What exactly does the Constantinople-Moscow schism mean?

[Onthisrock84]

I hear differing narratives on what point this schism is.
Some say it is a schism that is basically comparable to the east-west schism of 1054 and the Russian Orthodox Church is now it’s own Church separated from the rest of the Churches who declare the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equals.
Others tell me that yes a schism exists and Russian Orthodox are not permitted to receive sacraments from the other Orthodox Churces however it is not yet to the point that separates Rome and the eastern Churches.
I have a minor understanding of the Orthodox hierarchy and ask if anyone could explain this. Is it a complete schism or is there still some communion between the two that doesn’t make them in full communion?
As a Catholic it would seem that once you aren’t in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, you wouldn’t be in communion at all, however I also understand the Eastern Orthodox view of what the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is Bartholomew l, exactly means and I assume it isn’t the same as breaking total communion with say the Pope. This is one of the reasons why the east-west schism took place.
Could someone explain it that may know more on what this schism means and is the Eastern Orthodox Church still a Church with the Russian Orthodox Church in it, or is the Russian Orthodox Church now a completely separate entity as the Orthodox Church would view the Catholic Church?

 

[twf]

Way too early to say I think. Contrary to popular conception, the Great Schism didn’t happen over night. It was really a process that unfolded over a couple centuries.

 

[Onthisrock84]

Yah that’s true. It wasn’t until after 1204 that it could be said without a doubt there was a definite schism. Actually I believe some councils even attempted reunification . The real problem was the communication between the east and west for so many centuries that both came to have differing opinions which at first were minor but eventually were very serious differences of theological belief.

 

[twf]

I believe Antioch and Alexandria (the Greek sees, obviously not the Syriac and Coptic Churches that had been in schism since Chalcedon) remained in communion with both Rome and Constantinople until the 13th century…

 

[Onthisrock84]

Yah thanks for pointing that out! Yes people seem to always assume Orthodox only means the Eastern Orthodox but yes like you said the Coptics which are part of the Oriental Orthodox communion mainly in northern Africa and the middle East and Ethiopia are also an ancient Church.

 

[Vonsalza]

It means that they consider the other in heresy. As far as significance, we’ll see. The last time they had a breakdown was two decades ago and that sorted itself out in due time. But this might be a more serious divide. Again, we’ll see in time.

It’s how their Churches exercise discipline outside their own sees. The more Churches that break from yours, the more likely your position on the divisive issue is heterodox.

 

[Onthisrock84]

It is interesting but thanks. I just assumed it would be viewed different in Orthodoxy as they have different beliefs.
Like if a region said it was not in communion with Rome anymore they’d be schematic. And I always thought that’s why Rome and Constantinople were separate but from listening to Orthodox on it it’s still the Eastern Orthodox Church it just one isn’t in communion with the patriarch of Constantinople. How that doesn’t mean total schism is not something I know how it works.

 

[Wesrock]

Way too early. Even in 1054 I doubt they understood the lasting impact it would have. We’ll have to monitor for years or decades. Even 100 years doesn’t strike me as that long for the Church.