S
samr241
Guest
Just wanted to know if there were any groups that have ever split from the Orthodox Church? If you know thanks for the help.
Thanks and God Bless
Thanks and God Bless
- Status
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
No; The debate goes Some of the Eastern Orthodox Catholics are in schism with the authority of Peter’s successor the Pope. Most Eastern Orthodox Catholics are in communion with the Pope. Some Eastern Orthodox Church’s in schism are in conflict between themselves.
**If you define “split” as totally seperated from the Roman Catholic Church your definition is incorrect. **The word to be used is Schism when it comes to define members in conflict within the Catholic Church. Which means that these who are in Schism with the Pope (Peter’s successors) are still part of the Catholic Church in the body of Jesus Christ. The Schism indicates a “tear” not a total seperation from the body of Jesus Christ. If “split” is used to indicate a split but still attached to the whole and not totally seperated from the whole, then this split definition can be held.
Just for your information, peace be with you
N
Nine_Two
Guest
There are schismatic churches and groups, yes. Probably the best example are the Old Believers, who split with the Russian Orthodox Church over reforms to certain Russian practices (such as the posture of the hand while doing the sign of the cross, very minor stuff).
There are also some clergy who from time to time are excommunicated or defrocked but continue on without canonical authority. You need to be careful of these ones as they don’t advertise that they aren’t canonical Orthodox parishes, however you can usually tell the difference, a canonical parish will say what juristiction it is in and leave it at that, a non-canonical parish will list long geneologies trying to prove their bishop has apostolic succession, and that they are therefore Orthodox.
Which of course leads to another point. Orthodox schismics almost always continue to call themselves Orthodox.
A
ahollars
Guest
Is that even legal? In America, you need approval of church authorities to identify yourself with a particular denomination. A church isn’t legally a church until the government recognizes it as one. For example, a church cannot call itself Catholic without the permission of the Bishop. This is protected by the basic copyright laws. Does this violation occur in Canada? That’s news to me.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
No idea, and this happens throughout North America, and probably Europe as well.
I once found a site that listed all the schismic churches.
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is because they continue to teach the orthodox catholic faith.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Not always. I read a several in North America who broke with the Communion specifically so they could have openly gay bishops, and others which have ordained women.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Most of the groups who left Rome did not choose the name we now call them. For many, they adopted the insult by which they were called
H
Hesychios
Guest
The first major split was over the understanding of the nature of Christ.
Thus there are the Christians who accepted seven Councils, and those who rejected the fourth Council (and did not participate in the rest). These are the diaphysites and miaphysites respectively, terms which refer to how one describes the nature of Christ.
The next major split was when the western patriarchal church broke off. Thus the western church and the eastern orthodox both have a diaphysite Christology.
After that great loss, the subsequent splits have been minor in the east, the situation has been usually stable. Since the church had established five major regional patriarchates originally (plus the autocephalous church of Cyprus), the system accommodates pretty well to changes… new structures fit in when needed. Theology does not seem to divide some Orthodox from other Orthodox.
The worst split I can think of was actually over practices, not beliefs. That being the Old Believers in Russia defying changes to the liturgical practices. It was pretty tragic as it played out.
W
Wesley7
Guest
Actually, there are several schisms in the history of the Church.
S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
That Church that is now commonly referred to as “the Catholic Church” split away from Orthodoxy about a thousands years ago.
The Orthodox Church has remained “whole” (the original meaning up to the 5th century a.d. of the term “catholic” - beginning in the 5th century was the first time that Greek word was used to mean “universal”) without the Church of Rome being a part of Her.
J
josie_L
Guest
The Church was catholic on the day of Pentecost when the apostles and disciples speaking in tongues were displaying the universality of the Church. Furthermore, the Church was not meant to be compartmentalized into autocephalous churches of differing nationalities because the Church (is a universal kingdom not a federation of local churches) was not “conceived” in that manner. Let me quote our Pope Benedict XVI (from his book “Called to Communion”):
“At the same time, Luke expresses with this image the fact that at the moment of her birth, the Church was already catholic, already a world Church. Luke thus rules out a conception in which a local Church first arose in Jerusalem and then became the base for the gradual establishment of other local Churches that eventually grew into a federation. Luke tells us that the reverse is true: what first exists is the one Church, the Church that speaks in all tongues - the ecclesia universalis; she then generates Church in the most diverse locales, which nonetheless are all always embodiments of the one and only Church. The temporal and ontological priority lies with the universal Church; a Church that was not catholic would not even have ecclesial reality. . . . .”
p.s And the Orthodox are in schism with the Universal/Catholic Church (although we are so much alike that spiritually we are very much in communion).
H
Harpazo
Guest
Orthodox would disagree with almost all of this. But I’m sure you know that.
I don’t really care for getting into this with you again, however.In Christ,
Andrew
J
josie_L
Guest
Totally off topic Andrew, but are you Italian (I am)? God bless.Orthodox would disagree with almost all of this. But I’m sure you know that.
In Christ,
Andrew
H
Harpazo
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
I’m first generation Sicilian (albeit on my mom’s side only). Her family is from a town called Bolognetta near Palermo. You know Ralphinal (another poster here at CAF) is also Sicilian. Anyways, do you speak Italian? I do but not perfectly.
p.s. I promise this is the last off topic question before I get back on track again. Sorry OP!!
J
jimmy
Guest
“Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” - but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line”! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…”
Josie L, regarding your quote of Ratzinger/P. Benedict. I have thought about P. Benedict’s position on this issue before. This is part of his debate with Cardinal Kasper which was essentially, what came first, the local church or the universal church? Kasper’s view was that the local Churches are represented in the upper room by the apostles and Ratzinger’s view was that the universal Church is represented in the upper room. I don’t know if what Ratzinger says here really contradicts what the Eastern Orthodox believe about the Church. They might admit that the universal Church is what came first, but at the same time they would say that it is in the particular Church with the bishop as the head that the universal Church finds its complete instantiation. There is no insufficiency in the local Church and each Church is autonomous. What makes the Church is the Eucharist and it is the bishop who is the head of the Eucharistic celebration. This actually almost makes the question of which came first to be a relatively meaningless question. I think what the west does by saying that the universal Church has primacy over the local Church is that it makes the bishops universal officials who have a local mission rather than being representative of the particular Church. In the EO Church it is reversed. The guidance of the Spirit is associated with the particular Church and the sacramental life with the bishop as its head. The particular Church then is associated with the other particular Churches.
Inherent to the western perspective is a distinction between juridical authority and sacramental authority. The sacramental authority is given in the sacrament of ordination in which an indellible mark is recieved by the bishop and so he recieves the authority of the sacraments directly from Christ. The juridical authority on the other hand is given directly from the bishop of Rome. The bishop has no juridical authority unless he recieves it from Rome. As I said above, this seems to imply that the bishop is a universal representative who has a local mission.
The EO on the other hand make no such distinction. The juridical authority is wraped up with the sacramental authority. It is the sacraments which give authority. Consequently there is a different understanding of authority in the EO. Where the sacramental life is complete there is a fulness of authority because it is there (in the Eucharist) that the Church is created (this is an Eastern view that has been appropriated by the west).
J
josie_L
Guest
Ha ha, I love the Princess Bride (read the book and watched the movie many times)!!!“Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” - but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line”! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…”
p.s. I’ll have to respond to you at a later date concerning the rest of your post as Pope Benedict XVI speaks of the eucharist in connection to the body of Christ, i.e., the Church in his book “Called to Communion”.
H
Harpazo
Guest
My family is from Palermo (or so I’ve heard. I haven’t met any of the relatives over there yet). I used be near fluency with Italian, but I haven’t used it in a while. I can also speak a little Sicilian. I like Sicilian, but it looks funny at first glance. It’s really interesting that there are a lot of similarities between Romanian and Sicilian, yet geographically, they are pretty far apart. I absolutely love languages, but it’s hard to devote time to them when I’m far from native speakers and when I’m busy with school.
In Christ,
Andrew
J
jimmy
Guest
I was thinking more about this and these two contrary positions fit in with the corresponding views of the sacraments and their relation to the Church. The western Church views the sacraments of the Orthodox as valid because they maintain the sacramental authority, but they are illicit because they have lost the juridical authority when they broke from Rome. Whereas in the EO the validity of the sacraments is directly associated with the validity of the Church. They reject western sacraments as having no sacramental reality because of western innovations. The west has changed the faith therefore they have lost the sacramental (and consequently juridical) authority. True sacraments are found only within the Church according to the EO (many might say that it is unknown whether the Catholics have valid sacraments).
JosieL, Called to Communion is one of the best theology books I have read. I read it three times and it changed the way I think of the Church.
- Status