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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacob50
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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. 😊)
What does a what if question have to do at all with the reality of the Orthodox Church? It’s as ridiculous a question as asking what happens if the college of cardinals were to split up and elect three popes. The correct answer is: it hasn’t happened in my lifetime, so who cares?
 
The “silliness” of a thread is decided by the moderator of the forum. If you do not wish to engage in the conversation, then I suggest you avoid the thread.
In the meantime, it is suggested both sides show respect for the other otherwise you will make your moderator very angry…


(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And we wouldn’t want to do that, would we?
 
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”.
I’ve posted a reply in your other thread, Jacob, because I have experienced an actual situation of schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church, related to the Old Calendar-New Calendar debacle, and alleged apostasy. The schism was of such nature that truly a small minority, less than 10%, claimed of being the true Church, and they claimed that a large majority has fallen into error (the New Calendar error) and apostasy (embracing the Bolshevik/Communist agenda). The Orthodox minority had no such help as we Catholics have with the chair of Peter, thus they simply claimed that their (the minority’s) position was correct and faithful, while the majority has fallen into heresy and apostasy. In the case I brought up as an example, both the minority (ROCOR - Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) and the majority in schism with them (EP of Constantinople, Greek EO Church, Antiochian EO Church, Moscow Patriarchate) had clearly valid Apostolic Succession and valid Sacraments, but they were in schism with each other.

Schisms are pretty frequent in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. For example, the Moscow Patriarchate broke communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, during the mid-1990s, over a dispute regarding the Estonian EOC. Also, currently there’s a schism within the Ukrainian and Estonian Eastern Orthodox Churches, between Moscow-independent Bishops and faithful, and those loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate.

Another schism I know is between the Basilian Fathers and mainline Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Basilian Fathers, of Russian Orthodox descent, wish to re-establish full communion with Rome, while the mainline Orthodox Churches (Greek, Antiochian) disagree and will not commune with the Basilian Fathers, over this issue.
 
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.
I thought that some of the true Popes were in france not rome or am I wrong?
 
I thought that some of the true Popes were in France not rome or am I wrong?
Some of the true Popes in France?
Not familiar with that. If there are “Popes” in France then they are certainly not known as much as Benedict XVI, who is in Rome where the Pope’s see is. And I’m not familiar with any writings of the Church Fathers that argue that the successor of Peter is in France…Or that Peter and Paul laid the foundation of the Church there in any way…
 
I’ve posted a reply in your other thread, Jacob, because I have experienced an actual situation of schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church, related to the Old Calendar-New Calendar debacle, and alleged apostasy. The schism was of such nature that truly a small minority, less than 10%, claimed of being the true Church, and they claimed that a large majority has fallen into error (the New Calendar error) and apostasy (embracing the Bolshevik/Communist agenda). The Orthodox minority had no such help as we Catholics have with the chair of Peter, thus they simply claimed that their (the minority’s) position was correct and faithful, while the majority has fallen into heresy and apostasy. In the case I brought up as an example, both the minority (ROCOR - Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) and the majority in schism with them (EP of Constantinople, Greek EO Church, Antiochian EO Church, Moscow Patriarchate) had clearly valid Apostolic Succession and valid Sacraments, but they were in schism with each other.

Schisms are pretty frequent in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. For example, the Moscow Patriarchate broke communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, during the mid-1990s, over a dispute regarding the Estonian EOC. Also, currently there’s a schism within the Ukrainian and Estonian Eastern Orthodox Churches, between Moscow-independent Bishops and faithful, and those loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate.

Another schism I know is between the Basilian Fathers and mainline Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Basilian Fathers, of Russian Orthodox descent, wish to re-establish full communion with Rome, while the mainline Orthodox Churches (Greek, Antiochian) disagree and will not commune with the Basilian Fathers, over this issue.
Schisms are indeed frequent and that is why im discussing this here. In fact there have been schisms in Catholic and Orthodox churches throughout history. Protestants obviously (if those are to be considered schisms). The writings of the Church Fathers are quite clear that one must have unity with the Bishop of Rome, upon whom the Church was founded because he is an intrinsic source of unity. In the time of Cyprian there was this great schism happening, and he had to defend the current pope (either it was Cornelius or Fabian), and that was in the 200s. So there will always be schisms from the beginning of Church History till the end of it. So one must know on what side to stand and why.

Correct me if im wrong, but there’s only one time in the entire New testament where a schism actually occurs (where Jesus’ disciples 70/72 disciples leave him). And it is Peter who speaks for the apostles stating that they wouldn’t leave him. Its quite a clear picture of the unity one must have with the key-bearer, or at least for me it is.
 
I thought that some of the true Popes were in france not rome or am I wrong?
The Papacy moved to France (the city of Avignon) in the 14th century. Interestingly, this happened during the reign of Philip the Fair, who had been excommunicated by Poped Boniface VIII earlier.

The Papacy remained in France for six or seven decades. Then one Pope moved the court back to Rome, and he soon afterward died. This may be because the climate was infospitable for someone not accustomed to it, or it may be pure coincidence.

His successor proved to be a difficult man, either irrational at times or il tempered, but whatever the case the Cardinals who chose him came to fear him and think that they had made some mistake, and elected another man to take his place. The thinking was that they had elected him under duress (violence and threats from the local populace), so that invalidated or anulled their earlier choice

Of course, the Pope wasn’t going to go quietly, and he had the power of the police under his authority, so the college of Cardinals left the city to have their conclave. The Pope, abandoned, named a new set of Cardinals to replace them. As it was a common practice of the day to accept large donations of cash for these appointments, the naming of new Cardinals was also an opportunity to enhance the treasury.

Since there was no possibility of reentering the city of Rome, while the (to them deposed) Pope was still in control, the newly chosen (to them) Pope and the original college of cardinals departed for Avignon, France and once again established the Papacy in that location.

Both Popes died, and both colleges of cardinals named successors.

Eventually, after a few rounds of succssion, both colleges of Cardinals abandoned their Popes and officially deposed them. They elected an other man to be the one true Pope! This new one was installed temporarily in another Italian city, to await the removal of the other two.

Both of the other Popes simply named new Cardinals, and then there were three Popes and three sets of Cardinals.

This third one died soon after, and his successor was quite the rascal. An interesting side note is that the Medici family of Florence backed the winning contender of this third line with credit, and it was a big break for the little bank. (From that time on they were to be deeply involved in the business of lending money to churchmen, and extending their influence across Europe. They were to loom large in church politics for many years up to the Reformation.)

Eventually the Roman Catholic public, and especially their kings and nobles, had had enough. Under pressure from the monarchs of Europe a Council met and decided to coerce and cajole each of the three to either resign or be forced out.

A fourth man was elected (I am not sure, but apparently he was elected not by the Cardinals alone, but by the church council - something that is worth investigating to verify). Almost all of the monarchs of Europe decided to support this new choice, and directed the churches of their countries to support him.

 
The Papacy moved to France (the city of Avignon) in the 14th century. Interestingly, this happened during the reign of Philip the Fair, who had been excommunicated by Poped Boniface VIII earlier.

The Papacy remained in France for six or seven decades. Then one Pope moved the court back to Rome, and he soon afterward died. This may be because the climate was infospitable for someone not accustomed to it, or it may be pure coincidence.

His successor proved to be a difficult man, either irrational at times or il tempered, but whatever the case the Cardinals who chose him came to fear him and think that they had made some mistake, and elected another man to take his place. The thinking was that they had elected him under duress (violence and threats from the local populace), so that invalidated or anulled their earlier choice

Of course, the Pope wasn’t going to go quietly, and he had the power of the police under his authority, so the college of Cardinals left the city to have their conclave. The Pope, abandoned, named a new set of Cardinals to replace them. As it was a common practice of the day to accept large donations of cash for these appointments, the naming of new Cardinals was also an opportunity to enhance the treasury.

Since there was no possibility of reentering the city of Rome, while the (to them deposed) Pope was still in control, the newly chosen (to them) Pope and the original college of cardinals departed for Avignon, France and once again established the Papacy in that location.

Both Popes died, and both colleges of cardinals named successors.

Eventually, after a few rounds of succssion, both colleges of Cardinals abandoned their Popes and officially deposed them. They elected an other man to be the one true Pope! This new one was installed temporarily in another Italian city, to await the removal of the other two.

Both of the other Popes simply named new Cardinals, and then there were three Popes and three sets of Cardinals.

This third one died soon after, and his successor was quite the rascal. An interesting side note is that the Medici family of Florence backed the winning contender of this third line with credit, and it was a big break for the little bank. (From that time on they were to be deeply involved in the business of lending money to churchmen, and extending their influence across Europe. They were to loom large in church politics for many years up to the Reformation.)

Eventually the Roman Catholic public, and especially their kings and nobles, had had enough. Under pressure from the monarchs of Europe a Council met and decided to coerce and cajole each of the three to either resign or be forced out.

A fourth man was elected (I am not sure, but apparently he was elected not by the Cardinals alone, but by the church council - something that is worth investigating to verify). Almost all of the monarchs of Europe decided to support this new choice, and directed the churches of their countries to support him.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...17.svg/778px-Western_schism_1378-1417.svg.png
Oh I see, Rdunbar123 was referring to the Western Schism. I Thought he was referring to an anti-pope in France that is there in the present time.
 
Actually he was refering to the period before the Western Schism, when the Popes held court in France.
 
Another schism I know is between the Basilian Fathers and mainline Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Basilian Fathers, of Russian Orthodox descent, wish to re-establish full communion with Rome, while the mainline Orthodox Churches (Greek, Antiochian) disagree and will not commune with the Basilian Fathers, over this issue.
:confused: Orthodox monasteries are not organized into orders. The true Orthodox monastics who follow the rule of saint Basil live in discrete houses and do not constitute a separate organization outside of the diocese. They are as integral to a diocese as a parish or mission and follow the direction of religious superiors confirmed for them by the appropriate bishop.

No such event occurred, unless you are thinking of some modern event of one or another monastery. There have been a few examples of monasteries changing hands both ways in some countries, from Catholic to Orthodox or vice versa.

The Basilian religious order dates to no earlier than the early 17th century, when the Pope took control of monasteries away from Eastern Catholic bishops who owned them, and organized these monastic houses into a religious order along western lines. These were Eastern Catholic monasteries owned and controled by Eastern Catholic bishops for over 100 years (maybe more), no Orthodox monasteries were involved in the formation of the Basilian order, and there is no Basilian order within Orthodoxy.

Much later (very much later) the Pope reorganized those Basilians from a contemplative into an active religious order, by placing them under the control of the Society of Jesus for a time, and giving them a new rule. This may be why they are referred to by Roman Catholics as Basilian Fathers, since the Eastern Catholic Basilians are very often ordained priests and engaged in parish work.
 
Schisms are indeed frequent and that is why im discussing this here. In fact there have been schisms in Catholic and Orthodox churches throughout history. Protestants obviously (if those are to be considered schisms). The writings of the Church Fathers are quite clear that one must have unity with the Bishop of Rome, upon whom the Church was founded because he is an intrinsic source of unity. In the time of Cyprian there was this great schism happening, and he had to defend the current pope (either it was Cornelius or Fabian), and that was in the 200s. So there will always be schisms from the beginning of Church History till the end of it. So one must know on what side to stand and why.

Correct me if im wrong, but there’s only one time in the entire New testament where a schism actually occurs (where Jesus’ disciples 70/72 disciples leave him). And it is Peter who speaks for the apostles stating that they wouldn’t leave him. Its quite a clear picture of the unity one must have with the key-bearer, or at least for me it is.
I agree that schisms (and heresies) have been happening throughout Church history, also in the Catholic Church. Even during the last few decades, we had the SSPX Bishops, and Bishops who tried to ordain women “priests”. Also, liberation theologists and “worker priests” in Latin America. But for us Catholics, it’s very easy to know who’s legit and who’s not - if they have been excommunicated or censored by the Pope, they are not legit.
 
:confused: Orthodox monasteries are not organized into orders. The true Orthodox monastics who follow the rule of saint Basil live in discrete houses and do not constitute a separate organization outside of the diocese. They are as integral to a diocese as a parish or mission and follow the direction of religious superiors confirmed for them by the appropriate bishop.

No such event occurred, unless you are thinking of some modern event of one or another monastery. There have been a few examples of monasteries changing hands both ways in some countries, from Catholic to Orthodox or vice versa.

The Basilian religious order dates to no earlier than the early 17th century, when the Pope took control of monasteries away from Eastern Catholic bishops who owned them, and organized these monastic houses into a religious order along western lines. These were Eastern Catholic monasteries owned and controled by Eastern Catholic bishops for over 100 years (maybe more), no Orthodox monasteries were involved in the formation of the Basilian order, and there is no Basilian order within Orthodoxy.

Much later (very much later) the Pope reorganized those Basilians from a contemplative into an active religious order, by placing them under the control of the Society of Jesus for a time, and giving them a new rule. This may be why they are referred to by Roman Catholics as Basilian Fathers, since the Eastern Catholic Basilians are very often ordained priests and engaged in parish work.
Please see these links for the Basilian Fathers (Society of Clerks Secular of Saint Basil) I mentioned:

reu.org/public/default.htm

reu.org/public/ssbdocs/ssbdcmt.htm

The second link has a very long document regarding their historical formation and line of apostolic succession, from which I only managed to retain that the present organization’s roots go back to Russian and Antiochian EO consecrator Bishops.
 
Please see these links for the Basilian Fathers (Society of Clerks Secular of Saint Basil) I mentioned:

reu.org/public/default.htm

reu.org/public/ssbdocs/ssbdcmt.htm

The second link has a very long document regarding their historical formation and line of apostolic succession, from which I only managed to retain that the present organization’s roots go back to Russian and Antiochian EO consecrator Bishops.
They aren’t Orthodox.
 
They aren’t Orthodox.
I certainly see how some EO do not regard them as Orthodox. That’s how schisms between the EO work.

That’s what also happened with the Calendar schism. ROCOR’s clergy and faithful did not regard the mainline (New Calendar) Greek and Antiochian EO Churches as Orthodox. Thus, ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) priests told their parishioners to refrain from attending Divine Liturgy and from presenting themselves for Holy Communion at Greek and Antiochian EO churches that used the New Calendar. This was between 2004-2006 when I used to attend ROCOR’s DL.
 
Here’s another example of a Greek EO Church that regards those following the New Calendar as heretics and schismatics, rather than genuinely Orthodox, and forbids its own faithful from entering those other Churches and from taking Holy Communion there. But this particular Greek Old Calendar EO Church is very similar to ROCOR, because both reject the New Calendar and ecumenism.

Quote from hotca.org/documents/152-encyclical-regarding-holy-communion :

Encyclical Regarding Holy Communion
Fr. Anastasios Hudson
December 5/18, 2002

E N C Y C L I C A L

To the Holy Clergy and Pious People
Of the Holy Metropolis of the Genuine Greek Orthodox
Old Calendar Church of America

Beloved Fathers and Brethren:

“May the blessings of God always be with you.”

1.The beloved Disciple of our Lord, the Evangelist St. John, writes in his First General Epistle: “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard the antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (I John 2:18-19).

In other words, St. John the Theologian warns us saying: My children, now is a critical time: today’s season is full of dangers. As you have heard from the evangelical preaching, the antichrist will come. At this time, many heretics have manifested themselves; they are forerunners of the antichrist. From this we learn that our times are critical.

Heretics have separated themselves from us Christians and have left the Church. In any case, they never were a part of us. They were never TRUE members of the Church. For if indeed they were of us and TRUE members of the Church, they would have remained with us. However, they left the Church so that it might be shown to be that all of them were not of us. They were not TRUE Christians. (P. Trembelas, The New Testament with Short Interpretation, page 995).

2.The Word of God, the Gospels which contain the above-mentioned words of the Evangelist St. John, teaches us of the dangers faced by true Christians should they leave the Church of Christ. Such are heretics and various schisms.

The Franks have ever used the most cunning, deceptive, and dishonorable means to entangle the Orthodox in error and false belief, seeking to make them Franks. One of the means used by the Franks was the papal calendar that they sought to impose upon the Orthodox Church in the 16th century. However, the Orthodox Patriarchs, with three Local Synods, held in 1582, 1587 and 1592, condemned the New Calendar. The Patriarchs preached that those Orthodox who would follow it, would be cut off from the body of the Church and cease to be Orthodox.

Unfortunately, in Greece in 1924, Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) along with his bishops, desired to accommodate the Orthodox faithful to the errors of the Franks. The people of God, the genuine Orthodox, resisted, and thereby did a large portion of them remain faithful members of the Church of Christ, that Church of Christ being “the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” Orthodox Church, She to Whom, by the grace of God, we genuine Orthodox Christians belong.

First, the Orthodox Christians must seek this Grace, which exists only in the Holy Mysteries, and especially the Divine Eucharist, which exist only in the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, which is the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, and

Second, he who wishes to receive the Grace of salvation must be a genuine member of the Orthodox Church. He must not be a heretic or a schismatic.

For this reason, the genuine Orthodox Christians are not permitted to enter the churches of heretics or schismatics to receive communion, for such is a very serious sin. The person, who does so, cuts himself off from the Orthodox Church. For this same reason, the Fathers of the Church forbid to heretics or schismatics communion of the blameless Mysteries in our Churches, since by so doing, instead of salvation, they receive “a consuming fire,” (Hebrews 12:29) that is, a fire, which burns up all those who dare to partake of it.

5.Our times are the times of the antichrist, as the Evangelist St. John tells us. The antichrist labors so that iniquity, sin, apostasy, error, and false teaching may spread throughout the world.

Ecumenism, which today has captivated many people, is the result of all this. It is the work of the antichrist and of his followers. This Ecumenism would swallow up the very last lambs of Christ, that is us, the genuine Orthodox Christians, if it could. This is why Ecumenism is a pan-heresy.

In the face of this great danger, as your Bishop and Shepherd of the Orthodox Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of America, who am charged by God to protect His flock from the heretics and schismatics who have placed themselves outside the Church, I call upon the faithful children of our Church not to enter the churches of schismatics and heretics to take communion. You should communicate only in churches that belong to our Church, which here in America are only the churches of the Holy Metropolis (GOC) of America. You should have the permission of your spiritual father, who himself should be a clergyman of our Holy Metropolis, and should have confessed and fasted correctly prior to Communion. Those who do not have an Orthodox faith and confession, that is heretics, ecumenists, false old calendarists, etc., will not be permitted to be imparted the Holy Mysteries in our churches, even as the Holy Synod of our Church has directed.
 
Oh I see, Rdunbar123 was referring to the Western Schism. I Thought he was referring to an anti-pope in France that is there in the present time.
No, this is what I was referring to. As I see it I think I will stop visiting these forums as as everyone knows all churches have their secrets and things they need to be ashamed of. IMO the original question here was intended to be mean spirited. The great western schism actually calls into question the Popes claim to real apostolic succession. Good bye and God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top