Orthodox view of schism

[abacabb3]

Question: How do the Eastern Orthodox discern that they are the original church, and that Rome, the Nestorians, and Oriental Orthodox are the schismatics?

In my own reading, I can see the Rome excommunicated the East over their lack of acceptance of the Filoque, so is it simply "they started it" or did the East never formally excommunicate them?

The Oriental Orthodox schism seems more difficult for me to understand. It appears to me that the Alexandrian Bishopric vacillated between the Chalcedonian position when eventually the miaphysites completely took over. Until then, there formally was no schism until Justinian I attempted installing Chalcedonian Bishops where Miaphysite Bishops were rightly installed. These Bishoprics refused to seat these Bishops, and then the schism started.

So, was it really the EO that forcefully split off the OO? Constantinople would not properly have jurisdiction over Alexandria, right?

 

[abacabb3]

My experience has been that once a Catholic or Protestant hears I am Coptic, the first question is "What is Coptic?" When an EO hears I am Coptic, the first question is "Why are you a monophysite?" Even liberal EO continue to call Copts monophysites or Eutychites. OR if they acknowledge that Copts are not monophysites, then then proceed to say the only way to unity is to accept the remaining 4 councils. This cannot happen since Chalcedon (and to some degree the other councils) explicitly condemns us.

It's one thing to say we have the same faith, it's another to acknowledge and elevate someone you have considered an enemy. Take another example, imagine 2 brothers were in a 20 year battle where the older accused the younger of murdering his wife. The younger brother was exonerated with DNA evidence and released from jail. The older brother continues to believe he murdered his wife. Every attempt by the younger brother to reconcile is refuted by the older brother who insists that the younger brother must acknowledge the original verdict that called the younger brother a murderer. An outsider can argue with the older brother and say "You guys are brothers. You have the same DNA substance." (which is similar to people who say EO and OO have the same faith). The fact is the older brother cannot reconcile and accept the person he hated for 20 years. Nor can the older brother expect the younger brother to acknowledge and hold as true the verdict that sent him to jail.

Is this accurate?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Question: How do the Eastern Orthodox discern that they are the original church, and that Rome, the Nestorians, and Oriental Orthodox are the schismatics?

In my own reading, I can see the Rome excommunicated the East over their lack of acceptance of the Filoque, so is it simply "they started it" or did the East never formally excommunicate them?

The Oriental Orthodox schism seems more difficult for me to understand. It appears to me that the Alexandrian Bishopric vacillated between the Chalcedonian position when eventually the miaphysites completely took over. Until then, there formally was no schism until Justinian I attempted installing Chalcedonian Bishops where Miaphysite Bishops were rightly installed. These Bishoprics refused to seat these Bishops, and then the schism started.

So, was it really the EO that forcefully split off the OO? Constantinople would not properly have jurisdiction over Alexandria, right?

Only a moment here but ...

The Creed was established by Council. Rome did not have the authority to go against Tradition and council and modify it. Especially the Creed, which is the essence of our faith.

There were mutual ex communications, but that not really what matters. What matters is that in this, and other points, Rome tried to usurp authority, and that could not and cannot be allowed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Is this accurate?

The canons perhaps make things tricky, from a "legal" standpoint.

I know of no case where an EO called a Copt a monophysite in that manner. (Aren't they miaphysites?)

I have seen, like myself, them generally regarded as very close brothers, with near-identical beliefs. We can learn and share much. We are prevented from receiving Communion (this may not be so strictly observed especially in war-torn places, but it IS the rule). I think there are generally hopes for reconciliation, but it would take time and is a matter for the leadership.

 

[abacabb3]

The canons perhaps make things tricky, from a "legal" standpoint.

I know of no case where an EO called a Copt a monophysite in that manner. (Aren't they miaphysites?)

I have seen, like myself, them generally regarded as very close brothers, with near-identical beliefs. We can learn and share much. We are prevented from receiving Communion (this may not be so strictly observed especially in war-torn places, but it IS the rule). I think there are generally hopes for reconciliation, but it would take time and is a matter for the leadership.

But isn't that schism though? Why are they properly the schismatics and not the EO? Wasn't the Byzantine emperor usurping the power of the rightfully appointed Bishops in Alexandria et al?

 

[ArmyMatt]

In my own reading, I can see the Rome excommunicated the East over their lack of acceptance of the Filoque, so is it simply "they started it" or did the East never formally excommunicate them?

we did. the problem for Rome as far as the filioque goes is that the Creed rejects it, and Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople 3 (which Rome initially accepted for almost 200 years) all proclaim that it is heretical and you cannot altar the Creed.

So, was it really the EO that forcefully split off the OO? Constantinople would not properly have jurisdiction over Alexandria, right?

no they left and started their own line of bishops outside the canonical Church, encouraged actually by St Justinian's wife, St Theodora because neither of them believed the Schism would last. they rejected Chalcedon because they believed it to be Nestorian. the problem is that the very things they accuse Chalcedon of doing as Nestorian, earlier Fathers did that they regard as saints, to include St Cyril, whom they claim to follow but don't. St Justinian, when he is trying to win them back to the Church, actually quotes Severus as saying that early fathers use "in two Natures," to include Cyril but the non-Chalcedonians shouldn't. and St Justinian does this after going out of his way to affirm a lot of Severus' teaching. following only part of Cyril does not make one a follower of Cyril.

their was persecution on the Byzantine side against the non-Chalcedonians (unfortunately and tragically), and then Islam coming through. but the violence started in their camp (not saying to justify what the Byzantine's did to them, just saying). Dioscorus was deposed for supporting the heretic Eutyches at Chalcedon, and being at the robber synod in Ephesus where St Flavian of Constantinople was beaten to death, and then one of the first Chalcedonian bishops sent to Alexandria after Dioscorus was deposed and exiled, was also murdered by an angry mob.

there are lots of other historical reasons why the OO are not the True Church. they will tell you there is heresy somewhere in Chalcedon and especially Leo's Tome, but if you press them they can never really find it (at least not in my experience).

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why are they properly the schismatics and not the EO?

because they left the Church for accusing Chalcedon of being something it never was.

 

[abacabb3]

no they left and started their own line of bishops outside the canonical Church, encouraged actually by St Justinian's wife, St Theodora because neither of them believed the Schism would last.

Who appointed the Oriental bishops? Whatever happened to the Orthodox bishops with valid succession and adherence to Chalcedon?

 

[abacabb3]

Matt, I am very appreciative for your help. I have been reaching out on this issue,
because my conscience is tender over the idea of schism. Schism is damnable.

I am unable to figure out who is guilty of schism and when.

I know that the Eastern Orthodox accept the 7 ecumenical councils based upon the idea they have the recognition of the whole Christian world. The problem is, they didn't, as they lacked the recognition of the Oriental Orthodox.

This gives me two questions:

1. On what basis does an ecumenical council anathematize independent Bishoprics? Can a simple popular vote of Bishops from, let's say, Constantinople, Ephesus, Rome, Carthage, Jerusalem, and Antioch vote and anathematize Alexandria, turning all of Alexandria into schismatics? Then, wouldn't Rome win by popular vote today, turning the Eastern Orthodox into schismatics?

2. This also appears to create an epistemological problem with Oriental Orthodoxy. On what basis are the first three councils binding on them, but not the fourth? Why can the Nestorians be anathematized and turned into schismatics, and not themselves?

These seem like such nit-picky questions, but they are dear to my heart.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Who appointed the Oriental bishops?

a lot by a bishop who was formally deposed, and therefore had no right to appoint bishops.

Whatever happened to the Orthodox bishops with valid succession and adherence to Chalcedon?

they are our (Eastern Orthodox) bishops

 

[ArmyMatt]

I know that the Eastern Orthodox accept the 7 ecumenical councils based upon the idea they have the recognition of the whole Christian world. The problem is, they didn't, as they lacked the recognition of the Oriental Orthodox.

when the non-Chalcedonians left the Church, they negated being in the Church, therefore it does not matter that they don't accept anything after Ephesus.

1. On what basis does an ecumenical council anathematize independent Bishoprics? Can a simple popular vote of Bishops from, let's say, Constantinople, Ephesus, Rome, Carthage, Jerusalem, and Antioch vote and anathematize Alexandria, turning all of Alexandria into schismatics? Then, wouldn't Rome win by popular vote today, turning the Eastern Orthodox into schismatics?

it doesn't anathematize bishoprics. it anathematizes heretics who may be bishops or supporters of heresy. since we believe it is the initial deposit of faith, it is whoever is faithful to that. sometimes it is only a few or even one (Athanasius against the Arians), but where the fullness is preserved, it is there in it's fullness.

2. This also appears to create an epistemological problem with Oriental Orthodoxy. On what basis are the first three councils binding on them, but not the fourth? Why can the Nestorians be anathematized and turned into schismatics, and not themselves?

because they only recognize the first three. they believe that Chalcedon was heretical which is why they follow nothing we have done since. the Orientals are heretics like the Nestorians

 

[abacabb3]

a lot by a bishop who was formally deposed, and therefore had no right to appoint bishops.

Who and when?



they are our (Eastern Orthodox) bishops[/QUOTE]
In Egypt? When did Orthodoxy leave Alexandria?

 

[ArmyMatt]

they are our (Eastern Orthodox) bishops

In Egypt? When did Orthodoxy leave Alexandria?[/QUOTE]

it never did.

List of Patriarchs of Alexandria - OrthodoxWiki

 

[abacabb3]

it doesn't anathematize bishoprics. it anathematizes heretics who may be bishops or supporters of heresy. since we believe it is the initial deposit of faith, it is whoever is faithful to that. sometimes it is only a few or even one (Athanasius against the Arians), but where the fullness is preserved, it is there in it's fullness.

Maybe I am not communicating myself well. If a council by 4/5 decision anathematizes 1/5 of the church, then that 1/5 has to change its mind of they are they fall into schism, right?

And, if that turns them into schismatics, what is there to prevent the same from happening to the EO by popular vote?

 

[abacabb3]

In Egypt? When did Orthodoxy leave Alexandria?

it never did.

List of Patriarchs of Alexandria - OrthodoxWiki[/QUOTE]
Were they mostly bishops in exile like Athanasius, or did they maintain a community in Egypt?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Maybe I am not communicating myself well. If a council by 4/5 decision anathematizes 1/5 of the church, then that 1/5 has to change its mind of they are they fall into schism, right?

And, if that turns them into schismatics, what is there to prevent the same from happening to the EO by popular vote?

only if that 1/5 are the heretics. when a council is called, the decisions are always sent back to the people to pray, research, and consider what is being said. only then and after some time is the council affirmed as ecumenical.

if the 4/5 are the heretics, the people will correct them, affirm the 1/5 as being Orthodox, and the 4/5 will need to repent. this often takes some time

 

[ArmyMatt]

Were they mostly bishops in exile like Athanasius, or did they maintain a community in Egypt?

some were in exile, some were fine on their Sees. really it depended on how moderate the Muslim ruler was. and this goes for the OO as well. they have also suffered much under Islam.

 

[abacabb3]

only if that 1/5 are the heretics. when a council is called, the decisions are always sent back to the people to pray, research, and consider what is being said. only then and after some time is the council affirmed as ecumenical.

if the 4/5 are the heretics, the people will correct them, affirm the 1/5 as being Orthodox, and the 4/5 will need to repent. this often takes some time

I see, such as the Arian controversy, right? The laity and priests were never completely subjugated from the Arians, though they could not control politically who the Eastern Emperor was putting in place.

So, being ecumenical is something that requires time to unfold, and the general acceptance of all Christians everywhere reveals that what was taught in the council was what was always believed by the Church.

So, we are not unable to have ecunemical councils because the Christian world is no longer united?

Would it be true to say that because Orthodox have differed if there are 7, 8, or 9 ecumenical councils (though 7 is the most popular number) do we have a fallible list of infallible councils?

 

[abacabb3]

some were in exile, some were fine on their Sees. really it depended on how moderate the Muslim ruler was. and this goes for the OO as well. they have also suffered much under Islam.

The present Bishop is not even egyptian, which makes me think it is mostly a political position now for all Eastern Orthodox missionary work in Africa.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So, we are not unable to have ecunemical councils because the Christian world is no longer united?

no we can, since the Church is still united. the Orthodox is the same Church that met in Jerusalem in Acts. we are totally united. those outside of the Church, Godwilling, will repent and come home to Orthodoxy.

Would it be true to say that because Orthodox have differed if there are 7, 8, or 9 ecumenical councils (though 7 is the most popular number) do we have a fallible list of infallible councils?

no, we have a list of what is ecumenical. remember it is if it is what has always been believed. ecumenical councils simply rubber stamp what has always been taught, even if they are not called that by name. what is infallible for us is the True experience of the risen Lord, everything else just articulates that experience of Him.