Orthodox Christianity, Vol I, Ch 14: Schisms

The canonical status of an Orthodox Church is not only reflected in the official title of a local Orthodox Church, but also in its relation to other local Churches in communion. The term “schismatic” is used to describe Christians who have separated themselves from the Church. From the examples we have read in Volume 1, several kinds of situations often produce schisms: politics, autocephaly, and misguided zeal in theological or dogmatic matters. The drive to dominate and assume absolute jurisdiction and spiritual authority often create more problems rather than the system of the “monarchic episcopate” and collegium inherited from apostolic foundations. Schisms relate significantly to canons and communion, since the breaking of church canons affects communion between local Churches. Thus, communion is an essential structure of the Church. 

In the political sphere, for example, the Bolshevik revolution influenced the new theology that was pushed cunningly and aggressively by groups within the Church called “renovationists.” They split into their councils set up against the canonical Russian Orthodox Church. The Serbian Church suffered a separation when Christians within its jurisdiction declared their own autocephaly and called themselves the Macedonian Church who continued to receive support from the government after that. Another separated and uncanonical group from the Moscow Patriarchate who wanted to create an autocephalous church and who also still gain support from the secular authorities and nationalistic movements is called Orthodox Church of Ukraine. That unfortunate schism also continues today, and it affects many Orthodox Christians from both the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchate who are now not allowed to commune with each other here or abroad. 

 On the grounds of theological zeal and the preservation of dogma, we have covered the Old Believers who separated themselves from the Russian Church because of liturgical reforms made by patriarch Nikon of Moscow in the 17th c., and thereafter they continued to split from each other even today. We read about another theological quarrel over a change from the Gregorian calendar to the “revised” Julian calendar. The group who split from the Orthodox Church in the 1940s because of this calendar reform is referred to as the Old Calendarists. Both drove the quarreling to the point of schism because of misguided zeal and, as it seems, most likely a misunderstanding of the canonical structure of the church. 

There has not been throughout history, as it seems, a universally accepted system of achieving autocephaly, though the mother church and its autonomous daughter church should have mutual and healthy relationship before full independence is granted. Political changes are nearly constant and complicated. Autocephaly, as we’ve seen, unfortunately can become entangled in political scheming. Although secular governments are not keen on discerning the canonical status of churches, they can still help tremendously. We pray for leaders in government every liturgy for this reason. As in the case of Russia and Bulgaria, schisms can be overcome by political support and changes that favor the canonical position of each local Church. We know that theological schisms, such as the Monophysites and Arians, within Byzantium led many emperors to take action, which contributed to the Seven Ecumenical Councils in the Age of Ecumenical Councils. We know that ideological and theological controversies or councils can sometimes be a forerunner of schisms. They can be overcome and prevented in dangerous or peaceful times. The renovationist schism in Russia waned before the end of the Soviet era. In recent times, most of the local Orthodox Churches of the world signed statements indicating that the method of convening and some of the content of the “Pan-Orthodox” Cretan Council in 2016 was not following with the canonical traditions of the Orthodox Church faithfully. The Holy Trinity holds the ultimate power in Church affairs, according to the Orthodox Christian understanding. That power is mediated to us through the hierarchical and apostolic structure of the Church on which we are sanctified and on which we trust. 

Orthodox Christianity, Vol I, Chp 13: The Practical Application of the Principle of Canonical Territory

Political borders and canonical territory do not always overlap. The First World War created a challenging situation in how to apply the canons to territories that were not Orthodox already and in which were many Orthodox immigrants. Many Orthodox Christians from different local Churches and different canonical territories fled to western Europe and the Americas. As a result, bishops and priests followed their flock abroad. Some of the principles and historical writings that were examined from previous chapters outlined how a single bishop governs a single territory without interference from other bishops, or at least with the permission of another bishop. In the Americas, Australia, Oceania and western Europe, the canonical territory was yet to be defined, unlike in the countries of the Middle East, eastern Europe, the Balkans and Russia where the culture had been traditionally Orthodox for a long time. The creation of this broad “diaspora” is where the difficult scenario of the principle of canonical territory is applied. 

 Many Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, and Russian Orthodox immigrated to France and Germany. The challenge is how to manage and apply the principle of canonical territory to the new churches being built in the same territory, but under different bishops from different jurisdictions outside of western Europe. Although the challenge remains in certain countries, the Church in her wisdom anticipated the problems that would happen by creating laws, canons and establishing principles from at least the 4th c. from epistles, letters, writings, local councils and ecumenical councils, and the Apostolic Constitutions. The collapse of old countries did not always mean that canonical territory would change along with it. The end of the USSR, for example, did not change the canonical territory and jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, which included Ukraine and the Czech Lands and Slovakia. After the Third Yugoslavia (the old Land of the South Slavs) was broken up through the ethnic wars of the 1990s, the Serbian Orthodox Church kept its flock together in separate countries: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Croatia, North Macedonia, and Slovenia. According to Metropolitan Hilarion, the issues of modern borders, immigration and canonical territory might be solved by discussing another principle that he calls “cultural canonical territory.” That idea would take into consideration regions or countries where the majority of the people are Orthodox from a particular language or culture, such as Russian. In ancient times, however, Antioch itself, which later became a key Roman province of Syria, had different ethnic and cultural roots that poured in over the centuries from Semitic, Hellenic and Roman peoples. In fact, Antioch became the city en route for moving trade between Europe and Asia. That history of the Antiochian Church could be another model for handling issues of jurisdiction, culture and language in a world that is rapidly changing. 

Orthodox Christianity, Vol I, Chp 12: The Contemporary Canonical Structure of the Orthodox Church

The canonical structure of today’s fifteen local Orthodox Churches derives their form from two major sources: the monarchic episcopal principle and the collegial principle that operate at different levels of governance, which are evident in the history and theology of the Church. The first is derived iure divino (by divine law) from apostolic foundations. The monarchic level consists of one leading bishop who rules as the head of a local church with presbyters (priests) delegated to parishes, and who are all in canonical communion with other independent local churches and their ruling bishops.  The monarchic episcopate is self-contained within the jurisdictional boundaries of each patriarchate, of which there are five currently: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow. Each of these primates has no “supreme power” above the others, no direct influence over others, no interference in the affairs of the others, except within their own local Church. Councils, when they are confirmed at the ecumenical level by all the local Churches’ first hierarch through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, become the highest authority in the Orthodox Church. While local Churches remain independent in administrative responsibilities, they are canonically in communion with each other and they all preserve Orthodoxy.

 The second principle derives collegiality from “primus inter pares” or the first among equals, as the first in honor is among a ruling family. Groups of dioceses or larger regions of canonical territory are further ruled through patriarchates, metropolia, and archdioceses, which come into being iure ecclesiastico (by ecclesiastical law). The majority of Orthodox Christians in the world ~94% live in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. That fact brings the canonical structure of the church into the political events of European history and modern geopolitics. Much of the change in structure and anomalies, which are mentioned by Metropolitan Hilarion, have arisen because of the first two world wars. 

 The differences in canonical structure between Orthodox and Catholics and Protestants seem largely due to how they understand church and state relations. Orthodoxy views the state with a distinct set of work (justice, material welfare, physical protection of people, supporting religion) from God’s providence and the church with a distinct set of work from above (mysteries, canons, missions, liturgy, sanctification of people). Both church and state have a common work, yet distinct roles in society, which is the idea of symphonia or harmony taught by church fathers. When the church becomes a state or the state becomes a church, or either one is deposed or disdained in society, we find a multitude of confusion, sects, schisms and different versions of Christianity incompatible with Orthodoxy. Sooner or later, as we have read in the examples from history outlined in this volume, the church and the state will intersect a culture that opposes the laws and values along with the virtues and canons of the Orthodox Church. St. Augustine wrote about how there will be a civitas terrena (earthly city) that stands opposed to the civitas dei (city of God) until the end of time. Although Orthodoxy does not, nor ever had in history or theology, a single primate or supreme head as judge over conflicts and doctrine, Orthodox bishops through the prayers of our holy fathers in the holy synods have preserved the canonical structure and faith through the Holy Spirit. 

Orthodox Christianity, Vol I, Chp 11: The Formation of the Canonical Structure of the Orthodox Church

The modern structure of the Orthodox Church developed from apostolic foundations. It took shape within the borders of the Roman Empire in the early years of Christianity. Like the basic family unit, the Church operated then and now on hierarchy and structure. There were differences that developed early between the Greek east and Latin west on how that structure was understood theologically and how canonical territory was to be viewed and governed. The eastern church fathers, after having met in councils, developed the pentarchy, which was based on several important cities in the Roman Empire: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople in Asia Minor, and Rome in Italy. The city of Rome, however, did not always agree to such an ordering of churches; instead, the Church of Rome gradually began to view canonical territory as emanating from their central location, not necessarily due to political importance, and mainly because St. Peter left his apostolic succession uniquely there. 

 The city of Jerusalem, where there is written record from Scripture and oral tradition of the first apostolic meeting of the Church to settle issues, became the mother of all churches. Much of the content of the letters sent to churches that we read in Scripture often focus on helping to establish order in church life with love and authority. There are several important terms and phrases included by Metropolitan Hilarion: monarchic episcopate, primacy of honor, autocephaly, dioceses and patriarchate. Although in the east there were more fluid relations between church and state, the west seemed to favor making a distinction between them. These terms can be misleading if they are understood narrowly in secular terms. Monarchy implies absolute and sometimes arbitrary rule. Primacy can lead to thinking of honor as wielding superiority over others. But that isn’t so in the Church. Patriarchate might seem to carry the baggage that comes with the word “patriarchy” in modern western cultures. Like the Orthodox Symbol of Faith and Our Father, we use terms that refer to family and hierarchical structure such as mother and father, and bishop, which in Greek can be traced to its root meaning of guardian or someone who is looking over people in a city. But none of that is so in the Orthodox structure of the Church.

 It was important to give cities a higher status of patriarchate for being founded by apostles directly, like Rome, Jerusalem and Antioch. The city of Constantinople, though it was not directly founded by any one apostle, still was given patriarchal status by the eastern church fathers in ecumenical councils. Rome may have disagreed with this decision at times, but a similar principle can be found between St. Paul’s indirect contact with Jesus’ earthly ministry and all of the apostles and Paul’s own identification as an apostle like the rest of the twelve disciples. But this idea isn’t an example used by Metropolitan Hilarion. This chapter shows us that often times political borders and centers are given more weight because Scripture calls for the apostles to go out into every city. To understand the modern structure of the Orthodox Church, we have to understand the roles of apostles, bishops, presbyter (priests), and deacons. Like Titus 1:5 says, the Church must continue to go into every city as long as there are cities, dwellings and territories to enter. So, two major sources that help to explain the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church are the apostolic foundations laid in cities and the Roman Empire that encompassed both Rome and Constantinople as well as Eastern Mediterranean cities like Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch.

Orthodox Christianity, Vol I, Chp 10: The Orthodox Church on the Threshold of the Third Millennium

To be streamed on June 20

In this very brief chapter, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev starts to summarize and connect the third millennium’s influences to the preceding chapters that occupied a long period of persecution and downtrodden experiences for Orthodox Christians during sweeping revolutionary changes in culture and religion in Russia. St. Silouan once replied to a western inquirer about the kinds of writings that are read in eastern monasteries in comparison to what is read by Christians in the west:

 Our monks not only read these books but can also write new ones no worse than these, if they should be lost. 

The main criticism toward eastern monasticism in the second millennium of Russian history focused on time and pragmatism. Secular authorities judged Russian monks to be a bunch of uneducated, scruffy, bearded men wasting their lives praying and standing in services, which kind of critique could eventually be extended to the faithful clergy and laity. Why could they not devote themselves to solving world poverty or establishing charity organizations? From a secular perspective alone, that appears to be true. There was, however, an unnoticed, golden link between writing quality theology and spiritual literature and the time spent in services and prayer and reading spiritual materials. The monastic practices, whether flourishing or persecuted, attracted God’s light and life to these places and people in Orthodoxy. Places like the Optina Monastery or the Holy Mountain of Athos, a simple Russian home or a small village parish, for example. Many Orthodox traditions returned such Znamenny chant, iconography and the study of patristic theology.

With religion in Russia having been opened up after the Synodal and Soviet era, questions about how to interact with the world and other faiths, and how to conduct church affairs starts to occupy more attention. Orthodox begin to meet and discuss questions about funding, educational centers, missionary activities, ecumenical movements are now addressed freely for the Orthodox Christians in Russia. Several important authors have taken part in promoting patristic theology and tradition in Orthodoxy during the third millennium: Bishop Kallistos Ware, Jean-Claude Larchet, Metropolitan John Zizioulas and Archpriest Dumitru Staniloe. 

 St Tikhon Orthodox Humanities University and St Vladimir’s Orthodoxy Seminary in New York became centers that have produced scholars in Russian Orthodoxy. Bishop Kallistos Ware – a westerner in origin himself from England – has written many well-known Orthodox books for English-speaking audiences. Jean-Claude Larchet, who is familiar to us by his other book titled The New Media Epidemic, also wrote about the eastern fathers of the church. 

 It can be difficult to describe Orthodoxy as a “living tradition” with so many dead Christians left throughout the ages. It seems to have become even a common saying among Orthodox. A parallel might be found when we compare an individual’s spiritual fall, death and rebirth to the experience of countries in history who go through a cycle of falling away, death, and rebirth. Life continues in Orthodoxy and in its mysteries, it is lived truly. 

Orthodox Christianity Vol I, Ch 9: Orthodoxy in the Twentieth Century

Streamed on June 13

 Tsar Peter was declared the emperor of Russia in 1721 and his reforms lasting about two hundred years until 1917 shifted Russian culture and religion toward a hostile stance toward the Orthodox faith. The Russian patriarchate returned, but now it had to deal with nearly insurmountable problems from outside and within the Church. There were prophetic alarms in different parts of Russian culture from both the ranks of clergy and poets. Lermontov, Dostoevsky through the characters in his novels warns about the “Russian demons” and St. John of Kronstadt too through his sermons to the people, his writings and miracles. The main spiritual reason for the revolution was that the people forgot God and right worship over a long period of time. That spiritual oblivion led to the bourgeois February Revolution and the later proletarian October Revolution that ushered in the rule of the Bolsheviks. 

The “godless spirit of this world” warred against Orthodoxy. The rulers of Russia and the church broke and forgot the traditions that formed the basis of a harmonious relationship. The Church was essentially wiped out of public view. Now it was kept private, however, it was estimated that about half of the Russian people still professed religious convictions. This raging hatred fomented by revolutionaries cost churches and Christians much. Arrests, trials, shootings, bishops and priests in prison camps, famine, closed churches, “canonical chaos” and schisms the Church endured from the new government. Patriarch Tikhon was a major leader throughout the persecutions by the atheist government and counterfeit councils and conferences coming from the “renovationist” schisms, which also tried to overthrow Orthodox traditions. Patriarch Tikhon was arrested and later stated that: 

 I, of course, did not declare myself an admirer of the Soviet authorities, as the renovationists do … But I am also by no means an enemy of the government, as some maintain … I firmly condemn all threats against the Soviet government, wherever they may come from (266). 

The delicate balance that Patriarch Tikhon and others took may be criticized from outside as compromising themselves with the government, as some Russians believers did from abroad, but in reality, it was what kept the Orthodox Church together in the fatherland. Unlike in the Roman persecutions of early centuries, the atheist regime in Russia seems to have been much more widespread and deliberate in its aim to decimate Christianity from the country. Groups such as the “Union of the Militant Godless” promised to make “the name of God forgotten throughout the entire territory of the USSR” (271). Metropolitan Sergius, for example, struggled to “legalize” Christianity to safeguard it. He met and discussed with Joseph Stalin in 1942 about how the Church needed to convene councils and to elect patriarchs, to educate clergy, and he negotiated a way for bishops to be set free from prisons. His talks with Stalin worked for a time until the Krushchev persecutions. What was common to both the Roman empire and the USSR is that the government often blamed Christians for societal problems. 

Because of the various persecutions, there is a Russian diaspora in America and Europe. As a result, different schools of thought and theology developed outside of Russia in Paris, for example, called the Paris School. Writers such as Archpriest Georges Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, Protoopresbyter John Meyendorff, Protopresbyter Nicholas Afanasiev, Archpriest Sergei Chetverikov, Nicholas Berdyaev and Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov returned to studying the fathers of the eastern Church (280). The benefit of these different schools and theologians is that their works on St Symeon the New Theologian, St Gregory Palamas and other patristic writings helped revive patristic theology. 

In the twentieth century, the Russian Orthodox Church became a persecuted church like those of the early Christian martyrs that we have read already in earlier chapters of this volume. If we take that historical perspective into account, we can see that this period of persecution and troubles for the Church is not an embarrassment or completely abnormal conditions. In fact, it was the vast experience of Christians in history and it was also an opportunity for Christians to immerse themselves in Christ and that experience glorified Christ through his Church. 

The Russian Church During the Synodal Period--Pt 2 (Vol 1, Ch 8, pp 211-255)

From Michael Ruse—to be streamed on June 6

Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev surveys some of the most important and well-known literary figures of Russian history during the synodal period. Authors such as Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Leskov, and Chekhov. Sometimes the poets reflect the deep – almost second nature – religious heritage of Orthodoxy in Russia, at other times the poets reflect a cynical influence that took them away from liturgical life. 

What sets this section apart from other chapters such as Orthodoxy in Rus’ is the lack of secular literary culture. The reforms of emperor Peter I made secular culture possible. Before Russians lived mostly within Orthodoxy. Other cultural pursuits did not exist on the horizon yet. Emperor Peter I favored a western attitude toward art, music, education, philosophy, and religion. He wanted to borrow from the greatest European minds and powers of his time. An oversight that resulted from these western reforms were that they contributed to revolutionary ideas. It seems that a foreign identity was pushed forcefully on Russia. Poetry could be blasphemous or atheist by demeaning the sacred. Or, it could be beautiful or prayerful by praising nature and God. Art could reflect the traditions of Russian iconography or for mere decoration and gaudy displays. Philosophy could generate ideas that help the Church defend itself and develop the minds of Russian Christians, or ideas that lead to rebellion, atheism, and nihilism that spin out of control. 

Just as forced identities on ourselves can lead to inner turmoil, estrangement from ourselves and our own traditions, likewise cultural changes forced unnaturally can have catastrophic consequences. Some of the confusing consequences for Russian culture were several debates that involved both culture and religion. First, some writers sought to unite Orthodoxy under the Pope of Rome to create a super-state religion of the world. Second, some writers advanced the idea that Sophia, or Wisdom, was a personification of the female side of God, and they introduced a fourth person into the Holy Trinity. Third, there were arguments between Westerners and Slavophiles. The former embraced a more western European culture and the latter generally favored a more Russian nativist perspective regarding the identity of Russians that was rooted in Orthodoxy and peasant farming economy as well as pan-Slavic philosophies. 

Ideas which are quite common and acceptable nowadays, such as liberalism, nihilism, and atheism, might have been foreign or less well-known to our fellow Orthodox Christians in Russia – if it were not for Peter’s enforced reforms. The flavor of poetry, art and philosophy during the synodal period forecast the changes that occur in the next chapter about Russian Orthodoxy in the 20th c. under Lenin and Stalin.

The Russian Church During the Synodal Period--Pt 2 (Vol 1, Ch 8, pp 171-210)

By Michael Ruse—to be streamed on May 30

Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev recounts how the Russian patriarchate was lost and replaced by the synodal structure under the emperor Peter I who introduced many reforms into Russian culture and religion that had far-reaching effects into the titanic events of the 20th c. The relationship between church and state took on more of the style of competitors than collaborators. 

On the one hand, the Russian Orthodox Church grew in numbers, education and schools were set up by the emperor for churches and monasteries, industry and technology developed, and successful missionary was conducted in Siberia, the Far East in China and Japan and the Alaskan territory of North America. The noetic tradition of prayer was revived, and many spiritual fathers rose up in leadership, when the Church needed it. Great, heroic saints such as Seraphim of Sarov, Innocent of Irkutsk, John of Kronstadt, Paisy Vleichkovsky, and Philaret of Moscow cannot be forgotten. 

On the other hand, the great sainthood of Russia coincides with reforms that foreshadowed the country’s revolutionary chaos of 1917. Some Russian Christians termed this synodal period “the Babylonian Captivity.” Leaders chosen by Peter I ran the synod with motives not so religious or orthodox at times. The “intelligentsia” or educated elite forgot the faith and left in droves, and the western styled education created an unfortunate “clerical caste” in society, but more importantly clergy and people distanced themselves from genuine Orthodox tradition. 

But the Orthodox Church never loses sight of what is ultimately important in the middle of political or cultural changes. Evidence of that is seen in the revitalization of Russian elderhood and noetic prayer. For example, in a story about St Seraphim of Sarov and Motovilov, on conversing in the Spirit, Seraphim says to Motovilov:  

As good as prayer, fasting, vigils and all other Christian deeds are in themselves, the aim of our Christian life consists not only in doing them, although they are necessary means to attainting it. The true aim of our Christian life lies in the acquisition of the Holy Spirit of God.

This chapter has far-reaching significance for Christians everywhere who are under many different forms of government and cultural norms. But the aim of our lives is the same.