To summarize 1-3:
SSPX was started by Bishop Levebvre after Vatican 2. His primary concern was that the ecumenism taught in Vatican 2 departed from the Church's historical teaching. He quasi-rejected the council. The new rite of the mass was after the fact, and never a primary point of contention, at least from the Catholic Church's view. They were not announced as schismatic until Levebvre, nearing the end of his life, ordained new bishops. He asked for permission, and the pope denied it, which is why there was an initial schism. Had he "asked for forgiveness instead of permission", he wouldn't be guilty of denying direct orders and there would have been no schism.
Fast forward a couple decades and the current bishops in the SSPX (who were not involved in the initial issues) sought reconciliation. Pope Benedict acquiesced. The disagreements of doctrinal teaching in Vatican 2 remain, but there is fraternal conversation now. The last 2 bishops in the SSPX (neither of whom is under excommunication) are nearing the end of their life. They've asked for permission to ordain new bishops. The request was unanswered. They have set the dates for new consecrations for July, which clearly gives a timeline for both sides to seek an agreement. Schism will be determined by what happens or doesn't happen in the next 6 months. If schism does occur, we're reverting back to the way things were 15 years ago.
Quote:
Last time I checked the russian orthodox church has still made same dogmatic theological claims and liturgical use as the rest of the church
Herein lies the rub. The SSPX and the gay German's still, technically, hold to the same "dogmatic theological claims" and to valid "liturgies" as the rest of the church. If that's the bar you want to use, you have no high ground to stand on. And I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm still allowed to receive communion at an SSPX parish, as long as certain perimeters are met. Sort of like how here in the states you can receive in either parish, but if you lived in eastern Europe, you'd have a very different result. So either hold that against both groups, or allow it for both groups.
Quote:
Now about your very protestant worded question about being saved. What are you specifically asking about bishop shopping?
I used "saved" as shorthand, because I think it's gets the point across. Your distinction is noted and agreed with.
That said, I am not talking about bishop shopping. As a Catholic, it's a wild thing to even consider from a sacramental standpoint. The only "bishop shopping" to be done would be to decide which liturgy you like better. There are no theological disagreements you can sift through. All Bishops submit themselves to the One Church's teaching.
What I'm talking about is, if I decided the EO churches somehow combine to be the
one,
true Church, the answer I get on re-baptism is going to differ widely based on which Orthodox Church I enter. What part of Houston I live in would likely lead me to the nearest EO church. That priest/bishop could tell me my baptism is invalid, and the Holy Spirit was not present in that false sacrament. But if I visited an Orthodox church on the other side of Houston, I might be told I received a valid sacrament. This isn't about "saved" from a Protestant perspective. This is about whether or not I received a sacrament the Church has taught is necessary. And the answer I received hinges on which parish I happened to visit. That's wildly problematic to me. It's equal to determining whether or not my priest is presenting the true Eucharist or not. It's not a matter we can shrug off.
Quote:
I believe there is one deaconess for being a helper in an african tribe that is extremely sex segregated
Nope. She wore the same vestments as the male deacons. She served the same role as the male deacons in the consecration and distribution of the Eucharist. It's a bigger deal that this description. And the patriarchs are silent on it right now.
Quote:
The pope is called the first protestant because of the filioque and him taking his bisphoric and going home. He protested the church counsel structure. There was 5 patriarchate heads, coming together as equals to fend of heresies for the first 1000 years. The bishop of Rome decided he could act unilaterally. He hit the eject button on orthodoxy. So, first protestant is a perfect descriptor here. Hope that helps.
This is nonsense. The filioque was stated in a pope in the liturgy 40 years before "the split". The pope never required any Eastern bishop or priest to recite it. He never said "say the filioque or else". In actually goes the other way.
What happened was the patriarch of Constantinople didn't like how "Latin" the parishes in his territory were becoming. Those dirty Roman immigrants to the East had priests among them and had their own parishes. He issued a decree to shut down every parish that didn't conform with his liturgy or that used the filioque. After his edict, the pope gave warning that what he did needed to be reversed or face excommunication (the "first SSPX" label may fit that patriarch well, by your standards). The Constantinopolitan bishop refused, and excommunications followed. No one took their bishopric home.
But this brings up my favorite question:. How many councils did the other 4 Patriarchs invite the Roman Patriarch to in order to seek resolution? Did they even try? Why were they so content with letting a patriarch split without even attempting resolution? If anyone was the "first protestant" it was Patriarch Cerularius. He called a council with a few Eastern bishops, zero western bishops, and didn't even so much as send a delegation to Rome to attempt a resolve.
Quote:
Would you like to go into further detail about how the fourth crusade ended these talks?
Thankfully I don't need to. There were two attempted reunification councils
AFTER that crusade. To say that the crusade ended talks is to completely ignore history.
I'd also like to state that Pope Innocent expressly forbade the sacking of Constantinople. I'm sure that fact gets left out in many of the discussions you've seen
Quote:
The pope has not acted to root out the problem even though he has the unilateral authority to do so. Why is that? Because he doesn't actually have the authority to do so. He puts the papal bull anywhere within a 100 miles of Berlin he loses that fiefdom. And that unity is more important than whatever sodomy they are covering up
This one here is my favorite accusation from the EO/Anglican/Lutheran groups. These are the groups that claim the Pope conjured up tyrannical powers out of whole cloth and abused these particular groups with said tyrannical power. But, in modern times, when they see the Pope not acting tyrannically, they say his lack of tyranny is evidence against his authority. It's playing both sides of the fence.
The bishop of Rome is an earthly shepherd. If you've ever raised livestock, you recognize that it's an inherently defensive/reflexive role. It's corrective. How he chooses to correct is a matter of prudential judgement, and it's effectiveness is determined by the fallen human natures of those he attempts to correct. Sometimes it seems like non-Catholics desperately want the Pope to be the dictator figure they describe him as, even though they despise that description.
