orthodox church

[brigantine]

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

There are many groups that have split up/off from the Orthodox Church. The problem is, like one poster pointed out, they keep Orthodox in their name. Look for Names that contain “True”, “Genuine”, or “in Exile” and most likely these are groups that have split off from the main body of World Orthodoxy. You also have one Patriarchate creating jurisdictions in another Patriarch’s territory so one group may not recognize the other.

 

[josie_L]

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.

The original meaning of the word “catholic” is not “whole” that would be an incomplete definition.

“Catholic comes from the Greek katholikos, the combination of two words, kata (concerning), and holos (whole). According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, the word catholic comes from a Greek word meaning “regarding the whole,” or, more simply, “universal” or “general.” The word church comes from the Greek ecclesia, which means “those called out,” as in those summoned out of the world at large to form a distinct society. So the Catholic Church is made up of those called out and gathered into the universal society founded by Christ.”

or

“The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.”

or

“Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).”

catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

 

[Hiskid1973]

Since the beginning it was I’m of Peter, I’m of Paul, I’m of Apollos…Flesh always causing divisions…Division beget division…I always see prots bashed for all this division, like it’s our fault…Bad roots for bad trees…Which always made we wonder why the prots came from Rome and not Orthodox…I know the Orthodox have there own splits but even in they still look more like the original way things ran…I always got a kick out out of the Orthodox being defective…None of us are with out defect…We all need Christ Jesus…peace to you…K

 

[Hiskid1973]

Since the beginning it was I’m of Peter, I’m of Paul, I’m of Apollos…Flesh always causing divisions…Division beget division…I always see prots bashed for all this division, like it’s our fault…Bad roots for bad trees…Which always made we wonder why the prots came from Rome and not Orthodox…I know the Orthodox have there own splits but even in they still look more like the original way things ran…I always got a kick out of the Orthodox being defective…None of us are with out defect…We all need Christ Jesus…peace to you…K

 

[Nine_Two]

Since the beginning it was I’m of Peter, I’m of Paul, I’m of Apollos…Flesh always causing divisions…Division beget division…I always see prots bashed for all this division, like it’s our fault…Bad roots for bad trees…Which always made we wonder why the prots came from Rome and not Orthodox…I know the Orthodox have there own splits but even in they still look more like the original way things ran…I always got a kick out out of the Orthodox being defective…None of us are with out defect…We all need Christ Jesus…peace to you…K

I do agree with you. People far too often say who they are “of” completely forgetting Christ. I’ve noticed some Catholics are among the worst for this (note I say some, a very small majority who do this without representation of their faith, these few seem to be the most extreme, which is why I mention them first), claiming their belonging to Peter’s Church and forgetting about Christ, thankfully the majority will mention Christ first, and Peter second.
I’ve seen some Greek and Russian Orthodox do this as well, appealing to their Patriarchs position in the order of the hierarchy as though that makes them special (again, some, not all, certainly not representative of the teachings of their churches). Haven’t seen it so much from others (Antiochans, Alexandrians, CoG, etc.)

Protestants aren’t usually as bad about it as we are, they identify with a denomination, but in most cases honestly believe they are followers of Jesus, rather than whoever founded their denomination. Although again, there are some who identify very closely with some charismatic leader to the exclusion of others.

 

[josie_L]

“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.

It is of great import to know whether the Church was universal from the get go or not because it allows us to understand the true identity (and structure) of the Church which is not a federation of Churches that share a similar theology but a Church that is universal “which generates Church in the most diverse locales, which nonetheless are all always embodiments of the one and only Church.”

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.

Yes at the heart of the Church is the Eucharist, and it is for this reason that we are known as the body of Christ as it through this sacrament that we commune together as Church. However, Papa Ratzinger also has this to say:

"Looking ahead to our principal theme - the local Church and the universal Church - we can say that the Eucharist, seen as the permanent origin and center of the Church, joins all of the “many”, who are now made a people, to the one Lord and to his one and only Body. This fact already implies that the Church and her unity are but one. It is true that the many celebrations in which the one Eucharist will be realized also point ahead to the multiformity of the one Body. Nevertheless, it is clear that these many celebrations cannot stand side by side as autonomous, mutually independent entities but are always simply the presence of one and the same mystery.

 

[jimmy]

It is of great import to know whether the Church was universal from the get go or not because it allows us to understand the true identity (and structure) of the Church which is not a federation of Churches that share a similar theology but a Church that is universal “which generates Church in the most diverse locales, which nonetheless are all always embodiments of the one and only Church.”

Yes at the heart of the Church is the Eucharist, and it is for this reason that we are known as the body of Christ as it through this sacrament that we commune together as Church. However, Papa Ratzinger also has this to say:

"Looking ahead to our principal theme - the local Church and the universal Church - we can say that the Eucharist, seen as the permanent origin and center of the Church, joins all of the “many”, who are now made a people, to the one Lord and to his one and only Body. This fact already implies that the Church and her unity are but one. It is true that the many celebrations in which the one Eucharist will be realized also point ahead to the multiformity of the one Body. Nevertheless, it is clear that these many celebrations cannot stand side by side as autonomous, mutually independent entities but are always simply the presence of one and the same mystery.

JosieL, I don’t think I disagree with anything you say. The Orthodox would agree that the Church in Corinth and the Church in Antioch are one but the question is what type of unity is shared between them. Is it an administrative, juridical unity or a unity of faith and sacrament? The Orthodox would say that Christ is the only head of the Church universal whereas the Catholic Church believes that the bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ and so he is the visible head of the Church. The Eucharistic celebration is one for the whole Church but that doesn’t imply an administrative unity so that there is one authority. To speak of an administrative and juridical authority you have to go beyond the sacrament and speak of authority in another way.

I have to go now but I will be back later.