American Schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elzee

Guest
Every once in awhile I hear comments on this forum that there may one day be an ‘American Catholic’ schism, totally separated from Rome. Does anyone really think this will happen?
‘Logistically’, how does something like this happen? (a bunch of priests and bishps get together and make a decision, etc.)
This is a very scarey thought to me.
 
Hopefully it will not happen, but with so many dissenting clergy as well as laity, that might happen, as many warn.
 
I doubt that any such thing will happen on a large scale.

The church is far more likely to see a collapse in membership than a schism IMO. Already most “Catholics” don’t enter a church very often, and many of those who do are confused about what the church teaches.

And there are even a few of those confused worshippers who, if they really understood what the church teaches might be compelled to look elsewhere.

But as to schism, the way the finances are organized in the USA the parish property is in the hands of the bishop. More than likely very few bishops would be involved in a “schism” because they were all chosen by Rome, and value that connection far too much to risk it. Schism in years gone by involved bishops who did not depend upon Rome in this way.

If there were any court actions to pull the properties away from the diocese the courts would most probably side with bishops recognized by Rome. Schismatics would likely need to leave everything behind and start over.

+T+
Michael
 
40.png
Milliardo:
Hopefully it will not happen, but with so many dissenting clergy as well as laity, that might happen, as many warn.
Click to expand...
If the status quo of most dioceses in the USA continues, it may happen. We need more Archbishop Chaput types in all USA diocese. As well as Bishop Olmstead types (of the Pheonix diocese) especially in the New York Archdiocese, oh God, when are we going to get a new Archbishop Cardinal???
April 30, 2005. Misericordie.
 
40.png
Elzee:
Every once in awhile I hear comments on this forum that there may one day be an ‘American Catholic’ schism, totally separated from Rome. Does anyone really think this will happen?
‘Logistically’, how does something like this happen? (a bunch of priests and bishps get together and make a decision, etc.)
This is a very scarey thought to me.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a very real possibility. That’s why the Holy Father has to be very delicate in his handling of dissident bishops. Yes, it would be wonderful if he could remove these bishops and replace them with loyal sons of the Church. However, if he did decide to remove them and they refused to vacate, what legal standing would the Pope have? I’m not talking about Church law, I mean civil law.

And in a power play between the Holy See and an American bishop, I believe even some of the more “conservative” bishops would side with their brother bishops against the Holy Father. This is the reality that the Pope confronts. That’s why I wouldn’t want his job and why I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt when some people attack him for not being more heavy handed in dealing with internal Church dissent.

Here’s an article which goes into more detail about potential schism:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ375.HTM
 
Dr. Bombay:
And in a power play between the Holy See and an American bishop, I believe even some of the more “conservative” bishops would side with their brother bishops against the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
40.png
CatQuilt:
Why?
Click to expand...
Has to do with episcopal collegiality or some such. The Church isn’t set up like a corporation where the Pope is the CEO and wields power with an iron fist. In theory, yes. But in the real world, the Pope has to make many decisions in consultation with the bishops. Most wouldn’t be happy if he started “firing” bishops for real or perceived deficiencies. If for no other reason than they’d be in fear of losing their own jobs.
 
In our history it has happened in small pockets (like individual parishes set up by dissenting priests without the approval of the local ordinary). Granted, the examples I am thinking of were not “American” in nature. However, I think the possibility of a large-scale American schism is slim-to-none. I would certainly have no part in it!
 
A schism can only happen if a significant number of clergy and laity decide they 1] significantly do not agree with the church in Rome and 2] will not give up their Catholic identity. In other words, a whole lotta people have to decide that THEY are really Catholic and that the Church is wrong. Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately) the religious marketplace in North America is so open that I don’t see this happening. There are other liturgucal Christian options (Episcopal, eg) for Catholics who have a hard time with the Church’s teachings on social issues; likewise priests can and do leave the church for a number of reasons. For those who want the Church to be MORE traditional, there are already a variety of splinter groups to serve them. Even within the church, there is a wide range of orthodoxy and formality from parish to parish. The days of everybody walking to their local parish every sunday are long gone. If a parissioner is offended by the homily that his or her priest gives (or does not give) on abortion, they will just drive up the road to the next parish until they find the community/priest/version of Catholicism they “like”.

The Church is far more likely to see a slow bleed of dissenters and disaffected rather than an organized schism. Rome would have to do something pretty heavy-handed to galvanize that sort of response.
 
I don’t think we will see a schism, on the large scale but of course some little break off churches will remain, AND I am willing to bet you’ll see an increase in church attendance with my generation stepping up to bat…the late teens and early 20s. We have a greater understanding and our tired of seeing moral relativism destory our country and world. The reason the 60’s and 70’s generations are so miffed all the time is because they grew up in a time when becuase the government said it was legal, they took it to mean it was true, i.e. abortion. But when the Church said “WHOA” and showed that just becuase something is legal doesn’t mean it is true, they were unhappy. My generation understands that for the most part, but due to the culture of older generations, they sadly do not.

Us young folks want Truth and we want the Culture of Death we live in to be sent to the gallows.

DU
 
There already is a virtual schism between the two in many regards. The only differance would be to make things formal.
 
Vox Borealis:
A schism can only happen if a significant number of clergy and laity decide they 1] significantly do not agree with the church in Rome and 2] will not give up their Catholic identity. In other words, a whole lotta people have to decide that THEY are really Catholic and that the Church is wrong. Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately) the religious marketplace in North America is so open that I don’t see this happening.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this what’s happening with Voice of the Faithful and Catholics for Choice? Not that their actions, specifically, will result in schism, but it seems that there are many people out there who for some reason cling to the identity of being Catholic even though they seem to have no conception of what it means.
 
Dr. Bombay:
I think it’s a very real possibility. That’s why the Holy Father has to be very delicate in his handling of dissident bishops. Yes, it would be wonderful if he could remove these bishops and replace them with loyal sons of the Church. However, if he did decide to remove them and they refused to vacate, what legal standing would the Pope have? I’m not talking about Church law, I mean civil law.
Click to expand...
For heavens sake!
WHO assigns ordination of bishops? The POPE, only has that authority. The one who has authority has equal responsibility for final outcome. You cannot separate them.

Now, any reasonable person knows that you put someone in authority that you favor based on reasonable investigation.

The pope put in dissident bishops, he can have them resign by command as well. He can replace them immediately at his pleasure. Once replaced, they have NO authority, even civil, over Diocesan property.
Finally:
Unless we believe the absurdity that JPII was awesomely wise, but a duped dunce ONLY in assigning countless bishops for 25 years, the vast majority of which are unorthodox, never learning from BAD outcomes in choice, then the pope is the one who favors such as these… Period. No escape.

He nor his successor has any intention of removing them. BUT, it is certainly NOT the reason that you are giving.

Suppose that, however, the pope removed 6 bishops, and put them into country parishes in Iran. Let’s just say he used the excuse of neglect or demolisihing diocesen property.
Then replace them with 6 bishops like Cuput, Bruskowitz.
What are the chances that the other dissidents would try a revolt? I say 0. I say there would be a heads up alert to comform pronto. These men are first and foremost, cowards or paper bullies.
The Scriptures tell us countless times that FEAR is a valid incentive to obey.
 
Virtually my whole young life people have debated the “American schism” question, and I can honestly say that I can’t imagine it happening. If you look back to the Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle affair, you see one of the most independent-minded bishops of the church being disciplined very severely in a very embarrassing way (most of diocesan jurisdiction assigned temporarily to visiting bishop monitor). If ever there was a moment for an American schism, that was it. Likewise in France when the Bishop of Evereux was summarily deposed more than a decade before the retirement age. There was agitation and complaining, but we never came close to a schism in either country. Even so-called “liberal” bishops see themselves as thoroughly Catholic–it might well be a 1960’s style of Kennedy Catholicism, but the identity is very strong.

The legal question is interesting though, becase bishops take all kinds of signed oaths before they are consecrated. If something did develop in the American courts, it would seem simple enough for these to come into evidence.
 
Culturally and morally speaking, America is a mess. Catholics living in America reflect this. Many do not embrace or support Church moral teaching, especially on the “life” issues (abortion, capital punishment, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia), and on “sexual” issues (artificial birth control, divorce and re-marriage, in-vitro fertilization methods, acceptance of homosexual practice and lifestyle).

These people cannot be faulted when many of their religious leaders, their priests, their sisters, their bishops, their lay ministers, avoid positively articulating and fostering a greater respect for established Church moral directives.

What puzzles me is that relatively few of the people who dissent from the Church on matters moral and sexual ethics also do so as theologically informed individuals. These same people seem to have no problem whatsoever with Seven Sacraments, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Purgatory, the Papacy and other beliefs peculiar to the Roman Catholic faith. Andrew Greeley accepts these, Monika Hellwig accepts these, Richard McBrien and Charles Curran accept these, even Frances Kissling accepts these teachings.

Personally, I prefer the person with an absolute abhorrence for distinctly Catholic theological teachings who is willing to stand in lock step with the Vatican as regards her ethical and moral directives.
 
Vox Borealis:
A schism can only happen if a significant number of clergy and laity decide they 1] significantly do not agree with the church in Rome and 2] will not give up their Catholic identity. In other words, a whole lotta people have to decide that THEY are really Catholic and that the Church is wrong. Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately) the religious marketplace in North America is so open that I don’t see this happening. There are other liturgucal Christian options (Episcopal, eg) for Catholics who have a hard time with the Church’s teachings on social issues; likewise priests can and do leave the church for a number of reasons. For those who want the Church to be MORE traditional, there are already a variety of splinter groups to serve them. Even within the church, there is a wide range of orthodoxy and formality from parish to parish. The days of everybody walking to their local parish every sunday are long gone. If a parissioner is offended by the homily that his or her priest gives (or does not give) on abortion, they will just drive up the road to the next parish until they find the community/priest/version of Catholicism they “like”.

The Church is far more likely to see a slow bleed of dissenters and disaffected rather than an organized schism. Rome would have to do something pretty heavy-handed to galvanize that sort of response.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with this, In this plural modern society there are too many options. They serve as a “safety” valve of sorts. Those who find themselves in serious disagreement with the church eventually blow out in numbers sufficient to weaken and marginalize the movement inside.

The last serious threat to the church in the USA was the Old Catholic movement after Vatican I, none of the native bishops participated although there is clear evidence that some sympathized. Old Catholics were compelled to construct their own parishes and seek episcopal consecration from Utrecht or from travelling vagante bishops. The movement fizzled and 125 years later most remaining Old Catholic congregations are small.

Among the hierarchs obedience to the Papacy in serious matters is still the only way, despite what people tend to say about bishops these days. They are the products of the system, no matter how much they might be annnoyed by direction from Rome they all know full well that they owe Rome their positions. Fortiterinre’s post spells that out very well.

Some schisms are state sponsored, it happened in Mexico early 20th century, Poland after the communist takeover and most notoriously in China. These are modern versions of the Anglican split-off under king Henry the Defendor of the Faith.

The complicity of the state is necessary to gain control of the property. That is not likely to happen in the USA.

+T+
Michael
 
40.png
TNT:
For heavens sake!
WHO assigns ordination of bishops? The POPE, only has that authority. The one who has authority has equal responsibility for final outcome. You cannot separate them.

Now, any reasonable person knows that you put someone in authority that you favor based on reasonable investigation.

The pope put in dissident bishops, he can have them resign by command as well. He can replace them immediately at his pleasure. Once replaced, they have NO authority, even civil, over Diocesan property.
Finally:
Unless we believe the absurdity that JPII was awesomely wise, but a duped dunce ONLY in assigning countless bishops for 25 years, the vast majority of which are unorthodox, never learning from BAD outcomes in choice, then the pope is the one who favors such as these… Period. No escape.

He nor his successor has any intention of removing them. BUT, it is certainly NOT the reason that you are giving.

Suppose that, however, the pope removed 6 bishops, and put them into country parishes in Iran. Let’s just say he used the excuse of neglect or demolisihing diocesen property.
Then replace them with 6 bishops like Cuput, Bruskowitz.
What are the chances that the other dissidents would try a revolt? I say 0. I say there would be a heads up alert to comform pronto. These men are first and foremost, cowards or paper bullies.
The Scriptures tell us countless times that FEAR is a valid incentive to obey.
Click to expand...
Using your logic, why hasn’t the Pope removed, say, Cardinal Mahoney? Cardinal Law’s resignation was refused by the Holy Father the first time he submitted it. It was only when the situation became completely untenable that the resignation was accepted.

Face it, bishops are like Supreme Court justices. They’re there for life, or until retirement age whichever comes first.

And, I continue to maintain, despite the pie-in-the-sky, rose-colored glasses view of the situation from some of my fellow posters, that fear of schism is indeed one of the considerations the Pope looks at when reviewing his options regarding dissident bishops.

I’m sure the Holy See never imagined that Fat Henry VIII could take an entire nation into schism. Perhaps the Church learned a lesson from that awful experience. It’s easy to be a virtual Pope from the anonimity of the internet. It’s quite another to be the actual man who has to bear that burden.
 
So has anyone mentioned the “bankruptcy” situtation going on? Is that a crack in the wall?

I agree with eddie in that it seems it has happened on a level: in which many dont care to follow the rules but say they are Catholic and attend Mass all the while doing their own thing.

As for the leadership, I think any of the “problem bishops” are comfortable the way they are right now and arent worried about anything.

but no worry, the Church is 2000 years old and has been on a wild roller coaster the whole time, this problem is a blip on the time line.
 
American Schism don’t make me laugh. Look at the type of people who go into schism they have a zealous faith, misplaced but still a zealot. American dissenters are the least faithful people I know.

When we look at what these foolish lay and clergy are up to we must never forget it only has relevance in the context of the Catholic church.

Liberal dissenters in the US have no power to create a viable schism because they lack a self sustaining vision of faith, they are all a bunch of sarcastic, smug, know it alls, like a junior manager who likes to pretend around the water cooler they should be president of GM.

Articulating a complaint is not the same thing as a vision that will survive ten years. They live like ticks in the fabric of the true church, they are nothing more then the weeds that Christ warned us of.

The best part is they know it too, that’s why they still are in the church causing trouble. Only in the church can they exercise their their empty threats and foolish ideas.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top