OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 01:08:48 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Schism: from the Body or in the Body?  (Read 937 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« on: July 29, 2010, 06:35:17 PM »

I talked to Melodist about this post and decided that it might be worthy of its own topic, as it addresses a very basic ecclesiological question.

Did Rome break communion with every other patriarch during these times? my point is that while Orthodoxy can be used to refer to beliefs, the Church is not a set of beliefs, but the Body of Christ, and while there was struggle and conflict within the Body, it all happened within the context of inside the Body.

I think the real question is: can schism really happen within the Body of Christ at all, or is it logically necessary that it happens from the Body, separating one party of the schism from the Church?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2010, 06:38:36 PM »

I talked to Melodist about this post and decided that it might be worthy of its own topic, as it addresses a very basic ecclesiological question.

Did Rome break communion with every other patriarch during these times? my point is that while Orthodoxy can be used to refer to beliefs, the Church is not a set of beliefs, but the Body of Christ, and while there was struggle and conflict within the Body, it all happened within the context of inside the Body.

I think the real question is: can schism really happen within the Body of Christ at all, or is it logically necessary that it happens from the Body, separating one party of the schism from the Church?

Are old Calanderists in communion  with  new calanderists? Was ROCOR out of communion with the MP?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2010, 06:44:45 PM »

Are old Calanderists in communion  with  new calanderists?

What is meant by Old Calendarists is often not clear. Do you mean those that are on the old calendar and welcome to communion those who are on the new, or those churches which have resisted the rise of the new calendar by forming alternative synods?

Was ROCOR out of communion with the MP?

Of course it was. At one point the First Hierarchs of ROCOR blatantly refused and anathematized communion with the MP.

Anyway, what is the significance of these questions?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2010, 06:53:06 PM »

It would simply help me to understand whether or not the EO has ever had or recognized that internal schisms have existed within its own bounds.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2010, 06:58:11 PM »

It would simply help me to understand whether or not the EO has ever had or recognized that internal schisms have existed within its own bounds.

I think it's possible to recognize a body of believers as having much the same doctrine as your own while on the other hand recognizing that they are not part of the Church.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2010, 09:12:05 PM »

I talked to Melodist about this post and decided that it might be worthy of its own topic, as it addresses a very basic ecclesiological question.

Did Rome break communion with every other patriarch during these times? my point is that while Orthodoxy can be used to refer to beliefs, the Church is not a set of beliefs, but the Body of Christ, and while there was struggle and conflict within the Body, it all happened within the context of inside the Body.

I think the real question is: can schism really happen within the Body of Christ at all, or is it logically necessary that it happens from the Body, separating one party of the schism from the Church?

Some schisms are liike broken arms: they heal.  Some, however, get gangerous, and then they have to be cut off, but the Body survives.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2010, 11:41:34 PM »

I talked to Melodist about this post and decided that it might be worthy of its own topic, as it addresses a very basic ecclesiological question.

Did Rome break communion with every other patriarch during these times? my point is that while Orthodoxy can be used to refer to beliefs, the Church is not a set of beliefs, but the Body of Christ, and while there was struggle and conflict within the Body, it all happened within the context of inside the Body.

I think the real question is: can schism really happen within the Body of Christ at all, or is it logically necessary that it happens from the Body, separating one party of the schism from the Church?

Some schisms are liike broken arms: they heal.  Some, however, get gangerous, and then they have to be cut off, but the Body survives.

Wouldn't a schism that heals be more like a finger that gets cut off, is frozen, is surgically reattached, and manages to reintegrate into the body?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2010, 11:42:45 PM »

It would simply help me to understand whether or not the EO has ever had or recognized that internal schisms have existed within its own bounds.

Perhaps "internal schism" might be used to describe the situation in Estonia where there are two churches. One is in communion with Moscow but not Constantinople, and the other is in communion with Constantinople but not Moscow, but both Moscow and Constantinople are in communion with each other and the rest of Orthodoxy.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2010, 11:47:37 PM »

It would simply help me to understand whether or not the EO has ever had or recognized that internal schisms have existed within its own bounds.

Perhaps "internal schism" might be used to describe the situation in Estonia where there are two churches. One is in communion with Moscow but not Constantinople, and the other is in communion with Constantinople but not Moscow, but both Moscow and Constantinople are in communion with each other and the rest of Orthodoxy.

Is "in communion" simply a matter of who visibly shares in the elements of Communion?

Do not the Scriptures speak of some taking unto Gehenna?

Is it not then the case that some of those who visibly partake aren't really substantial partakers?

Is it not then possible for a jurisdiction to be "in communion" with legitimate jurisdictions of the Church while that "communion" not being real because of having initiated schism?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2010, 11:58:51 PM »

I talked to Melodist about this post and decided that it might be worthy of its own topic, as it addresses a very basic ecclesiological question.

Did Rome break communion with every other patriarch during these times? my point is that while Orthodoxy can be used to refer to beliefs, the Church is not a set of beliefs, but the Body of Christ, and while there was struggle and conflict within the Body, it all happened within the context of inside the Body.

I think the real question is: can schism really happen within the Body of Christ at all, or is it logically necessary that it happens from the Body, separating one party of the schism from the Church?

Some schisms are liike broken arms: they heal.  Some, however, get gangerous, and then they have to be cut off, but the Body survives.

Wouldn't a schism that heals be more like a finger that gets cut off, is frozen, is surgically reattached, and manages to reintegrate into the body?
Some would resemble that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2010, 12:02:57 AM »

I talked to Melodist about this post and decided that it might be worthy of its own topic, as it addresses a very basic ecclesiological question.

Did Rome break communion with every other patriarch during these times? my point is that while Orthodoxy can be used to refer to beliefs, the Church is not a set of beliefs, but the Body of Christ, and while there was struggle and conflict within the Body, it all happened within the context of inside the Body.

I think the real question is: can schism really happen within the Body of Christ at all, or is it logically necessary that it happens from the Body, separating one party of the schism from the Church?

Some schisms are liike broken arms: they heal.  Some, however, get gangerous, and then they have to be cut off, but the Body survives.

Wouldn't a schism that heals be more like a finger that gets cut off, is frozen, is surgically reattached, and manages to reintegrate into the body?
Some would resemble that.

I know I am showing an ecclesiological bias here, but I have a hard time thinking of schism as something that actually happens in or upon the Body of Christ, rather than something that breaks from it.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2010, 10:58:44 AM »

It would simply help me to understand whether or not the EO has ever had or recognized that internal schisms have existed within its own bounds.

Perhaps "internal schism" might be used to describe the situation in Estonia where there are two churches. One is in communion with Moscow but not Constantinople, and the other is in communion with Constantinople but not Moscow, but both Moscow and Constantinople are in communion with each other and the rest of Orthodoxy.

Is "in communion" simply a matter of who visibly shares in the elements of Communion?

Do not the Scriptures speak of some taking unto Gehenna?

Is it not then the case that some of those who visibly partake aren't really substantial partakers?

Is it not then possible for a jurisdiction to be "in communion" with legitimate jurisdictions of the Church while that "communion" not being real because of having initiated schism?

Think of the above example as a crack and not a break. The identity of the Church is based on the sharing of communion and mutual acceptance of each other. Without taking into consideration the consent of the Church as a whole, it leaves the individual to start asking questions that an individual by himself should not even ask, much less answer. Like deciding who, in the example given above, really is Orthodox and who isn't, and who serves the Body and Blood of Christ on their altar and who doesn't, and what are the implications for the more comonly accepted Orthodox churches who share communion with these churches that one may or may not believe to be real.

As far as receiving communion unto condemnation, the context in which that was written didn't apply to groups, but to individuals based on their personal disposition towards receiving it.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,964


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2010, 11:07:51 AM »

I don't know if I'd agree that a schism is like cutting a member (i.e. finger) off from the body; this implies that the body is less complete after schism than it was before it (4-fingered man?).  With schism, regardless of short- or long-term, regardless of its ease of healing, someone separates from the body, but the body is intact; with the healing of schism, they return to the body, and the body remains intact.  If one wants to use an analogy of cutting a finger off, then we must also be cognizant that the body will instantly and spontaneously regenerate the finger once it is cut off, and that if/when the finger decides to return to the body (and the body, in turn, accepts the finger), it might take its old place, or it may become something else (now that there is a replacement finger).

If Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and/or Moscow were to enter into heresy or schism, the Body of Christ would be whole and intact without them, just as it is whole without Old Rome.  IMO, it is tantamount to heresy to suggest otherwise.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 11:08:45 AM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,103



« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2010, 12:11:05 PM »

I see Schism much like a squabble within a family.  Two brothers may have a falling out and may not speak to each other for a time.  They do not cease being the same flesh and blood.  However, what happened with Rome is not a Schism.  They are no longer part of the Body of Christ and are not the Church.  This is not possible in the human sense since we cannot be unborn from our parents.  However, it is possible in the spiritual sense in that membership in the Body of Christ is by the Grace of God, and this Grace can be lost by apostasy and heresy.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2010, 01:05:56 PM »

There were a great many schisms in the past, often between Rome and the East. They were always resolved as being within the Church. There is a great deal of theoretical talk about schism but it seems to be entirely independent of historical reality. Hardly any schism was treated as permanently separating a community from the Church. Indeed when Rome separated from the East which part was the 'real' Church? Both parties acted as if they were and were reconciled generally with as little fuss as possible, but often with the humiliation of the East, or at least Constantinople and the Emperor if Rome demanded it. When the West separated from Rome over the Three Chapters the various schismatic (or orthodox) groups (it depended on your viewpoint) were slowly reconciled with various degrees of diplomacy and violent force. No group was considered as having ceased to be the Church, unless it was Rome itself of course, but even in the case of Rome the various resisting groups reconciled in the end without acting as if Rome had absolutely ceased to be the Church. Nor was this division short lived as it persisted for 150 years in places. There were of course many other long lived divisions which were resolved reasonably quietly and without insisting that one group was outside of the Church.

Let us not pretend that Church History reflects the neat theological patterns we insist on. It doesn't. Deusveritasest, I don't think that your ecclesiology here, as elsewhere, reflects Orthodox history, and therefore Orthodox ecclesiology. It reflects what you wish and want it to be. The Church is not black and white generally.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2010, 01:33:47 PM »

I don't know if I'd agree that a schism is like cutting a member (i.e. finger) off from the body; this implies that the body is less complete after schism than it was before it (4-fingered man?).  With schism, regardless of short- or long-term, regardless of its ease of healing, someone separates from the body, but the body is intact; with the healing of schism, they return to the body, and the body remains intact.  If one wants to use an analogy of cutting a finger off, then we must also be cognizant that the body will instantly and spontaneously regenerate the finger once it is cut off, and that if/when the finger decides to return to the body (and the body, in turn, accepts the finger), it might take its old place, or it may become something else (now that there is a replacement finger).

If Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and/or Moscow were to enter into heresy or schism, the Body of Christ would be whole and intact without them, just as it is whole without Old Rome.  IMO, it is tantamount to heresy to suggest otherwise.

But we haven't regenerated a finger in Rome.  And Constantinople and Antioch have both fallen to heresy, but in union with the rest of the Church, were cured of it.

So the Body of Christ lives on, but with the ambutation of Old Rome, I'm not sure whole and intact fits.  If we can name bishops to towns in Asia Minor with no Christians for centuries, we should show some concern for that bishop which has remained continously populated with Christians, albeit heretical ones.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,964


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2010, 01:46:18 PM »

But we haven't regenerated a finger in Rome. 

I would disagree; is there an Orthodox bishop with jurisdiction in Rome (even if his see is not there)?  Then the finger is regenerated.  Has someone else been placed first in the diptychs?  Then the finger is regenerated.  Is someone else hearing appeals?  Then the finger is regenerated. 

And Constantinople and Antioch have both fallen to heresy, but in union with the rest of the Church, were cured of it.

Right - taken back into the Body by the One Who cures all.

So the Body of Christ lives on, but with the ambutation of Old Rome, I'm not sure whole and intact fits. 

It is whole and intact; but it would be blessed by the return of the wayward finger.  However, Old Rome is exactly what I was thinking about when suggesting that, upon return to the body, the role or placement may change; yes, there would be an Orthodox Catholic bishop in Rome, but would he be first in the diptychs after 1,000 years of schism?  Would he hear appeals?  Would he get the same honor as New Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Moscow, et al.?

If we can name bishops to towns in Asia Minor with no Christians for centuries, we should show some concern for that bishop which has remained continously populated with Christians, albeit heretical ones.

We always want those who are outside the body to be united (or re-united) with it, just as we wish that all men would "come to the knowledge of the Truth."  But let's not mistake our fervent and urgent desire for all to be (re-)united to the body for a statement that the body is somehow less perfect or intact without them - the Church remains the Body of Christ in the world, His Bride.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2010, 02:34:51 PM »

But we haven't regenerated a finger in Rome. 

I would disagree; is there an Orthodox bishop with jurisdiction in Rome (even if his see is not there)? 

Not that I know of.

Rome was/is a patriarchate.  If the EP moved to Athens, would we claim the patriachate of Constantinople was whole?


Quote
Then the finger is regenerated.  Has someone else been placed first in the diptychs? 

Pecking order (I think first of another term which I think would be censored) on that basis hasn't been stellar. If it were important, I'd put Moscow there.

Quote
Then the finger is regenerated.  Is someone else hearing appeals?

LOL. Yes. Moscow.

Constantinople was hearing appeals back when Old Rome was still around, so no change there.

And Constantinople and Antioch have both fallen to heresy, but in union with the rest of the Church, were cured of it.

Right - taken back into the Body by the One Who cures all.

by those who didn't leave it.

So the Body of Christ lives on, but with the ambutation of Old Rome, I'm not sure whole and intact fits. 

It is whole and intact; but it would be blessed by the return of the wayward finger.  However, Old Rome is exactly what I was thinking about when suggesting that, upon return to the body, the role or placement may change; yes, there would be an Orthodox Catholic bishop in Rome, but would he be first in the diptychs after 1,000 years of schism?  Would he hear appeals?  Would he get the same honor as New Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Moscow, et al.?

Who is going to move the throne of SS Peter, Clement, Leo, Gregory Martin off the bones of SS. Peter and Paul? And if, God grant, that finger brings the while hand with him, those billion+ fingers going to attach to another hand?

If we can name bishops to towns in Asia Minor with no Christians for centuries, we should show some concern for that bishop which has remained continously populated with Christians, albeit heretical ones.

We always want those who are outside the body to be united (or re-united) with it, just as we wish that all men would "come to the knowledge of the Truth."  But let's not mistake our fervent and urgent desire for all to be (re-)united to the body for a statement that the body is somehow less perfect or intact without them - the Church remains the Body of Christ in the world, His Bride.

No matter how many branches you graft on, the olive tree still misses the branch broken off. An amputee is still a person, just not all he could be.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,964


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2010, 02:40:20 PM »

No matter how many branches you graft on, the olive tree still misses the branch broken off. An amputee is still a person, just not all he could be.

I cannot bring myself to speak of the Body of Christ (of which He Is the head) as an amputee.  I think that will remain a fundamental difference in our approach to this question.

I would disagree; is there an Orthodox bishop with jurisdiction in Rome (even if his see is not there)? 

Not that I know of.

That must shock any Orthodox priest serving there.  Who do they commemorate?

Rome was/is a patriarchate.  If the EP moved to Athens, would we claim the patriachate of Constantinople was whole?

Was is the operative term - if they're separated, they're outside the Church.

Quote
Then the finger is regenerated.  Has someone else been placed first in the diptychs? 

Pecking order (I think first of another term which I think would be censored) on that basis hasn't been stellar. If it were important, I'd put Moscow there.

Maybe that's what they'll do at the continually-upcoming "Great and Holy Synod."

Quote
Then the finger is regenerated.  Is someone else hearing appeals?

LOL. Yes. Moscow.

Constantinople was hearing appeals back when Old Rome was still around, so no change there.

Ok then.
Right - taken back into the Body by the One Who cures all.

by those who didn't leave it.

If we are guided by Him, then what's the difference?

It is whole and intact; but it would be blessed by the return of the wayward finger.  However, Old Rome is exactly what I was thinking about when suggesting that, upon return to the body, the role or placement may change; yes, there would be an Orthodox Catholic bishop in Rome, but would he be first in the diptychs after 1,000 years of schism?  Would he hear appeals?  Would he get the same honor as New Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Moscow, et al.?

Who is going to move the throne of SS Peter, Clement, Leo, Gregory Martin off the bones of SS. Peter and Paul? And if, God grant, that finger brings the while hand with him, those billion+ fingers going to attach to another hand?

The Lord can make a successor to Sts. Peter, Clement, Leo, Gregory, and Martin from the stones in Wales.  As for the finger and hand: I don't like the body analogy viz-a-viz schism, but we seem to be trapped into using it by the OP.  If you're trying to use the numbers to bolster your argument, then it is more like a swollen or enlarged finger than a hand, but who knows.  Christ decides.  First Jerusalem was the neck, then Antioch, then Old Rome, then New Rome; maybe it's Moscow now - the analogy of the body and its parts was to show complementary roles, not geography.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 02:48:19 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
visitor
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Let's just leave it at a Canonical one, okay?
Posts: 110


« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2010, 02:51:57 PM »

I talked to Melodist about this post and decided that it might be worthy of its own topic, as it addresses a very basic ecclesiological question.

Did Rome break communion with every other patriarch during these times? my point is that while Orthodoxy can be used to refer to beliefs, the Church is not a set of beliefs, but the Body of Christ, and while there was struggle and conflict within the Body, it all happened within the context of inside the Body.

I think the real question is: can schism really happen within the Body of Christ at all, or is it logically necessary that it happens from the Body, separating one party of the schism from the Church?


Well are we doing armchair theology, or are we talking about praxis? Now and then I am loath to cleave what is mystical into neat little scholastic divisions... We have traditions, and we recognise the real activity of the Holy Spirit Himself in history. We don't go back and second guess any of that.

But at the practical level--and this is from someone who was ROCOR when ROCOR wasn't cool--schism means the irresistible and incontravertable fact that concelebration has become impossible, and that as a consequence, intercommunion has become impossible. I think the reason that we don't really have a neat little Aristotelian calculus to exhaustively define and describe schism is precisely because we don't really understand it in the first place. In a schism, you don't really know what's going on. It's like the whole world's gone crazy. We trust now, however, that Moscow has cleaned house and will continue to do so....

While on the other side, we have parishes in good standing with the EC, SCOBA and what-have-you here and there where one who is Orthodox may in fact suddenly find it impossible to commune under any circumstances. A good priest (from another jurisdiction) will discipline one for this: "You must be obedient," etc. "The sacraments there are valid; you must not turn away and refuse" etc., and he's right;

but then again there is something really fishy going on at parish X... The air is just heavy with heresy, the reality that the assembly is in fact a schismatic cult is so thick it could peel the paint off the walls. And yet, somehow, everything administrative is in order, antimins, everything. Pray for the priest, attend inquirers classes and Bible study as much as possible to promote real Orthodoxy as much as you can, and love the people. If the Holy Spirit moves your conscience after that, well then, I figure you gotta do what you gotta do. Hopefully it won't mean a 300 mile drive every sunday or something like that.

Schism is, I believe, an optimistic word after all. It shows hope for the potential that is still there in a misguided assembly. In the case of the MP, there was pretty much no Church to be schismatic from. It was a propaganda and information collection service for the KGB, and a diplomatic tool used to influence Catholic policies. The good clergy who were bound to the MP were so out of obedience, but they really were on their own until the reunion, which healed both the ROCOR and MP simultaneously.

Now there are some who did not take the reunion well and departed to other Old Calender jurisdictions. Do I regard them as schismatic? I certainly do not! That's a lot of bishops' business!
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 30, 2010, 05:52:40 PM »

It would simply help me to understand whether or not the EO has ever had or recognized that internal schisms have existed within its own bounds.

Perhaps "internal schism" might be used to describe the situation in Estonia where there are two churches. One is in communion with Moscow but not Constantinople, and the other is in communion with Constantinople but not Moscow, but both Moscow and Constantinople are in communion with each other and the rest of Orthodoxy.

Is "in communion" simply a matter of who visibly shares in the elements of Communion?

Do not the Scriptures speak of some taking unto Gehenna?

Is it not then the case that some of those who visibly partake aren't really substantial partakers?

Is it not then possible for a jurisdiction to be "in communion" with legitimate jurisdictions of the Church while that "communion" not being real because of having initiated schism?

Think of the above example as a crack and not a break. The identity of the Church is based on the sharing of communion and mutual acceptance of each other. Without taking into consideration the consent of the Church as a whole, it leaves the individual to start asking questions that an individual by himself should not even ask, much less answer. Like deciding who, in the example given above, really is Orthodox and who isn't, and who serves the Body and Blood of Christ on their altar and who doesn't, and what are the implications for the more comonly accepted Orthodox churches who share communion with these churches that one may or may not believe to be real.

As far as receiving communion unto condemnation, the context in which that was written didn't apply to groups, but to individuals based on their personal disposition towards receiving it.

You're saying that in instances of schism we aren't to decide who is really part of the Church and who isn't?  Huh
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 30, 2010, 05:54:49 PM »

I don't know if I'd agree that a schism is like cutting a member (i.e. finger) off from the body; this implies that the body is less complete after schism than it was before it (4-fingered man?).  With schism, regardless of short- or long-term, regardless of its ease of healing, someone separates from the body, but the body is intact; with the healing of schism, they return to the body, and the body remains intact.  If one wants to use an analogy of cutting a finger off, then we must also be cognizant that the body will instantly and spontaneously regenerate the finger once it is cut off, and that if/when the finger decides to return to the body (and the body, in turn, accepts the finger), it might take its old place, or it may become something else (now that there is a replacement finger).

If Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and/or Moscow were to enter into heresy or schism, the Body of Christ would be whole and intact without them, just as it is whole without Old Rome.  IMO, it is tantamount to heresy to suggest otherwise.

Yes, I know. It is certainly necessary to recognize that the fundamental nature of the Church is not lacking as a result of schism. But the idea that schism actually occurs within the Body and harms the Body seemed an even more heinous metaphor to me.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 30, 2010, 05:55:41 PM »

I see Schism much like a squabble within a family.  Two brothers may have a falling out and may not speak to each other for a time.  They do not cease being the same flesh and blood.  However, what happened with Rome is not a Schism.  They are no longer part of the Body of Christ and are not the Church.  This is not possible in the human sense since we cannot be unborn from our parents.  However, it is possible in the spiritual sense in that membership in the Body of Christ is by the Grace of God, and this Grace can be lost by apostasy and heresy.

That sounds like you're saying that schism occurs within the Church.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #23 on: July 30, 2010, 09:25:08 PM »

It would simply help me to understand whether or not the EO has ever had or recognized that internal schisms have existed within its own bounds.

Perhaps "internal schism" might be used to describe the situation in Estonia where there are two churches. One is in communion with Moscow but not Constantinople, and the other is in communion with Constantinople but not Moscow, but both Moscow and Constantinople are in communion with each other and the rest of Orthodoxy.

Is "in communion" simply a matter of who visibly shares in the elements of Communion?

Do not the Scriptures speak of some taking unto Gehenna?

Is it not then the case that some of those who visibly partake aren't really substantial partakers?

Is it not then possible for a jurisdiction to be "in communion" with legitimate jurisdictions of the Church while that "communion" not being real because of having initiated schism?

Think of the above example as a crack and not a break. The identity of the Church is based on the sharing of communion and mutual acceptance of each other. Without taking into consideration the consent of the Church as a whole, it leaves the individual to start asking questions that an individual by himself should not even ask, much less answer. Like deciding who, in the example given above, really is Orthodox and who isn't, and who serves the Body and Blood of Christ on their altar and who doesn't, and what are the implications for the more comonly accepted Orthodox churches who share communion with these churches that one may or may not believe to be real.

As far as receiving communion unto condemnation, the context in which that was written didn't apply to groups, but to individuals based on their personal disposition towards receiving it.

You're saying that in instances of schism we aren't to decide who is really part of the Church and who isn't?  Huh

I'm saying that no one individual can make those decisions on their own. I prefer to leave them to the general consensus of the Church, and as long as there is some tie of communion, the break is not complete because not everyone accepts the break. The situation with Estonia is a good example of this. If everyone accepts the break, then I think it would be safe to say there is a real and total break, at which point someone can be said to be outside the Church. The situation with Rome is a good example of this.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 09:25:36 PM by Melodist » Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2010, 03:39:50 AM »

Of course schism occurs within the Church, as history show, and it can lead to a fundamental separation of one community FROM the Church, but it has to begin WITHIN the Church.

You are still ignoring history and trying to make everything fit your own ecclesiology. It doesn't work like that.

Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
visitor
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Let's just leave it at a Canonical one, okay?
Posts: 110


« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2010, 07:05:32 AM »

Of course schism occurs within the Church, as history show, and it can lead to a fundamental separation of one community FROM the Church, but it has to begin WITHIN the Church.

You are still ignoring history and trying to make everything fit your own ecclesiology. It doesn't work like that.



Hello.

Tell me what you think about this then: I would assert that the prime problem with schism is that is does become historical. As Kirkegaard says, the past is not [strictly speaking] necessary. This does not mean that we are free, as it were, to nihilistically discard the past, but rather it means that the past becomes actualized ONLY in our present realization of it.

Consider the Theseus' Ship fallacy, which I shall illustrate with the story of "My Great-Great-Grandfather's Axe":

This is my Great-Great-Grandfather's axe. It was made by him under the most auspicious conditions! The handle was made from a tree that had been cleft by a thunderbolt, and the blade he forged out of a peice of a canon that had exploded on an ancient battlefield. Oh, the handle has been replaced seven times, and it's actually longer now and a different shape, and the head has been replaced three times, the newest one was forged in Sweden. But this is my Great-Great-Grandfather's axe.

Schism indicates the potential for real re-unity among authentic parts of an existing original. The problem is that when one of those parts becomes a Theseus' Ship, the possibility of authentic reunification is confounded, and any attempt at reunification must be presumed to be nothing less than the manufacture of a fake, or partial fake.

With the sensational and cliche' Rome vs. Every-Other-Concilliar-Patriarchate-in-the-World example there is a serious problem: Rome hopes (demands, really) to heal the "Schism," but at this point Rome herself would have to literally convert to make that possible-----the religion of the Vatican is no longer recognisably authentic to Orthodox canonical theologians anywhere. In other words, there is no more a "Schism" between Rome and Constantinople today than there is a "Schism" between Jerusalem and Tibet.

In short, one cannot "reunite" an apple and an orange regardless of the essential likelihood of their shared paleo-ancestory {if I can just invent a word here}.

« Last Edit: July 31, 2010, 07:06:10 AM by visitor » Logged
Tags: schism ecclesiology 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.156 seconds with 53 queries.