Orthodox Archbishop meets SSPX abbot

On 3 March 2006, Archbishop Auhustyn (Markevych) of Lvov and Halych received Fr. Michael Mary (Sim), superior of SSPX Golgotha Monastery in Scotland. see:
orthodoxy.org.ua/uk/node/1037
or
orthodoxy.org.ua/ru/node/1037

I would appreciate it if someone familiar with either Russian or Ukrainian could translate the above links - I tried “babelfish” but the result was near incomprehensible.

I’m very interested in this meeting, and what it amounts to - for the simple reason that “Golgotha Monastery” (affiliated with the SSPX, but technically not a part of it; they’re traditionalist Redemptorists) in the past is very anti-ecumenical, and quite anti-Orthodox, being big supporters of old school Uniatism (which they feel the Vatican has now sold out on.)

[quote=Palamite]I would appreciate it if someone familiar with either Russian or Ukrainian could translate the above links - I tried “babelfish” but the result was near incomprehensible.
[/quote]

Looked at Google, but they do not have Russian or Ukranian.

PF

[quote=Palamite]II’m very interested in this meeting…
[/quote]

On Friday, 3rd March, Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galitsia received the superior of the Holy Golgotha monastery in Scotland archimandrite Michael-Mary (Sim.) This Catholic monastery is very much one of a kind and not like all others controlled by Rome. The monks of Holy Golgotha monastery belong to the so-called Lefebvrites who are a form of Catholic Old Believers. The leaders (representatives) of this religious movement do not acknowledge the decisions of the 2nd Vatican Council, and consequently, they reject the dogma of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff [sic !] and do not support ecumenism (dialogue with Rome.)

The guests discussed with Vladyka the history of the foundation and the contemporary situation of their monastery. They also discussed the religious situation in the Ukraine. The Scottish clergy were interested how Orthodox Christians relate to other Churches, to Catholicism in particular, and if a real dialogue is possible between the leaders of the two world religions. Vladyka Augustine assured the guests that, despite the definite tension in Ukrainian society, connected with the parliamentary elections, this would not have any negative effects on the religious situation in the country.

[quote=Fr Ambrose]On Friday, 3rd March, Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galitsia received the superior of the Holy Golgotha monastery in Scotland archimandrite Michael-Mary (Sim.) This Catholic monastery is very much one of a kind and not like all others controlled by Rome. The monks of Holy Golgotha monastery belong to the so-called Lefebvrites who are a form of Catholic Old Believers. The leaders (representatives) of this religious movement do not acknowledge the decisions of the 2nd Vatican Council, and consequently, they reject the dogma of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff [sic !] and do not support ecumenism (dialogue with Rome.)

The guests discussed with Vladyka the history of the foundation and the contemporary situation of their monastery. They also discussed the religious situation in the Ukraine. The Scottish clergy were interested how Orthodox Christians relate to other Churches, to Catholicism in particular, and if a real dialogue is possible between the leaders of the two world religions. Vladyka Augustine assured the guests that, despite the definite tension in Ukrainian society, connected with the parliamentary elections, this would not have any negative effects on the religious situation in the country.
[/quote]

That’s completely inaccurate. The SSPX don’t reject Papal Infallability at all, though they are obviously in schism and feel Rome went off the rails at Vatican II.

They accept Vatican I wholeheartedly, and if anything, would consider the Orthodox not as Separated Brethren, but as schismatics.

[quote=BillyT92679]That’s completely inaccurate. The SSPX don’t reject Papal Infallability at all, though they are obviously in schism and feel Rome went off the rails at Vatican II.

They accept Vatican I wholeheartedly, and if anything, would consider the Orthodox not as Separated Brethren, but as schismatics.
[/quote]

That is why i inserted the [sic !] But in one sense it is correct - the monastery does not see any Pope since Vatican II as infallible. It is in abeyance.

The monastery does not see the Orthodox as schismatics but as outright heretics whose salvation is very doubtful.

The Transalpine Redemptorists are in friendly relations and intercommunion with the SSPX and SSPX bishops ordain their priests for them but they are not a formal part of the SSPX.

[quote=Fr Ambrose]That is why i inserted the [sic !] But in one sense it is correct - the monastery does not see any Pope since Vatican II as infallible. It is in abeyance.

The monastery does not see the Orthodox as schismatics but as outright heretics whose salvation is very doubtful.

The Transalpine Redemptorists are in friendly relations and intercommunion with the SSPX and SSPX bishops ordain their priests for them but they are not a formal part of the SSPX.
[/quote]

The monastery sounds like sedevacantists.

[quote=BillyT92679]That’s completely inaccurate. The SSPX don’t reject Papal Infallability at all, though they are obviously in schism and feel Rome went off the rails at Vatican II.

They accept Vatican I wholeheartedly, and if anything, would consider the Orthodox not as Separated Brethren, but as schismatics.
[/quote]

So it all over the Latin vs. NO Mass then and nothing else?

[quote=BillyT92679]That’s completely inaccurate. The SSPX don’t reject Papal Infallability at all, though they are obviously in schism and feel Rome went off the rails at Vatican II.

They accept Vatican I wholeheartedly, and if anything, would consider the Orthodox not as Separated Brethren, but as schismatics.
[/quote]

That doesn’t make any sense. How can they accept papal infallability but think the Pope got it wrong on Vatican II?

[quote=rlg94086]That doesn’t make any sense. How can they accept papal infallability but think the Pope got it wrong on Vatican II?
[/quote]

The think the last infallible statement by a Pope was made by Paul VI when he lamented that the window thrown open by Vatican II had let the Devil into the sanctuary :eek:

[quote=Fr Ambrose]The think the last infallible statement by a Pope was made by Paul VI when he lamented that the window thrown open by Vatican II had let the Devil into the sanctuary :eek:
[/quote]

“The smoke of Satan has entered the Church.”

The same ignorance I see from Catholics of the Orthodox and the Orthodox of the Catholics, is the same ignorance I see about the Catholic Traditionalist movement.

The SSPX whether you believe there in schism or not - accept Papal Infallibility, and I have a confrence of Father Schmidberger where he talks about the infallible statements of Pope John Paul II. Like Archbishop Lefebvre who signed 14 of the 16 Vatican II documents, the SSPX do not flat out reject Vatican II. They have serious reservations about what the council said, and have been waiting for sometime to have serious discussions with Rome about this.

They aren’t anti-Orthodox either. I know of Traditionalists who have alot of respect for the Orthodox. By far they are much more pro-Catholic.

And regarding that quote (I now see it’s Pope Pius IX who said it :smiley: ) it’s here:

"Paolo VI si chiede, poi, se la Chiesa di oggi si può confrontare con tranquillità con le parole che Pietro ha lasciato in eredità, offrendole in meditazione. «Ripensiamo in questo momento con immensa carità - così il Santo Padre - a tutti i nostri fratelli che ci lasciano, a tanti che sono fuggiaschi e dimentichi, a tanti che forse non sono mai arrivati nemmeno ad aver coscienza della vocazione cristiana, quantunque abbiano ricevuto il Battesimo. Come vorremmo davvero distendere le mani verso di essi, e dir loro che il cuore è sempre aperto, che la porta è facile, e come vorremmo renderli partecipi della grande, ineffabile fortuna della felicità nostra, quella di essere in comunicazione con Dio, che non ci toglie nulla della visione temporale e del realismo positivo del mondo esteriore!».

Forse questo nostro essere in comunicazione con Dio, ci obbliga a rinunce, a sacrifici, ma mentre ci priva di qualcosa moltiplica i suoi doni. Sì, impone rinunce ma ci fa sovrabbondare di altre ricchezze. Non siamo poveri, siamo ricchi, perché abbiamo la ricchezza del Signore. «Ebbene - aggiunge il Papa - vorremmo dire a questi fratelli, di cui sentiamo quasi lo strappo nelle viscere della nostra anima sacerdotale, quanto ci sono presenti, quanto ora e sempre e più li amiamo e quanto preghiamo per loro e quanto cerchiamo con questo sforzo che li insegue, li circonda, di supplire all’interruzione che essi stessi frappongono alla nostra comunione con Cristo».

***Riferendosi alla situazione della Chiesa di oggi, il Santo Padre afferma di avere la sensazione che «da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio». ***C’è il dubbio, l’incertezza, la problematica, l’inquietudine, l’insoddisfazione, il confronto. Non ci si fida più della Chiesa; ci si fida del primo profeta profano che viene a parlarci da qualche giornale o da qualche moto sociale per rincorrerlo e chiedere a lui se ha la formula della vera vita. E non avvertiamo di esserne invece già noi padroni e maestri. È entrato il dubbio nelle nostre coscienze, ed è entrato per finestre che invece dovevano essere aperte alla luce. Dalla scienza, che è fatta per darci delle verità che non distaccano da Dio ma ce lo fanno cercare ancora di più e celebrare con maggiore intensità, è venuta invece la critica, è venuto il dubbio. Gli scienziati sono coloro che più pensosamente e più dolorosamente curvano la fronte. E finiscono per insegnare: «Non so, non sappiamo, non possiamo sapere». La scuola diventa palestra di confusione e di contraddizioni talvolta assurde. Si celebra il progresso per poterlo poi demolire con le rivoluzioni più strane e più radicali, per negare tutto ciò che si è conquistato, per ritornare primitivi dopo aver tanto esaltato i progressi del mondo moderno.

Anche nella Chiesa regna questo stato di incertezza. Si credeva che dopo il Concilio sarebbe venuta una giornata di sole per la storia della Chiesa. È venuta invece una giornata di nuvole, di tempesta, di buio, di ricerca, di incertezza. Predichiamo l’ecumenismo e ci distacchiamo sempre di più dagli altri. Cerchiamo di scavare abissi invece di colmarli. "
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1972/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19720629_it.html

From a homily by Pope Paul VI June 29, 1972.

[quote=Fr Ambrose]The think the last infallible statement by a Pope was made by Paul VI when he lamented that the window thrown open by Vatican II had let the Devil into the sanctuary :eek:
[/quote]

It’s nice that lay Catholics get to decide which papal statements are infallible and which aren’t. Kind of defeats the purpose of infallibility doesn’t it? :smiley:

The “Lefebrvists” (SSPX and those who think like them) do not reject Papal Infallibility, so the article definately got this wrong.

Rather, it is fair to say that practically speaking they’re “Papal minimalists”, within the confines of the “dogmatic” definitions of Roman Catholicism, though this is more out of necessity than anything else (give their perception of how things have “turned out” since Vatican II - I highly doubt Archbishop Lefebvre, back in the days of Pope Pius XII, held the “minimalist” position). Obviously I think this is a problematic position - but I sympathize with them, because they’re simply tasting the tension of trying to be “orthodox” while having to rationalize their relationship to a Papacy which has obviously changed a great many things within Catholicism.

Being intimately familiar with the SSPX, it’s views, it’s politics, etc. (suffice it to say, I have several close family members who are “Lefebvrists”; for now, I don’t feel comfortable saying any more than this), I know full well that they are generally very anti-Orthodox. As someone previously mentioned, they view the Orthodox as not simply being schismatics, but heretics to boot. This is precisely why I was surprised that they (or in this case, their associates) would be having a friendly visit with an Orthodox hierarch of any sort.

[quote=rlg94086]That doesn’t make any sense. How can they accept papal infallability but think the Pope got it wrong on Vatican II?
[/quote]

Their reasoning is that in their eyes Vatican II was called as a pastoral council, not an eccumenical council, therfore using that logic, they believe that Vatican II did not carry with it the infallibility as earlier councils did.

[quote=Palamite]As someone previously mentioned, they view the Orthodox as not simply being schismatics, but heretics to boot. This is precisely why I was surprised that they (or in this case, their associates) would be having a friendly visit with an Orthodox hierarch of any sort.
[/quote]

I’m not trying to open a can of worms, but it doesn’t take any amount of ill-will for a Catholic to consider the Orthodox heretics. A heretic is, by definition, a baptized person who rejects an article that must be held with divine and Catholic faith. Since it’s been defined in ecumenical council, papal infallibility falls under that heading, so anyone who rejects it is a heretic, be it material or formal. Heretic isn’t a word that gets thrown around in this forum, which I think is good because of its loaded perjorative connotations, but when you get down to brass tacks it still applies. I like to think I have a great deal of respect for Orthodoxy, but that wouldn’t come through too well if the only test used were “Is it heresy to deny papal infallibility?”

Andreas,

It’s the logic you provide which underlays the SSPX type position, which to be fair, is really only the position Catholicism held prior to Vatican II.

The difference now though, is that the recent Popes (and most serious Roman Catholic theologians) understand there’s quite a bit of hubris involved in chasing after the Orthodox for being “heretics”, in so far as they reject teachings which were “developed” after their “seperation from Rome”, or which they themselves never accepted as articles of faith.

[quote=rlg94086]It’s nice that lay Catholics get to decide which papal statements are infallible and which aren’t. Kind of defeats the purpose of infallibility doesn’t it? :smiley:
[/quote]

I have noticed that the ultimate authority is the Catholic lay people.

For example, some of them have decided that Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on contraception is infallible and they adhere to it. Others have decided that it is not infallible and they do not adhere to it. The Pope has not said anything either way.

Same thing happens with encyclicals like the one by John Paul II on the male only priesthood. Some Catholics accept it as infallible and the end of the discussion. Others don’t accept it as infallible and want the debate to continue. The Pope says nothing about whether he wrote it in infallible mode or not. So this kind of leaves it all in the hands of the laity - what is infallible and what is not. Maybe the Pope wants it this way?

[quote=Fr Ambrose]I have noticed that the ultimate authority is the Catholic lay people.

For example, some of them have decided that Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on contraception is infallible and they adhere to it. Others have decided that it is not infallible and they do not adhere to it. The Pope has not said anything either way.

Same thing happens with encyclicals like the one by John Paul II on the male only priesthood. Some Catholics accept it as infallible and the end of the discussion. Others don’t accept it as infallible and want the debate to continue. The Pope says nothing about whether he wrote it in infallible mode or not. So this kind of leaves it all in the hands of the laity - what is infallible and what is not. Maybe the Pope wants it this way?
[/quote]

Those who know, don’t say.
Those who say, don’t know.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.