Just for the record, being loyal to the pope doesn't make one an Ultramontanist, agreeing with each and every last statement and decision that he makes (this is a red herring). But I would say that it excludes actively and publicly working against what is clearly his will for the Church. It certainly excludes calling him "a genuine Modernist."

I think this pope is far more conservative than many in the media believe, and he certainly is no Modernist. Is he right on every thing he says? Not by a long shot. In fact, he has gotten himself into situations that were not in his best interests by speaking off-the-cuff. Some days, it would be better if he simply kept his own counsel.

Red herrings? Isn't that a cult of clerics like the Jesuits? Those fish are more common than you would think, and like some Jesuits, they smell. LOL.

I can see why the Orthodox are willing to accept the papacy as it existed in the first 1,000 years of Christianity, but not what it has become since. Some Catholics have invested so much in the Medieval monarchy that came to represent that one office that they may crash rather hard when it doesn't live up to their expectations. Given today's realities, it can't live up to their expectations because the world has changed too much since those earlier political systems collapsed.

I wish Pope Francis well. That's a job I don't know why any sane person would want.

SSPX is not a major issue, but is a good distraction from dealing with the serious problems.

This is simply a manifestation of the famed "diabolical confusion" we entered into as was predicted by OLF. Could it be possible we are seeing the fulfillment of the apostate church of Revelations?

SSPX is not a major issue, but is a good distraction from dealing with the serious problems.

Kinda sums it up for me. The double standard drives me nuts, too, TCJ.

Julie, I've really appreciated your comments on this thread. You speak with charity and wisdom. Nothing against all of the other fab commenters, I just find a lot to think about from what and how Julie writes.

Mary Ann, you're a real sweetie. Thanks for the kind words, and I feel the same about your observations. Now if I could just clone you so you could teach my beginning chant classes, I'd be so happy. : )

In addition to our new children's schola which our voice teacher is directing, I've been asked to teach two chant classes at a homeschool co-op. The interest is growing.

Schism is a state of separation. Heresy, error, condemnation, anathemizing, etc. are something else. There is great scholarly debate about the current state of the SSPX, so I will only say that my own opinion that they are in schism though no longer anathema is my own worthless opinion. However, I think the Orthodox (as opposed to the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church) are still in formal schism.

I'm confused as to what difference there is (or why one is needed) between referring to one's communion as being in schism and referring to the people as being in schism or as schismatics. Is a "schismatic" understood as one who causes a schism?

I agree that the Great Schism is more a gradual matter (and frankly more a matter of a breakdown in communication) than a direct act against the unity of the Church. But that doesn't change the state of communion that exists today.

The Second Vatican Council referred to non-Catholic Christians in general as Christians "separated from full communion with the Catholic Church" and it called the Orthodox Churches "separated churches of the East". It probably doesn't even use the term "schism".

And maybe that is why it doesn't use the term "schismatic".

I'm confused as to what difference there is (or why one is needed) between referring to one's communion as being in schism and referring to the people as being in schism or as schismatics. Is a "schismatic" understood as one who causes a schism?

As Chonak pointed out, there is a difference between a Catholic who becomes schismatic, and someone who grows up in a Christian community which does not have the fullness of the faith.

'Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.'

One would not for example call a catechumen a heretic, who has yet to accept, because he does not know, 'some truth which is to be believed by divine and catholic faith'. one would in charity, and honesty, presume that when he comes to know the truth he will accept, and if anything is implicitly implied in the faith he has it is implicit acceptance of the whole to be believed, not implicit rejection.

Similarly with schism. for someone to be schismatic, that is committing the sin of schism, there is a degree of intentionality which must be there, which should not be presumed to exist.

sorry, to try and speak plainly, you can't accuse someone of something which requires deliberate intent, simply because of their objective stance, as culpability requires a subjective element too.

With regard to priests and bishops being okay with protestant services and not with sspx, could it be the case that sometimes it is easier to handle a relationship with those who are easily seen to be further away( protestants), than with those with whom our differences are more recent, more fuzzy and more personally felt to hurt?

Our Orthodox brothers and sisters are still technically in schism, as the Great Schism has not been healed yet, but they are an equally Apostolic church, and we have made great strides in bridging our separation. Pope Paul VI's meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I in 1964 in Jerusalem led to rescinding the excommunications of the Great Schism, which took place in 1054. In 2001, Pope St. John Paul II met with Archbishop Christodoulos, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Athens where two leaders then said the Lord's Prayer together, breaking an Orthodox taboo against praying with Catholics. The current positive relationship with the Eastern Orthodox Churches is reflected in the fact that Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople attended the installation of Pope Francis at St.Peter's Basilica. This was the first time since the Great Schism that the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, has attended a papal installation. Personally, I don't like the term schismatic for the reasons set forth so eloquently by bonniebede. Our Orthodox brothers and sisters are as interested in unity as we are, and since our efforts are in the direction of unity, I would not use that term for the Orthodox. They are separated but still loved.

Not at all. I think that the word schism implies the excommunications and anathemas which existed prior to the papacy of Paul VI. They were rescinded.

I think rogue63 just about has it: if the Orthodox patriarchs would add the Pope to their list of bishops-in-communion, and vice versa, that would be enough to formally place us all in ecclesial communion.

Adding his name in the liturgy would be an additional step. Catholic canon law would currently require it, but it's been suggested that the Pope should relax the law to require it only of the patriarchs.

To implement full communion in practice, the churches would need to admit each other's clergy as concelebrants, and allow the faithful of any of the churches to receive the sacraments under the usual conditions.

As a further step, some of the Eastern Catholic churches and their Orthodox counterparts might seek to merge.

I could point out a ton of churches and their pastors around here who would have no problem with attending a protestant church for their service.

Yes. I always find the argument that 'SSPX has a problem with Papal authority' interesting, as it's easy to find all sorts of priests and Bishops who completely ignore Papal documents on the liturgy.

Not to mention the faithful who completely ignore Humani Generis--and are tacitly allowed that by their priests and Bishops.

Pots, kettles, yadayada

In addition, Orthodoxy is not at all a monolityic entity. It is tent

Was it tents in 19th century Russia?



Ah. Yes, I guess it was.

Carry on.

It is somewhat disingenuous, though, to think that the schism that some think it's not nice to call a schism is only skin deep.

True, MJO. It also diminishes the arduous personal journeys undertaken by those who seek to reconcile with Truth. Kind of makes you feel badly for the poor chaps who could have spared themselves the personal and professional costs exacted in that soul-searching process, if the schism wasn't really a schism after all. I sometimes think that the only two "don'ts" that are left now are: Don't pull a Bernie Madoff, and don't ride a bike without a helmet. Everything else is relative.

And yet, there it is in the Graduale Romanum: The Missa ad tollendum schisma. The French title goes even further, calling it: Messe pour l’extirpation du schisme (Mass for the extirpation of schism).

ex·tir·pate: 1. To pull up by the roots. 2. To destroy totally; exterminate

Which is easier? The ounce of prevention, or the pound of cure? To forewarn someone, or to wait until a vast and complicated root system has taken hold? Preventive weed-control measures, or straight-on herbicidal combat?

There are differences, and there are DIFFERENCES between east and west. The east generally rejects Augustinian theology and does not agree with him on original sin. There are differences on Purgatory, which by treaty with the Vatican, the eastern Catholic churches and the Vatican have agreed are not to be discussed. Differences on the nature and permanence of the priesthood - tied to the ordination of the priest in the west, but valid only through ties to a bishop and a parish in the east - also exist. I think we discussed this one on another thread not so long ago.

Then there is the sillier stuff that amounts to lower-case differences. Bishop Kallistos Ware made the statement that the Orthodox generally accepted the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, until the Latins defined it. He said that jokingly while noting that it is true in some quarters.

Historical events also play a part in perpetrating the divisions. The east holds that the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders weakened the empire to a degree from which it never recovered, and made it an easy target for the Turks. I believe the pope of the day excommunicated those Crusaders for sacking Constantinople, but the damage was done.

There are differences in theology, practice, and history which have resulted in some long-held grudges. The cause of unity is one seemingly more important to the west than east. Large parts of Orthodoxy don't particularly want anything to do with the west, more so since the upheavals created by the aftermath of Vatican II. Hard to blame them, I think.

Most of the differences are over territory and jurisdiction. Here is an article that explains some of that.

http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/philioca.htm

Interestingly, these divisions do not involve doctrine, only territory.

There are splinter groups within Orthodoxy, with a famous one being the "Old Believers" or "Old Ritualists" as they are sometimes called, within the Russian Orthodox Church.

http://rbth.com/arts/2013/03/29/shedding_light_on_secrets_of_ancient_russian_orthodoxy_24399.html

Some of the disputes were silly, or better understood in terms of time. The Old Believers insisted on making the sign of the cross with two fingers instead of three. If you look at the earliest icons, Christ is seen blessing with two fingers. In the early days, the two natures of Christ, human and divine, were the basis for theological disputes. Later, the cause of theological divisions were differing beliefs about the Trinity, so the sign of the cross came to be made with three fingers.

The biggest dispute in Orthodoxy is over the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Granted, we know that if the Julian calendar continues to get more out of line with solar events, the Orthodox may eventually have heat waves in January. LOL. Here is an article on the damage to the faith caused by the Gregorian calendar.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/zervakos_calendar.aspx

There was and is ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which was formed by clergy and exiles after the Communist revolution in Russia. It still exists although some parts of it formed the core of OCA, the Orthodox Church in America.

There are small groups with interesting beliefs all blaming each other for not upholding truth and not being Christians of the True Faith. They are minor and few in number. The overwhelmingly largest group in Orthodoxy is the Russian Orthodox Church. Its biggest flaw is never really having independence from the Russian state. Since Peter the Great placed the administration of the church under a government commission, the Russian church has never been independent of the state. That is still the case today. The Moscow Patriarch and the Patriarch of Constantinople bicker over territorial jurisdiction to this day.

Eastern Catholics have plenty of territorial disputes of their own. There are two groups with separate hierarchies of the original U.S. Ruthenian church that split over celibate and married priests. Interestingly, the Ruthenians and Ukrainians are from nearly the same original territory, but are recognized as two separate Catholic churches. Division abounds.

There are 3 Orthodox churches in Ukraine, and also the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church which has a major archbishop as head. Further confusing matters is that the Catholics refer to their archbishop as "patriarch." St. Wiki says it better:

Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate, UOC-KP) is one of the three major Orthodox churches in Ukraine, alongside the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.[2] The church is unrecognized by other canonical Eastern Orthodox churches,[3] including the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate).

The UOC-KP's Mother Church is in the St. Volodymyr's Cathedral in Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine. The head of the church is Patriarch Filaret (Denysenko), who was enthroned in 1995. Patriarch Filaret was excommunicated by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997,[4] but the Synod and Sobor of the UOC-KP do not recognize this action. According to a poll conducted by the Razumkov Centre in 2006, 14.9% of the Ukrainian population responded as belonging to the UOC-KP.[5]

And you thought Catholic jurisdictions were confusing - LOL.

I have been wondering what the response of the Richmond Diocese has been to the prospect of the relocation of the SSPX seminary there, on 1100 acres in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Renderings here:
http://richmondcatholic.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/seminary.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b5rYRJ5EqVI/TpxhtURADJI/AAAAAAAAA1Y/c9-TY4n3Y0U/s1600/SSPX_Semimary.jpg

Initial article appearing in the diocesan "The Catholic Virginian":
http://www.catholicvirginian.org/archive/2013/2013vol88iss18/pages/article8.html

Two weeks later, this clarification was issued:
http://www.catholicvirginian.org/archive/2013/2013vol88iss19/pages/article2.html

Wasn't it at the invitation of current Bishop DiLorenzo that the FSSP has been working in the Diocese of Richmond? I had read somewhere that Bishop DiLorenzo had previously tangled with SSPX when he had served in the Diocese of Honolulu?

You are correct, Liam. The Winona seminary website states the following:

"Enclosed in over 1,000 acres, three times the size of our current property, the new St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary will stand overlooking the property with the Blue Ridge Mountains as its backdrop. It is located in Buckingham County, Virginia, 30 miles south of Charlottesville and 75 miles west of Richmond."

I also saw something else of interest on the website, regarding an upcoming meeting between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Muller scheduled for later this month:
http://stas.org/en/news-events/news/cardinal-müller-invites-bishop-fellay-4737

Thanks, Adam, for a sobering juxtaposition of Reality and Fancy.

A Reality that speaks to and enriches all everywhere -
and a Fancy that speaks to and isolates some certain preferential interest groups

The Jesuits aren't too popular around here after they sold their beautiful historic Gold Coast mansion retreat house, Inisfada, to a Chinese land developer who promptly tore it down and smashed it to bits.

Especially when compared to some of the classes offered at the Jesuit School of Theology across the street from my apartment:

STSP-4279 01 TIBETAN/CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE
RS-5034 01 SELF, SACRED AND THE SECULAR
HS-4517 01 RELIGIOUS DISSENT AND REFORM
STRS-2553 01 SACRAMENTS IN LATINO CONTEXT
SPPS-2526 01 WOMEN'S SPIRITUAL QUEST
STRS-4204 01 PARADIGMS OF LIBERATION

Not being argumentative for the sake of creating dissent, but I honestly see nothing wrong with these course offerings.

Why is it even questionable to have a seminar class on the relationship between dissent and legitimate reform? Or on the Sacraments "in Latino context?" Or any of the other listed items?

Most of them seem like they would be interesting and educational classes.