Orthodox Church schisms

[Paul Cowan]

I was sharing with a Catholic co-worker today our common and not so common history. I began to share this timeline (http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html) with him and I managed to answer his questions but we both left feeling not quite confident in my answers. Perhaps someone could share your thoughts.

This was a topic of discussion. As you can see from the first timeline, there is only one split from the Orthodox Church and only 2 splits from the Catholic Church. From the second timeline (http://www.roacamerica.org/pdfdocuments/Timeline.pdf)(I had a more graphical one dating centuries, but can't seem to find it) it clearly shows schisms even currently in the OC not represented in the first timeline.

How does the OC reconcile these? We clearly have schisms and divisions amoung us, but not reported in our literature. We are the "One, Holy, Apostolic Church." Or is that Orthodox believing church over there it? Or maybe that one?

Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

I don't think we need to "reconcile" these. The second timeline an exercise in reconstructionism by a schismatic group to justify its existance. There have been many small schisms and rejoinings throughout history. Some are more serious than others. The fact that small segments of the Church are not presently on speaking terms is no different than most families anywhere, and "schism", "apostasy", and "heresy" are sometimes more a matter of opinion than fact.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Following from what Herman has said keep in mind that the tree is only an illustration of chronology, not of belief.

It still requires an explanation of how each of these different offshoots relates to Orthodox belief.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Paul,

Herman is correct, surely. I have in my possession a Roman Catholic flowchart. It is identical to the first time-line - except that the thicker straight line is labelled 'Roman Catholic' and the thinner line going off is 'Eastern orthodox'.

These time-lines tend to demonstrate the ecclesiological view of the compiler; as Fr. Raphael says, the more interesting question is
how each of these different offshoots relates to Orthodox belief.


In Christ,

John

CAVEATS APPLY: If it appears as though these ideas are antithetic to those with which you are familiar, that is normal, so do not adjust your mindset. If you find them objectionable, consult a reputable spiritual advisor – they charge less than lawyers. Should you suffer a sense of humour failure, you may want to keep it to yourself rather than complain; resisting the impulse counts towards your daily does of self-denial. Please bear in mind that English irony does not always translate into American. That the opinions of the poster may be qualified should not be taken to mean he is; should a rush of blood to the head occur do not worry; that is normal too. Should you find it objectionable, stop reading at once.

[Rick H.]

Possibly, I will put on some protective gear and then post a flow chart from my Independent Baptist days many years ago that some may know as "The Trail of Blood." This one is particularism at its finest!

Or, possibly I will treat everyone to a discourse on the Baptist Briders (view that only those in the 'local only' Baptist Churches will comprise the Bride of Christ!).

[Demetrios Galanidis]

I don't think we need to "reconcile" these. The second timeline an exercise in reconstructionism by a schismatic group to justify its existance. There have been many small schisms and rejoinings throughout history. Some are more serious than others. The fact that small segments of the Church are not presently on speaking terms is no different than most families anywhere, and "schism", "apostasy", and "heresy" are sometimes more a matter of opinion than fact.

I'm not sure if the source timeline is by a group which could be considered as schismatics even, but that is a discussion probably beyond the mission and goals of this forum.

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Possibly, I will put on some protective gear and then post a flow chart from my Independent Baptist days many years ago that some may know as "The Trail of Blood." This one is particularism at its finest!

Or, possibly I will treat everyone to a discourse on the Baptist Briders (view that only those in the 'local only' Baptist Churches will comprise the Bride of Christ!).

I'll see your 'Baptist Briders' and raise you 'A True Church' in CA where the guy says he is the only true Christian. All of these make one realise some of the consequences of Schism and the place it has led this society to. That is why this spiritual hospital we call the Church is so necessary.

In Christ,

John

CAVEATS APPLY: If it appears as though these ideas are antithetic to those with which you are familiar, that is normal, so do not adjust your mindset. If you find them objectionable, consult a reputable spiritual advisor – they charge less than lawyers. Should you suffer a sense of humour failure, you may want to keep it to yourself rather than complain; resisting the impulse counts towards your daily does of self-denial. Please bear in mind that English irony does not always translate into American. That the opinions of the poster may be qualified should not be taken to mean he is; should a rush of blood to the head occur do not worry; that is normal too. Should you find it objectionable, stop reading at once.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Tangental to this thread, may I make the request please that members not add tag-lines / signatures / 'disclaimers' / etc. to the ends of their messages. The ability to do this automatically on the forum has been switched off from day one, as most find it deeply annoying and repetative; but I note a bit more of this being done manually of late. Please do let's keep such things to a minimum.

With thanks,

INXC, Matthew

[Rick H.]

Tangental to this thread . . .




Dear Matthew,

I see you survived summer camp! :) And, I am wondering if we could put the word 'tangental' in the monachos dictionary?


In Christ,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Dear Rick,


I'll see your 'Baptist Briders' and raise you 'A True Church' in CA where the guy says he is the only true Christian.




Dear John,

After viewing this guy's website, I fold. He (Mr. Fish) makes my former group appear pretty sane. Yes, the results of schism as you say.

In Christ,
Rick

[Paul Cowan]

I don't think we need to "reconcile" these. The second timeline an exercise in reconstructionism by a schismatic group to justify its existance. There have been many small schisms and rejoinings throughout history. Some are more serious than others. The fact that small segments of the Church are not presently on speaking terms is no different than most families anywhere, and "schism", "apostasy", and "heresy" are sometimes more a matter of opinion than fact.

Herman,

So what you are saying is Orthodoxy has never had any additional offshoots other than the RC back in 1054? Not being on speaking terms, if I don't lean too far to one side, is the same as the OC and RC condition today. We are not currently speaking (too well) and yet AD 1054.

So rather than say we have modern time (past 1000 years) schisms we say they are estranged family members we are waiting to come home. There again the RC. Are they schism or have they just gone their own way for a time and we are waiting for them to return home?

I really am not trying to make this hard. I truly want to understand how our timeline written by us is so strong.

Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

So what you are saying is Orthodoxy has never had any additional offshoots other than the RC back in 1054?
No, I'm not, even if the Antiochians appear to be. They are obviously "overlooking" the Chalcedon controversy. This, too, may be somewhat agenda-driven. The Syrian Church seems much more amenable to healing the rift between the Chalcedon/Oriental churches. Maybe they are excluding that particular split because they feel it no longer exists in the same way that the Orthodox/Catholic split does? This might reflect the view by many that the "monophysite controversy" was a "semantic" rather than theological issue? I am not well-enough educated to comment pro or con, but merely expressing an opinion as to the WHY they did what they did, not whether or not it is "correct". I leave that to better minds than mine.

truly want to understand how our timeline written by us is so strong.
What do you mean "us" kimosabie? {insert big smilie here}. Neither of these timelines represents the "official" position endorsed by the entire Orthodox Church. The Russians or Greeks might well produce a somewhat different timeline. What about the Arian "split" or the iconoclast issue? The Nestorians? Most of these groups either returned to the Church or simply died out, so perhaps, in this particular representation, they are simply left off? This particular timeline may well be emphasizing the "condition" of things in America specifically, emphasizing where all those Protties came from, in which case the Melkites and Jacobites and Maronites and Uniates et. al. are not relevent? In that the Antiochians have experienced a very large influx of former Protestants, this seems rather likely.

It ain't Gospel. Usual disclaimer applies.

[Demetrios Galanidis]

My preferred timeline:

http://mysite.verizon.net/djg2jam/church_timeline.jpg

Note source, interesting.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

My preferred timeline:

http://mysite.verizon.net/djg2jam/church_timeline.jpg

Note source, interesting.

I see all these timelines leave out the Gnostics.

Poor overlooked Gnostics. Sob, sob.

[John Charmley]

Poor overlooked Gnostics. Sob, sob.

Ah, but they are on their own timeline, invisible to those who lack the gnosis.

INXC

John

[Rick H.]

When I read the following:





Ah, but they are on their own timeline, invisible to those who lack the gnosis.




I just absolutely cannot believe it's not Thursday!