‘Dear Father’ - Who’s a heretic or an apostate, and what’s a schism?

St. Louis Review ^ | January 27, 2006 | Father Joseph L. Parisi

[Theoden]

I know that reunification is a priority for Pope Benedict, and I know that there have been many talks, most of which are going quite well. I view this as a good thing, and I think most Catholics would agree. I don't know how most Orthodox view reunification, especially those in Eastern Europe. Thats what I am curious about.

I would have absolutely no problem with an Eastern pontiff, and I would not mind the Papacy moving east, as long as it is centered in the Hagia Sophia (Spelling?) in Constantinople, as it should be. The Vatican, however, should not, and cannot be disregarded, as it is the utmost importance to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, and where so much history of the Church has been centered. I think it can coexist, as the Eastern and Western Empires had in the past.

[Rytwyng]

The ancient Hebrews begged for a king and the Lord provided a king

...After the Lord specifically warned them NOT to ask -- and that asking for a king would bring great burdens that he wanted to spare them!!!!! They sinned greatly by asking for an earthly king. Go back and read it again.

[AnalogReigns]

Of course the churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Greece and a few more in what is now Turkey are older than that in Rome, and would rightly argue it was the See of Rome which broke away from the rest of the Christian Church, not visa versa... so just who is the schimatic?

The Bible, catholicity and orthodox beliefs have at least (really more, when you count Jerusalem) as much root in these eastern churches than in Latin Rome.

[AnalogReigns]

The war against the Cathari (Albegesians), very well documented, in Southern France is one. I'm sure one could dig up some baby-slaughtering instances there...but its not necessary. Tens of thousands were slaughtered of this heretical gnostic (by any current measure, Roman, Protestant or Orthodox) religious sect, in this internal crusade/inquisition, instigated and blessed by the Roman church.

John Hus, at the Council of Constance, for another, burned in 1417, for it appears not for theological heresy, but for calling attention to the averice of the Bohemian bishops at the time. This was the same council that settled the 3 simultaneous pope schism (wonder which one really had Peter's blessing?).

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572 for another, where as many as 70,000 French Calvinists where slaughtered--primarily for their faith (and I'm sure many were mothers with babies...).

Of course as Protestant princes gained power, Protestant Christians were also guilty of similar horrors...but not under the express command of their respective Church body officials--as was often the case in the early Reformation period with Roman Catholics.

Queen Mary in England in the 1550s, in trying to re-establish Roman Church control in England burned or butchered an estimated 400 Protestant leaders--all for the sake of (and with the blessing of) her church. She wasn't called "Bloody" for nothing.

The religious wars of the the late 1500s and 1600s too, filled rivers of blood on both sides. 1 of 3 Germans for example, was slaughtered in the 30 Years War (whole cities disappearing)...which started and ended for a mixed up mash of both religious and poltical reasons.

Knowing what institutional leaders of the Roman church instigated and blessed (and which the Roman church has never fully repudiated) --especially in Reformation times--I for one could never become a Romanist.

Christ' Church is made up of those that truly follow Him, not in one human organization. He knows His own.

[redgolum]

That would be me and most of my ping list! :)

And mine. If/when (by the grace of God) there is a reunion, this may be a huge stumbling block. In the last 50 years or so it has been very popular to side step the issue. But as ecumenical talks progress, eventually it will have to be honestly dealt with.

[redgolum]

Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

Funny thing that. As I have commented to Kolo a few times, we all tend to drift to the same point in certain areas. That was not always true, at times because of intensely political things.

For instance, prior the fall of Constantinople, there was no theological way that any western ruler could be recognized by the Emperor of the Eastern Romans (Byzantine) as anything else but a rebelling barbarian king. The thought of the time was that if you were truly catholic and orthodox Christian (lower case c and o), then you had to be under the government of the one universal Emperor.

That isn't the case now, and probably won't be in the foreseeable future.

What is also fascinating to me is that in the Asian and African mission fields, there is a lot of cooperation. The Lutheran Church in Seoul has no problem working with the local Catholic diocese. Also (and rather ironically) the Lutheran churches in many parts of Russia haved helped push some wandering Russian Orthodox back to the Orthodox, while trying to convert the truly unchurched. My point is that in parts of the world, some of these debates aren't even on the radar screen of the local Christians. Perhaps when the Church is reunited, it won't be from the West, but from the East!

[redgolum]

On these definitions, how many formal heretics, schismatics or apostates could there ever be? And wouldn't most of them be insane, which would remove culpability?

Which is the rub. There have been those throughout history who have switched sides for material or political gain. Those who have done so are probably guilty of one of those three you mentioned.

[Claud]

and I would not mind the Papacy moving east, as long as it is centered in the Hagia Sophia (Spelling?) in Constantinople, as it should be.

The papacy cannot move East unless you move Rome itself, as the Pope is its Bishop. But by all means, get Hagia Sophia back the way it was, minus the Emperor, and I'll be one delighted Latin.

[vox_freedom]

Thanks for your defense of St. Athanasius from the charge that could be derived from the definition of schism in the article:

Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the pope or to join in communion with the members of the Catholic Church subject to him.

Glad to see that you disagree with that definition.

[TexConfederate1861]

Or perhaps you might look at it from the ORTHODOX point of view. You guys split, and then came everybody else......

[TexConfederate1861]

Not so...THE CHURCH was founded at Pentecost. After the Schism of 1054, there was the Roman Catholic Church (West)
and the Orthodox Church (east).......

[TexConfederate1861]

Reunion can occur, but only when the Pope becomes "first among equals" again.

[gbcdoj]

Thanks for your defense of St. Athanasius from the charge that could be derived from the definition of schism in the article:

Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the pope or to join in communion with the members of the Catholic Church subject to him.

Er, but that is the definition of schism. What exactly do you suppose schism is? St. Thomas writes: "Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy." Likewise we read in the 1917 Code, can. 1325: si denique subesse renuit Summo Pontifici aut cum membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schismaticus est.-"Lastly, if anyone refuses to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to comminicate with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic." As for why this is a suitable definition of schism, read Thomas' article on the matter.

Want to show where St. Athanasius refused to communicate with the members of the Church subject to the Vicar of Christ, or refused subjection to that same earthly Vicar? Of course you can't, so why speciously claim that he did either?

[Kolokotronis]

Here's a much, much older definition of schism, from +Basil the Great's First Canon; note the first sentence.

"Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of ecclesiastical causes and remediable questions have developed a quarrel amongst themselves. Parasynagogues is the name applied to gatherings held by insubordinate presbyters or bishops, and those held by uneducated laities. As, for instance, when one has been arraigned for a misdemeanor held aloof from liturgy and refused to submit to the Canons, but laid claim to the presidency and liturgy for himself, and some other persons departed with him, leaving the catholic Church--that is a parasynagogue."

[NYer]

I tend to think you are taking this thread much too personally. The differences between Catholics and Orthodox are no longer viewed as 'schismatic'. Helas, the following from St. Basil, does conjure up an image.

Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of ecclesiastical causes and remediable questions have developed a quarrel amongst themselves.

The SSPX comes to mind with their refusal to recognize Vatican Council II, much less the bishops and cardinals ordained subsequent to that time.

[Rytwyng]

In other words, by this definition, the Catholic and Orthodox church would be a "Schism" from one another, but Protestant churches would be "parasynagogues".

I wonder if this isn't the origin of the term, "parachurch" organization (ie, Campus Crusade, Intervarsity, et al)??

[Dewy]

Wrong.... The Baptist church was never part of the RCC. Ever here the phrase Ana Baptist. Those were the ones who were sewn asunder, fillet alive, burned at the steak, beheaded, disemboweled, all because they did not believe in infant baptisim.

To that old Bull I'll never bow. Christ, and Christ alone is my Saviour, and to Him alone shall I bow.

[Kolokotronis]

"In other words, by this definition, the Catholic and Orthodox church would be a "Schism" from one another, but Protestant churches would be "parasynagogues"."

I suppose so, yes.

"I wonder if this isn't the origin of the term, "parachurch" organization (ie, Campus Crusade, Intervarsity, et al)??"

I doubt it! :)

[Diego1618]

How can the true church of the bible, which the Catholic Church assembled, predate Catholicism, when the founding of the Catholic Church is documented in the Acts of the Apostles?

Simple answer? Acts 20:28 and In the Greek The original Church of the New Testament was the "Church of God". The Catholic Church came along much later.

In John 17:11 Jesus prays to the Father right before his arrest that He (the Father) would protect them (The Apostles) by the power of His (The Father's) name. That's why the true Church was called "The Church of God".....and is duly called just that throughout the New Testament. It is never called the Catholic Church because, after all, that was not God's name! You will find the "Church of God" mentioned 12 times in the New Testament. You will never find the word Catholic mentioned. Check this Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, writing to The Phillipians about mid 2nd century. Very first line.

[gbcdoj]

The Anabaptists were a radical group of Reformers who, of all of them, threw out the most truths of the Christian religion, denying that infants ought to be baptized and putting out all sorts of wacky anti-scriptural ideas: Anabaptists:

A violent and extremely radical body of ecclesiastico-civil reformers which first made its appearance in 1521 at Zwickau, in the present kingdom of Saxony, and still exists in milder forms.

The Baptists are actually derived from the 16th-17th century English Puritan tradition however, not the Anabaptists.