Showing posts with label Papism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Papism. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 16, 2026

Archbishop Averky: The Holy Righteous Father John of Kronstadt and Roman Catholic Papism


 

In the times through which we are living, when so many false statements are heard about the so-called “union of the churches,” when the “ecumenical movement,” which arouses the enthusiasm of many, is expanding and gaining strength, and the [Second] Vatican “Ecumenical Council” periodically convenes for its next “session,” it would be timely for all truly Orthodox Christians to recall the opinion of Roman Catholic papism held by our great righteous man and wonderworker, Saint John of Kronstadt, whose glorification we have just splendidly celebrated. Here, for example, is what he writes in his Thoughts on the Church (p. 13):

“No confession of the Christian faith other than the Orthodox can lead a Christian to perfection in the Christian life, or holiness, and to complete cleansing from sins and incorruption, because the other, non-Orthodox confessions hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), have mingled vain wisdom and falsehood with the truth, and do not possess those God-given means of purification, sanctification, rebirth, and renewal which the Orthodox Church possesses.

The experience of the centuries, or the history of the Orthodox Church and the other churches, has shown and continues to show this with striking clarity. Recall the multitude of saints in our Church, both in former times and today—and their absence, since the division of the churches, in the other, non-Orthodox churches: Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican.”

And here are some striking thoughts of the holy righteous Father John, directed precisely against the latest “ecumenical” decree of the Vatican Council:

“There exist many separate Christian confessions, with different external and internal structures, with different opinions and teachings, often contrary to the divine truth of the Gospel and the teaching of the holy Apostles, the Ecumenical and Local Councils, and the holy Fathers. They cannot all be considered true and salvific: indifference in matters of faith, or the recognition of every faith as equally salvific, leads to unbelief or a cooling of faith, to negligence in observing the rules and ordinances of the faith, and to a cooling of Christians’ love for one another. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat (Luke 22:31). This is precisely what he, Satan, has done and continues to do—that is, he has engendered schisms and heresies. Hold firmly to the One, True Faith and Church: One faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:5)” (p. 31).

In what does the immeasurable superiority of our holy Orthodox Church consist?

“The Orthodox Church surpasses all non-Orthodox churches, first, in her truth, in her Orthodoxy, preserved and won by the blood of the apostles, hierarchs, martyrs, venerable fathers, and all the saints; second, in that she guides people to salvation in the surest manner (along a level, straight, and certain path), and unfailingly purifies, sanctifies, and renews through the hierarchy, divine worship, the Mysteries, and fasts; third, in that she guides people in the best possible manner to repentance, amendment of life, prayer, thanksgiving, and glorification of God. Where are there such prayers, doxologies, thanksgivings, and petitions, such wondrous divine worship as in the Orthodox Church? Nowhere” (p. 38).

How forcefully and eloquently the holy righteous Father John speaks of the utter absurdity of the cornerstone of papism’s dogmatic system—the false teaching concerning the supremacy of the Roman pope as the infallible “Vicar of Christ”! Here are his words:

“I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:20). The Lord Himself is always present in His Church—why, then, is a vicar—a pope—needed? And can a sinful man be the Lord’s vicar? He cannot. There can be, and indeed are, vicars of a king or of a patriarch in a particular city, but no one can be the vicar or substitute of the Lord, the King without beginning and Head of the Church. This is certain. Catholics are in error. Impress upon them, O Lord, that those who assert such things are foolish and are clothed with pride as with a necklace” (pp. 43–44).

According to Father John, all the evil in papism also derives from this pernicious false “dogma,” as from its root:

“The most harmful thing in Christianity,” he says, “in this divinely revealed heavenly religion, is the supremacy of a man in the Church—for example, the pope—and his supposed infallibility. It is precisely in the dogma of his infallibility that the greatest error lies, for the pope is a sinful man, and woe if he imagines himself to be infallible. How many grievous errors, ruinous to human souls, the Catholic, papal church has devised—in dogmas, in rites, in canonical rules, in divine worship, in the deadly, malicious attitudes of Catholics toward the Orthodox, in blasphemies and slanders against the Orthodox Church, in insults directed at the Orthodox Church and Orthodox Christians! And for all this the supposedly infallible pope is to blame, along with his doctrine and that of the Jesuits, their spirit of falsehood, duplicity, and every kind of improper means ad majorem Dei gloriam (for the greater glory of God)” (p. 44).

“It is necessary to belong to the Church of Christ, whose Head is the Almighty King, the Conqueror of hell, Jesus Christ. His Kingdom is the Church militant, which battles against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places, who skillfully form an organized kingdom and wage war against all people with extraordinary experience, intelligence, precision, and strength, having thoroughly studied their passions and inclinations. Here, one man alone cannot win the battle; even a great community, if it is not Orthodox and is without the Head—Christ—can do nothing against such enemies: cunning, subtle, constantly vigilant, and thoroughly versed in the science of their warfare. An Orthodox Christian needs strong support from above, from God and from the holy warriors of Christ who have overcome the enemies of salvation by the power of Christ’s grace, and from the Orthodox Church on earth, from pastors and teachers, and also from communal prayer and the Mysteries. It is precisely the Church of Christ, to which we belong by God’s mercy, that provides such help to the Christian in the struggle against invisible and visible enemies. Catholics have invented a new head, thereby belittling the One True Head of the Church—Christ; Lutherans have fallen away and remained without the Head; Anglicans likewise: they have no Church, their union with the Head has been severed, there is no all-powerful help, while Belial wages war with all his strength and cunning, holding them all in his delusion and perdition. Multitudes are perishing in godlessness and depravity” (p. 52).

And here is what, as the holy righteous John so profoundly and aptly points out, constitutes the root cause of evil in Roman Catholic papism:

“The cause of all the falsehoods of the Roman Catholic church is pride and the recognition of the pope as the actual Head of the Church—and, moreover, an infallible one. From this comes all the oppression of the Western church. Oppression of thought and faith, deprivation of true freedom in faith and life—the pope has laid his heavy hand upon everything: hence the false dogmas; hence the duplicity and deceit in thought, word, and deed; hence the various false rules and decrees concerning the confession of sins; hence indulgences; hence the distortion of dogmas; hence the fabrication of saints of the Western church and of nonexistent relics, not glorified by God; hence the exaltation against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:5) and every kind of opposition to God under the guise of piety and zeal for the greater glory of God” (p. 58).

“The pope and the papists have become so proud and exalted themselves so highly that they have presumed to criticize Christ Himself, the very Hypostatic Wisdom of God, and have carried their pride so far (under the pretext of the development of dogmas) as to distort some of His words, commandments, and ordinances, which must remain unchanged until the end of the age—for example, His statement concerning the Holy Spirit and His commandment concerning the Cup of His most pure Blood, of which they have deprived the laity. They have disregarded the words of the Apostle Paul: ‘For as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes’ (1 Cor. 11:26); instead of leavened bread, they use unleavened bread at the Liturgy” (p. 59).

This pride became the source of the boundless fanaticism and murderous hatred toward all who think differently for which Roman Catholic papism has become so notorious throughout history:

“Hatred of Orthodoxy, fanaticism, persecution of the Orthodox, and murder run like a common thread through all the centuries of Catholicism’s existence. By their fruits you will know them. Is this the spirit Christ commanded us to have? To whom, if not to Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformers, can one always say: ‘You do not know what spirit you are of’ (Luke 9:55)” (p. 58).

This is where replacing Christ, the Head of the Church, with the pope has led Roman Catholics!

“Among Catholics, the Head of the Church is, strictly speaking, not Christ but the pope, and Catholics are zealous for the pope, not for Christ; they wage war for the pope, not for Christ, and their zeal for the faith invariably turns into passionate, misanthropic, frenzied fanaticism—a fanaticism of blood and sword (burning at the stake), of implacability, duplicity, falsehood, and cunning” (p. 87).

In our Orthodox Church, according to the holy righteous John, even divine worship itself constantly reminds us of our spiritual unity under the Head common to all of us Christians—Christ. This unity has been completely destroyed among both Roman Catholics and Protestants, who have distorted the very idea of the Church.

“At every church service,” says the holy righteous John,

“whether in the home, private, or public, the thought, the idea of a single spiritual body is presented to the spiritual vision of the Orthodox Christian. This is the Body of Christ, the pillar and ground of the truth, whose Head is Christ God Himself. This Church of Christ, or spiritual Body of Christ, consists of three divisions—the heavenly, the earthly, and the netherworld. Therefore, the holy Church on earth (or the earthly division) intercedes daily before her Head for the forgiveness of the sins of those who have departed in faith and repentance and for their admission into the Heavenly Kingdom. As mediators in her intercession, she invokes the members of the heavenly Church and the very chief of the Church’s spiritual edification—the Mother of God—that through their prayers the Lord may cover the sins of the departed and not deprive them of the Heavenly Kingdom. For us, the members of God’s Church living on earth, it is profoundly heartening and comforting always to believe, know, and hope that our spiritual Mother, the holy Church, prays unceasingly, day and night, for us also, and that we are always under the grace-filled protection of the Lord Himself, the Mother of God, the Holy Angels, the Forerunner, and all the saints. Among Catholics, the head of the Church is the pope, a fallible man (although he has wrongly been proclaimed infallible), who, as such, has permitted many errors in the Church of Christ and has shown himself to be fallible by his very deeds. He has distorted the very concept of God’s Church and fettered the spiritual freedom and conscience of Catholic Christians, while at the same time subjecting the holy Orthodox Church, the pillar and ground of the truth, to the unjust blasphemy and hostility of Catholics. Among Protestants—Germans and English—the concept of the Church is utterly distorted, for they have neither the grace of a lawful priesthood nor Mysteries, except for Baptism and (the most important) Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ; they have no heavenly division—the heavenly Church: they do not recognize the saints. Nor do they have the division in the netherworld—they do not recognize the departed and do not pray for them, considering this unnecessary. Glory to the Orthodox Church! Glory to Christ God—the Most Holy Head, the sole Head of God’s Church on earth! Glory to God in Trinity that we have not fallen into blasphemy against God, have not acknowledged, and will never acknowledge a sinful man as the head of the holy Church!” (pp. 65–66).

And here is how the holy righteous John regarded all those who do not belong to our holy Orthodox Church:

“I thank the Lord, who has heard and continues to hear my prayers, offered before the all-saving and awesome Sacrifice (the Body and Blood of Christ), for the great communities that have gone astray in faith, which are called Christian but are essentially apostate: the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and others” (p. 59).

“What does the rite of conversion from various religions and confessions and reception into the Orthodox Church show? The necessity of abandoning false religions and confessions, renouncing errors, confessing the True Faith, repenting of all former sins, and promising God to preserve and firmly confess the undefiled faith, to guard against sins, and to live virtuously” (p. 57).

Here is Saint John of Kronstadt’s clear and categorical condemnation of the “ecumenism” so fashionable today, which has already seized all the Local Orthodox Churches; here is a forceful and decisive answer to all “ecumenists” who, under the pretext of a supposed “Christian love,” promote the equal value and equal standing of all religions and confessions!

In conclusion, we must mention, as a vivid and striking illustration of our holy righteous Father John of Kronstadt’s words about the “spirit of falsehood” in Roman Catholic papism, how Roman Catholic priests in our western region zealously spread the slander that the holy righteous John had supposedly converted to Catholicism and had therefore become so renowned for his clairvoyance and miracles. This slander, despite its utter absurdity, continued to be repeated afterward. In 1932, in the city of Vilna, a certain priest, Siemiacki, was not ashamed to publish the following lines in the Jesuit journal “Toward Union”: “Father John of Kronstadt performed many miracles while he was a Catholic, but as soon as he renounced Catholicism, the power of working miracles left him.”

Here is how the holy righteous John himself answers such a fantastic fabrication in his address delivered in the Church of Saints Peter and Paul in Vitebsk on April 7, 1906:

“I greatly desired, dear fathers, brothers, and sisters, to speak with you here, in your city and church, to the glory of God and of our holy, undefiled faith and Church, and to strengthen you on the path of salvation. Why did I so earnestly wish to speak with you? Here is why. Having lived and served as a priest in Kronstadt for what is now my fifty-first year, I have recently received many letters from the western Polish region, especially the provinces of Grodno and Vilna, written, so to speak, in tears of blood, with bitter complaints against Catholic priests and their accomplices, Catholic laypeople, concerning their persecution of Orthodox Christians and their use of every kind of coercive measure to force them to convert to Catholicism. In doing so, the priests, without the slightest pang of conscience, slandered me by claiming that I had supposedly converted to the Catholic faith, and that even the Tsar himself had allegedly become a Catholic and was ordering everyone to embrace the Catholic faith. By slandering me and the Tsar so shamelessly, Catholics have forced many Orthodox peasants to embrace Catholicism and imposed an alien faith upon them. Is this the spirit of Christ? Do not the priests demonstrate by their conduct that the Catholic faith has no vital power within itself capable of winning over a person’s mind, heart, and will to follow it freely, and that its adherents entice right-believing people only through violence and deceit?

Dear fathers and brothers! You know of my steadfast adherence to and service in the Orthodox Church for fifty years now; perhaps you also know of my constant zeal for the true faith. You know of my numerous writings to the glory of God and the Orthodox Church, and of the numerous signs of God’s power manifested not only upon Orthodox Christians, but also upon Catholics and Lutherans, and even Jews and Mohammedans, when they turned in faith to the intercession of my prayers. Newspaper reports and the truthful, reliable testimony of eyewitnesses bear witness to this.

I too testify now before all of you and before the All-Seeing God that miracles of healing continue unabated among us to this day. Does this mean that the Orthodox Faith is a dead faith, as Catholics slanderously claim? Does it not continually bear witness to its vitality, its power to save, and its being pleasing to God?

I do not wish to call upon the impartial history of a thousand years as a witness to every kind of Catholic wrongdoing: it is sufficiently well known to the entire educated world. The memory of the ill-fated Unia of the seventeenth century here in Russia is still fresh; fresh, too, is the memory of the fanatical hatred with which Catholics destroyed Orthodox churches in the western region. Still remembered are all the dreadful insults and abuse heaped upon the Orthodox faith, the Orthodox Church, and the unfortunate Orthodox Christians. Now the days of the Unia have returned once again. And when? When Catholics have been granted complete freedom—freedom, of course, not to persecute Orthodoxy and the Orthodox, but to live peacefully and fraternally with their Orthodox fellow citizens.

At the beginning, I quoted the words of the Apostle Paul concerning the Church as the Body of Jesus Christ, and Christ as the Head of the Church, ‘…which is the fullness of Him who fills all in all’ (Eph. 1:23).

We firmly believe in this one Head of the Church, and we cannot acknowledge another, visible, infallible head, for one cannot serve two masters. The one Head, all-righteous, all-knowing, almighty, and all-filling, is entirely sufficient for us (the fullness of Him who fills all in all). This Head governs us, protects us, and strengthens us in faith through the Holy Spirit, celebrates the sacred Mysteries, enlightens, saves, and leads us to perfection.

And if you wish to see the glorious and God-pleasing fruits of our Orthodox faith, we shall point our enemies to the multitude of heavenly eagles who have soared from our land to heaven, to the very Sun of Righteousness—all our saints, ancient and new, glorified by their angelic lives, the incorruption of their relics, and countless miracles.

In conclusion, I shall say that the truth of our faith lies within itself, in its very essence; in it is ‘Yes,’ and in it is ‘Amen.’

And I conclude my address with the word—amen.”

For all who devoutly venerate our newly revealed great saint of God, the holy righteous Father John of Kronstadt, his testimonies quoted above are more than sufficient, especially since their truthfulness and persuasiveness are confirmed by life itself and impartial history.

What trust, then, can we place in Roman Catholic papism, founded upon falsehood and thoroughly permeated with it, until it resolutely and publicly renounces its pernicious falsehood and the errors it has engendered, which are ruinous to human souls?

There can be no compromises with it and no communion, for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? Or what communion does light have with darkness? (2 Cor. 6:14).

The only right path in our deceitful age, filled with every kind of falsehood and deception, is the path indicated by this same great righteous man of ours:

“Struggle against every evil, extinguish it immediately, wage war against it with the weapons God has given you: the Holy Faith, divine wisdom and truth, prayer, piety, the Cross, courage, devotion, and faithfulness!” (From a sermon by the holy righteous John of Kronstadt, August 30, 1906.)

 

Russian source: «То, что имеешь, держи»: Православие и католицизм в трудах русских святых и церковных мыслителей, edited and compiled by E. V. Semyonova, Traditsi, Moscow, 2016.

Sunday, September 13, 2026

Papal Church: Note on the Expression “Sister Churches”

[The most harmful trait of Ecumenism is its lack of forthrightness. Below is the Roman Catholic Church’s true understanding of the ecumenical phrase “Sister Church.” Long story short, in the ecumenical context, it is meaningless to them. – Blog. Admin.]

 

 

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith | June 30, 2000

A. LETTER TO THE PRESIDENTS OF THE CONFERENCES OF BISHOPS

 

Your Eminence (Your Excellency):

In recent years, the attention of this Congregation has been directed to problems arising from the use of the phrase “sister Churches,” an expression which appears in important documents of the Magisterium, but which has also been employed in other writings, and in the discussions connected with the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.  It is an expression that has become part of the common vocabulary to indicate the objective bond between the Church of Rome and Orthodox Churches.

Unfortunately, in certain publications and in the writings of some theologians involved in ecumenical dialogue, it has recently become common to use this expression to indicate the Catholic Church on the one hand and the Orthodox Church on the other, leading people to think that in fact the one Church of Christ does not exist, but may be re-established through the reconciliation of the two sister Churches.  In addition, the same expression has been applied improperly by some to the relationship between the Catholic Church on the one hand, and the Anglican Communion and non-Catholic ecclesial communities on the other.  In this sense, a “theology of sister Churches” or an “ecclesiology of sister Churches” is spoken of, characterized by ambiguity and discontinuity with respect to the correct original meaning of the expression as found in the documents of the Magisterium.

In order to overcome these equivocations and ambiguities in the use and application of the expression “sister Churches,” the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged it necessary to prepare the enclosed Note on the Expression “Sister Churches” which was approved by Pope John Paul II in the Audience of June 9, 2000.  The indications contained in this Note are, therefore, to be held as authoritative and binding, although the Note will not be published in official form in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, given its limited purpose of specifying the correct theological terminology on this subject.

In providing you with a copy of this document, the Congregation asks you to kindly communicate the concerns and specific indications expressed therein to your Conference of Bishops and especially to the Commission or Office entrusted with ecumenical dialogue, so that the publications and other texts of the Episcopal Conference and its various offices will carefully abide by what is established in the Note.

With gratitude for your assistance and with prayerful best wishes, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

 

B. TEXT OF THE NOTE

 

1. The expression sister Churches occurs often in ecumenical dialogue, above all, in the dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox, and is the object of continuing study by both parties. While there is certainly a legitimate use of this expression, an ambiguous use has become prevalent in contemporary writings on ecumenism. In conformity with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Papal Magisterium, it is therefore appropriate to recall the correct and proper use of this expression. It is helpful to begin with a brief historical outline.

I. The origin and development of the expression 

2. The expression sister Churches does not appear as such in the New Testament; however, there are numerous indications of the sisterly relations which existed among the local Churches of Christian antiquity. The New Testament passage which most explicitly reflects this awareness is the final sentence of the Second Letter of John: “The sons of your elect sister send you their greetings” (2 Jn 13). These are greetings sent by one ecclesial community to another; the community which sends the greetings calls itself the sister of the other.

3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.

As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with “consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.” [1]

4. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

5. In recent times, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I, was the first to once again use the expression sister Churches. In welcoming the fraternal gestures and the call to unity addressed to him by John XXIII, he often expressed in his letters the hope of seeing the unity between the sister Churches re-established in the near future.

6. The Second Vatican Council adopted the expression sister Churches to describe the relationship between particular Churches: “in the East there flourish many particular local Churches; among them the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these, many glory in taking their origins from the apostles themselves. Therefore, there prevailed and still prevails among Eastern Christians an eager desire to perpetuate in a communion of faith and charity those family ties which ought to exist between local Churches, as between sisters.” [2]

7. The first papal document in which the term sisters is applied to the Churches is the Apostolic Brief Anno ineunte of Paul VI to the Patriarch Athenagoras I. After having indicated his willingness to do everything possible to “re-establish full communion between the Church of the West and that of the East,” the Pope asked: “Since this mystery of divine love is at work in every local Church, is not this the reason for the traditional expression ‘sister Churches,’ which the Churches of various places used for one another? For centuries our Churches lived in this way like sisters, celebrating together the ecumenical councils which defended the deposit of faith against all corruption. Now, after a long period of division and mutual misunderstanding, the Lord, in spite of the obstacles which arose between us in the past, gives us the possibility of rediscovering ourselves as sister Churches.” [3]

8. The expression has been used often by John Paul II in numerous addresses and documents; the principal ones, in chronological order, are the following.

In the Encyclical Slavorum Apostoli: “For us they [Cyril and Methodius] are the champions and also the patrons of the ecumenical endeavour of the sister Churches of East and West, for the rediscovery through prayer and dialogue of visible unity in perfect and total communion.” [4]

In a Letter from 1991 to the Bishops of Europe: “Hence, with these Churches [the Orthodox Churches] relations are to be fostered as between sister Churches, to use the expression of Pope Paul VI in his Brief to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I.” [5]

In the Encyclical Ut unum sint, the theme is developed above all in number 56 which begins in this way: “Following the Second Vatican Council and in the light of earlier tradition, it has again become usual to refer to the particular or local Churches gathered around their Bishop as ‘sister Churches.’ In addition, the lifting of the mutual excommunications, by eliminating a painful canonical and psychological obstacle, was a very significant step on the way toward full communion.” This section concludes by expressing the wish that the “traditional designation of “sister Churches” should ever accompany us along this path.” The topic is taken up again in number 60 of the Encyclical: “More recently, the joint international commission took a significant step forward with regard to the very sensitive question of the method to be followed in re-establishing full communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, an issue which has frequently embittered relations between Catholics and Orthodox. The commission has laid the doctrinal foundations for a positive solution to this problem on the basis of the doctrine of sister Churches.” [6]

II. Directives on the use of the expression 

9. The historical references presented in the preceding paragraphs illustrate the significance which the expression sister Churches has assumed in the ecumenical dialogue. This makes the correct theological use of the term even more important.

10. In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves. [7] It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches. [8]

11. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church, [9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.

Consequently, one should avoid, as a source of misunderstanding and theological confusion, the use of formulations such as “our two Churches,” which, if applied to the Catholic Church and the totality of Orthodox Churches (or a single Orthodox Church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured.

12. Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 30, 2000, the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

 

+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger [future Pope Benedict XVI]
Prefect

+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

 

NOTES

1. Paul VI and Athenagoras I, Joint Declaration Pénétrés de reconnaissance (7-12-65), 3: AAS 58 (1966), 20. The excommunications were mutually lifted in 1965: “Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I in his Synod...declare by mutual agreement...to regret and to remove from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication” (ibid.,4); cf. also Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Ambulate in dilectione (7-12-65): AAS 58 (1966), 40-41; Athenagoras I, Patriarchal Τόμoς (7-12-65): ΤΟΜΟΣ ΑΓΑΠΗΣVatican-Phanar (1958-1970), 129 (Vatican Polyglot Press: Rome-Istanbul, 1971), 290-294.

2. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.

3. Paul VI, Apostolic Brief Anno ineunte (25-7-67): AAS 59 (1967), 852, 853.

4. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Slavorum Apostoli (2-6-85), 27: AAS 77 (1985), 807.

5. John Paul II, Letter to the Bishops of Europe on Relations between Catholics and Orthodox in the New Situation in Central and Eastern Europe (31-5-91), 4: AAS 84 (1992), 167.

6. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (25-5-95), 56 and 60: AAS 87 (1995), 954, 955, 957.

7. Cf. the texts of the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14, and the Apostolic Brief of Paul VI to Athenagoras I Anno ineunte, cited above in footnotes 2 and 3.

8. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio (28-5-1992), 9: AAS 85 (1993), 843-844.

9. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (24-6-73), 1: AAS 65 (1973), 396-398.

 

Source: 

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

Did Pope St. Stephen of Rome Excommunicate St. Cyprian of Carthage?

(From a series of published lectures by the prominent Anglican theologian Fr. Frederick William Puller [+1938], who demonstrated in the first millennium, communion with Rome was not a sine qua non for membership in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church – a good reminder for those who wish to impose similar conditions for Orthodoxy through communion with Constantinople. Link to the complete work below. – Blog Admin.)

 

 

Some Roman Catholic writers have done their best to make out that Pope Stephen, in his dealings with S. Cyprian, never proceeded beyond threats of excommunication, and that no actual rupture took place. It is difficult to understand how such a view could ever have been seriously taken; but it is easy to see that Ultramontanes would naturally shrink from admitting that so illustrious a saint as Cyprian persisted in upholding the opinion concerning baptism which he had inherited from his predecessors, if the retaining of that opinion had resulted in his being separated from the communion of the Roman Church. If S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian were really excommunicated, and if they nevertheless refused to alter either the teaching or the practice condemned by Rome, then it is clear that neither of these saints nor their colleagues in Africa and Asia Minor could have considered that communion with the pope was an essential matter. It would follow from this conclusion that their witness would have to be reckoned as adverse to the truth of the Ultramontane theory concerning the papacy. Having thus pointed out the importance of the question, I proceed to discuss it.

I have quoted in my second lecture the clear statements of S. Firmilian on the subject of the excommunication, but it will be worth while to repeat them in this place. Writing to S. Cyprian, after mentioning the fact that there had been in various matters a diversity of practice in the different provinces of the Church, he says, “And yet there has not been on that account at any time any departure from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. This, Stephen has now dared to make, breaking the peace with you [Cyprian], which his predecessors ever maintained with you in mutual affection and respect.” [1] And further on in the same letter S. Firmilian apostrophizes Stephen, and says, “How great a sin hast thou heaped up against thyself, when thou didst cut thyself off from so many flocks! For thou didst cut thyself off. Deceive not thyself. For he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all.” [2] Then he goes into particulars about the way in which Stephen had treated the bishops sent to Rome as envoys or legates by the synod of the North African Church; how Stephen “would not admit them even to the common intercourse of a conference,” and how “he commanded the whole brotherhood that no one should receive them into his house; so that not only peace and communion, but shelter and hospitality, were denied them on their arrival.” [3] Yet in the face of all this, Dr. Rivington says, “There is no evidence that S. Cyprian was ever under excommunication.” [4] It seems incredible that such a statement should be made. Evidence there clearly is, and more of the same kind might have been quoted. Later on Dr. Rivington reveals to us the theory by which he gets rid of the plain evidence of S. Firmilian. He says that, as the sentence, in which the statement concerning S. Cyprian’s excommunication occurs, “contains a most exaggerated account of the situation, we may feel ourselves at liberty to regard this statement also as exaggerated.” [5] Apparently Dr. Rivington bases his accusation of exaggeration on the words in S. Firmilian’s letter to S. Cyprian, in which the holy Bishop of Caesarea, rhetorically addressing Stephen, says, “While thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all.” Concerning this sentence Dr. Rivington says, “Firmilian’s assertion was, indeed, flagrantly false, for it is notorious that Stephen did not stand alone.” [6] Assuredly Dr. Rivington’s comment is a much more serious exaggeration than is the Saint’s very innocent remark. Obviously S. Firmilian writes with the assurance that his correspondent, S. Cyprian, who knew all the facts, would interpret his words in a reasonable way. By the words “omnes” and “omnibus” S. Firmilian does not mean all the churches of Christendom, but all those many flocks (tot greges), probably a majority of all the Catholic churches then in existence, [7] which had been excommunicated by Stephen. From all these flocks Stephen had cut himself off by an excommunication, which was apparently not the outcome of a synod, but his own personal act. We have no reason to suppose that any other bishops had approved his proceeding or had made themselves parties to it. We know that S. Denys of Alexandria, who agreed with him in regard to the main point in dispute, strongly disapproved of his harsh method of enforcing the view which they held in common. [8] But even if, for the sake of argument, it were conceded that the use of the words “omnes” and “solum” was a serious exaggeration, it would not follow that one could rightly treat as an exaggeration S. Firmilian’s repeated statement that a breach of communion really took place, corroborated as that statement is by the details given in regard to the treatment of the legates, details which Firmilian must have learnt from S. Cyprian, and still further corroborated, as we shall see in the sequel, by the words of S. Denys, and by the share which S. Cyprian must have had in the translation and publication of S. Firmilian’s letter. Anyhow, it is absurd to say that “there is no evidence that he [Stephen] ever proceeded to execute his threat.” I am aware that other Roman Catholic writers have taken the same line as Dr. Rivington. The fact is that they are driven into a corner, and that the simplest way of escape is to deny the truth of the evidence, however well attested it may be. But, in justice to our brethren of the Roman communion, it must not be supposed that their best writers follow such a hopeless course. Such a course would be impossible to a historian like Tillemont; but I prefer to quote an authority from the south side of the Alps. I know of no greater name among Ultramontane historians of the last century than that of Archbishop Mansi of Lucca, best known by his great edition of the Councils. [9] Mansi, in his animadversion on Natalis Alexander’s dissertation concerning the subject which we are discussing, says, “So openly does Firmilian write to S. Cyprian that Pope Stephen broke the peace, and that he accordingly deprived them of his communion, that it seems that it cannot be doubted that he went beyond threats and at length pronounced sentence of excommunication against them.” Mansi proceeds to quote S. Firmilian’s words, and to show that they are decisive in favour of his position. Then he adds, “But the answer of Natalis appears to be altogether futile. He says that Firmilian has described a mere threat of excommunication in the same terms as if it had really been fulminated, because he took up his pen when he was somewhat angry with Stephen. I say again that such an answer appears to me to be altogether futile, because it would necessarily follow that Firmilian had forgotten all the rules of Christian behaviour and of honesty, if, in order that he might excite odium against Stephen, he had lied in so serious a matter. [10] . . . And who, I ask, could conceive that, if Stephen had done no more than threaten, Firmilian would have compared him to the traitor Judas, and would have charged him with insolence, wickedness, and folly? Assuredly these are the words of one who is impatiently bearing a wound which he has received, and who is kindled with wrath against the man who has inflicted on him a deadly wound. . . . It is clear that Stephen broke the peace and refused communion, because he did not refrain from excommunicating Firmilian, Cyprian, and the others.” [11] Mansi goes on to quote the letter of S. Denys of Alexandria to Pope S. Xystus II., a fragment of which has been preserved by Eusebius. In that letter S. Denys, speaking of Stephen, says, “Indeed, he had previously (πρότερον) written concerning Helenus [of Tarsus] and concerning Firmilian, and concerning all [the bishops] of Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia, and of all the neighbouring nations, saying that he would not communicate with them either (ὡς οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις κοινωνήσων), for this same cause, namely, that they rebaptize heretics.” [12] S. Denys, in his letter, so far as it has been preserved to us, deals entirely with Stephen’s relations with the Eastern bishops, and says nothing of his relations with the Church of North Africa; [13] but Mansi points out that if the pope excommunicated the Easterns he must have excommunicated also the Africans, since the latter entirely agreed with the former in their teaching and practice. [14] Thus the witness of S. Denys corroborates the witness of S. Firmilian and of S. Cyprian. Here we have a threefold cord, which will not easily be broken by any amount of a priori Ultramontane reasoning.

When it is once admitted that three contemporary writers of such high character, and of such esteem in the Church, as the three saints mentioned above, agree in their witness that an excommunication was not merely threatened but also pronounced and promulgated, [15] and when it is also admitted that there is no shred of contemporary evidence on the other side, the discussion might fairly be brought to an end; but Natalis Alexander and others lay stress on the fact that S. Augustine, writing a century and a half later, seems to have thought that the estrangement between Rome and Carthage never amounted to a breach of communion. [16] It is true that Tillemont does not so understand S. Augustine. He thinks that S. Augustine admits that the pope withdrew his communion from S. Cyprian, but he supposes that S. Augustine holds that, as S. Cyprian did not retort on the pope by a counter-excommunication, but remained united to him by the bond of charity, the breach was not complete. [17] Out of respect for the great name of S. Augustine, I will consider whether his view of the matter can really avail to counterbalance the evidence of the three contemporary saints, whose witness has been discussed above; and for the sake of conciseness I will take no account of Tillemont’s explanation of S. Augustine’s meaning, and I will assume that the latter really supposed that Stephen never withdrew his communion from S. Cyprian and from the other African bishops.

On that view of the case, I have no hesitation in saying that S. Augustine’s representation of the matter cannot possibly avail to counterbalance the direct testimony of S. Firmilian and S. Cyprian, confirmed as it is by the corroborative evidence of S. Denys; for there is every reason to believe that S. Augustine had not got the full evidence before him. The contemporary evidence of the excommunication of S. Cyprian, which has come down to us, is primarily contained in S. Firmilian’s letter, which evidently re-echoed S. Cyprian’s own dispatches, and for the translation and publication of which S. Cyprian was responsible. But that letter was not in the collection of the Cyprianic correspondence on the subject of the rebaptizing of heretics, which was in the hands of S. Augustine. The collecting of S. Cyprian’s letters was a work of time. We now possess seven letters, either written by or to S. Cyprian on the question of rebaptism; but S. Augustine had only five of these in his collection. In his controversy with the Donatists he was obliged to go most minutely into the arguments about baptism contained in the Cyprianic documents. He discusses them clause by clause. [18] He actually takes the trouble to reply separately to each of the eighty-six speeches made by the eighty-five bishops who sat in the great Council of Carthage, [19] over which Cyprian presided, and which was the last of the Cyprianic councils on rebaptism. [20] So it comes to pass that we know exactly what documents S. Augustine possessed, and what were missing; and we find that he never refers either to the synodical letter [21] written to Stephen by S. Cyprian in the name of the second of the three councils on rebaptism, or to the letter [22] addressed to S. Cyprian by S. Firmilian. [23] S. Augustine was quite aware that documents existed bearing on the controversy about baptism in the time of S. Cyprian, which had not come into his hands. He says in one place, “Not all the things which were transacted among the bishops at that time were committed to memory and to writing, and not all the things which were so committed have come to my knowledge.” [24] It is clear from all this that the whole evidence, as we now possess it, was not before S. Augustine; and in point of fact the last of the Cyprianic documents of which he had knowledge was the summarized report of the proceedings at the final council on rebaptism. But that council preceded the excommunication; [25] and it is therefore no matter for wonder that S. Augustine was unaware of the fact that a complete rupture finally took place. To put the whole matter briefly. The principal evidence for the excommunication is to be found in S. Firmilian’s letter. That letter was not known to S. Augustine. It is perfectly clear from that letter that both S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian were excommunicated. We thus know of their excommunication from themselves. It seems unreasonable to set aside the best possible contemporary evidence in deference to certain dicta of S. Augustine, who lived a century and a half later, and had never seen the document which constitutes the principal proof. It is plain that the objections raised by Natalis Alexander have no real solidity. I submit that the excommunication of S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian and their colleagues by Pope Stephen must be accepted as historically true. [26]

 

NOTES (numbering combined)

1. Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas lxxv., § 6, Opp., ii. 813.

2. Ep. cit., § 24, p. 825.

3. Ibid., § 25, p. 826.

4. Authority, p. 103, 2nd ed.

5. Ibid., p. 105.                                      

6. Loc. cit.

7. See Additional Note 34, p. 460.

8. See p. 70, n. 5.

9. The Jesuit professor of theology in the university of Innsbruck, Father Hurter, in his useful Nomenclator Literarius (iii. 101), speaking of Mansi, says, “De illo jam agemus, qui totâ hâc epochâ omnium fuit celeberrimus deque Ecclesiâ atque re literariâ optime meritus.”

10. “In re tam gravi mentitus esset.”

11. Animadvers. in Dissert. xii. Art. i., ap. Natal. Alexandr. Hist. Eccl., ed. 1786, Bing. ad Rhenum, tom. vi. pp. 222, 223.

12. Euseb. H. E., vii. 5. I have appended the original Greek of S. Denys’ summary of the operative part of Stephen’s letter, the English translation of which is italicized in the text. Mansi rightly translates these words as follows: “quod neque cum illis communicare vellet;” and Baronius renders the passage in the same way. I mention this, because De Valois has seriously altered the sense by translating S. Denys’ words thus: “sese ab illorum communione discessurum.” There is a difference between announcing that in the future you will not communicate with certain people, and announcing that in the future you will separate from their communion. The first formula implies that separation has already been effected, or is being effected by the document in which the formula occurs. The second formula threatens a separation in the future. S. Denys represents Stephen as having effected the separation, and not as having merely threatened it. See Additional Note 35, p. 462.

13. See Additional Note 36, p. 462.

14. On this point Natalis Alexander would have agreed with Mansi. His words are express: “Una erat causa Firmiliani et Cypriani; . . . non est igitur verisimile quod Firmilianum communione privaverit Stephanus cum Orientalibus suis, et Cyprianum cum Africanis pace et communione frui permiserit” (Hist. Eccl., ed. 1786, tom. vi. p. 218).

15. The objection might be raised that, if Eusebius had supposed that Stephen had actually excommunicated the Easterns, he would have given an exact account of how the breach was healed. If Eusebius had lived some centuries later, when a papal excommunication was the direst thing that could happen to any Christian community, he would no doubt have done so; but Eusebius would not think of the matter quite in that light. In H. E., v. 24, he gives an account of the excommunication of the Asians by Pope Victor, and he describes S. Irenaeus’ mediation, as here he describes S. Denys’ peace-making efforts, but neither there does he make mention of the close of the dispute.

16. Cf. S. Aug., De Baptismo contra Donat., v. 25, Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 158, et De unic. Bapt. contra Petil., cap. xiv., Opp., ix. 538.

17. Tillemont, iv. 150, 151.

18. S. Aug., De Baptismo contra Donatistas, libb. ii., iii., iv., v.

19. S. Cyprian, as president, made two speeches, the first and the last.

20. Op. cit., libb. vi., vii.

21. S. Cypr. Ep. lxxii., Opp., ii. 775.

22. Ep. inter Cyprianicas lxxv., Opp., ii. 812.

23. S. Augustine’s words, in his refutation of the speech of Crescens of Cirta (De Bapt. contra Donat., vi. 15, Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 171), show clearly that S. Cyprian’s synodical letter to Stephen, which had been known to Crescens, was not known to him. Compare Mr. C. H. Turner’s Note appended to Dr. Sanday’s Essay on the Cheltenham List (Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 324, 325). In his third book against Cresconius (Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 435), S. Augustine implies that Cresconius had referred to “the letter of certain Orientals,” as witnessing to their approval of S. Cyprian’s doctrine about rebaptism. He quotes in the second chapter some words from Cresconius, which seem to me to imply that this letter was a synodical epistle expressing the formal assent of some Eastern synod to the conclusions of the third Carthaginian Council on rebaptism. I doubt if S. Augustine had seen the letter; and the fact that it was written, not by one man, but by several, seems to me to be a proof positive that it was not the letter of S. Firmilian, with which we are acquainted. Tillemont (iv. 158) gives further reasons for concluding that S. Augustine had never seen S. Firmilian’s letter to S. Cyprian.

24. De Bapt. contr. Donat., ii. 4, Opp., ix. 98.

25. Tillemont, iv. 155; and compare the Acta SS., tom. iv. Septembr., pp. 305, 306, where Father Suyskens, S.J., the author of the Bollandist Life of S. Cyprian, replies to Dom Maran’s arguments, and shows that the African legates, who were rejected by Stephen, were sent by the third council on rebaptism, and not by the second. Professor Jungmann (Dissertationes Selectae in Hist. Eccl., tom. i. p. 331) takes the same view as Suyskens; and Hefele, who in his first edition had followed Maran, changed his mind, and in his second edition supports the view which I have taken in the text (see Hefele, vol. v. p. 434, Eng. trans.). See also the Additional Note 37, p. 463.

26. See Additional Note 38, p. 463.

 

Source: The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, by F. W. Puller, SSJE (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1900), Appendix A (“The Excommunication of S. Cyprian”) to Lecture II, pp. 72-77.

Online: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007372419

Wednesday, July 8, 2026

‘The First See Is Judged By No One’: The SSPX and Papal Halakha

Nectarius Alton | July 7, 2026

Without all the lawyering and loopholing, it would cease to be Roman Catholicism.

 

 

Recently, UOJ editor Michael W. Davis penned an open letter to members of the Society of St. Pius X. In it, Mr. Davis invited Society members to consider the parallels between their recent excommunication and the events that led up to the Great Schism.  

Mr. Davis’s letter has some valid insights. In both instances, Rome showed great tolerance for “progressives” while pursuing a zero-tolerance policy towards dissident “traditionalists.”  In both instances, those traditionalists were the papacy’s strongest supporters. And in both instances, the progressives were protected and promoted by worldly powers.

Nevertheless, I’m afraid that Mr. Davis’s appeal will fall on deaf ears. Unlike the Orthodox Christians of 1054, the SSPX is not steeped in the Apostolic and Patristic Faith. Rather, they are heirs to post-schism Latin legalism.

As such, their response to the excommunications has not been to SUBMIT TO ROME. They have not, pace Mr. Davis, been moved to reconsider their papist worldview. Rather, they counter the Vatican’s “papal lawyering” with papal lawyering of their own. 

And why not? This is all they know. 

Papal Lawyering and Jewish Halakha

The point of Rabbinic Judaism is, essentially, to trick God by finding loopholes in the halakha: the 613 rules which they believe God imposed on the Jewish people. 

For instance, the halakha says that Jews may not travel from one domicile to another on the Sabbath. They get around this by tying a string around their village or neighborhood; they treat this string as a “wall,” and say that the village/neighborhood constitutes a single “house.” 

Clearly, this is not what God meant when He gave this commandment! Hence. St. Paul warning that “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Cor. 3:6). Also the Lord’s teaching, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27). 

The response of the SSPX and its supporters have taken the same attitude towards the papal excommunication. 

For instance, the traditionalist Catholic blog Rorate Coeli has published an article by the “Canon of Shaftesbury” (a pseudonym), who claims to be a judicial vicar in a major archdiocese. Shaftesbury claims that the decree is invalid—or at least not fully valid—according to the current Code of Canon Law. The author makes four basic arguments:

  1. The SSPX is guilty of disobedience, not schism. Disobedience is a single act; schism is the “withdrawal of obedience” to the pope (canon 751).
  2. The canon invoked by Rome is relevant only in instances where automatic excommunication has not been incurred (canon 1335§2)—and yet the Vatican insists that the SSPX has incurred latae-sententiae excommunication.
  3. The decree’s “grammar” supposedly “defeats broad application.”
  4. The matter is not sufficiently grave to merit group excommunication (canons 1323–1324; 1720).  

Shaftesbury concludes that the Vatican’s decree “did not declare the excommunication of any priest.” Moreover: “The faithful who attend SSPX Masses and seek the Society's sacraments have not been excommunicated.”

Orthodox Christians—indeed, all non-Catholics—will immediately understand why this argument is so absurd. Nevertheless, let’s spell it out.

The Code of Canon Law was adopted by Pope John Paul II in 1983. Its legitimacy rests on this fact: the fact that it was promulgated by the Supreme and Infallible Vicar of Christ. It is not meant to limit the pope’s authority: it is an exercise of his authority.

Indeed, it says explicitly that the Pope “possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely” (canon 331). It also explains that the pope is able to dispense from “universal and particular disciplinary laws,” as well as “procedural or penal laws” (canon 87). 

What’s more, it explicitly states that the pope’s decrees cannot be appealed in a canonical court (canon 1405). Indeed: “The first see is judged by no one” (canon 1404). 

It is important to spell this out, in order to demonstrate the foolishness of pitting canon law against papal fiat. Just like Rabbinic Jews, the SSPX is acting as though they can make up loopholes in the law in order to “put one over” on the lawmaker himself.

The Pope has extended his hand and declared the Society of St. Pius X—its bishops, priests, monastics, and lay faithful—to be excommunicated. This means they are, according to the Roman Catholic system, excommunicated. There can be no argument, no appeal. There’s no room for loopholing or lawyering. If the pope says you’re out, then you’re out.

And yet, as we said, lawyering and loopholing are the essence of Roman Catholicism—as they are Rabbinic Judaism. So, we cannot be surprised when the Lefebvrists refuse to give up the game. 

Yes, they must sustain dangerous levels of cognitive dissonance, performing outrageous mental gymnastics, in order to continue identifying with the Roman Catholic Church. But cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics are not a departure from the Latin tradition. They are the Latin tradition!

The Papacy as Post-Truth

In the days before the excommunication, the traditionalist bishop Athanasius Schneider said: “If the excommunication would be applied, it would be in some way not valid because there is no intention to do a schismatic act on the side of the Society of Pius X [sic], and you cannot be punished when you have not the intention to do it, according to the canon law.” 

This is ridiculous. No one has ever said, “I am going to commit the sin of schism today.” No: everyone thinks of himself as preserving the true Faith, of remaining loyal to the true Church. It’s the other side that is schismatic and/or heretical.

For instance, the “Old Catholics,” who broke with Rome over the First Vatican Council, did not see themselves as schismatic. Rather, as their name suggests, they saw themselves as the true Catholics; they viewed the promoters of papal infallibility as breaking with Catholic tradition. 

The same is true of modern sedevacantists. They do not see themselves as being in schism from the papal church. Rather, they view the modern popes as antipopes. From their perspective, the world’s 1.3 billion Roman Catholics are schismatic. It is only the tiny “sede” minority who constitute the real Body of Christ.

What Bp. Schneider doesn’t understand is that to defy Rome is itself a schismatic act. Pope Leo told the Society not to consecrate new bishops, or else he would excommunicate them (i.e., they would go into schism). They proceeded with the consecrations, and so Leo excommunicated them. Again, “The first see is judged by no one”—not even an auxiliary bishop from Kazakhstan.

Let me say this again: No one is claiming that the SSPX consecrated their new bishops in order to become schismatic. Obviously, that was not their “goal.” However, there is no effective limit on the Pope’s ability to excommunicate members of the Roman Church. Whether Bp. Schneider (or anyone else!) thinks the pope has a “good reason” for excommunicating them is totally irrelevant. His opinion does not matter. The Canon of Shaftesbury’s opinion doesn’t matter. The only person whose opinion matters is Pope Leo XIV. Roma locuta, causa finita est.

Roman Catholicism: ‘Rabbinic Christianity’

It is possible that a small handful of Lefebvrists will wake up to their former delusion and join the Holy Orthodox Church, the one true bastion of Apostolic and Patristic Tradition. There will be no mass exodus, however.

Rome is bringing down the hammer upon the SSPX for defending the pre-Vatican II faith. Meanwhile, they allow the German bishops to promote homosexual marriage, abortion, and women’s ordination. And why? It is, in part, because the German bishops are serving Europe’s ruling elite, promoting Europe’s ruling ideology. The SSPX, on the other hand, are fighting a guerrilla war to restore Western Christendom. 

The SSPX are more authentically Catholic than the German bishops—theologically, liturgically, culturally, and politically. And yet the Lefebvrists top the Vatican’s Most Wanted list. The Germans don’t even make an appearance. As Mr. Davis points out, this absurd double-standard goes back to the 11th century (at the very least!). 

Again, Catholics treat papal decrees the way Rabbinic Jews treat the halakha. They simply do what they want and then make up some bizarre explanation as to why that doesn’t technically break the law (even though it clearly does). And that is why the SSPX excommunications will have no real effect on the Catholic Church—not for the Society “schismatics” nor for the Vatican “loyalists.” 

Sure, Catholics refer to the Pope as the Supreme and Infallible Vicar of Christ. They demand the whole world submit to his throne and kiss his feet. And yet they themselves only obey him if they happen to agree with his teaching! 

If they don’t agree with him, they make up some excuse about to why his edict doesn’t count. They’ll say he wasn’t speaking “ex cathedra,” or that it fell outside of his “ordinary and universal magisterium,” or that he wasn’t teaching about faith or morals, or that the SSPX didn’t intend to commit the sin of schism. 

This is the way it has always been. This is the way it always will be, for as long as the Roman Catholic sect survives. It is a Christian form of halakha. Without the lawyering and loopholing, it would cease to be Roman Catholicism.

 

Source:

https://uoj.news/defending-faith/the-first-see-is-judged-by-no-one-the-sspx-and-papal-halakha/

The Monastic Life: In Response to a Modernist Abbot’s Observations (1989)

by Bishop Chrysostomos [of Etna, +2019]     Hieromonk Laurence, Abbot of the Monastery of New Skete, a former Byzantine Catholic mon...