The FSSPX schism and the Eastern Orthodox Schism are similar in the sense that the break with the pope did not affect Holy Orders and thus Apostolic Succession. The Eastern Orthodox don’t accept any Ecumenical Council since the Great Schism and it appears that the FSSPX won’t accept any council since Trent, although Vatican I they may accept, not sure. So like the Orthodox, who are ossified in the last council before the Great Schism, the FSSPX are ossified in Vatican I or perhaps Trent.
The FSSPX won’t grow or spread unlike the Eastern Schism which had the support of political leaders at the time and since their churches are nationalistic, they have governmental support. This is not the case today with the FSSPX—complete countries aren’t going to be FSSPX, not even France.
Now for the potential German Schism, brewing too since Vatican II.
It is much more like the Protestant Reformation. If it occurs, they will lose valid Holy Orders as they will ordain women (or whatever gender claimed). They will change the doctrine of Holy Matrimony too.
There will be no Apostolic Secession as their Holy Orders will become null and void.
They will become a neo-Protestant sect.
They will become a nationalistic German sect, though, but won’t spread due to political powers adopting them as the state religion as the Protestant Reformation benefited. Their growth will be small.
I need to know, though, as I don’t know—are Eastern Orthodox Marriages and Confessions valid or invalid? Has Rome ruled on that. This is a canonical question because prior to July 1, FSSPX marriages and Confessions were valid through a Roman decree but after July 1, that ended. Their marriages and Confessions are invalid.
22 comments:
I think your church sees all Orthodox sacraments as valid. If ByzRus is around, he’d know for sure.
I think the SSPX schism is quite different than the situation at the time of the Great Schism since they profess adherence to Rome yet refuse to submit to it. It’s a peculiar doctrinal situation. Maybe they’re more like the Old Catholic schism than the Great Schism.
Yes, perhaps, but the Old Catholics have gone off the rails with their own schisms, some sects ordained women deacons like some Orthodox sects and others ordained women priests unlike the Orthodox .
To elaborate, the SSPX profess belief that the pope has total authority over the Church. Yet they refuse to do what he tells them. This has now been dogmatized in many ways by Rome over the centuries. There’s no getting around it, if one professes to be Roman Catholic. Yet, both the SSPX and the Old Catholics attempt to get around that when it doesn’t suit their preferences — obviously, they do so for different reasons that lead to different results. But the foundation is the same.
That’s a very different situation from the Great Schism.
The Pope does not have total authority over the Church - he is a servant, not a dictator. Servus servorum Dei
Denzinger 1830:
“[Recourse to the Roman Pontiff as the supreme judge]. And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [cf. n.1500 ], and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment [cf. n. 466 ]; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment [cf. n.330 ff.]. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.”
The Roman Catholic Church views Orthodox sacraments as valid and illicit.
Conversely, the Byzantine Catholic Churches, subject to a separate code of canon law which possesses no references to licit vs illicit, Orthodox sacraments are valid.
Marc, Slava Isuzu Christu! Slava Na Vi'ki!☦️
I am confused. If the SSPX has invalid absolution because they have no priestly faculties, how would the Orthodox, who are also in schism from Rome and have no priestly faculties, have valid Confession and absolution. Doesn't seem coherent. I don't understand the difference.
Marc,'
The Pope cannot change divine law, so I guess he is not absolute in his power.
He can certainly redefine it, though. See the recent change on the death penalty, as an example. So functionally, he can change it…
Did Pope Francis' alteration of the Catechism in 2018 in the area of the death penalty automatically become accepted doctrine? While the Catechism requires "religious assent of intellect and will" for its teachings, does this equate to infallible dogma? I thought only teachings explicitly defined by the Pope ex cathedra or by an Ecumenical Council are considered infallible and unchangeable.
What difference does it make since the quotes from Denizger that I cited above say that Catholics have to believe what the pope teaches regardless of whether it’s infallible or unchangeable?
Use your Faith and Reason
I'll bet that most Catholics who say we have to believe the Pope whatever he teaches didn't obey the clear Papal teaching from the Encyclical Humane Vitae? The Popes have all clearing taught that aftificial birth control, the Pill, condoms, IUDS, etc, are immoral and sinful. How many Catholics obeyed that clear teaching of the Popes??
Isn't the Enchiridion Symbolorum a reference compendium of creeds, definitions, and declarations from the Catholic Church. Does that make it infallible and magisterial?
Marc,
Catholics are not simpletons, blindly follow orders. If the Pope decided to abrogate transubstantiation would that be binding? The 11th Commandment is "use your head."
About 60 years ago the pope changed your liturgy, the manner of celebrating all your sacraments, removed saints from calendar, and made up a totally new lectionary. And the whole Catholic world, with very minor exceptions, followed without question.
So yeah, tell me more about how you don’t just blindly follow orders.
Thanks Marc for clarifying that you blindly accept every Council up and through the Great Schism because a group of schismatic bishops of the east said that no council after the Schism is valid. I get it how you blindly follow orders of a group think without Peter. Great!
We must all be obedient to someone. I follow the Church because it is the Body of Christ, who is its Head. The God-Man Jesus Christ is trustworthy.
You blindly follow a man who, without evidence, tells you he’s infallible. One exhibiting such pride is not trustworthy.
No, you blindly follow less than half of the Catholic Church, the minority Eastern Orthodox Schismatic Part. Those of the East who never went into Schism and those who returned, now in full communion . The Eastern Rite is the way to go if you are an Easterner, but you are a Westerner by birth.
Marc,
You’ve achieved troll status. Pray Tell might appreciate you
Thank you! I was holding out hope you might come through with some actual point to attempt to argue against what I wrote, but alas, nothing substantive from you.
I've not commented for a while, but feel the need to say a few things...
a. Marc is right to a point. Unfortunately, in the Roman Communion, more often times than not, the only thing that is cared about is obedience. One can certainly find words in the catechism about the Pope being the Servant of the Servants, as well as being first among equals, as well as in Roman Canon Law,. In practice, he (the pope) is first without equals...there is a laundry list of things that could be listed that various popes have done throughout the ages that would get a Bishop or priest sent to ecclesiastical Siberia so to speak.
b. This situation of the SSPX can't be compared to the Eastern situations at all. Rome does not have jurisdiction in the East. But to be perfectly honest, really, both sides (SSPX and the Vatican) are basically pots calling the kettle black. On one side you have Rome, who in practice has overthrown its liturgical praxis, can't police its own house liturgically (so many abuses that are still happening after Redemptionis Sacramentum), can't police its clerics within its own jurisdiction (the Jesuits) from outrageous theological musings, still recovering from the sex abuse scandals, not to mention Pope Francis. I will say, that much charity has been gained post Vatican II towards those outside the Roman Communion, which is a good thing). On the side of the SSPX, we have a situation where they think they define what it means to be a Roman Catholic, while maintaining liturgical praxis. They also have problems with policing things, mostly some of the attitudes of the people (arguably the hardest thing to police)....Observing both sides...a quote from one of my favorite cartoons comes to mind "You're both behaving ridiculously"
c. The Eastern Code on Canon Law is intentionally silent on Orthodoxy (as it should be). The reality is that for most of the Eastern churches that are in communion with Rome, their situation as to how they came to communion was ridiculously ugly. (Save the Italo-Greeks)...For most of the churches, it was NOT theology that brought them into communion with Rome, but political situations of the day, The other part of it, at least until post Vatican II, the East were (and to varying degrees still) seen as 2nd class Catholics and not real Catholics (Thankfully, some of that has changed, but it's not where it needs to be)...I could go off on a bit of a tangent, in discussion about all the abuses that Rome dd in violation of the Unions of Uzhrod, and Brest respectively, but that's probably not for here to discuss.. Unfortunately, for many of the Eastern churches, with the latin refugees, some of the attitudes have began to creep back in, effectively, being Roman Catholics with an Eastern Liturgy.
d. Amongst the many problems that we Easterners have is applying the characteristics of God and applying it to an individual person. Infallibility is a characteristic of God, and should only be applied to the Church as a whole...I could go down this rabbit hole, but I again, don't think that this is the place for that kind of discussion.
e. If the SSPX actually wanted to make an argument, as to why the pope within his jurisdiction, should have said yes to the bishops. They could have appealed to the fact that Rome's direct appointment of bishops is relatively new even to the Latin West. (Outside of the US and Mission territories). The cathedral canons used to get together and select bishops,. (Not a tradition in the US, for it was mission territory, and the pope had more direct jurisdiction)....I believe that this is still the case in some places. The pope just rubber stamps most appointments, unless something did come up.
I pray that all are well, Glory to Jesus Christ
Post a Comment