Do you think the Catholic Church will ever schism? Why or why not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter glencor63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It already has. Multiple times. Chalcedon, 451; Constantinople, 1054; Wittenberg, 1517.
Many smaller separations.
 
dochawk said:
At least with regard to the Orthodox, you are now directly contradicting the teaching of the RCC
Click to expand...
When it comes to the RCC, is it just the Eastern Orthodox or also the Oriental Orthodox who are included in this view the Church has?
Oriental Orthodox have been separated since 451; Eastern Orthodox, complicated but most give the date at 1054.
 
Prodigal1984 said:
When it comes to the RCC, is it just the Eastern Orthodox or also the Oriental Orthodox who are included in this view the Church has?
Click to expand...
Given the formal agreements between some OO and the RCC for spiritual and pastoral care of one another’s flocks in areas with insufficient clergy, I’d have to say “yes.”

Overall, the RCC is probably closer to Communion with the OO than the OE at the moment.

There are still real issues to work out with the EO (pride and hierarchal recto-cranial inversion dwarfing the real issues), but the OO and RCC put out a joint statement a few years ago that basically said, “Uhm, err, we’ve been talking past one another for a millennium and a half, saying the same thing with different words, and calling one another heretics over words we didn’t understand that mean the same things as the ones we use. Oops.” (of course, had the Chalcedon council been willing to talk about it after the OO arrived, rather than “resolving” it and refusing to reopen . . .)

I know that at least one, and I believe multiple, OO bishops have been received as bishops to OC; they clearly have orders.

hawk

edit: p.s. I seem to have managed to write this without my favorite phrase for the Orthodox/Catholic splits: “violent agreement”
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Church does not teach that you must be Catholic to be saved.
 
dochawk said:
What if bats start flying around the altar singing satanic hymns in three part harmony, accompanied by vampires on harps?

Ridiculous as it is, it’s more likely of the two .
Click to expand...
So is all the kerfluffle around the Amazon synod and female ordination overblown? I admit I have not read as much as I could into the subject, just that Cardinal Müller has been uh…vocal about it and that was something he mentioned in his criticism of it.
 
JimG said:
if the SSPX tries to ordain more bishops without papal approval, it will make the risk of schism even greater.
Click to expand...
www.eyeofthetiber.com

Vatican To Allow Trump To Choose American Bishops | EOTT LLC

The Vatican's recent agreement to give America say over bishop appointments has critics accusing the Church of caving in to the current administration's
www.eyeofthetiber.com

This was a comedic response to China ordaining its own Bishops under a Vatican deal, (Think: We did not do so well). I understand the circumstances are far different.
 
RandomGuy said:
So is all the kerfluffle around the Amazon synod and female ordination overblown?
Click to expand...
Those are two utterly different issues.

THe Amazon synod is almost the definition of kerfluffle . . . The Roman Church actually has had married clergy for longer than it has not had them, and this is a narrow application. If the church’s biggest problem is that it’s going to revive a first century practice in a few areas where the population is so spread out that it’s wealth of married men willing to serve is also spread out??? THat’s just not a crisis . . .

The silliness about female ordination is hype piled on hype trying to turn nothing into something.
 
I’ve never seen schism used as a verb, but I guess it can be. There will undoubtedly be other schisms in the future before humanity entirely “gives up the ghost.” Obviously we can see how opposed the world is to the church. Right now the trend is leaving the church, not starting a new one; but religion is a need, and some new “true church” will rise up over something.

We might see a new sort of Donatism that demands moral excellence from clergy (condemned as heretical in the early councils) in the wake of these horrible scandals and the crisis they have caused. That could create a schism, although so far it seems likelier to lead to apostasy. Let’s pray that any schisms that do happen will be small and not anything as destructive as the “Reformation” was.
normdplume said:
What are its views in that regard?
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ saves us from sin and damnation, whether someone is Catholic or not, or even knows the gospel or not. We are certain that some people have been saved (the saints) but we do not know who has been lost.
 
Last edited:
Read the Pauline letters. It did almost immediately. Peruse the various heresies throughout history. Schism, dissidence, disobedience - whatever you call it, has and will always occur in any and every human organization.

If not proof of, certainly strong evidence for free will.
 
I don’t think so. Why not? I prayed over it to a certain vis (very important saint) and he told me to relax. Bishops have always argued over dominion most of the time, there is nothing new happening here at all. The Church still existed and the charisma and all that.
Some people (especially in the EOC) don’t understand how mean and absurd they depict the One Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, when, for the sake of acrivy they claim that during the Apocalypse time the one true church will be some secret, very orthodox, minority leaving in the mountains as hermits, while everyone else will be bowing to the Antichrist and all that. Why would God play such a bad joke on everyone who wishes to follow Him? Why would He restrict the Truth and Charisma to a select spiritual minority of hidden bishops while all the other known bishops He would abandon to heresy, so the majority of His flock gets lost? I don’t think He will or has ever let this happen.
I know God does not allow blasphemies against Him and is much stricter than what most Christian present Him to be, but He is also our Father. He won’t just abandon the visible hierarchy and church even if He is mad at them.
 
If you read what John Paul 2 wrote, the matter is simply nothig=ng more that a game of “what if”, as it is not going to happen.

and what most people fail to see, know, or acknowledge is that male priesthood isn’t just a matter of the Catholic faith; it goes back through Judaism. As in, it is not a recent “invention”. The only schism about the matter are individuals breaking off from the Church to “ordain” women. and they remain very small communities here and there.
 
Perhaps you need to define how you are using the term “communion”, since I suspect the Church defines it differently.
 
Many Anglicans were okay with female “ordination.” It’s when the usual sequelae of same sex “marriage” and open, actively homosexual “clergy” occurred that they finally bolted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top