The Splintered Orthodox Church

Epistemes said:

Oh, and your estimation of me is wrong: I'm not here to hold Orthodoxy up as the example of a splintered church. I've said many times that I think that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church: you must have missed those posts.

Click to expand...

I genuinely apologize if I'm misrepresented or misunderstood you.

As to the rest of your post, I think you may not understand just how many "genuine" Catholic groups there are splintered from Roman Catholicism. Just to name a few:

The True Roman Catholic Church
The True Catholic Church
The Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church
The Catholic Mariavite Church
Fraternite Notre Dame (breakaway according to at least one other site)
The Palmarian Catholic Church

And I can list others too, and the line gets fuzzier when you get to Churches which were breakaways but are now considered legitimate denominations, such as the Old Catholics. I don't mention this to dredge up Roman...I don't even know what to call them. Weaknesses? Counterpoints? But to point out the Roman Church is not as monolithic is might appear. I know of a family on the East Coast that went to a Latin Mass for a few weeks before discovering that the parish was not in Communion with Rome. This issue effects Roman Catholicism just as much as it affects Orthodoxy.

There are no splinter groups in Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is not based on unity with whose on top of the heap. Each of these groups whether right or wrong believe they are preserving what was handed down faithfully.

How much difference is there between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox? Some will say none.

The west on the other hand splinter and morph into entirely different confessions. Are not anglicans, unitarians, lutherans, presbyterians and old catholics- daughters and granddaughters of Rome?

Speaking about the SSPX is ridiculous when there are 33000 protestant sects all great grandaughters of the roman catholic church. The reason no one mentions the roman-protestant splinter is because these groups by not looking to preserve the Traditions instead discarded them and invented new ones, hence they divorced themselves completely from the faith.
Do you really think there are thousands of native eastern 'mainstream' denominations in Greece or Cyprus or Serbia or Lebanon or Egypt or Georgia etc etc?

Well I think that is a bit sweeping in generalizations, but much of it is true. There are many Catholics who are Catholic in name only or only in worship but ignore birth control rules, don't go to Confession, who ignore Lent, who divorce and remarry, etc. You're right there for sure. But I must say that your experience is different than mine anecdotally. I know MANY Catholics in my area who are devout, use natural family planning instead of ABC, go to confession weekly, have large families, adore the pope and are staunchly pro-life, and who toe the line bigtime. But there are also those Catholics that are quite the opposite that you point out.

Sadly, there are plenty of Orthodox that don't go to Divine Liturgy regularly, who ignore the advice of spiritual fathers, who go off the tracks, etc. In fact, in the Orthodox Messenger magazine at our parish, there is an article in there from a priest in Florida who goes at great lengths to describe how many lax, lazy, oblivious Orthodox parishoners there are who come to Pascha once a year then you never hear from them again, or ungrateful parishoners who are lazy with Lent and see it as a drudge, etc. There are lazy folks in every communion of Christendom IMHO. Orthodoxy is no different, but it seems to have a larger population of people who do give a dang. And I LIKE THAT!

rusmeister said:

I'd add to this that all American Catholics in my experience formally respect the Pope, but do not in fact take Catholic teaching seriously as something to be applied to their lives. My father's side of the family is pretty much all that lapsed sort of Catholic. I've only encountered "churched" Catholics - those that DO take it seriously - online.

Right now an Orthodox priest I know personally has gone off the rails and is railing at the entire hierarchy for "ecumenism", for not calling all heterodox heretics and actively condemning their teachings. He has been forbidden to serve for seven years so is unemployed now. His wife got a full-page article in the local newspaper airing his side of complaints to the general public.

Click to expand...

Splinter groups off any Church don't say anything about the Church itself IMO. It's about humility and pride. Someone who has more faith in himself than in the Church clearly lacks humility. And a splinter groups are led by people who think they know better than the Church.

Epistemes said:

I think you are actually comparing apples to oranges, though I understand the nature and spirit of what you say.

All of the various factions that exist within Catholicism, but I must exclude the actual schismatic groups here, represent the multifaceted modus operandi that is the Roman Catholic Church. Traditionalists can and do worship side by side with modernists; liberals worship side by side with conservatives. You don't have liberal bishops going off on a whim and creating their own "Genuine Catholic Church of America": there remains one Roman Catholic Church so that when you walk into your neighborhood Catholic Church you can be 99.9% certain that it is in communion with Rome and that, yes, Pope Benedict XVI will be prayed for audibly as part of the communion prayers.

Click to expand...

Here's the deal: the last major "big event" within Catholicism was Vatican II. I say this because you may have traditional Catholics who like the Tridentine Mass and have the blessing of the bishop to worship as such, you have the moderates who use the Novus Ordo and leave it at that, and you have the liberals who desire to, "continue with the spirit of Vatican II.
Suffice to say Vatican II has had its impact on Catholicism, yet those who remained in Communion with the Bishop of Rome adjusted on the parish level as they saw fit.
Yet, those who were quite prideful of themselves and made idols of their various idiosyncratic worship styles broke Communion (minus the moderates) and formed their own group; naturally there are Traditionalist Catholics who maintain the pre-Vatican II ways and Liberalist Catholics who have effectively become Protestant.

Okay, now to Orthodoxy:

The last major "big event" within Orthodoxy was the adoption of the Revised Julian Calendar in the 1920s - minus some Slavic countries and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem who maintained the Julian Calendar. There are those who are on the New/Old Calendars who have chosen either calendar with the blessing of their bishop because the bishop, or the jurisdiction as the case may be in North America, has a "default choice" if you will, but will typically grant a blessing to those who wish to be on the other calendar. Example: the Orthodox Church in America. The OCA's default choice is to be on the New Calendar, but there are those who are on the Old Calendar who are still in Communion with the rest of the Church - Just like there are those Roman Catholics who use this mass or that mass who remain in Communion with the rest of the Church.

Just like with Catholicism's last "big event" of Vatican II there are those who splintered away because they made an idol of the calendar - just like those in Catholicism who made an idol of their mass. Romania and Greece adopted the New Calendar, yet there are Old Calendarists who are not a part of the Church in either country and who are not even in Communion with each other!


So, there are divisions every which way you turn. A great deal of discussing such things has to do with terminology. Traditional Catholics are not the same as Traditionalists; jurisdictions on the Old Calendar are not the same as Old Calendarists. The various Old Calendarist organizations typically revolve around the personality of an individual just like the various Traditionalists revolve around an individual as well and whenever that individual dies than the organization typically falls apart. But the main point is that it all has to do with pride and disobedience because the greatest virtue is obedience. I remember reading about one so-called "Genuine Orthodox" cult which began when a priest was accused of sexually abusing some minors. What did he do? He was so full of himself that he cried "ecumenism!", declared himself a bishop, moved to another state and began a cult! He hasn't died yet, but I'm willing to be that when he does his cult will fall apart quickly.
The reason why crying "ecumenism!" in Orthodoxy is considered a powerful thing is because the greatest fear of most Orthodox outside of the traditionally Orthodox lands is that they would fall into the evil side of ecumenism and compromise the faith. All splinter groups, be they from Catholicism or Orthodoxy, are began by two primary factors: pride and some misconceived notion that the faith has been compromised. The schismatics from Orthodoxy have about as much effect on the Orthodox Church as the conclavists do on the Roman Catholic Church. And I hate to say this, but there are far more conclavist organizations than there are old calendarist organizations (although sometimes I think it may be a tie ).

Anyway, enough of my rambling...

Epistemes said:

I think you are actually comparing apples to oranges, though I understand the nature and spirit of what you say.

All of the various factions that exist within Catholicism, but I must exclude the actual schismatic groups here, represent the multifaceted modus operandi that is the Roman Catholic Church. Traditionalists can and do worship side by side with modernists; liberals worship side by side with conservatives. You don't have liberal bishops going off on a whim and creating their own "Genuine Catholic Church of America": there remains one Roman Catholic Church so that when you walk into your neighborhood Catholic Church you can be 99.9% certain that it is in communion with Rome and that, yes, Pope Benedict XVI will be prayed for audibly as part of the communion prayers.

The same does not seem to be guaranteed within Orthodoxy. The percentage of certainty of whom a particular parish is in communion with seems to drop, even if slightly. Just think: There are unsuspecting laypersons in Colorado who were received as catechumens into Holy Orthodoxy by the Genuine Orthodox Church of America and are led to believe that the remainder of the OCA is heretical and lacks authentic apostolic succession, that they are the only true Orthodox Christians in the country. This is simply incomparable to any factions within Catholicism because, despite any quarreling amongst conservatives and liberals, they still remain united under one church, receiving one Eucharist; something like the Genuine Orthodox Church of America pits itself against the communion of other Orthodox Church, claiming other communions as invalid, and claims that it is the only True Church in North America. And this is only one example of how and where Christians can and are being mislead. I think something could be said about the so-called "Cyprianites."

Oh, and your estimation of me is wrong: I'm not here to hold Orthodoxy up as the example of a splintered church. I've said many times that I think that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church: you must have missed those posts.

Click to expand...

I don't get where you have this strange idea that there is only one "Catholic Church" and that there aren't Catholic splinter groups. 30 seconds on Google shows there clearly are.

Assisi said:

Splinter groups off any Church don't say anything about the Church itself IMO. It's about humility and pride. Someone who has more faith in himself than in the Church clearly lacks humility. And a splinter groups are led by people who think they know better than the Church.

Click to expand...

While I generally agree, the very same argument could be lobbied against both you or I by a schismatic. Using it isn't really going to get anywhere.

I kind of view it as an extreme check and balance within the Church. I also think it works a bit differently in the East. Schism in the East is almost always reactionary and is typically focused on a pivotal change. Schismatics only regress to the point preceding the change which they object to, so there is typically very little difference in practice. It's a dispute over a specific aspect of orthopraxis. The problem is that it is almost always, nowadays, over matters that are not dogma, so schism is going too far. It does reflect on the Church itself as well, though. Take the New Calendarist schism, for instance. Even if the change to the calendar was right or at least permissible, then the fact that a schism so deep arose from it points to the change being undertaken in a problematic way. When one actually looks at what happened then and analyzes some of the larger motivations for changing the calendar back then, it could certainly have been done much better. Humility has to go both ways. Yes, the schismatics have to realize the error of their schism, their uncharitable acts and lack of humility, but the canonical hierarchy need to humbly try to repair the wound that was created in brotherly love. The canonical hierarchy is fallible, even when a bunch of them seem to agree, and they need to be more understanding of the intricacy of the problems. The early Chalcedonian schism could probably have been prevented--or at least mended--in a very similar way.

Ecumenism is another matter altogether, though, as that may very well involve matters of dogma. Ecumenism in and of itself is not a bad thing, and I've venture to say that it is good. However, once their are discrepancies in dogma that are either ignored completely or downplayed, then that can become problematic. The Church needs to proceed particularly careful with respect to Ecumenism, and I think that's what the fathers of Mount Athos are trying to express to the Ecumenical Patriarch. He, too, isn't sinless, and I say that as a Greek. His politicking in American Orthodoxy is also something that I take issue with.

The OCA is not out of communion with any of the patriarchates. I'm not sure where you're getting that information. The last big hurdle was intercommunion with ROCOR (not a Patriarchate) after they rejoined the MP (who we already had intercommunion with). Relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate may be a bit sketchy at times, but, I assure you, they concelebrate with us. So I urge you to name some specific examples.

As a general rule, it's probably best to avoid any sect that identifies itself as "The Genuine Orthodox Church" or "The Restored Catholic Church" or "The One, True, and Totally Orthodox Orthodox Catholic Church" or what have you.

I would guess that Catholic splinter groups are much easier to spot because there is one Pope, whom the world recognizes as the Pope, and if a group isn't in communion with him, you at least know they're a tiny minority and most likely crackpots. In Orthodoxy you can find out that a group is in communion with this bishop, but maybe not that bishop, and how many people actually know the name of any Orthodox bishop? It's not like very many of them are covered regularly on CNN. If the Pope sneezes, it's probably going to be on the news somewhere in the world.

In history, though, there were plenty of times when THIS bishop wasn't in communion with THAT bishop over some issue, and it was later resolved...I think Rome and Constantinople were in and out of communion over various matters...Chrysostom wasn't in communion with Rome during most of his life, I believe...

But when you're trying to identify which group is THE real group, at some level it ultimately becomes self-referential, right? I mean, there was a time when the Papacy was split three ways in two countries, and had to be resolved largely by a council...ultimately a Pope was chosen, who ratified the decision of the council...which had selected the Pope...

And, if anyone was wondering, I'm actually the Real Pope. I plan on starting a website and ordaining myself also as priest, deacon and emperor. I'm not crazy. YOU ARE!!!!!!

Epistemes said:

All these years as a Catholic and I've never even heard of some of these groups! Very interesting. I'm especialy interested in the Brazilian group considering the prominence of Catholicism in Latin America - plus, it seems to be the group with the largest number of members and, in this regard, seems to mimic the numbers of the Cyprianites.

Can we really say, though, that the RCC is not as "monolithic as might appear," though, based on this evidence? When you're in communion with Rome, you're in communion with Rome - and those numbers dwarf even the combined total of schismatics. This can also be said about Orthodoxy as well, but not to the same degree. I think the OCA is a fine example of this: all of the politicking leaves us out of communion with quite a few of the other churches, unnecessarily. Who is in communion with whom truly isn't the crux of the Faith, but it's baffling to try and explain why the OCA is not in communion with most of the current Patriarchates while maintaining that the OCA's communion is still valid and not a schism itself.

Click to expand...

i think you're confusing the issue of "autocephaly" with schism. Not all patriarchs recognize OCA as autocephalous (only Moscow does), however none deny that they are in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world.

Epistemes said:

All these years as a Catholic and I've never even heard of some of these groups! Very interesting.

Click to expand...

The followers of the Bayside "Apparition of Mary" and prophecies, whom appear to be in communion with Rome for the most part, might be of interest to you even if they're not schismatic (that I'm aware of).

This is an example where they said that Pope Paul VI was replaced by an "impostor pope": Deception of the century

I don't personally understand why they haven't schismed.

Epistemes said:

Can we really say, though, that the RCC is not as "monolithic as might appear," though, based on this evidence? When you're in communion with Rome, you're in communion with Rome

Click to expand...

Ah but are you? The Society of St. Pius X could be a good example here. Are they schismatic? Are they in Communion with Rome? That depends on who you ask. Some bishops say they're outside the Roman fold, others say they're just in an "irregular canonical standing." Some laity receive communion at their Masses, other laity say those who do are excomunicate. Both sides can quote Canon laws and historical practices to support their stance. The Pope has said nothing on the matter - so what's their standing?

That's true. My friend in Hanford who converted to Catholicism has a son who coverted before he did. Instantly he got hooked up with SSPX folks and became adamantly anti-novus ordo and mainstream Church. However, he claimed SSPX was a part of the CC. At the same time, his mom, also a new convert, was so excited that Benedict was dialoguing with the SSPX and trying to bring them into the CC because she felt they were not. :o

Joseph Hazen said:

Ah but are you? The Society of St. Pius X could be a good example here. Are they schismatic? Are they in Communion with Rome? That depends on who you ask. Some bishops say they're outside the Roman fold, others say they're just in an "irregular canonical standing." Some laity receive communion at their Masses, other laity say those who do are excomunicate. Both sides can quote Canon laws and historical practices to support their stance. The Pope has said nothing on the matter - so what's their standing?

Click to expand...

Epistemes,

There are some critical issues among orthodox clergy, the most critical by now is the split in the Estonian church divided in two one is the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church in full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople but not with Moscow Patriachate which also has its own Estonian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate.

I wonder if we would ever see His Beatitude Cornelius andHis Eminence Metropolitan Stephanos to concelebrate.

What is sad is that, in principle I tend to agree more with SSPX than the mainstream CC. However, all the SSPX folks I've ever met were awful. They are control freaks and one of them shushed my son at Mass and grabbed his hands and made him put them together to pray, etc. They're known to go way overboard with everything. They pray the ENTIRE Rosary every day (all mysteries in one) and they expect kids at Mass to be so quiet and participatory that it's unrealistic. They seem a joyless bunch. My experience with Catholicism, mainstream that is, is that it's overall pretty joyless. But for being happy about their traditions, SSPXers seem even more miserable

Epistemes said:

Well, there was this Vatican news release from just a couple weeks ago:

Vatican on Society of St. Pius X: Position Insufficient to Restore Full Unity With Church at Present | Daily News | NCRegister.com

And to answer your question, from the article:

Click to expand...

That article just put more questions to me than before: to restore "full communion"? What does that mean? Are they in partial communion now (and if so what are the limits of that communion?) I think it might just be a diplomatic way of saying "we're not in communion" but I think a man as intelligent as His Holiness should know that any ambiguity in his speech can be used to support either side, whether he willed it so or not (or maybe that was his goal?) In essence, The Pope has still not definitively said one way or the other what the current status is of the SSPX.

Furthermore the article quotes high-ranking bishops referring to the issue as a "rift" and a "an ecclesiastical rupture", at the foundation of which lies "doctrinal problems." Isn't that almost a textbook definition of schism? Yet it's not a schism? Maybe they've been avoiding the term for fear of disrupting talks which would heal it, but not being honest about a situation is no way to fix it, and they're leading their flock into dangerous waters if that's the case.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

However, all the SSPX folks I've ever met were awful.

Click to expand...

They can be...quite odd, I have to agree.