Orthodox- If a Great Schism happens again...?

[Jacob50]

Another question for Orthodox
Ok so I made a thread regarding the chair of Peter here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=627703

But haven’t so far gotten much responses from Orthodox brothers. So that made me think of something. I have a question for Orthodox.
**
If a schism happened again, (like the one in c.1054 A.D.), and orthodoxy was divided in half (50 on one side and 50 on another) What guarantee would you have that your side is not in schism? Or How would you know your side is not in schism?**

Let me tell you how I as a Catholic would know if such happened in Catholicism. Read Cyprian:

“They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected. …There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly * in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another” (Letters 66[69]:8[A.D. 253]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

In John 6, we see that many of Christs disciples left him. Except his apostles (the original 12 in communion with Peter). If the Catholic Church had another schism as big as the one in 1054, I would know what part is in schism depending on what part is in communion in Rome. Even if the schism was at follows: 90% Catholics on one side and 10% in another. If that 10% was in communion with Peter, I would know which is the true Church. You know why? Because Peter is that Guarantee I have from Christ, in Matt 16:18 when he said “And the gates of hell will not prevail against it”.

Look at the Church Fathers referring to the Chair of Peter as an intrinsic source of unity. It is clear to me on what side I would be in. But for those of you who are Easter Orthodox, what Guarantee do you have if another schism happened like that?

Thanks for your response in advance. Also I wanna let you guys know, I pray for unity, and that some day we come back in full communion.*

 

[dcointin]

Can you help me find the quotations you gave in your previous thread on ccel.org?

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.toc.html

 

[Jacob50]

Can you help me find the quotations you gave in your previous thread on ccel.org?

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.toc.html

First I have never seen that website before so I don’t know where to look on that one (ccel). And no offense (brother) but Im about to go to work so I cant now (and the site looks like i would take me a long time).
Second, what is for the previous thread is for the previous one. So we can discuss there.
Third, I just wanna know what source of unity do Orthodox have as a guide if u will, that they are in the correct church, which is the question of this thread.
Fourth, I think I gave good amount of quotations, not just Cyprians. I am aware that different cites have different quotes (such as New advent the Catholic encyclopedia) and others when compared. I am aware that for instance New advent has quotes from the Church Fathers that other sites do not have, or viceversa. And that happens because of the antiquity in which they wrote. Some claim that Augustine said this, some dont. Some add or take stuff out. The same happens even with the Holy Scriptures (unfortunately). But as a whole, if u look in the writings of the Church Fathers, the “Chair of Peter” is something they regard to in their writings.

 

[dcointin]

I unfortunately can’t give a response to the quotations you posted if I can’t study them in context, see differences in translation, etc. I also can’t give a response based on the general thrust of them since the specifics in these matters are too important. We believe that we are orthodox because we have preserved the apostolic faith unchanged, and this can be demonstrated from a study of the writings of the fathers, liturgies, etc. We don’t look to an external authority for absolute certainty.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Another question for Orthodox
Ok so I made a thread regarding the chair of Peter here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=627703

But haven’t so far gotten much responses from Orthodox brothers. So that made me think of something. I have a question for Orthodox.
**
If a schism happened again, (like the one in c.1054 A.D.), and orthodoxy was divided in half (50 on one side and 50 on another) What guarantee would you have that your side is not in schism? Or How would you know your side is not in schism?**

Let me tell you how I as a Catholic would know if such happened in Catholicism. Read Cyprian:

“They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected. …There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly * in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another” (Letters 66[69]:8[A.D. 253]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

In John 6, we see that many of Christs disciples left him. Except his apostles (the original 12 in communion with Peter). If the Catholic Church had another schism as big as the one in 1054, I would know what part is in schism depending on what part is in communion in Rome. Even if the schism was at follows: 90% Catholics on one side and 10% in another. If that 10% was in communion with Peter, I would know which is the true Church. You know why? Because Peter is that Guarantee I have from Christ, in Matt 16:18 when he said “And the gates of hell will not prevail against it”.

Look at the Church Fathers referring to the Chair of Peter as an intrinsic source of unity. It is clear to me on what side I would be in. But for those of you who are Easter Orthodox, what Guarantee do you have if another schism happened like that?

Thanks for your response in advance. Also I wanna let you guys know, I pray for unity, and that some day we come back in full* communion.

Which Peter? Alexandria, Antioch or Rome?

 

[Jacob50]

Which Peter? Alexandria, Antioch or Rome?

Well which one do you think im referring to?

And also I don’t see how Peter is included in the following question:

If a schism happened again, (like the one in c.1054 A.D.), and orthodoxy was divided in half (50 on one side and 50 on another) What guarantee would you have that your side is not in schism? Or How would you know your side is not in schism?

I didn’t even mention Peter in that the question.

 

[Mickey]

But haven’t so far gotten much responses from Orthodox brothers.

And I expect you won’t get much of a response to any of your questions based on the tone your posts.

**If a schism happened again, (like the one in c.1054 A.D.), and orthodoxy was divided in half (50 on one side and 50 on another) What guarantee would you have that your side is not in schism? **

We don’t care much for “what if” games.

 

[Garyjohn2]

I was curious too, but it doesn’t look like you’re making much headway with your inquiry. Perhaps it will be more effective if you stop with the last question mark, and leave the rest out.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well which one do you think im referring to?

And also I don’t see how Peter is included in the following question:

If a schism happened again, (like the one in c.1054 A.D.), and orthodoxy was divided in half (50 on one side and 50 on another) What guarantee would you have that your side is not in schism? Or How would you know your side is not in schism?

I didn’t even mention Peter in that the question.

Two can play this futile game. If the Great Western Schism, where two or even three popes at once were in existence, happened again, how would you know which side was right? Ponder this question for a while, and you will realize the silliness of the hypothetical question at hand.

 

[Nicea325]

Two can play this futile game. If the Great Western Schism, where two or even three popes at once were in existence, happened again, how would you know which side was right? Ponder this question for a while, and you will realize the silliness of the hypothetical question at hand.

Silly? The results of reality due to human error and pride are silly? I would ponder that more.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Silly? The results of reality due to human error and pride are silly? I would ponder that more.

And what if aliens came and demolished the Vatican? Hypothetical questions like these are precisely silly because they are irrelevant and do not pertain to reality.

 

[JonNC]

Another question for Orthodox
Ok so I made a thread regarding the chair of Peter here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=627703

But haven’t so far gotten much responses from Orthodox brothers. So that made me think of something. I have a question for Orthodox.

If a schism happened again, (like the one in c.1054 A.D.), and orthodoxy was divided in half (50 on one side and 50 on another) What guarantee would you have that your side is not in schism? Or How would you know your side is not in schism?

This is precisely the question I ask when I am confronted with why I don’t convert to the Catholic Church (or Orthodoxy).

Jon

 

[Marybeloved]

And what if aliens came and demolished the Vatican? Hypothetical questions like these are precisely silly because they are irrelevant and do not pertain to reality.

Right. Because the likelihood of aliens visiting the Pope is just at par with the likelihood of a schism occurring *yet *again .

 

[Jacob50]

Two can play this futile game. If the Great Western Schism, where two or even three popes at once were in existence, happened again, how would you know which side was right? Ponder this question for a while, and you will realize the silliness of the hypothetical question at hand.

You follow the line of succession from the see of Peter. Yes, Anti-popes existed (and still do im guessing), which are people that claimed by themselves to be the Pope. But if you look at what Christ said, papacy will endure until the end. The successors of the most important anti-popes ceased to exist. The ones that currently exist (such as in some small sedevantist communities) simply do not have the see of Rome. If you go to Rome (where Peter and Paul’s martyrdom was and where their remains are at), you will find Benedict XVI. Trace the line of succession, before him you will find John Paul II, and before him another and so on and on.

 

[anodos]

And what if aliens came and demolished the Vatican? Hypothetical questions like these are precisely silly because they are irrelevant and do not pertain to reality.

But aliens probably won’t really demolish the Vatican (thanks, St. Luke!), while Catholicism* is * really in schism. I don’t see how the question is totally irrelevant.

(Apologies in advance if the Star Wars reference was offensive. )

 

[Nicea325]

And what if aliens came and demolished the Vatican? Hypothetical questions like these are precisely silly because they are irrelevant and do not pertain to reality.

Oh next with Godzilla and then they go after all Orthodox churches once they are done with the Vatican? Your hypothetical situations are silly. Now let us go back to down to earth…we are talking about humans here.

 

[Jacob50]

And I expect you won’t get much of a response to any of your questions based on the tone your posts.

We don’t care much for “what if” games.

Well you should because your life is full of “What ifs”

And I don’t see how the “tone” of my posts has been bad/evil/poor in anyway. All im asking is a question, and if its too hard for you to answer it because of the “tone” of my responses then simply don’t answer it.

The question is clearly a possibility, it has happened before.

 

[Marybeloved]

But aliens probably won’t really demolish the Vatican (thanks, St. Luke!), while Catholicism* is * really in schism. I don’t see how the question is totally irrelevant.

(Apologies in advance if the Star Wars reference was offensive. )

Hey, As long as you don’t say st. Anakin, I think we are cool.

 

[Jacob50]

Gonna go to work, hopefully when im back I actually see good responses to the main question of this topic.

 

[Nicea325]

Well you should because your life is full of “What ifs”

And I don’t see how the “tone” of my posts has been bad/evil/poor in anyway. All im asking is a question, and if its too hard for you to answer it because of the “tone” of my responses then simply don’t answer it.

The question is clearly a possibility, it has happened before.

Sounds like a mere dodge to deny the facts of life any possibilty is plausible.