Or to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Atheism. Just because they were good men, does that mean they were following the truth?I am sure there are many holy men and women who have followed the Truth to Orthodoxy. Or to Anglicanism. Or Lutheranism. Or, or, or…
I believe I referred to holy men and women, which is a bit different from ‘good men.’ Holiness comes from practicing one’s faith, don’t you think?Or to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Atheism. Just because they were good men, does that mean they were following the truth?
In your paradigm, is it possible for there to be schisms from the Church? And if yes, what would said schism look like? How would an average Christian know whether he was looking at a branch of the true Church, or a schism?
Every blessing on your journey.Saturday. Allowing unordained seminarians to preside at the sacrament was a bridge too far for me.
Jon
The members of Isis sincerely believe they are practicing their faith. Many of their supporters believe they are holy. Are they holy? If you say no, then the practice of one’s faith does not necessarily lead to holiness, if that faith is deficient.I believe I referred to holy men and women, which is a bit different from ‘good men.’ Holiness comes from practicing one’s faith, don’t you think?
Again, tell me, how can one tell the difference between a schism (which Paul writes about in Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians), and a legitimate branch? In your belief system, schism seems to be an impossibility.The Church is the body of believers, those who follow Christ, and there are many branches, or parts to the body, if you will. I think the average Christian is going to find (or be born into) the community that brings Christ to each person. Is the bottom line question going to be about schism? I sincerely doubt it.
I note you have properly discerned the motley.Saturday. Allowing unordained seminarians to preside at the sacrament was a bridge too far for me.
Jon
Pope Saint John Paul II answers you very well in Ut Unum Sint.The members of Isis sincerely believe they are practicing their faith. Many of their supporters believe they are holy. Are they holy? If you say no, then the practice of one’s faith does not necessarily lead to holiness, if that faith is deficient.
Again, tell me, how can one tell the difference between a schism (which Paul writes about in Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians), and a legitimate branch? In your belief system, schism seems to be an impossibility.
I am sorry to read that was allowed. Yes…that would most problematic, theologically. I assure you of my prayers.Saturday. Allowing unordained seminarians to preside at the sacrament was a bridge too far for me.
Pope Saint John Paul II answers you very well in Ut Unum Sint.
10. In the present situation of the lack of unity among Christians and of the confident quest for full communion, the Catholic faithful are conscious of being deeply challenged by the Lord of the Church. The Second Vatican Council strengthened their commitment with a clear ecclesiological vision, open to all the ecclesial values present among other Christians. The Catholic faithful face the ecumenical question in a spirit of faith.
The Council states that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, and at the same time acknowledges that "many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity."
“It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.
The language of theologians and ecclesiologists of today is completely different from ages past…if, in fact, they are speaking according to the mind of the Holy See and, as the Saint said, the clear ecclesiological vision that was the gift to the Church and the world at Vatican II.So, is the schism that Paul warns of, in today’s view of the Church, an impossibility? If no, what would that schism look like?
By the way, I know the Catholic view of schism. But the poster I was asking the question of, it would seemingly be an impossibility in his view.
If you know the Catholic view on schism, why are you asking the question? You know the answer…as far as there is any Catholic concern.So, is the schism that Paul warns of, in today’s view of the Church, an impossibility? If no, what would that schism look like?
By the way, I know the Catholic view of schism. But the poster I was asking the question of, it would seemingly be an impossibility in his view.
Many of the posters on this thread believe that their denomination is a branch of the true tree. The SSPX believe they are the true tree. That leaves this problem though. What is the difference between forming a branch and forming a schism? If branches are actually schisms, should they be called branches, or should they be called what they are, schisms? Why should I hold the SSPX to a higher and different standard, than the other so called 'branches?'If you know the Catholic view on schism, why are you asking the question? You know the answer…as far as there is any Catholic concern.
In point of fact, schism is possible. We saw it in the case of Marcel Lefebvre and those whom he consecrated without apostolic mandate. As Saint John Paul II very well said and perfectly expressed in the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, such a vile and horrific deed was a schismatic act that was to be condemned.
- With great affliction* the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.
The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.
- This affliction was particularly felt by the Successor of Peter to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church, even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few. For every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross for the salvation of all.
This rests upon the ecclesiological vision of Vatican II and the koinonia among particular churches. There are true churches in the east which have koinonia with each other but do not yet have koinonia with us and they would determine where an Orthodox has broken koinonia with them. Of course, we – and they – look to the state of an impaired koinonia between the churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and those which are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
- In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.
- The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. /…/
A charge of schism can only be made by us against Catholics – not against non-Catholics. The charge cannot be laid to anyone who is outside of the Roman Church’s communion of governance. On the other hand, since these non-Catholics are not in communion of governance with us but have their own governance…for example, the Orthodox could establish in their ecclesiastical law what would constitute schism for them.
As a Catholic, you are obliged to hold the SSPX to a higher and different standard since you are in communion of governance with the Holy See.Many of the posters on this thread believe that their denomination is a branch of the true tree. The SSPX believe they are the true tree. That leaves this problem though. What is the difference between forming a branch and forming a schism? If branches are actually schisms, should they be called branches, or should they be called what they are, schisms? Why should I hold the SSPX to a higher and different standard, than the other so called 'branches?'
Some coutries, often because of state funding of various religious and non-religious* groups, even count each of the dioceses as separate denominations.Yes. As I recall, each nation’s Catholic Church as a separate entity.
I’m pretty sure GKC agrees. But that means that you cannot use the numbers (30-40000) for ‘Protestants’ either, as they have been produced by the same faulty method.All the Rites and Churches that fall under the Catholic Church umbrella have the same Sacraments, believe the same Creed and are under the Pope. You can’t call them different denominations in the slightest degree!
A very brief spot on analysisThat he did. He rather wanted La Boleyn, too.
And his case was about as strong as they usually were in those days. Much stronger than his sister’s. She got her decree. Not as much politics involved. No Holy Roman Emperor, either.
I thank you. Hank, his hormones, and his Great Matter are a hobby of mine.A very brief spot on analysis
Yep.I’m pretty sure GKC agrees. But that means that you cannot use the numbers (30-40000) for ‘Protestants’ either, as they have been produced by the same faulty method.
In Norway, for instance, the two Roman Catholic dioceses are juridically classified as two denominations.
Your post here, and in 139, do much to clarify a confusing topic. Thanks.As a Catholic, you are obliged to hold the SSPX to a higher and different standard since you are in communion of governance with the Holy See.
Archbishop Lefebvre was subject to the 1983 code of canon law and he violated it along with those he ordained as bishops and they all incurred excommunication, as prescribed by the law. They committed a schismatic act.
As Catholics, therefore, we accept the declaration made by the Pope that a schismatic act was committed by those obliged to conform to Canon Law. In this case, the penalty was actually by the law itself without need to impose it.
Non-Catholics are not bound by our canon law in so far as it concerns ecclesiastical matters…no papal mandate is needed by an Orthodox bishop to ordain an Orthodox priest as a Orthodox bishop…there is no communion of governance between that Particular Church and the Church of Rome.
The Holy Father and the dicasteries of the Holy See do not – and have not for a long time – used the word schism in reference to Churches and ecclesial communities that are not in communion with the Holy See but are long established and presently existing. This practice is followed by the Catholic bishops diffused throughout the world.
That is the reason why we NEED an authority to guide us and that is why Jesus gave us the Pope, and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. God Bless, MemawSo, is the schism that Paul warns of, in today’s view of the Church, an impossibility? If no, what would that schism look like?
By the way, I know the Catholic view of schism. But the poster I was asking the question of, it would seemingly be an impossibility in his view.
If they don’t refer to it as Schism, then what do they refer to it as, and what other explanation is there for it? God Bless, MemawAs a Catholic, you are obliged to hold the SSPX to a higher and different standard since you are in communion of governance with the Holy See.
Archbishop Lefebvre was subject to the 1983 code of canon law and he violated it along with those he ordained as bishops and they all incurred excommunication, as prescribed by the law. They committed a schismatic act.
As Catholics, therefore, we accept the declaration made by the Pope that a schismatic act was committed by those obliged to conform to Canon Law. In this case, the penalty was actually by the law itself without need to impose it.
Non-Catholics are not bound by our canon law in so far as it concerns ecclesiastical matters…no papal mandate is needed by an Orthodox bishop to ordain an Orthodox priest as a Orthodox bishop…there is no communion of governance between that Particular Church and the Church of Rome.
The Holy Father and the dicasteries of the Holy See do not – and have not for a long time – used the word schism in reference to Churches and ecclesial communities that are not in communion with the Holy See but are long established and presently existing. This practice is followed by the Catholic bishops diffused throughout the world.