M. Markewich
29-08-2007, 07:52 PM
Hi everyone. As many of you know, I am very hopeful about EO/OO relations and the idea of us being the same Church. However, about a month or two ago, speaking to someone about why we don't consider Roman Catholics to be in the Church, I came across the Council of Trullo, which affirmed the decision of the Council led by St. Cyprian regarding the validity of the baptism of heretics. Of course, he considered their baptisms invalid. However, when reading St. Cyprian's writings, I saw he spoke not only about heretics, but also about schismatics. In fact, wherever he said "heretics", he almost always followed it by the word "schismatics", as if the two went hand in hand. One bishop of the Council said,
Since, therefore, it is manifest that heretics—that is, the enemies of Christ—have not the sound confession of the sacrament; moreover, that schismatics cannot season others with spiritual wisdom, since they themselves, by departing from the Church, which is one, having lost the savour, have become contrary to it,—let it be done as it is written, “The house of those that are contrary to the law owes a cleansing.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.vi.i.html
I was wondering, then, when exactly defines a schism? ROCOR is a good example of a Church in schism that was not considered non-Orthodox. Supposedly what I hear is that ROCOR was only in partial schism, though, in that it only broke away from the Russian Church, but remained in communion with other Churches such as the Serbian Church. Does this mean schism is actually defined by lack of full communion with other Orthodox Churches, and somehow each real Church must be connected directly or indirectly through communion? And if there must be this type of unity through communion, doesn't this mean that either the Chalcedonians or the miaphysites HAVE to be in schism and outside the Church, according to St. Cyprian's explanation? Even if no heresy was really involved, wouldn't the lack of communion, with no indirect link at all between the EO and OO, show that only one group can be the right Church?
I'm sorry if this post bothers anyone or makes others uneasy, because I am not trying to prove a point or belittle anyone. I just genuinely want to know what the truth is. This also isn't meant to be an EO versus OO thread, either, but just a question about what the EO Church teaches about schism.
Since, therefore, it is manifest that heretics—that is, the enemies of Christ—have not the sound confession of the sacrament; moreover, that schismatics cannot season others with spiritual wisdom, since they themselves, by departing from the Church, which is one, having lost the savour, have become contrary to it,—let it be done as it is written, “The house of those that are contrary to the law owes a cleansing.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.vi.i.html
I was wondering, then, when exactly defines a schism? ROCOR is a good example of a Church in schism that was not considered non-Orthodox. Supposedly what I hear is that ROCOR was only in partial schism, though, in that it only broke away from the Russian Church, but remained in communion with other Churches such as the Serbian Church. Does this mean schism is actually defined by lack of full communion with other Orthodox Churches, and somehow each real Church must be connected directly or indirectly through communion? And if there must be this type of unity through communion, doesn't this mean that either the Chalcedonians or the miaphysites HAVE to be in schism and outside the Church, according to St. Cyprian's explanation? Even if no heresy was really involved, wouldn't the lack of communion, with no indirect link at all between the EO and OO, show that only one group can be the right Church?
I'm sorry if this post bothers anyone or makes others uneasy, because I am not trying to prove a point or belittle anyone. I just genuinely want to know what the truth is. This also isn't meant to be an EO versus OO thread, either, but just a question about what the EO Church teaches about schism.