Into the Wardrobe

Let's discuss all things Christian here.

FTR, Orthodoxy sees itself as PRE-denominational, and I think Catholics could make a similar claim. That leaves denominations as being all the rest.

This question about who is considered a denomination is like the question of who is considered a heretic. Heresy originally meant the existence of schisms itself. It was not something you always got to choose to be. When your brother split into a different religion, this might be his fault, but you were thereafter both heretics, because you were both parties to the argument. Now a claim could be made that if one side remained embracing the other while the other rejected them, that the other side only was heretical. What has happened is that the victors have written history so as to claim as heretics only those they deemed responsible for the split. The problem can be elucidated by an example: if the Arians had won out either by force of arms or argument, their beliefs would be called orthodox and what we call orthodoxy would be called heretical. Now it could be claimed that such a situation is impossible, but this does not alter the way the language would be used. The fact is that both the orthodox and the Arians were heretics, even if the fault lies with the Arians. Right now the same is true with the Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and all the later denominations. Calling them different things does not alter the existence of the split. "Denomination" is used in modern language for hairesis, meaning a faction, the word that became "heresy." The problem, therefore, is that all Christians are heretics.

I think that we are very close to resolving this issue, because the force of hairesis seems to be that of a division sufficient to cause disunion of brotherhood, i.e. one that leads to fights. In the present, the denominations are usually in sufficient concord that this does not happen. As such, denomination may be losing its similarity to hairesis and therefore be ceasing to remain a serious problem. Having different opinions about Christ or theology was probably not supposed to be a hindrance to faith. Dividing congregations was. In my experience, the Orthodox churches that I have visited seemed the least interested in divisive issues and the most in worship, so the sense of what Rus is saying I believe is true (though probably not for the same reasons). It is probably not helpful however to try to say that someone is a denomination while someone else is not. We cannot say a priori who was responsible for these splits, and just because I favor one denomination over another, this does not mean that the problem ceases to become denomination itself, or that Reunification will occur because all of the churches rejoin a particular one of their number. I presume (though this may be hope) that in the end, the theology of the church will more like that of the Emergent movement, but its worship will be Orthodox.

In which points do the catholic and the orthodox church concretely disagree and what are the spiritual and dogmatic reasons for the schisma between eastern and western christianity?