www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West HOCNA

So, this is a schism, it seems. I've seen many on this forum describe the separation of the MP and Patriarchate of Constantinople a few years ago as a "brief schism." In short, I've seen many people claim here that different Orthodox groups (actually Orthodox groups, not groups as extreme as HOCNA) are in schism.

So why can separations between different Eastern Orthodox groups be considered schism, but the separation between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches is not considered schism by many on this board?

What about the separation between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy? Is that schism?

Logos Teen

It depends on the tone and level of dialogue involved. When one Orthodox church breaks from another over perceived differences in doctrine, as HOCNA from the SCOBA, it is considered schism.

In the Roman church you have a similar situation with the SSPX and sedevacantists. They have left and refused communion with Rome over perceived differences in doctrine. They have been offered generous concessions by Rome but have continually refused.

On the other hand the Roman Church and several Orthodox Churches are in dialogue, and the excommunications have been lifted from 1054 as per the agreement of Athenogoras and Paul VI in 1965. There is a difference since (1) excommunications were lifted and (2) there is active dialogue.

The situation varies from church to church of apostolic succession with their relation and status with the Catholic Church. It can range from "impaired" or "imperfect" communion to outright schism. Likewise with the Assyrian Church of the East there is serious dialogue with the Catholic Church.

With the SSPX on the Roman side and the HOCNA on the Orthodox side, they have broken off dialogue with their parent churches based on perceived doctrinal issues and have set up parallel churches to their parent churches. The excommunications in these cases are more recent and in force since dialogue related to reconciliation has been refused.

I dont think that anyone can answer these questions. For example if you look at the latin church you will see that they preach Apastolic succesion to the letter.And the Orthodox answer to this is that they two also teach it but are more flexable in the understanding. If we beleve in the Holy Spirit and the grace that comes from him ,then wouldnt it be lost if you were an Evil man ,and in that you wouldnt be able to have apostolic succession? One must remember that HOCNA is as much in parell with the Orthodox as with the Catholics.And I will not call them Haritics and I dont think that I can call them Schismatics acording to the Def.And Logos Teen brings up a good point. sinner chad

Nobody suggested you call them heretics, Chad. And noone called them heretics as I recall. It all depends from what perspective you look at who is in schism with whom or in/out of communion with whom.

From the HOCNA perspective they consider most other Orthodox to be heretics. I don't agree with that, either as they believe in the same first seven ecumenical councils.

It is simply not black and white, as I said above, and the HTM folks in Boston are responsible for some excellent English translations of some Greek usage liturgical works, and may God bless them for that.

Dear Diak,

Very, very good post!

In Christ,
Alice

I know that no-one said that they were heratics. And I wasnt suggesting that anyone was.

You first stated:

Then you said:

Could you please explain the discrepancy?

anastasios

Im sorry I have mixed up my private post conversations with my public post conversations. I know that nobody on the public post side has called them heratics and I have made the mistake of thinking that they did. Sorry but it does bring up aan interesting point.If the Orthodox church has never had a council that says that the western church is heretical did the HOCNA have one? And are they using the 68th Apostolic cannon and the writings of ST Basil that says "I will never number with the true priest of Christ him who was ordained and received the oversight of the flock from the profane hands of heretics, unto the overthrow of the Orthodox faith".
So is this saying that the teachings of the west is accepted by the OCA and other Orthodox? And those teachings are not heretical? And does that mean that in the east the union with the WCC is not concidered heretical?And are excepted in the west? Now dont beat up on me I am just wanting to ask questions that I have. I dont want to start a fight.

Actualy the HOCNA, for example, even when it's schismatic can still be considered Orthodox, as they follow the seven councils, have validly orained priesthood, the orthodox faith, etc. This means you can attend the parish and take communion there if you are in necessity (don't worry so much, they won't let us!). But the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other Churches have warned the faithful about the current situation of these churches and how the "schismatic mentality apears", they often oppose and bitterly attack Canonical Hierarchs (often without any convincing reason), they even attack the validity of Orthodox sacraments. This is clearly an act of schism.

Nowadays, the majority of Orthodox Hierarchs and Theologians would not declare that the Roman Church is heretical in itself. The Orthodox Church rejects some doctrines (filioque, papal primacy, immaculate conception) and ask for a revission of those doctrines. We must remember that these are not the cause of the schism, they are the result of the schism, East and West developped their tradition separately. The problem is that the Roman Church has been developping and changing important things throughout the years, and after these tragic 30 years the differences have widened.

The WCC was founded as an institution for dialogues between Protestants (specialy Anglicans) and Orthodox, but it has become an instrument used by the most heretical Protestant sects to infiltrate, they now dominate the WCC. An organization for religious dialogue cannot be so broad. Sects such as the "United Church of Christ", the Evangelicals, the Pentecoastals share nothing with the Orthodox Church: they have no Apostolic Succession, real sacraments, they've broken with the Christian faith. And what can I say about that Church that masquerades as Catholic or Orthodox but ordains women and gaymen. The more they try to copy a real mass or liturgy, they just commite a sacrilege, they're just making fun of Apostolic Christianity and cheating on people? Those churches are founded by the Devil.

Now, it's good and nouble to try to find solutions for general things, after all we're all citizens of the world, protestants and orthodox and also catholics. So the documents of the WCC that deal with those problems might not be so bad.

This is just a personal opinion.

With all due respect to Snoopy/Mexican, if he were talking about the Catholic Church in relation to the SSPX he would be right, but trying to fit these categories of thought onto the Orthodox Church doesn't work because the ecclesiology is not the same. As such, some of these statements made, even though clarified as opinions, are nevertheless wrong. If a group separates itself from communion with the Orthodox Church it is no longer Orthodox (unless a darn good reason such as persecution exists). HOCNA has no validly ordained priesthood because their pseudo-"priesthood" was conferred outside of the Church, and hence is not authentic. Valid and invalid are not applicable categories--it just does not exist as an objective reality because it was not conferred by Orthodox bishops for ministry in the Orthodox Church. Deposed hiearchs cannot confer ordinations! Their mysteries are not mysteries and their priests are not priests. They are schismatics and fall under condemnation of the Church becuase they left their lawful bishop over a sex scandal. *IF* a HOCNA-ordained priest were to be received into the Orthodox Church he *might* be received by oikonomia and not reordained but that does not mean that objectively now while he is in schism that he is a priest.

If an Orthodox person tried to receive communion in a HOCNA Church and out of some strange possibility succeeded, he would be put under penalty by the Orthodox Church for communing with schismatics.

anastasios

I have a question,
Who was the deposed bishop that started HOCNA? Who deposed him? I am just wanting to know more about them.Oh and what is this about a sex scandle
Poor sinner Chad

The Holy Orthodox Church in North America (lamentably abbreviated as HOCNA) was begun by one monastery, several clergy both with and without parishes, and some lay people who withdrew unilaterally from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. This monastery, these clergy and parishes, and these lay people then took refuge within the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece and found themselves caught up in the confusion of the Greek Old Calendarists. Eventually, the Old Calendar Church of Greece provided the American subsidiary with bishops. I am unaware of any attempt to depose those bishops. Incognitus

Dear Friends:

Recebtly the Orthodox Church in America accepted two Bishops, IPS Lazar and IPS Varlaam. Both of them had strong tides with the Old Calendarist Synod of Grece (before it got divided) and specialy with Bishop Auxentios who was later deposed. One of them was even consacrated by Bishop Evloghios of the Milanese Sybod (uncanonical), also related to the Old Calendar Churches of Greece and Romania, and Bishop Auxentios Synod.

Well, these Bishops were received with their Episcopal ranks without re-consacration, or any abjuration of error as it is done in the case of non-Orthodox Bishops or priests who are received in canonical Orthodoxy. Priests coming from the Orthodox "Genuine" Church have been received by Constantinople without re-ordination.

1) Some priests and bishops coming from the GOC have been reordained: Metropolitan Paisios and Bp Vikentios of St Irene Chrysovalantou Monastery in Astoria New York, formerly members of the Synod of Archbishop Chyrsostomos II were reordained bishops by Patriarch Bartholemew upon their entering canonical Orthodoxy.

2) Archbishop Lazar and his assistant bishop were consecrated by Evloghios of Milan, yes. But Evloghios of Milan is not HOCNA, who were deposed by their lawful synod for lawful reasons, and ordained by the Synod of Auxentius, but then left it in 1997. They were then again deposed. So the twice-deposed "fathers" of that monastery are NOT Orthodox. Note: I am not saying all Old Calendarists are un-Orthodox; no! Merely, I am saying that some such as HOCNA are not because they are cut off from the Church.

3) Even though Arch. Lazar was received by the OCA as a bishop, he could have been received as a layman and then reordained--the economy of receiving him as a bishop owes to the fact that the ordination was done according to the right form, but it was his reception into a truly Orthodox Church which made him Orthodox.

To anyone confused, the Orthodox Church does not 1) dogmatize on sacraments outside it, considering them to be a question and 2) does not share St Augustine's opinion that a consecration can be conferred by schismatic bishops. On the contrary, if a bishop is schismatic, his orders are null and void. Arch Lazar strictly speaking was not an Orthodox bishop until he was received by the OCA. Before that he was an uncanonical "Orthodox" "bishop". I don't doubt that he was really a bishop and that his faith was Orthodox before 2002 and his reception, but since the Church is one, those outside it cannot be considered to have "valid" sacraments. They are what they are, and that is up to God to judge--but once they come into the Church then they can be regularized. Until then, there is no speculation on them. So an Orthodox can say, "well sure he was consecrated a bishop in an Orthodox rite and his faith is Orthodox but he is not in communion with Orthodoxy so none of that matters." Precisely because he shared the Orthodox faith and was conscrated in an Orthodox manner, he was able to be received as an Orthodox bishop, but it was the reception that made him such in actuality.

anastasios

It is not St. Augustine's "opinion." It is holy Tradition--patristic Tradition. There is strong evidence that Orthodox repudiation of this Tradition is relatively recent. (For centuries, I'm told, in certain place, Orthodox and Catholics communed at each other's altars, and no one batted an eye.)

Dustin, you sure do seem to swallow the current EO line hook, line, and sinker--uncritically, indeed, I must say.

ZT