Why Not ReUnite with Our Traditional Bretheren


#1

It is a shame that all we see and hear from the Vatican and on discussion boards such as this is what we need to do as Catholics to reunite with real schismatic groups such as the Orthodox church, who do not believe in the Holy Trinity, and the Protestants, who threw the church in turmoil for almost a century. Why are we not discussing bringing back, what was the backbone of our church for centuries, the Traditional Catholics, who have not gone out and created their own new religion as the Protestants and Orthodox have, but have just held to the teachings of the church as was taught up to Vatican II.

Any thoughts on why this is a taboo subject???


#2

i hope and pray that this can and will happen!!

all for JESUS!!
lonnie


#3

[quote=CrusaderNY]It is a shame that all we see and hear from the Vatican and on discussion boards such as this is what we need to do as Catholics to reunite with real schismatic groups such as the Orthodox church, who do not believe in the Holy Trinity, and the Protestants, who threw the church in turmoil for almost a century. Why are we not discussing bringing back, what was the backbone of our church for centuries, the Traditional Catholics, who have not gone out and created their own new religion as the Protestants and Orthodox have, but have just held to the teachings of the church as was taught up to Vatican II.

Any thoughts on why this is a taboo subject???
[/quote]

Open discussion on the different opinions and preferences is a start. And that has began. So manbe taboo can be replaced with “sensitive”.


#4

[quote=CrusaderNY]It is a shame that all we see and hear from the Vatican and on discussion boards such as this is what we need to do as Catholics to reunite with real schismatic groups such as the Orthodox church, who do not believe in the Holy Trinity, and the Protestants, who threw the church in turmoil for almost a century. Why are we not discussing bringing back, what was the backbone of our church for centuries, the Traditional Catholics, who have not gone out and created their own new religion as the Protestants and Orthodox have, but have just held to the teachings of the church as was taught up to Vatican II.

Any thoughts on why this is a taboo subject???
[/quote]

Please explain what you mean by this.

Do you mean the “Traditionalists” who are in the Catholic Church or do you mean the schismatic “Traditionalists” like the SSPX (among others).

If you mean the latter, then you are wrong as they have gone out and created their own new religion by elevating themselves and/or their founders as the authority over the Church and its Bishops.


#5

Yes, I mean the Traditionalists, like St Pius X and millions of independents like Mel Gibson. They are, in my opinion not schismatic, as they have not invented and picked and chosen what they liked out of the Catholic Church, as have the Orthodox and Protestants and broke off and formed an entirely new religion. Instead, like during the Arayan heresy, they are, in their opinion, holding fast to the faith until the Catholic Church of Rome comes back to it’s senses, which may take a century, and restore the faith as it was handed down through the centuries.

[quote=ByzCath]Please explain what you mean by this.

Do you mean the “Traditionalists” who are in the Catholic Church or do you mean the schismatic “Traditionalists” like the SSPX (among others).

If you mean the latter, then you are wrong as they have gone out and created their own new religion by elevating themselves and/or their founders as the authority over the Church and its Bishops.
[/quote]


#6

There are so many errors in this post that I don’t know where to begin. I’ll just say that the Orthodox certainly do believe in the Holy Trinity. If you attend any Divine Liturgy you will notice that the Trinity is invoked many times. As a matter of fact, much more so than in a Catholic Mass. You need to read some good books on Orthodoxy because there is no scholarship in what you write. I’d start with The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware.

[quote=CrusaderNY]It is a shame that all we see and hear from the Vatican and on discussion boards such as this is what we need to do as Catholics to reunite with real schismatic groups such as the Orthodox church, who do not believe in the Holy Trinity, and the Protestants, who threw the church in turmoil for almost a century. Why are we not discussing bringing back, what was the backbone of our church for centuries, the Traditional Catholics, who have not gone out and created their own new religion as the Protestants and Orthodox have, but have just held to the teachings of the church as was taught up to Vatican II.

Any thoughts on why this is a taboo subject???
[/quote]


#7

Hello Crusader:

You are so vague in your term “Traditional Catholics” that I am not sure who you are referring to. I presume it is to such people as the Society of Pius X (SSPX) and the Society of Pius V (the so-called “Sedevacantists”, I believe).

These groups can reunite any time they want to, by recognizing the Pope and by coming into communion with those in union with him. They would have to quit claiming, as you do, that we Catholics in union with Pope John Paul II have “created (our) own religion as the Protestants and Orthodox have,” as you put it. Thank God that some of their former members have at various times come back to the Church: I am thinking here of the Brazilian group last year, and of the group of priests that left Abp. Lefebvre years ago to form the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, a wonderful congregation.

But the SSPX and the Sedevacantists are clearly off the deep end, clearly schismatic. The SSPX clergy is clearly excommunicate, the bishops because they were consecrated without papal mandate, and the priests for formerly adhering to them. I’m unsure about their laity, as they are obviously confused. I understand that the Sedevacantists have an even more illogical position than the SSPX, so who knows about them. One can see, however, that both groups are certainly in schism, and ironically, have become Protestants with regard to their use of Private Interpretation. Unless they come back soon we’ll probably be seeing their descendents becoming (liberal) Old Catholics in 50 years or so. Too bad.

Regards,
Joannes

[quote=CrusaderNY]It is a shame that all we see and hear from the Vatican and on discussion boards such as this is what we need to do as Catholics to reunite with real schismatic groups such as the Orthodox church, who do not believe in the Holy Trinity, and the Protestants, who threw the church in turmoil for almost a century. Why are we not discussing bringing back, what was the backbone of our church for centuries, the Traditional Catholics, who have not gone out and created their own new religion as the Protestants and Orthodox have, but have just held to the teachings of the church as was taught up to Vatican II.

Any thoughts on why this is a taboo subject???
[/quote]


#8

[quote=CrusaderNY]Yes, I mean the Traditionalists, like St Pius X and millions of independents like Mel Gibson. They are, in my opinion not schismatic, as they have not invented and picked and chosen what they liked out of the Catholic Church, as have the Orthodox and Protestants and broke off and formed an entirely new religion. Instead, like during the Arayan heresy, they are, in their opinion, holding fast to the faith until the Catholic Church of Rome comes back to it’s senses, which may take a century, and restore the faith as it was handed down through the centuries.
[/quote]

Your opinion notwithstanding, SSPX is schismatic. It’s really the opinion of the Holy See that matters on this point. And they have clearly picked and chosen what they liked out of the Catholic Church, since they refuse to obey the Pope and they are disobedient to Vatican II decrees. And the Orthodox and Protestants would make precisely the same argument that you make, ie., that they are holding fast to the ancient faith, that it was in fact corrupted by the Roman Church (you are waiting till that Church comes back to it’s senses, so are they). And as for what was handed down throught the centuries: fiddleback chasubles, tonsures, maniples, Latin, etc. didn’t loom large at the Last Supper.


#9

One of the main differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches is the Pope.

The Roman Catholic Church believes the Pope is over all other Churches throughout the world and may “command” them, telling them what to believe and what their bishops must do.

The Orthodox Church believes that each local Bishop and Patriarch (who is in charge of a larger region of bishops and their flocks) has the responsibility to guide those Christians who are entrusted to their care.All bishops and patriarchs are essentially equal and no one can tell another in another region or area what to do.

What the Church believes is established at great Councils where the bishops of the world have gathered to define what we must believe based on the Bible and the teaching of the Fathers. All the bishops sign the recommendations or “canons” of the Councils and, after they do, these must be accepted by all Churches everywhere.

Another difference is in terms of what either Church believes about the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. At one time, the entire Church believed that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father alone, as our Lord taught at the Last Supper in the Gospel of John. Later, the Roman Catholic Church added that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father AND the Son. The Orthodox Church does not accept this as it is not in the Bible or in early Church teachings or Tradition.

The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the Virgin Mary was conceived without Original Sin on her soul and that she was taken up to Heaven, body and soul. The Orthodox Church believes that the Mother of God was filled with the Holy Spirit from the time of her conception in the womb of her mother, St Anne, and that there is no need to define such doctrines as the Church has always believed in her total and complete purity and holiness. The same is true of the Assumption.

The Roman Catholic Church believes that Original Sin is when we are born with the sin committed by Adam when he disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church believes that we cannot get on our souls a sin committed by someone else. The most we can inherit is a weak human nature that is the result of that sin. We now suffer, are tempted and die - and this is what “Original Sin” really is.

The Roman Catholic Church believes that there is a third place after we die, or Purgatory where small sins are punished before the souls of holy people are let into Heaven. The Orthodox Church prays for the dead and believes that such prayer brings people who have died in holiness closer to God. We cannot know about Purgatory and so the Orthodox Church doesn’t accept it.

There are many outward, liturgical differences between Roman Catholics and Orthodox that have to do with spirituality and religious culture. These are just basic differences in how the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Church understand Christianity, most of which has nothing to do with faith. The differences were there before the two Churches separated in 1054 AD and they will largely remain when, in God’s time, the two Churches are ready to reunite.

[quote=Tomosaki]There are so many errors in this post that I don’t know where to begin. I’ll just say that the Orthodox certainly do believe in the Holy Trinity. If you attend any Divine Liturgy you will notice that the Trinity is invoked many times. As a matter of fact, much more so than in a Catholic Mass. You need to read some good books on Orthodoxy because there is no scholarship in what you write. I’d start with The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware.
[/quote]


#10

Hmmmm, but are we not drilled day after day with the “Spirit of Ecumenism” that we must reach out to the Jews, the Moslems, the Buddhists, the Orthodox…But the Traditionalists are a taboo subject. When was the last meeting Pope JPII had with a Traditional? Everytime I turn around he is with some leader of some false religion saying how great they are and how we all worship the same God, all of which I think is unacceptable.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Your opinion notwithstanding, SSPX is schismatic. It’s really the opinion of the Holy See that matters on this point. And they have clearly picked and chosen what they liked out of the Catholic Church, since they refuse to obey the Pope and they are disobedient to Vatican II decrees. And the Orthodox and Protestants would make precisely the same argument that you make, ie., that they are holding fast to the ancient faith, that it was in fact corrupted by the Roman Church (you are waiting till that Church comes back to it’s senses, so are they). And as for what was handed down throught the centuries: fiddleback chasubles, tonsures, maniples, Latin, etc. didn’t loom large at the Last Supper.
[/quote]


#11

Crusader,
In the quoted reply from you below you show a great lack of understanding of even the Catholic Church.

[quote=CrusaderNY]One of the main differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches is the Pope.

The Roman Catholic Church believes the Pope is over all other Churches throughout the world and may “command” them, telling them what to believe and what their bishops must do.

[/quote]

You are sort of correct here, this is known as universal jurisdiction but the Holy Father does not use it all that often.

For example, he allows the bishops to decide on their own if they will allow female altar servers, reception of the Eucharist in the hand, and the Indult for the Trad Latin Mass.

The Holy Father, in his diocese of Rome, does not allow female altar servers nor reception of the Eucharist in the hand but he does not mandate this for all dioceses.

The Orthodox Church believes that each local Bishop and Patriarch (who is in charge of a larger region of bishops and their flocks) has the responsibility to guide those Christians who are entrusted to their care.All bishops and patriarchs are essentially equal and no one can tell another in another region or area what to do.

What the Church believes is established at great Councils where the bishops of the world have gathered to define what we must believe based on the Bible and the teaching of the Fathers. All the bishops sign the recommendations or “canons” of the Councils and, after they do, these must be accepted by all Churches everywhere.

The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches believe and teach the samethings on the primacy of a bishop within his diocese. They also hold to the councils but the Catholic Church went on after the Great Schism to have more councils which the Orthodox were not part of so I think it would be wrong to assume that the Orthodox are bound by them.

This is something that needs to be discussed between the Churches for reunification to occur.

Another difference is in terms of what either Church believes about the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. At one time, the entire Church believed that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father alone, as our Lord taught at the Last Supper in the Gospel of John. Later, the Roman Catholic Church added that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father AND the Son. The Orthodox Church does not accept this as it is not in the Bible or in early Church teachings or Tradition.

Wrong again. The filioque, or the double procession as recited in the Creed does not exist in the Creed recited by the Byzantine Catholic Churches. Sorry to tell you but we only say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, period. We are Catholics and we do not accept it, we agree with the Orthodox on this matter.

The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the Virgin Mary was conceived without Original Sin on her soul and that she was taken up to Heaven, body and soul. The Orthodox Church believes that the Mother of God was filled with the Holy Spirit from the time of her conception in the womb of her mother, St Anne, and that there is no need to define such doctrines as the Church has always believed in her total and complete purity and holiness. The same is true of the Assumption.

The Roman Catholic Church believes that Original Sin is when we are born with the sin committed by Adam when he disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church believes that we cannot get on our souls a sin committed by someone else. The most we can inherit is a weak human nature that is the result of that sin. We now suffer, are tempted and die - and this is what “Original Sin” really is.

Wrong again. The stain of Orginal Sin is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, this is just the Augustian view of it. The Orthodox, as well as the Byzantine Catholic, Churches have the same view on this. We believe that the Mother of God was sinless. This is why we Byzantine Catholics do not the Immaculate Conception on our Liturgical calendar, we celebrate the Conception of St Anne.

As for the Assumption, this is celebrated as the Dormition. We believe that the Mother of God died, or fell asleep in the Lord, and then her body was assumed into Heaven. No difference really as the Catholic Church does not dogmatically teach that the Mother of God did not die.

[continued]


#12

The Roman Catholic Church believes that there is a third place after we die, or Purgatory where small sins are punished before the souls of holy people are let into Heaven. The Orthodox Church prays for the dead and believes that such prayer brings people who have died in holiness closer to God. We cannot know about Purgatory and so the Orthodox Church doesn’t accept it.

Neither do the Byzantine Catholic Church. Really the Roman Catholic Church does not teach what you say. The Holy Father has written that purgatory is not a place. We, the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches, do believe in the purgative process.

There are many outward, liturgical differences between Roman Catholics and Orthodox that have to do with spirituality and religious culture. These are just basic differences in how the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Church understand Christianity, most of which has nothing to do with faith. The differences were there before the two Churches separated in 1054 AD and they will largely remain when, in God’s time, the two Churches are ready to reunite.

Again, you seem to think that the Roman Catholic Church equals the Catholic Church. This is wrong, the Catholic Church is made up of 23 sui iuris Churches (sui iuris roughly translates to “self-governing”) [thank you a pligrim] of which the Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church is the largest.

The Liturgical practices of the Byzantine Catholic Churches is identical to the Orthodox Churches. The Byzantine Catholic Churches share more in common with the Orthodox than with the Roman Church.

You have much to learn about your own church before you start to attack the church of others.

The SSPX and their ilk have created their own religions by picking and choosing what to follow and what not to follow of the Catholic Church. They are in schism.


#13

We have brought them back, eg. Campos. I pray the rest are united in full communion with the Roman Pontiff as well.


#14

To all…I dont speak as an expert on the Orthodox church and will have to go back to read a bit on the differences. The string was meant to ask why has the catholic church not reached out to the Traditionals as they have to others (not speaking of Christians here) who do not even BELIEVE in Our Lord, but we bend over backwards to please the Jewish, Moslem, Hindus and the like. Has anyone even seen what our Pope, and I dont care if I get in trouble for saying this as I am against what he is doing at Fatima as it is and should be a Catholic Place of Worship, and St Pius X was right on this, and the Pope is making it into an Ecumenical gathering place and there have already been Hindu ceremonies there.

[quote=ByzCath]Neither do the Byzantine Catholic Church. Really the Roman Catholic Church does not teach what you say. The Holy Father has written that purgatory is not a place. We, the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches, do believe in the purgative process.

Again, you seem to think that the Roman Catholic Church equals the Catholic Church. This is wrong, the Catholic Church is made up of 23 sui iuris Churches (sui iuris roughly translates to “self-governing”) [thank you a pligrim] of which the Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church is the largest.

The Liturgical practices of the Byzantine Catholic Churches is identical to the Orthodox Churches. The Byzantine Catholic Churches share more in common with the Orthodox than with the Roman Church.

You have much to learn about your own church before you start to attack the church of others.

The SSPX and their ilk have created their own religions by picking and choosing what to follow and what not to follow of the Catholic Church. They are in schism.
[/quote]


#15

Byzcath,

Wrong again. The filioque, or the double procession as recited in the Creed does not exist in the Creed recited by the Byzantine Catholic Churches. Sorry to tell you but we only say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, period. We are Catholics and we do not accept it, we agree with the Orthodox on this matter.

Can you help clarify for me regarding filioque? I was under the impression Byzantine Catholics held to the same theology, even though they did not recite the creed as in the Latin tradition.

Do you agree with this:

… the Eastern tradition … affirms that he comes from the Father *through *the Son (Jn 15:26; cf. Ad Gentes, 2) … the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, (Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331) is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. (Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850)

(from CCC 248)

If you do agree, do you know if the Greek Orthodox agree?


#16

ByzCath… please… lightenup okay. You have to be more diplomatic if you ever want to run for public office and get votes.http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Maybe some are not as knowledgible as you in some areas you know a few things about…

You have much to learn about your own knowledge before you start to attack the knowledge of others.:whacky: oops, see, now you have me doing it.:rotfl:


#17

[quote=MrS]ByzCath… please… lightenup okay. You have to be more diplomatic if you ever want to run for public office and get votes.http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[/quote]

To run for public office one must water down the Truth, I do not ever plan to run for such a thing.

Maybe some are not as knowledgible as you in some areas you know a few things about…

You have much to learn about your own knowledge before you start to attack the knowledge of others.:whacky: oops, see, now you have me doing it.:rotfl:

I understand what you are saying and I must say, you have done so in a very diplomatic manner :thumbsup: but it gets to me when others saythings about my faith and do so like they are experts when they are not even close.

I will take what you have said to heart but let me ask this.

Was I wrong in anything I said, or is it just the way I said it that bothers you?


#18

[quote=CrusaderNY]To all…I dont speak as an expert on the Orthodox church and will have to go back to read a bit on the differences. The string was meant to ask why has the catholic church not reached out to the Traditionals as they have to others (not speaking of Christians here) who do not even BELIEVE in Our Lord, but we bend over backwards to please the Jewish, Moslem, Hindus and the like. Has anyone even seen what our Pope, and I dont care if I get in trouble for saying this as I am against what he is doing at Fatima as it is and should be a Catholic Place of Worship, and St Pius X was right on this, and the Pope is making it into an Ecumenical gathering place and there have already been Hindu ceremonies there.
[/quote]

Here, I’ll venture an answer on behalf of His Holiness, as though I dared: He’s already urged on the bishops a generous exercise of the Indult. Why don’t “disenfranchised” TLM Catholics look into relief through canon law? The faithful have, actually, what basically amounts to a bill of rights. Also, in his capacity as Supreme Pontiff, the Pope has immediate jurisdiction over all the bishops and all of the faithful have the right to appeal to the Holy See. If your bishop won’t exercise the Indult, take it to the next level.


#19

[quote=CrusaderNY]TThe string was meant to ask why has the catholic church not reached out to the Traditionals as they have to others (not speaking of Christians here) who do not even BELIEVE in Our Lord, but we bend over backwards to please the Jewish, Moslem, Hindus and the like.
[/quote]

But we have been reaching out to them, as proof I offer Campos, they have returned to the fold.

As for the other comments, the pope has done nothing in fatima and as for the Hindu thing there, if you only listen to the schismatic groups then of course you will think what occured there was bad, but if you listen to the Church, no Hindu ceremony occured there.

You have to pick which side you will listen to and follow, the schismatic Trad groups or the Catholic Church which has the True Faith.


#20

Taken right out a College Textbook on Theology, I think you are incorrect, you may believe in the Holy Trinity, but not the Pope, the derivitive of the Holy Spirit, The Body of Christ and Consecration, and on and on. I can never see the Church uniting with the Orthodox, I think we have more in common with the Protestants in some ways.

Somebody will object, that there are really theological and dogmatic differences between the eastern church and Rome. That is true, but these differences didn’t cause the split. They were cited after the fact to explain the completed division. Above all it was the church of the East, which searched for heresies, with which it could reproach Rome in the proud confidence of theological superiority and of the possession of the old orthodoxy which had been determined at the ecumenical synods. The theologians of the East looked down at those of the West. Where else than in the East were there ecumenical synods? Where else than in the East authentic theology, compared to which the Latins, even an Ambrosius or an Augustine, were upstarts? Whoever was separated from the eastern church, for whatever reason, must be a heretic. Already in the schism of Photios in the 9th century, which prepared the way for the big schism of 1054, it became clear that the reproach of heresy was secondary. Among the heresies which the great scholar Photios found - he probably would have tolerated it, if his non-canonical vote had been recognized by Rome - , the most significant, the only one which concerned the topic of doctrine, was the “Filioque”, the occidental addition to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but rather also from the Son. Perhaps the sentence by John of Damascus in the exposition of the orthodox faith in the 8th century refers already to a border against the “Filioque”, accepted in Toledo in 589: “the Holy Spirit … is from the Father, and we call Him the Spirit of the Father. On the other hand, we do not claim that He is from the Son, however, we call Him the Spirit of the Son.” (“De Fide Orthod.” I, 8; “Library of the Church Fathers”, vol. 44, pg. 27)

Although the “Filioque” was expressly taught even by theologians of the East (Ephraim the Syrian, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius), it made itself felt theologically only by Augustine’s influence and became, corresponding to the Augustinian conception of the Trinity, a characteristic doctrine of the western church. If you compare both types of Trinitarian doctrine, then you must say, that the Greek church here represents an older type which is still strongly determine by the theology of Origen with its subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Theologically, biblically, seen, the occidental teaching is more correct, even if one must concede to the Orient - even the popes did - , that the introduction of the “Filioque” into the creed, the only one which the East and the West have in common, without asking the East was not well done. The reproach of heresy has never been raised by Rome against the orthodox church, but rather the other way 'round. It was Photios, the universal scholar, who with his authority justified this charge, and stamped it so deeply into the church of the East that every oriental Christian, even if he doesn’t even know the main teachings of his church, knows that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and that the Christians of the West are heretics because they do not believe this. But the dogmatic reproach was only a disguise for ecclesio-political claims. Opposing Nicholas I was a patriarch, who quite seriously thought about “directly laying claim to the ‘primacy’ for Constantinople” (Kattenbusch, P.R.E. vol. 15, pg. 381). The role which the Filioque played in the schism of Photios was played by the question of the Azyma in the schism of 1054. Along with other heresies, like, e.g., the western practice of fasting on Friday and Saturday which Photios had already criticized, the worst one, for Michael Caerularius and the eastern church, was the use of “unleavened bread” for the Eucharist, which had been adopted into the about 200 years previously in the occidental church. It is telling that, for the church of the East, not only a false teaching, but rather also an incorrect (according its opinion) liturgical practice can be a heresy

[quote=Tomosaki]There are so many errors in this post that I don’t know where to begin. I’ll just say that the Orthodox certainly do believe in the Holy Trinity. If you attend any Divine Liturgy you will notice that the Trinity is invoked many times. As a matter of fact, much more so than in a Catholic Mass. You need to read some good books on Orthodoxy because there is no scholarship in what you write. I’d start with The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware.
[/quote]


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.