university), I continued attending daily Mass and serving whenever possible.

Rare indeed have been my encounter with these mythical people who see Mass strictly as a "kind of casual 'Holy Supper.'"

For the most part, everyone I've encountered still thinks of the Mass as a sacrifice. And those who think of it as a "Holy Supper" don't think of it strictly as a "Holy Supper" but as a "sacrificial meal" in line with the sacrifices of the Old Testament (since the Mass is the fulfillment of those sacrificial meals).

This ongoing attempt to somehow pit Mass as a sacrifice against Mass as a meal is just ridiculous and not at all biblical (or Catholic, whether Western or Eastern).

One of the beauties of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, when one actually takes the time to listen attentively to the prayers, is that it strikes the balance between the Mass as both sacrifice and meal.

To all,

I haven't met many contemporary theologians who reduce the Mass to a "meal", though some may have existed in the 1970s.

What I have seen with my own eyes are theologians and priests who are open about their disbelief, when asked - three who have denied the literal reality of any conscious afterlife to my face, many more who have claimed that Angels do not exist, and just as many who critique the idea of the supernatural in itself. Maybe this is just France?

The real questions lurk amidst the details. Those three individuals who denied the afterlife wouldn't say so much explicitly. They may even have spoken about "Heaven" in their homilies. Yet, when asked specific questions - "Are we conscious or aware in Heaven?", "Is there really a physical Resurrection of our bodies?", "Is this literally true and not mere metaphor?" - we often run into serious problems.

I was stunned to learn that officiating priests, and professors teaching at Pontifical Universities, actually believed that death was the end (one even said it was "the gift of finitude"), and that God actually didn't exist in supernatural form, but was entirely revealed in Jesus of Nazareth (Jesology, as opposed to Trinitarian theology). I admit that I have never once encountered such issues with the East. I submit again that this is a conseqence of Rationalism gone too far - the legacy of Ockham and Descartes, but perhaps also the neo-Scholastics.

This is also the legacy of a deeply confusing Philosophy. In the school of Phenomenology, we can say that God exists, without actually believing He exists! For the phenomenologists, it is enough that God is encoded within our stories, our hopes and our language. For any orthodox and believing Christian, I'd contend that this can never be enough.

These points reflect some of my deepest concerns regarding the Universal Church. I have taken a step back, and I've chosen to place my trust in those who at least believe in the Creed. I suppose my point here is just to say that the crisis of Faith is serious, far more serious than most people realise. It leads to "de facto" forms of schism, with Churches sharing full communion on paper (even within just the Latin Rite) but having no shared Faith. Perhaps this is some conclusion I might give to the question originally asked, about "The Word Schism".

For all that, I do believe that true Faith will endure, and that the Holy Spirit guides us.

In Christ,

A.

Christ is in our midst!!


Hutsul,

I appreciate your statement about the need for Vatican 2. However, because language matters, I must take issue with some of the words you used. I don't fault you for using them because they have been used for the justification of many things brought about since the time the 2nd Vatican Council was convened. But I do think an examination of the philospophy behind them is in order.

The word "refreshed" that you use reminds me of the constant drumbeat of "renewal" during and for a couple decades during and after the Council. To me it implies that the Faith had become moribund and the timeless qualities that had produced so many saints was no longer able to do so. It seems that the Holy Spirit was left out of the equation, too, since the Vatican Council was notorious for abandoning the understanding of what an ecumenical council had to be in order to say that the Holy Spirit was at work. The council's documents were decided by a majority vote, not be the traditional understanding that all council decisions had to be by a unanimous consensus of the fathers gathered in council. In other words, the Holy Spirit speaks in an ecumenical council by either the unanimous consent of the fathers or by the mouth of the lone dissenter.

The philosophy behind the 20th century's movement that resulted in Vatican 2 came about from the 19th century's influence of the rationalist philosophers like Descartes , Kant, and two others. Their idea was that there was no absolute truth--something the Church has always claimed to possess. That idea, once played out, means that there is a constant rehashing of ideas and the truth itself. This philsophy also contains elements of the Darwinian idea of evolution. Played out, it means that we are smarter than our teachers because we are evolving toward some perfect human species--like Teilhard de Chardin's "Omega Point." It also means that we are constantly challenging and restudying all that we have received form the past because we somehow have come to the idea that those who have gone before were not as enlightened as we.

The need for an "acknowledgement of diverse ideas and faiths" is questionable. That, in itself, might be necessary as we engage with people from other religions, but the idea that the Catholic Christian Faith is unique and Divinely revealed seems to have been lost. We have witnessed popes praying with pagans, something our fathers in the Faith have condemned and refused to do. We have witnessed the idea that there are three "Abrahamic faiths," of which we are only one become fashionable. We have heard Pope Paul VI make a statement that we three worship the same God, though we Christians cannot say that because we worship, not one God, but the Holy, Consubstantial, and Undivided Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And since Christ told us that He and the Father are one, we cannot separate that truth about who we worship from the idea of a common worship of God.

I have read a justification for the Latin Church revising its Liturgy of the Hours in which the bishop in charge of the translations for the USCCB states that we are constantly learning more about the ancient languages in which Scripture was written as we uncover more and more ancient manuscripts. What he doesn't say is how we can learn more about an ancient language than we learned from the ones who taught us in the first place. Now if one means that modern speculation coming from the idea that our understandings must constantly evolve, then that might be so. But that also leaves open the question of whether we are down the wrong path. It also leaves open the question about why the Church would abandon the many ancient manuscripts coming to light and have chosen the ones used prior to Vatican 2 in translations of Scripture and transmitting the Faith.

And what of the Apostles, the Fathers and the saints? Were they all deficient in passing along the Faith Christ left us? The finished Deposit?

There have been critiques of the Vatican Council that have pointed to language that has been less than specific, allowing for the various interpretations of what was meant and the confusion of many interpretations. So it would seem to me that what the world needed was clarity, not ambiguity.

Because of this there has been the idea that there are many ways to the Kingdom and that the one way through Christ is not the only way. I can't accept that. I take Our Lord at His word: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

This confusion that we have is a crisis and has been pointed out to us by our brethren in the other Apostolic Churches with which we share the historic Faith and the interpretation of what it means to live it out.

To me, the Church and her message has always been "relevant." It has been relevant in every age. It is the narrow path; it is the eye of the needle. Both St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom have taught that not everyone will make it into the Kingdom. That's the message in every age. It's opposite to the message I hear from everyone that no one will ever not be included. This last is contrary to the Gospel. It's dangerous; it's satanic. The Church only needs to be faithful to the Deposit she has received so that the Lord's wonder if there will be faith on the earth when He returns is not in vain.

My friend Theophan,

As usual, your comments reflect a thoughtful examination of the issues. Your response, as always, is also testimony to your faith and concern for the Church. I am going to comment on a few of the philosophical points that you have expressed.

*On your critique of " refresh" and "renew"

I purposely choose to use the word " refresh" because refresh means "to revitalize, energize, or update something temporarily without fundamentally changing or replacing it." Whereas "renew" means "to restore, extend the validity of, or completely restart a contract, subscription, or commitment."

*On your indictment of "rational philosophers" and "Darwinian theories"

I am not completely sure what you are saying here. However, if you are pinning the calamities of the 20th century on rationality, I disagree. The 20th century leading up to Vatican II was characterized by irrationality, not rationality. The Church was responding to a world given over to chaos, not order.
Furthermore, in the modern world, the Church needs to address its position regarding the exponential growth of science, knowledge, and new discoveries. The theories and facts of evolution, are certainly one of them. How can anything, or anyone, claim relevancy while deniging geology and anthrpology? How could any institution be taken seriously if they refuse to face overwhelming emperical evidence? There are those Christian denominations who calculate the age of the Earth at several thousand years! (It is laughable to think that coal was formed over the course of a few thousand years, just to give one example) One of the most embarrassing episodes of Church history can be found in the Church's early denial of heliocentric theories and the condemnation of Galileo. In short, the Church of the modern world must recognize Faith as compatible with Reason, and express it to humanity, or surrender all credibility and appear a fairy tale.

*On your fear of (Catholic) Christianity loosing it's "uniqeness"

How? How can making ourselves aware that there are rich traditions, meaningful scriptures, spiritual artworks and holy people outside our beliefs threaten our faith? If anything, knowing and appreciating such diversity should make us all the more grateful of our unique position and put our faith in greater context. Assuredly, when one is convinced, when one believes, that they posess uniqueness, it can never be threatened. And......the acknowledgment, and understanding of alternative faiths makes the uniqueness even more apparent. And that- which makes us unique is this-...... we are not on a quest for God like the others, because we believe God has come to us.

*On your confidence that the Church houses the "finished deposit of Faith"

The Church does contain it. The deposit may be finished, yes, but is it to be buried? Rather, isn't the deposit , at least, to be put into a bank to aquire interest, (referring to Matthew 25.) Or better... to be invested in order to double it's worth? And, as it's worth accrues, does it not "refresh?"

*On your opinion about eternal damnation:

As to the controversy of Universal Restoration, there appear to be arguments that could validate both sides. One thing is for sure, in this life we will never know. However, who are we, as finite beings, to set parameters on the Mercy of God? How can we use the limits of worded doctrine to discount possibilities of the Divine plan? We, stuck in this cause- effect world, usually act similar to the eldest brother of the Prodigal Son. We can not believe that our father would allow forgiveness concerning our wayward brother, and even celebrate his conversion. Our disenchantment is not due to lack of love for our brother, but really because we, who have followed all the doctrine- all the rules- seem to get no reward. How superficial this must seem to the father. And, in the case of Universal Restoration, how can the possibility of everything finally being restored to the purposes of God be termed "satanic?"

*On your appeal for "clarity" over "ambiguity":

Most find ambiguity threatening. But some find the over emphasis on clarity just as threatening. The obsession for clarity can lead to the very things that caused 20th century calamities. The preoccupation with clarity can produce the intolerance that leads to oppressive institutions, whose moto becomes ( in the words of T. H. White), "everything not forbidden is compulsory." A measure of ambiguity is necessary, and healty, in the human experience. It's open- endedness is at the heart of the arts, love, and sincere spirituality.
Ambiguity makes it possible for us to become chefs......Clarity makes good cooks.

Theophan,

In another thread, I insinuated that there is an ever-present danger that, once great ideas become institutions, eventually the idea "becomes" the institution. This is my feeling about the rejection of Vatican II reforms. In my way of thinking, Vatican II was an attempt to re-present the "idea." The SSPX, and so-called trads, seek to re- enforce the institution, and that might seem okay......but .....Vatican II challanges us to drive ahead by looking through the windshield, not through the rear-view mirror.

With respect for your position, Hutsul

I would second Theophan's point here: "I have read a justification for the Latin Church revising its Liturgy of the Hours in which the bishop in charge of the translations for the USCCB states that we are constantly learning more about the ancient languages in which Scripture was written as we uncover more and more ancient manuscripts. What he doesn't say is how we can learn more about an ancient language than we learned from the ones who taught us in the first place."

To my own understanding, from what I've read in Theology, and from what I've been taught in Theology, the gold-standard scriptural translation is the Septuagint. The "Letter of Aristeas" seems to suggest its significance: initially a translation of the Scriptures by the Jewish authorities of the 3rd century BC, synthesising the legitimate wisdom of the Hellenic tradition with the Jewish faith. Of course, this doesn't negate the value of the Peshitta, the Masoretic, the Ge'ez, or the Vulgate, among others. If we're studying Holy Scripture, reading these versions alongside each other can be an excellent exercise, and it is entirely legitimate to do so. If we can find some synthesis across the versions, while appreciating the particularities of each version on its own, we may begin to have some taste of the depth of the Word.

I won't mention translations into modern languages, beyond the period of Late Antiquity - this is quite a different question. Suffice it to say that any modern translations really ought to base themselves upon these established versions. The important point is simply that we give each translation its proper place, while holding the Septuagint to be inerrant. This might sound like a very high view to take, and I admit that there may be other theological positions on this. Does it suggest that the ancient languages (in which the Scriptures were translated) are somehow sacred? Perhaps. After all, it is in these same languages that the ancient liturgies of the Universal Church find expression.

However, to come back to the initial point - when I hear someone dispute the prophecy concerning the Virginity of the Holy Theotokos (for example) I simply point them to the Septuagint, which translates Isaiah 7:14 appropriately. It leaves no room for doubt. Opponents will cite the Masoretic version, and typically disregard other translations, which reflects so much of the problem. Instead of taking a view of the Holy Scriptures as inspired by the Holy Spirit (even in the very act of translating; even in the very plurality of ancient translations) many will prefer to place Divine inspiration at some distant origin point, to the conclusion of arguing that the text isn't inerrant, but only the living oral tradition that preceded it.

Exegesis then becomes an academic exercise, a subject suited to the historian of manuscripts, and for the expert in ancient languages. Suffice it to say, this seems to be quite unfortunate, and perhaps it is instructive to note that it runs contrary to the entire spirit of how the Church Fathers read the Bible. It also runs contrary to Rabbinic interpretation. On the Rabbinic way of reading the Scriptures, Robert Alter wrote an excellent book which explains it better than I can: "The Art of Biblical Narrative".

I've become convinced that to truly enjoy the Word of God, we must follow its own contours, we must enter into its own grammar, into its own narrative logic. The debates which Hutsul refers to, concerning Heliocentrism, the Deluge, or the age of the Earth, are profoundly Western in context. These questions simply don't make sense when we reverently follow the Biblical narrative, and fully embrace its mystery. Incidentally, this is a positive case of "ambiguity", since any attempt to derive total "clarity" from the Word of God seems to come close to idolatry - we've been left with a living Word, one which (even in textual form) lends itself to unlimited depth.

Scottish Melkite,

I am in awe of the depth of your knowledge, your vocabulary and use of terminology. I wish I knew a fraction of what you know.
That said, the opening topic concerned the SSPX and whether it's designation as "schismatic" was unusual in this day in age. As the topic evolved, the question arose as to whether the designation is deserved. By the way, the topic seems inherently " Western in context".....SSPX sure isn't Eastern.
So, I am curious....what do you think? Without a whirlwind of scholastic jargon- in your learned opinion....is SSPX a schism? Is it a benefit to the Church or a detriment to the Church? And, finally, in a nut shell, what is your opinion about Vatican II?

Hutsul,

It is true we have went quite off-topic, but the questions stack up on each other, and the deeper issues do seem interesting.

With the SSPX, since they have Ordained four Bishops contrary to Papal mandate, and since the Pope has formally excommunicated those Bishops (alongside Priests and Laity who exclusively adhere to the Society) they are definitely in schism. I said as much in my first replies on this thread, noting that excommunication is the usual way of defining schism.

The topic is certainly related to the Western Church, and we're on a forum dedicated to the Byzantine tradition (and the wider Eastern traditions) so it seemed worthwhile to situate the question in the broader realities of the Universal Church. My most recent posts on this thread have sought to indicate that some of the expressions of the reforms in the post-conciliar context have been misguided, and that they may even have led to cases of "de facto schism", since some of the core tenets of Faith have been compromised.

Coming back to the SSPX - contextualised also by a form of Western Rationalism, as you allude to, perhaps best expressed in Neo-Scholasticism - we do find problematic aspects in their teaching. Much of it seems to be associated with an insistence on Justification, and on a penitentiary approach to Salvation. This is precisely what we don't find in the Byzantine tradition, whose focus is on Sanctification and the work of Grace in the soul. It has been said elsewhere that Western Christianity (especially in its Counter-Reformation phase) has a very strong focus on the juridical, even to the point that Grace seems to be dispensed primarily according to Justice and merits, and not gratuitously through the Divine Mercy. Canon Law regulates Theology in this perspective, which is the opposite of what many of us might hope for.

Regarding the Second Vatican Council, I assent to its documents. The issue seems to be associated with how we interpret these documents, and apply them to the Church. I would highlight three very significant areas which Vatican II helped resolve: our relationship to Judaism, our work towards Christian Unity, and our dialogue with the world religions. These are the very three points which appear to be the most sensitive for the SSPX, but they are among the most important. Of course, work on all three of this fronts may at times be misguided, but the fruits have already been quite significant.

Perhaps we should also say that these three areas necessitate some reflection on whether people can be routinely saved outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church. All these issues are interrelated. It should come as no surprise that the earlier Augustinian teaching of the "Massa damnata" will be difficult to hold to, if we seriously wish to adopt the Council's stance towards Judaism, the other Apostolic Churches and baptised Christians, and the world religions in general.

Other documents of the Council are necessarily becoming dated, as geopolitics and technology evolve. Inter Mirifica now seems quite dated, in an era of social media, and smartphones. Gaudium et spes likewise seems a little too optimistic for 2026, as we see a new rise in populism, ongoing warfare across three or four continents, and an ever more fractured human family. This is before we even begin discussing the liturgy, and I do think that the way the liturgical reform was handled was deeply regrettable. Of course, all of these discussions are situated within an assent to the Council.

In Christ,

A.

Scottish Melkite.
Thank you for your answers to my questions- your reply is clear and ordered. I am in complete agreement with you.
.My opinions on these issues are formed, in large part, due to my belief that most trads are conservative reactionaries. I feel that the majority of them are primarily motivated by a fear of modernity- of fast paced change- and they are part of a larger populist trend. Of course, I am aware of the fine line they walk with regard to Church authority. But.....your very informative reply has expanded my understanding of these issues into areas that are much more Church focused.
Thank you again.