(22) Around the same time, Germany was the scene of a similar schism. When the sacred mantle was exhibited in Trier in 1844 for the veneration of the faithful, a hanging priest, Johannes Ronge, took the opportunity to publish a violent pamphlet against Arnoldi, bishop of Trier. Some disgruntled people sided with him. Almost at the same time, Johannes Czerski, a dismissed vicar, founded a “Christian-Catholic parish” in the province of Poznań. He had imitators. In 1845, the “German Catholics,” as these schismatics called themselves, held a synod in Leipzig, at which they rejected, among other things, the primacy of the pope, confession of the ear, ecclesiastical celibacy, veneration of saints and suppressed the canon in their Eucharistic liturgy, which they called “German liturgy.” They recruited in small numbers until 1848, but after that they refused because they had bad relations with the governments that had initially encouraged them, but which they endured maliciously because of their political agitations. There`s no version of Nicolas Cage who doesn`t want to spend time with his family, it was the biggest separation with Tom and me when we made a movie, which is to say I`m not like that. We are a group of Episcopalians dedicated to unity, faith and charity without schism with the Episcopal Church. (13) The ninth century brought the schism of Photius, which, although temporary, paved the way by nurturing a spirit of resistance in Rome for the final conversion of Constantinople. Recently, some Catholics have publicly expressed the opinion that the SSPX is not in a state of division.
Karl Keating makes this statement, as does P. Z. I will not go into the details of each of their arguments. Basically, they use a selective and biased analysis of Church rules to justify the objective mortal sins of the SSPX, sins that cause grave damage to many souls. They ignore the eternal moral law and misinterpret the rules of canon law. (15) The schism of Anacletus in the twelfth century, like that of Felix V in the fifteenth, was due to the existence of an antipope alongside the legitimate pope. After the death of Honorius II (1130), Innocent II had been duly elected, but a large and powerful faction formed against him, Cardinal Peter of the Pierleoni family. Innocent was forced to flee, leaving Rome in the hands of his opponents. He found refuge in France. St. Bernard passionately defended his cause, as did St.
Norbert. In less than a year, almost all of Europe had voted for it, with only Scotland, southern Italy and Sicily forming the other party. Emperor Lothare brought Innocent II back to Rome, but with the support of Roger of Sicily, the antipope retained the Leonine city, where he died in 1138. His successor Victor IV asked for and obtained the pardon and reconciliation of the legitimate pope two months after his election. The case of Felix V was simpler. Felix V was the name of Amadeus of Savoy, who was elected by the Council of Basel when he entered into an open revolt against Eugene IV, refused to dissolve and was therefore excommunicated (1439). The antipope was accepted only in Savoy and Switzerland. He stayed for a short time with the pseudo-council that had created him.
Both submitted in 1449 to Nicholas V, who had succeeded Eugene IV. Even some conservative and traditionalist Catholics who do not belong to the SSPX have nevertheless fallen into heresy and schism. They do not accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council at all. They do not accept the liberal teachings of Pope St. John Paul II (his liberal theology of salvation). They do not see Pope Francis as an authority to teach and correct them. In my opinion, they have already fallen into the sin of schism. The rejection of an ecumenical council is the sin of schism. I do not care how wise your explanation is. Rejecting a pope`s authority over doctrine or discipline is the sin of schism. No matter how liberal and conservative he is. Conservatism is not the same as orthodoxy, and liberalism is not the same as heterodoxy.
When a person or group rejects an ecumenical council, a pope, or the body of bishops, the sin is schism. But the rejection of the highest teaching authority in the Church often leads to the sin of heresy. For without the guidance of the Magisterium, the fallen sinner easily misunderstands the teachings of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and falls into grave doctrinal errors. Look at how far Protestants have distanced themselves from the true faith because they do not have the Magisterium. Anglicans have women priests and women bishops. Some Protestant denominations are in favor of same-sex marriage, and they see nothing wrong with contraception, including abortion contraception. As soon as the branch detaches from the vine, it dries out. It may be that this conflict has only just begun, and it may be that, as with previous conflicts in the history of the Church, it will ultimately be serious enough to lead to a real schism, to a permanent separation of paths. (8) After the exile of Pope Liberius in 355, the deacon Felix was elected as his successor and he continued to have followers after the return of the legitimate pope. The schism, which was erased for a time by the death of Felix, was revived with the death of Libenius and the rivalry led to bloody encounters.
It took several years after Damascus` victory for peace to be fully restored. Most contemporary writers of the Latin Church, Hilary, Victorinus, St. Ambrose, Ambrosia, St. Jerome, speak in the same way and as explicitly. All regard Peter as the foundation of the Church, the prince of the apostles, who was made the eternal head to ward off every attempt at schism. “Where Peter is,” concludes St. Ambrose, “there is the Church; where the Church is, there is no death, but eternal life” (Ps., xl, 30). And St. Jerome: “This man is my chosen one, who remains united to the See of Peter” (Epist, XVI, 2). Both declare, like St. Optatus, that to be outside the Roman community is to be of the Church, but they attach particular importance to the jurisdiction and teaching authority of the center of unity.
His texts are classics: “We must resort to your meekness and ask you not to disturb the head of the whole Roman world, the Roman Church and the Most Holy Apostolic Faith; for all of them flow the rights of the Catholic community” (Ambrose, Ep., xi, 4). I, who am head only Christ, am in communion with Your Holiness, that is, with the See of Peter. I know the church is built on this rock. Anyone who takes lamb outside this house is committing sacrilege. He who does not gather with you is scattered: he who is not with Christ is with the Antichrist” (Jerome, Epist, xv, 2). Anyone who fits the above description is guilty of division and heresy to a grave degree. And punishment is automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) caused by the commission of sin itself. It does not have to be imposed by a declaration of ecclesiastical authority. Towards the end of the second century, St Irenaeus fervently praised the unity of this universal Church “which has only one heart and one soul, whose faith must be preserved” and which “appears as the only sun that illuminates the whole world” (Against Heresies 1:10). He condemns any doctrinal division and bases his arguments on the teaching authority of the Church in general and the Roman Church in particular. The doctrine of salvation preached by the apostles is preserved in the churches they founded; but as it would take too long to question all the apostolic Churches, it is enough to turn to the Roman Church: “For the whole Church, which is all believers in the world, agrees with this Roman Church, because of her superior primacy; and in this all the faithful have preserved the apostolic Tradition” (III, 2, 3).
Recent Comments