On Church Schism #
What is Church Schism? #
The word “schism” means a quarrel or dispute that arises from a lack of peace and love, which Christ has commanded us to maintain. A church schism refers to a situation where Christians, due to irreconcilable disagreements, become completely divided.
From almost the very beginning of Christianity, Christians have been divided into many factions. So how can one preserve peace and love towards all Christians who desire peace in Christ’s Church? #
Christ commanded His disciples to have peace and love, but not unconditionally. He spoke of this, saying: “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you: not as the world gives, give I unto you” (John 14:27). And again: “In Me, you may have peace” (John 16:33). Regarding love, He also says: “If you keep My commandments, you shall abide in My love; even as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love” (John 15:10). Therefore, Christians are obligated to have only Christ’s peace among themselves, and Christ’s peace will be within us when we faithfully fulfill the Gospel commandments.
But if it is impossible to love Christ while violating His commandments, it is evident that it is also impossible to love anyone who leads us to violate any of Christ’s commandments, even if that person is called our brother in Christ. For in such a case, Christ speaks thus: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).
The interpretive Gospel for the Sunday of All Saints explains this, saying: “Unity is not always good; sometimes division is good. Not every kind of peace is praiseworthy, but sometimes peace leads to harm and drives away divine love when we make peace at the expense of truth. Such peace is sinful and highly improper. Christ did not come to bring this kind of peace, but rather the opposite; He desires that we separate ourselves from one another for the sake of good. Not every reconciliation and gathering is good, but sometimes strife and division are great and divine acts. No one should, therefore, attach themselves in love to the wicked, nor have peace with them. But if even a father, mother, children, or brothers are found to be opposed to Christ’s law, we must oppose them as enemies of the truth.”
Thus, whoever loves all who fulfill the Gospel commandments and distances themselves from all who transgress them, in this way will be a true guardian of the Church’s peace, even if they remain infinitely distant from everyone else.
How should we regard a heretic if we see them fulfilling some Gospel commandment? #
For the fulfillment of a Gospel commandment, if it is done out of fear of God, as a commandment of God, and not out of mockery or to ridicule the believers, we should not hate anyone. The Holy Church condemns heretics only for what they do in violation of the Lord’s commandments. But for what they do in accordance with the Gospel commandments, the Church does not judge them, nor does it exclude them from its unity. St. Basil the Great writes in his first canon: “The baptism of schismatics, since they are not yet entirely alien to the Church, should be accepted without repetition.” However, schismatics are heretics of the second degree, according to the presbyter Timothy. And if these heretics, according to St. Basil the Great, were not entirely alien to the Church, it is because they had not yet completely abandoned the fulfillment of the Gospel commandments. Therefore, when they returned to the full unity of the Holy Church, the non-repeatable church sacraments—baptism and ordination—were not repeated over them, provided that they were performed according to Christ’s command (Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council and Canon 1 of St. Basil the Great).
Nevertheless, although we are obliged to show respect to heretics, in accordance with the sacred canons, for their exact fulfillment of the Gospel commandments, we must entirely reject that by which they violate any commandment of God. Therefore, they are not tolerated in the unity of the Holy Church if they violate even a single one of the Lord’s commandments.
How should we understand what is written in the Interpretive Apostle: that the mixing of the wicked with the righteous in the Church will continue until the end of the world and the day of judgment? #
This is said so that we do not treat sinners too harshly, nor regard them with indifference, without any distinction from the righteous. This is fully understandable if we read the text of Scripture more completely, especially in connection with the words you pointed out, where it is written: “Those who do not keep moderation and begin to walk on one side do not look at the rest of the testimonies of Holy Scripture, which could have corrected their thoughts. And they would have remained in that truth and restraint, which is balanced by both testimonies” (leaf 685). And further: “We also believe that those who teach the truth should consider both testimonies of Holy Scripture. We should endure even the dogs in the Church for the sake of the Church’s peace, and not give holy things to the dogs. And this is due to the negligence of the elders or because of some unavoidable matter that cannot be spoken of. For even among those who secretly walk in wickedness, we find such in the Church, who cannot be punished or pacified by ecclesiastical discipline. However, this ungodly and harmful audacity should not enter our hearts, lest we desire to separate from them and thus become defiled by their sins, nor should we separate others who are with us, as if we were pure and holy disciples being separated from the companionship and fellowship of the wicked. And let us remember those similar passages from the Holy Scripture and the very words of God, which are undoubtedly true, that the mixing of the wicked with the righteous in the Church will continue until the end of the world and the day of judgment. And that those who are good, remaining in unity and in the communion of the faith with them, while not participating in their deeds, are harmed in no way” (leaf 686).
What should be done if the priest or bishop himself is not good? #
St. John Chrysostom answers this question, saying: “What do you mean by ’not good’? If it is concerning faith, then flee from him and do not associate with him, even if he is not just a man but an angel who has descended from heaven. But if it is concerning his way of life, do not inquire about this. I will give you an example, not from myself, but from Holy Scripture: Listen to what Christ says: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore, whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works’ (Matthew 23:2-3). He says, ‘They sit in Moses’ seat,’ meaning they have the dignity of the office, but they are not pure in life. Pay attention not to their lives but to their words. No one is harmed by the behavior of others. Why? Because it is evident to all, and a wicked person, even if he is a thousand times not good, will never teach wickedness. But shortcomings in matters of faith are not evident to all, and a person who is wicked in this regard will not hesitate to teach others. Also, the words ‘Judge not, that you be not judged’ (Matthew 7:1) refer to life, not to faith” (34th Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Russian translation). And further: “But someone might say, ‘It is… evil when the leader is not good.’ I know: this is no small evil, and even much greater than lack of leadership; because it is better to be governed by no one than to be governed by a bad leader. In the first case, the people are sometimes in danger, but sometimes they are saved; in the latter case, they are always in danger and are led into destruction” (the same source).
However, as for the way of life, we should not scrutinize the leader, but limit ourselves to what is necessary until he is condemned by the Church. And if someone, as St. Basil the Great writes, after being convicted of sin, is removed from the priesthood, does not submit to the canons but continues to hold on to his position and ministry, and some others also depart with him, leaving the Catholic Church, this is a self-appointed gathering (his first canon), and a self-appointed gathering is otherwise called a church schism.
Nevertheless, it is dangerous to separate from a bishop, even for a valid reason, if he has not yet been condemned by the Church. For the 13th canon of the First-Second Council decrees: “If any presbyter or deacon, upon some accusations, sees his bishop at fault and dares to separate from communion with him before the synodal investigation, examination, and complete condemnation of him, and does not mention his name in sacred prayers during the liturgies according to the Church tradition, such a person should be deprived of all priestly honor. For a presbyter, who has been placed in his office, and who arrogates to himself the judgment assigned to the metropolitans, and endeavors to condemn his father-bishop before judgment, is not worthy of either honor or the title of presbyter. Those who follow such a person, if they are of the clergy, should also be deprived of their honor; if they are monks or laypeople, they should be completely excommunicated from the Church until they reject communication with the schismatics and return to their bishop.”
However, this prohibition only applies as long as the bishop’s sin does not concern matters of faith. But if any bishop, even if not personally condemned, openly teaches heresy that has already been condemned, then, as the 15th canon of the same council states, those who separate from him before a synodal condemnation are not only not subject to the penalties prescribed by the canons but are worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox. For they have condemned not bishops but false bishops and false teachers, and have not caused a schism in the Church but have endeavored to protect the Church from schisms and divisions.
It is not only for previously condemned heresies by the Holy Councils that we should separate from bishops, but if they begin to preach any new evident impiety, we must also separate from them. For the Council of Union proclaims: “Anything newly created and done, or intended to be done, that contradicts the church traditions, teachings, and images of the holy and ever-memorable fathers, is anathema.” And further, it says: “To those who disregard the sacred and divine rules of our holy fathers, which establish the Church and adorn all Christian conduct and lead to divine fear, anathema.” This holy council, in these two anathemas, rejects any vain opinion and opposition: “The one who follows the Holy Council before it is holy, the one who does not follow it before it is holy, is not holy but defiled and rejected” (Kormchaya, chapter 71, leaf 641, and Nikon of Black Mountain, sermon 63).
Did the guardians of the ancient church traditions act justly in separating from the hierarchs who followed Patriarch Nikon and the Moscow Councils of 1666 and 1667? #
Yes, they acted justly. For these hierarchs, though they were not judged personally by any council, were censured not for their way of life, but for the false teachings they propagated. They taught regarding the formation of the fingers for the sign of the cross, saying: “We received the tradition from the holy apostles and the holy fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils to make the sign of the Honorable Cross with the first three fingers of the right hand” (response of the Antiochian Patriarch Macarius and others to the Moscow Patriarch Nikon in the Tablets). And further: “The sign of the Honorable and Life-giving Cross, from the holy glorious and all-praised apostles… and from the ecumenical teachers, we have received from above and from the beginning, to make it correctly with the first three fingers of the right hand” (Acts of the Council of 1667, leaf 31). But that this was clear false testimony is now denied by no one among the learned. Therefore, to follow them would have been contrary to Christ’s commandment, which says: “Beware of false prophets” (Matthew 7:15), and the 15th canon of the First-Second Council. And as the mentioned hierarchs, in addition to the false teaching mentioned, introduced many other novelties contrary to the holy church’s piety, to follow them in this would have meant bringing upon oneself the anathema of the Council of Union. Therefore, the guardians of the ancient church piety separated from them and distanced themselves very justly.
If the guardians of the ancient church traditions justly separated from the hierarchs who followed Patriarch Nikon and the Council of 1667, then why did they not maintain church peace among themselves but instead divided into many factions? #
The righteousness of a person in one matter does not guarantee that they will not commit any other injustice. Conversely, if some injustice is revealed in a person, it does not mean that they have no righteousness in any matter. As for the guardians of the ancient church traditions, they were justified in separating from the hierarchs who had engaged in false preaching, but some of them erred by distancing themselves too far. They even rejected actions that were still performed according to the Gospel commandments. Therefore, it was unjust of them to repeat the baptism already performed in the name of the Holy Trinity with three immersions, and it was incorrect to deny the apostolic succession of the Christ-given priesthood in those clergy who, having repented, returned from them.
However, those who did not criticize what was done according to the Gospel commandments, even by the erring hierarchs, but instead, in accordance with the sacred canons, accepted their proper baptism and apostolic succession in ordination in those who, upon receiving these sacraments, returned to the ancient church piety, did not err in this. These guardians of ancient church traditions were justified both in their separation from the erring hierarchs and in their ongoing attitude towards them. They are not at fault for the fact that some participants in their initial righteousness did not wish to follow them in all other matters. Here, the blame for the church schism lies solely with those latter ones, who, though they opposed the hierarchs following Patriarch Nikon, nonetheless erred no less than they did. Both groups do not walk the middle path of God’s truth, but as much as one group deviates to the left, so the other strays to the right, and therefore neither can attain the kingdom of heaven that stands on the path of God’s truth.