As recent events surrounding the Orthodox Church in Ukraine are unfolding, it would appear to some that the sky is falling. The Moscow Patriarchate has made it clear that they will excommunicate the Patriarchate of Constantinople if they go through with the decision to lay hands on schismatic Ukrainian Bishops and call them an autocephalys Church. The result will be that intercommunion between the Russian and Greek churches will end, effectively splitting the Orthodox Church.
For some Orthodox Christians, the issue of “who is right” when it comes to this question is paramount. While I have not run into any Orthodox Christians in the real world who have been following these events, one Facebook friend expressed concern that he might have to leave his Greek parish for one in communion with Russia. The idea is, if you are tethered to the body that caused the schism, you are literally torn away from the Church (putting one’s salvation in jeopardy.)
To the preceding, allow me to offer a few comments that may be helpful:
- First and foremost, it is scandalous that Christians jockey over territory instead of serving one another and allow themselves to be wronged, like Christ did.
- The fathers never taught that the moment Bishops excommunicate each other, that whatever side is in the wrong literally takes with them all their faithful into schism. In fact, Saint Augustine taught that those within the Donatist communion that desired unity had in fact remained part of the Catholic (Orthodox) Church.
- Schisms usually take decades or centuries. Some schisms are quick, but this is when they create a parallel Church structure that refuses to commune with those still within the established Church (i.e. Novationists, Donatists, Gnostics, Protestants).
- Excommunications generally do not constitute outright schisms. They are the beginning of one, just like a tear in one’s pocket, but they do not constitute a complete break. For example, the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem have formally excommunicated each other. But I, an American (OCA) Orthodox, can walk into either of those churches and commune. Yet, I cannot commune in a Roman Catholic or Missouri Synod Lutheran church. This is because there is an actual schism between the western and eastern churches.
- Hence, when the Russian and Greek churches excommunicate each other, it is not entirely clear that Eucharistic ties will be entirely severed from one another, let alone a schism occurring. In recent memory, ROCOR was not in communion with the OCA in the United States. Con-celebration between Bishops did not occur, but as one priest recounts, his Antiochene Bishop did not stop him from joining ROCOR and his parishioners would commune at other Orthodox churches as he would allow other Orthodox to commune at his.
- The preceding does not mean that strained relations, which the actions of the Greek Church will create, cannot ultimately mushroom into a full blown schism. A stitch in time saves nine. A stitch never sewed will result in a complete tear, a schism.
As I reflect on the preceding, I think of how unlike the Roman Church (which has a concrete bar for what constitutes a schism, you are in communion with the Pope or you are not), the Orthodox Church does not have an infallible definition for what is a schism other than completely cutting oneself off from Orthodox communion entirely and categorically.
As the article “The establishment of the Latin Church in the empire of Constantinople (1204–1227)” by Jean Richard (a medievalist) notes, the split between East and West was not entirely clear. What is clear is that the Patriarchate of Rome had a doctrine of supremacy and they pursued policies of ultimately replacing Greek and Arab Bishops with Latin Bishops. Where local opposition proved too strong or Norman/Frankish/Venetian hold on power too tenuous (such as southern Italy or Cyprus), a line of Greek Bishops would be permitted to exist. In a sort of fog-of-war, some of these Bishops were accountable to a Latin Exarch (hence they were in communion with Rome), while others were apparently still in communion with the Orthodox.
Among eastern Christians whose Bishops were exiled and replaced, it was not entirely clear there was a schism. Apparently, we do not have recorded examples of Greek clergy seeking ordinations from outside the Latin communion until the 13th century. Concelebrations in Cyprus and Italy persisted for several more centuries. Even to the present day, communion is still not completely severed between east and west, as the Antiochene Patriarchate allows for intercommunion with Roman Catholics in cases of sudden death (this was told to me by one Arab priest and this is a bit of an open secret.)
It is also worth noting that there are indications that Roman Catholics would not commune with the Orthodox. Not only would they set up their own churches to go to, as discussed before, it appears they would simply not commune period. Balsamon wrote (approx. 1190AD):
For many years the Western Church has been divided in spiritual communion with the other four Patriarchates and has become alien to the Orthodox…
A lot of this makes me wonder why did it take two centuries of the Bishop of Rome replacing Orthodox Bishops for them to seek ordinations from outside the Latin communion? It seems like a girl that thinks she still has a boyfriend even as he carouses with other women and no longer returns her calls.
In my limited learning, it seems to me that after about 1,000 years of politicization in the Church, it was not immediately clear to eastern Christians that the setting up of a parallel-Latin Church was really schismatic. It probably seemed more like “spoils of war” to contemporaries (i.e. in western Europeans take over your city, they choose the Bishop just like the Byzantines did when they took over Italy centuries previously.)
Never in Church history was simply the replacement of Bishops considered an act of destroying the Church. It was not nice and corrupt, sure, but it did not fundamentally split Christians who were used to the Church being a sacralist institution even in the third century (Roman Emperors and other temporal rulers mediated Church disputes before Constantine.)
The chief difference between the Byzantine re-conquest of Italy and the Crusades was that the Crusaders, like the Novationists, created a parallel church structure. Just like when Novatian, seated in Rome, sent legates worldwide looking for allies for his schism (and when they could not be found, installing new Bishops in place of his opposition,) the Popes during the Crusades did the same thing. Now, if the Pope has the prerogative to do this (as Novatian 1,000 years previously clearly thought so and his ecclesiology did not exist in a theological vacuum), then this in itself is not schismatic. However, for this to be true, one must presuppose that this is an actual Apostolic prerogative for Roman Bishops.
Being that the shoe was not on the other foot during the Crusades, we have no idea how the West would have reacted to the Byzantines imposing the same sort of policy. Would they have relented as they did in the sixth century? Or, would they have resisted, forcing the East to create a parallel Church? Being that the majority of the Orthodox Church for the majority of the last thousand years was under some sort of occupation (Crusaders, then Turks, then Communists,) it would seem impossible to even contemplate.
In fact, it makes it hard for Orthodox to conceive of an ecclesiology divorced from their experience the last 1,000 years. The Ecumenical Patriarch for a significant period of this time was the head of all Christians under the Turkish Yoke. So, what we see the Ecumenical Patriarch doing in Ukraine today is in some sense him reasserting prerogatives exercised until nations in the Balkans declared independence from Turkey. While the EP relented in the 19th century, this was not the case between the 15th and 18th centuries.
We must ask ourselves, is setting up a parallel Church schismatic by definition? Let’s consider the following. The Church in the Council of Chalcedon imposed the installation of a new Bishop in Alexandria, in effect creating two Bishoprics in the city, one being recognized and not the other. So, a parallel Church that is created with the Church’s consent in a council is not schismatic. Ironically, even the Coptic Orthodox must concede this, as they endorsed the replacement of Nestorius (the Bishop of Constantinople) in the Council of Ephesus. So, there is no doubt that historically, consensus defines who is in and who is out.
When it comes to the Crusades, the acceptance (or rejection) of the parallel Church was not entirely clear. At first, the East did not recognize the parallel Church the West was setting up as illegitimate. The West adopted the Eastern Bishops, thereby recognizing their ordinations. It would be too simplistic to say that they did not clearly see the Orthodox as in schism, as Western sacramental theology lacked the Cyprianic quality that Eastern sacramental theology had. Yet, as mentioned peviously, the Orthodox likewise recognized western ordinations for their own clergy until the 13th century.
It seems that East and West mutually recognized during the 13th century (probably due to the sack of Constantinople) that their tenuous communion was more a matter of precedent (as they always recognized each others sacraments) than a matter of Christian brotherhood. The West could not contemplate communion with those who did not recognize their historical ecclesiology, the Bishop of Rome’s supremacy. The Fourth Lateran Council, when it officially recognized the Latin parallel church in place of the Orthodox Church, in effect dogmatized their ecclesiology. The Orthodox recognized that a Church that did not recognize their existence unless they submitted to an alien ecclesiology and allowed its Bishops to be replaced, was not part of them anymore.
Due to the preceding, this is why I have maintained that determining “who is in schism” requires identifying one’s own ecclesiological presuppositions.
So, if we are honest with ourselves, the whole Ukraine question boils down to the same thing. Being the Canon 9 of Chalcedon makes the Bishop of Constantinople (not even the Pope if you read it literally) as the ultimate arbiter for disputes, would not the EP in this matter obviously side with himself?
According to Saint Augustine, the only eccelisiological recourse beyond the Pope is an ecumenical council. Likewise, as we have seen with Nestorius (a Bishop of Constantinople), it was not sufficient for the Pope to excommunicate him. The issue was decided (against Nestorius) in a council.
Ultimately, the Orthodox world is going to have to get serious and call another council if this whole issue does not blow over (which might very well happen in a decade or two). Simply complaining about Patriarch Bartholomew is insufficient to solve the issue.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Craig,
What do you make of the canon of the council of Chalcedon which says that “the Council of Chalcedon also elevated the See of Constantinople to a position “second in eminence and power to the Bishop of Rome”?
I’d imagine some type of phrase, “second among equals…”
In short canon 9 is only in effect for matters that do not go to rome directly as per serdicia.
Craig, what does that mean?
If Rome was still in Communion, they wold be the arbitrator i this dispute.
“In fact, Saint Augustine taught that those within the Donatist communion that desired unity had in fact remained part of the Catholic (Orthodox) Church.”
Of course much of what Augustine taught within the frameworks of Donatism is from the Sermons on 1 John, in which he rebuked the Donatist from their insistence of having a regional ‘church,’ which he quoted scripture after scripture that Christ called “all nations.” In my opinion, the Russian Orthodox Church, as I am the most familiar with them having some acquaintances share a great many similiarities to the Donatist and until the Russian recognize the uniate and the religious freedom of the Ukrainian church, they will remain in my opinion modern Donatist.
I don’t understand how bishops who are equal can excommunicate one another.
Fille,
The pope, in regard to the primacy of the bishop of Rome, in Catholic terms, has the power to do so. The reverse would apply, in my understanding, of an Orthodox bishop who excommunicated the pope, in regard to the Orthodox church, expelling him therefrom. Excommunication by the pope is generally in the form of a bull setting out the terms under which the person excommunicated can be reincorporated into the church, i.e what he would have to do to undo the excommunication.
I understand that the pope claims the power to do so, but the Latin Church doesn’t adhere to a doctrine of “first among equals,” either. The Orthodox claim that all bishops are equal, with none having a greater authority than the others. So by their very doctrine, it’s not possible for them to excommunicate one another. If they do so, then they contradict their own claims.
Fille,
Certainly there is a case in point at the moment, I understand the Patriarch of Moscow is threatening to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople in regard to the Ukranian church being autocephalous, although I am not acquainted with the details.
They simply refuse to give each other the Eucharist.
Bishops don’t administer the Eucharist to one another. They have the power to confect the Blessed Sacrament on their own.
Fille,
And so do priests, who do distribute communion to other priests. I’m not clear about bishops.
When priests concelebrate, each of them takes the Host from the paten. Senior priests and vacationing priests who don’t concelebrate queue up with everyone else, so I suppose retired or vacationing bishops might find themselves queuing up, but I don’t guess it would be a common thing. And besides, the bishop who is declared excommunicate by another, equal bishop (not the pope), is not likely to present himself to the excommunicating bishop for communion.
But the question still remains: Who gives bishops authority over one another if they are “first among equals”? That’s like siblings telling one another they have to go to their room without supper.
Tks for that Fille.
I suppose that bishops are equals among themselves, other than the pope, and I take it that from a Catholic perspective only the pope or a council of the church could validly excommunicate a bishop.
Even from an Orthodox perspective, if the logic is consistent.
True i was speaking of concelebration
Were they able to concelebrate under the ancient rubrics? The Latin Rite didn’t allow it before the 1969 Missal changes.
Craig–
Apostolic succession is an incredibly ineffective way to pass on the faith, unworthy of a holy God if you ask me, shot through and through with politics.
You have sold your birthright for a mess of pottage.
You can commune in a Catholic Church if you like, Craig. They won’t stop you; it’s your Orthodox bishop who won’t let you do it. The LCMS, on the other hand, doesn’t allow anyone else besides the LCMS. Most Evangelicals allow anyone who considers themselves to be “Bible-believing” Christians to receive. Very seldom is it defined further. Up to you.
“You have sold your birthright…”
God’s grace and thus salvation is a gift; not a right.
It’s an idiom, Philip.
An IDIOM….
Hans,
Paul warns us in 1 Cor 11:28-29 as follows”28 Everyone is to examine himself and only then eat of the bread or drink from the cup;
29 because a person who eats and drinks without recognising the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation.”
It is to protect those who do not believe that the church denies communion to non Catholics, as they do not believe.
Water–
The National Catholic Register has reported that fully 54% of Catholics don’t believe the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation. Why are THEY allowed to commune?
St. John Paul the Great shared communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, who did not expressly articulate transubstantiation as the explanation for the transformation of the sacrament. How could he do that? (Indeed, why are the Orthodox allowed to the RC table if they so wish.)
Many Anglo-Catholics actually hold to transubstantiation. Why can’t they come forward to receive?
Simple. The point is not the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. It’s not the unity of brotherhood and sisterhood.
No, it’s the Church and her authority. It’s power.
Hans,
No it’s prejudice on your part.
Catholics who partake of communion without believing in the true presence of Jesus will face God one day and be held accountable.
Orthodox Christians’ belief in the real presence is almost identical to Catholic belief, so there is no impediment there.
Anglo Catholics may approach the priest and are allowed to partake.
But your point of departure precludes you from seeing things from the inside. A pity.
Water–
Prejudice on my part if I’m wrong. Prejudice on your part if I’m right.
Will the priests who dish out the Eucharist willy-nilly to folks they know have no clue…will they also be held “accountable”?
The Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist is closer to the Anglican understanding if you ask me.
I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about Anglo-Catholics receiving RC Eucharist. (“Catholic Answers” says you are mistaken.) Individual priests may do anything and everything under the sun, but they’re not supposed to.
My only “point of departure” is to seek the truth. So far, it doesn’t appear to be in your corner. That is a pity, to be sure.
Hans,
Read Paul: “*he* who eats and drinks without recognising the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation.”
The one who eats and drinks is the one who is eating and drinking his own condemnation.
Paul says a man is to examine himself before having the Eucharist. The onus is on him, the church is merely trying to help such people.
Craig–
I assume that you, like Augustine, believe it is up to the faithful to do their best to figure out WHOM everyone else is in schism FROM.
During the Great Western Schism, there were, for a time, three popes. And the legitimate line of succession wasn’t figured out until AFTER the schism was resolved, leaving the laity to go eeny-meeny-miney-mo.
It’s one of the (many) circumstances that fomented the Reformation.
Hans,
Life can be a mess as people are weak, Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox.
Good reflection, Craig. I read this one a while ago, and I was wondering about your thoughts on it. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jappersandjanglers/2017/11/1054-history-myth-making-schism-full-essay/ It comes from a (Eastern) Catholic perspective, and I think it is one of the fairest /most honest assessments of the events of 1054 I have read.
I was also surprised to find out that the Patriarchs of Alexandria (the Greek ones, not the Coptic ones) considered themselves in communion with Rome all the way into the 1300s (apparently they continued praying for each other at the Liturgies until then. “The Greek Patriarch of Alexandria remained in communion with the See of Rome despite the rupture of communion between Rome and Constantinople in 1054. In fact, the Bishop of Rome and Greek Bishop of Alexandria commemorated each other in their diptychs until the early 14th century.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Patriarchate_of_Alexandria )
That is interesting, though I would venture to guess that just like in Vatican I, the eastern Bishops in Lateran 4 did not subscribe to the anti-eastern ecclesiolgoical stuff. Also, it makes sence that there was no schism between the Egyptians and Alexandriands until the 14th century *because* the Roman Catholics did not set up a parallel Church in Egypt until (you guessed it) the 14th century! This sort of accords with my thesis. So, it appears the Eastern Church’s ecclesiology simply was not fundanentally Roman, which is why all eastern Chrstians today are in fact Eastern schismatics that went ahead and joined Rome (Coptic schismatics, Maronite schismatics, Melkite schismatics, Assyrian schismatics…etc…none of these parties were originally with the Roman Catholics, but later joined them simply to jump ship from the Orthodox.)
Granted, it’s not like they sometimes did not have good reasons for their schisms (I think of the Maronites in the 7th century specifically, especially because they were small “o” orthodox), but they were still schismatics.
So, the Roman Ecclesiology is a heck of a lot neater, I do not disagree, but it only works if we share the Roman presupposition…which I think is at least as old as the second century, so I do respect it.
Craig–
The Epistle of 2 John states:
“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.”
So, we are COMMANDED to separate from heretics.
The Epistle of 3 John says further:
“I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.”
So, pushing people OUT of the church (without cause) is also considered schismatic.
Depending how one interprets history, both Rome and Constantinople (and now, perhaps, Moscow) can be ruled out as the legitimate church.
What are we left with really other than a personal choice as to which group is closest to orthodoxy (and is pushing for unity within the parameters of that orthodoxy)?
Hans,
As you say “without cause”.
We are commanded to separate from schimsatics in 3 john we see he separated himself
Craig–
Yes, we are commanded to separate from schismatics. But we are also commanded to separate from heretics.
However, if you strictly follow these commands, at a certain point in time you can only separate yourself. There is no one left to join. That’s where we’re at now. One must allow for nuance or else worship completely by oneself.
Yes, as in Luther being excommunicated without cause. Or in the agreements from joint discussions (as in Regensburg) being nixed without cause. Or in German lands being ransacked without cause. Or in virtual genocide being committed without cause. That kind of “without cause.”
Hans,
Excommunicated without cause? Heresy is a good cause for excommunication. Agreements from joint discussions is not sufficient for Luther, he had to comply with the terms of the bull of excommunication to be welcomed back into the church, and he chose not to.
German lands were ransacked by both Protestants and Catholics, not forgetting Luther’s part in the slaughter of some 100,000 German peasants, of which he said that it was if he had killed them with his own hands, genocide?
Water–
Oh, my goodness, yes, he was excommunicated without cause! One of the beliefs he was supposed to recant was the belief that heretics should not be burned. Are you in favor of that one? Most of what he was supposed to recant had to do with minutia concerning penance, purgatory, and indulgences. Almost a third of the demands concerned things he had never even written (including every instance of anti-papal pronouncements). He got around to that later…with good reason.
If you can’t read “Exsurge Domine” without spotting how sloppy, petty, and political it is, you have real problems of integrity. Catholic historians say as much.
Hans,
You say “one of the reasons”. Presumably there were no others?
Both sides burnt, tortured and executed heretics, let’s be clear about that
Water–
I clearly wrote that there were other demands (41 in all). But he would have been excommunicated had he recanted 40 of them and kept but one.
Modern Catholic historians admit it was high handed. Why can’t you? There are FLAGRANT heretics in the modern church who have never been excommunicated. Heck, Hitler himself, baptized a Catholic, was never formally excommunicated. What’s a body have to do?????
(Oh, and if he’s such a low-life heretic, why is his most famous hymn, “A Mighty Fortress is our God” in Catholic hymnals?)
Hans,
He did split the church in half you know.
Hitler was a criminal, not a moral theologian. Every criminal doesn’t get excommunicated. It is when you teach heresy that you run that sort of risk.
The church takes good things wherever it finds them. That Luther was a heretic doesn’t make everything he did bad.
Water–
How about let’s compare numbers of witches and heretics burnt? Bloody Mary, for example, burned as many in 5 years as her Anglican sister Elizabeth did in forty or so.
Water–
The Thirty Years’ War was initiated by Catholics not wishing to allow German regions to choose their own religion (cujus regio, ejus religio). It was fought almost entirely on German territory. It killed eight MILLION people!! So don’t talk to me about 100,000 rampaging peasants.
Tell me EXACTLY what you would have done had you been a Tutsi tribe member in Rwanda in 1994 while your Hutu neighbors went door to door with machetes chopping up Tutsi’s. You might not have been terribly compassionate as they were put down by force by Tutsi militia.
Luther didn’t kill a single peasant, but there were a couple of times when he barely escaped with his life at their hands. His pamphlet, “Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants,” didn’t come out until AFTER the slaughter had begun.
And it’s not like he wasn’t sympathetic to the peasants’ cause, letting the nobles know that they were getting back exactly what they deserved due to their callous treatment of the farmers.
But his political stance was one of law and order. People were supposed to obey the established authorities.
Were you up in arms concerning the 100,000 Iraqis who lost their lives in the 2003 invasion due to the Powell Doctrine (overwhelming firepower designed to save as many American lives as possible)? We lost only 100 or so troops, so it worked. Quite a few Americans thought that that was more than fine. So why are you ragging on Luther? This was warfare, not the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents.
All that is beside the point really. I don’t happen to expect my heroes to be perfect. Luther was pretty doggone flawed. But so were many Catholic saints. “Saint” Thomas More had as much of a potty mouth as Luther, and a penchant for torturing people, to boot. Both St. Jerome and St. John Chrysostom were demonstrably anti-Semitic. Catholics burned thousands of heretics and witches, including SAINT Joan of Ark. Go figure!
But you all DO expect your heroes to be mostly flawless. I’d be far more empathetic if you all admitted your mistakes instead of trying to revise history. (The Inquisition oversaw only a very small number of executions. The Crusades were largely defensive wars, etc., etc.) You come across as some of the biggest hypocrites this world has ever seen.
Hans,
You do get carried away don’t you!
I have no interest in badmouthing Luther or anyone else. I did not start this to and fro. I’m sure both sides killed.
Wikepedia says: “the war became less about religion and more of a continuation of the France–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence.” …. “Catholic France entered the coalition on the side of the Protestants in order to counter the Habsburgs.”
So this was not a purely Protestant/Catholic war, and also, famine, and plague killed many.
As far as the Inquisition goes, read Rodney Stark’s (brought up Lutheran, then agnostic, now independent Christian) “Bearing False Witness” on the latest research on the number of those executed by the Inquisition, it’ll shatter your preconceptions.
Water–
The Reformation itself was largely political. It was, in some sense, the birth pangs of the modern push toward nationalism (which is now giving way to globalism).
Rome was a political player, a tyrannical one at times. And yes, not always monolithic at all. France often displayed its need for autonomy from Italian (and Holy Roman Imperial) political interests. That’s how Avignon came about.
My point is not to whitewash Protestantism. Historians do not always paint a pretty picture of us. That doesn’t send me into a tizzy.
My point is that (conservative) Catholics have trouble accepting the judgment of history. Everybody’s out to get them. I seriously doubt that.
I’ll look further into Rodney Stark’s thesis. At first blush, he seems to be “debunking” popular exaggerations, not the existing critical analyses of Catholic actions through the centuries. I could be wrong. I’ll keep an open mind. I have no desire whatsoever to perpetuate inflated numbers or wrongly attributed motivations or historical inaccuracies of any variety. No matter what you might think, I have no major preconceptions to overcome. I’ll go wherever history takes me.
(When political policy or military actions bring about famine and disease, it can be accurate to make accusations of genocide. The Soviet famines in the 1920’s and 30’s in the Ukraine and Kazakhstan, starving millions of people to death, due to forced collectivization, are often referred to as genicidal.)
Hans,
Good on you.
Dear Craig:
God save our One Orthodox Church and preserve Her Unity, Preserve Her in Unity. Let no man cause a schism; let no man separate himself from the Church, or from any of Her Patriarchs. Let the Patriarchs dwell in Unity Truth and Peace and Love. Amen. Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, through the Intercessions of the Blessed Theotokos, LORD perserve the Orthodox Church in Her Unity, and prevent schism between Constantinople Moscow and Ukraine, LORD Jesus Christ, Son of GOD, have mercy on us, on Thy Church. Amen.
As recent events surrounding the Orthodox Church in Ukraine are unfolding, it would appear to some that the sky is falling. The Moscow Patriarchate has made it clear that they will excommunicate the Patriarchate of Constantinople if they go through with the decision to lay hands on schismatic Ukrainian Bishops and call them an autocephalys Church. The result will be that intercommunion between the Russian and Greek churches will end, effectively splitting the Orthodox Church.
For some Orthodox Christians, the issue of “who is right” when it comes to this question is paramount. While I have not run into any Orthodox Christians in the real world who have been following these events, one Facebook friend expressed concern that he might have to leave his Greek parish for one in communion with Russia. The idea is, if you are tethered to the body that caused the schism, you are literally torn away from the Church (putting one’s salvation in jeopardy.)
To the preceding, allow me to offer a few comments that may be helpful:
First and foremost, it is scandalous that Christians jockey over territory instead of serving one another and allow themselves to be wronged, like Christ did.
The fathers never taught that the moment Bishops excommunicate each other, that whatever side is in the wrong literally takes with them all their faithful into schism. In fact, Saint Augustine taught that those within the Donatist communion that desired unity had in fact remained part of the Catholic (Orthodox) Church.
Schisms usually take decades or centuries. Some schisms are quick, but this is when they create a parallel Church structure that refuses to commune with those still within the established Church (i.e. Novationists, Donatists, Gnostics, Protestants).
Excommunications generally do not constitute outright schisms. They are the beginning of one, just like a tear in one’s pocket, but they do not constitute a complete break. For example, the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem have formally excommunicated each other. But I, an American (OCA) Orthodox, can walk into either of those churches and commune. Yet, I cannot commune in a Roman Catholic or Missouri Synod Lutheran church. This is because there is an actual schism between the western and eastern churches.
Hence, when the Russian and Greek churches excommunicate each other, it is not entirely clear that Eucharistic ties will be entirely severed from one another, let alone a schism occurring. In recent memory, ROCOR was not in communion with the OCA in the United States. Con-celebration between Bishops did not occur, but as one priest recounts, his Antiochene Bishop did not stop him from joining ROCOR and his parishioners would commune at other Orthodox churches as he would allow other Orthodox to commune at his.
The preceding does not mean that strained relations, which the actions of the Greek Church will create, cannot ultimately mushroom into a full blown schism. A stitch in time saves nine. A stitch never sewed will result in a complete tear, a schism.
As I reflect on the preceding, I think of how unlike the Roman Church (which has a concrete bar for what constitutes a schism, you are in communion with the Pope or you are not), the Orthodox Church does not have an infallible definition for what is a schism other than completely cutting oneself off from Orthodox communion entirely and categorically.
Craig: Pray with me for the lives of the Jewish people who were slaughtered by an Anti-Semite. At the Jewish Synagogue in Pittsburgh. (While we cannot enter a synagogue to pray, we wish no ill for those of Jewish faith). The Cross of Christ is a Sign of Peace Love Goodness Righteousness Hope and Faith and not a Sign of Hate to be used against any peoples, not against Jews, nations, Gentiles, any peoples, but a Sign of God’s mercy for all peoples all nations tongue and tribe 2 Peter 3:9 1 Tm. 2:4.
God bless those who passed.
CIX, Craig, regarding your recent comments on The Meaning of Theology’s channel: if you follow the “signed onto Florence out of duress” thesis viz., Eastern delegates, then as an BOC (Bulgarian Orthodox) and former OCA, adherent does you call the Russian Hierarch of Moscow “Patriarch”? Because Jeremias II was also placed under duress (house arrest) in order to “elevate” the Metropolitan Job to “Patriarch.” Consistency is consistency, why decry one and celebrate the other?
Yeah, I really find the duress arguments sort of hard to prove out. There is always some level of duress. But, the main issue is 2 patriarchs (!) did not sign on and the other legates were rejected in a follow up council. So, being that the Roman Legates (and arguably Pope himself if we accept the written historical record, because we have his letters) accepted the 879-880 AD ecumenical council which disallowed any changes to the Creed, do you accept that? Honest question.