It is very difficult to give a precise and firm definition of schism (or division) in the Church, distinguishing a "theological definition" from a simple "canonical description." This is because schism in the Church is always something contradictory and unnatural, a paradox and a mystery. The Church is unity, and its entire being is grounded in this unity and communion—in Christ and through Christ. For "by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13). The model of this unity is the Triune consubstantiality. The measure of this unity is catholicity (or conciliarity), where the impenetrability of individual consciousness is softened and even overcome in perfect unanimity and harmony, so that the multitude of believers possesses "one heart and one soul" (cf. Acts 4:32).
Schism, on the contrary, is isolation, separation, the loss and denial of catholicity. The spirit of schism is the direct opposite of the spirit of the Church. The question of the nature and meaning of ecclesiastical divisions and schisms was sharply posed as early as the memorable baptismal controversies of the third century. St. Cyprian of Carthage, with unshakable consistency, developed the teaching on the complete gracelessness of every schism, precisely as schism. The entire meaning and logical emphasis of his argument was based on the conviction that the sacraments are instituted within the Church. Therefore, they are performed and can only be performed within the Church—in communion and in conciliarity. Thus, any violation of conciliarity and unity immediately places one outside of the Church, into a decisive "outside."
For St. Cyprian, every schism represents a departure from the Church—from that sacred and holy land where alone the baptismal source flows, the fountain of salvific water. His teaching on the gracelessness of schisms is simply the reverse side of his doctrine on unity and catholicity. It is not necessary to recount here the arguments and evidence of St. Cyprian; they are well known, and their significance endures to this day. The historical influence of Cyprian was profound and long-lasting, and, strictly speaking, the theological premises of his teachings have never been refuted. Even Augustine was not far from Cyprian. Augustine argued with the Donatists, not with Cyprian himself, nor did he refute Cyprian. His debates largely revolved around practical measures and conclusions. In his reflections on Church unity—on the unity of love as an essential and decisive condition for the salvific operation of the sacraments—Augustine essentially reiterates Cyprian’s thoughts in new words.
However, the practical conclusions of Cyprian were not fully embraced by the Church’s consciousness. This raises the question: how was this possible, if his premises were not disputed or rejected?
It is unnecessary to delve into the often unclear and complex history of the Church’s canonical relationship with schismatics and heretics. It suffices to note that there are cases in which the Church’s actions imply that the sacraments retain significance even within schisms, and sometimes even among heretics. The Church usually receives those coming from schisms or heresies without requiring rebaptism, clearly implying or assuming that their prior baptism was valid. In many instances, the Church accepts converts without chrismation, and clergy are often received "in their existing orders," which strongly suggests recognition of the validity of the corresponding sacraments performed over them "outside the Church." Yet if the sacraments are valid, it is only through the Holy Spirit.
Canonical norms reveal a mystical paradox. Through its actions, the Church seems to affirm that beyond its canonical boundaries, its mystical territory still extends—that the "external world" does not immediately begin.
St. Cyprian was correct: the sacraments are performed only in the Church. Yet his definition of this "in" was hasty and overly narrow. Might we not conclude, in reverse, that where the sacraments are performed, there is the Church? Cyprian operated under the silent assumption that the canonical boundary of the Church always coincides with its charismatic boundary.
This unproven identification has not been confirmed by the conciliar consciousness of the Church. The Church, as a mystical organism, as the mysterious Body of Christ, cannot be adequately described solely in canonical terms or categories. The true boundaries of the Church cannot be determined or recognized by canonical signs or markers alone. Often, the canonical boundary also indicates a charismatic one, as what is bound on earth is sealed in Heaven with an indissoluble knot. But this is not always the case, and even more often, not immediately.
In its sacramental or mystical being, the Church transcends canonical measures. Thus, a canonical rupture does not necessarily or immediately lead to mystical desolation or deprivation. Everything St. Cyprian said about the unity of the Church and the sacraments can and should be accepted. However, one should not, as he did, draw the final contour of the Church's body solely along canonical points.
This raises a general question and doubt: Are these canonical rules and actions subject to theological generalization? Can theological or dogmatic motives and foundations be presumed behind them? Or do they rather reflect pastoral discretion and condescension? Should the canonical approach be understood more as a condescending silence about gracelessness than as recognition of the reality or significance of schismatic sacramental acts? It is thus unwise to hastily introduce canonical facts into theological argumentation.
This objection is connected to the theory of so-called "oikonomia" (economy). In common ecclesiastical usage, oikonomia is a highly multifaceted term. In its broadest sense, it encompasses and signifies the entire work of salvation (cf. Col. 1:25; Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9). The Vulgate often translates it as dispensatio. However, in canonical language, oikonomia has not become a formal term. It is more of a descriptive word, a general characteristic: oikonomia is opposed to akribeia (strictness) as a kind of relaxation of Church discipline, an exception or departure from "strict law" or general rules. The driving motive of oikonomia is precisely philanthropia—pastoral discretion, pedagogical calculation, always justified by practical benefit.
Oikonomia is more of a pedagogical principle than a canonical one. It is a pastoral corrective to canonical consciousness. Every pastor in their parish, and even more so a bishop or council of bishops, can and should exercise oikonomia. Oikonomia is essentially shepherding, and shepherding is oikonomia. This is the strength and vitality of the principle of oikonomia. But it also reveals its limitation: not every issue can be resolved within the framework of oikonomia.
Thus, one must ask: Can the issue of schismatics and heretics be considered solely a matter of oikonomia?
Certainly, insofar as it concerns the salvation of lost souls and methods of leading them to "the knowledge of the truth," all actions should be oikonomic—that is, pastoral, sacrificial, and loving. One must leave the ninety-nine to seek the lost sheep. Yet this requires complete sincerity and directness. This precision and clarity are needed not only in the realm of dogma but also in the mystical diagnosis.
For this reason, the question of the sacraments of schismatics and heretics must be approached with the utmost akribeia. Here the issue is not merely quaestio juris (a question of law) but quaestio facti (a question of fact)—a matter of mystical reality, of sacramental validity. It is not so much about "recognition" but about diagnosis—about knowing or discerning the truth.
Radical Incompatibility with St. Cyprian’s View
From the radical perspective of St. Cyprian, the principle of oikonomia is least compatible with this issue. If the canonical boundaries of the Church immediately signify a graceless void, and if schismatics were never truly baptized and remain in pre-baptismal darkness, then absolute clarity, strictness, and persistence are all the more necessary in the Church’s actions and judgments. Any form of "condescension" here is inappropriate and simply impossible, and no concessions are permissible.
Can we truly imagine that the Church receives certain schismatics—and even heretics—without baptism merely to ease their decisive step? Such a practice would indeed be a dangerous and reckless leniency. It would be an indulgence of human weakness, pride, and lack of faith—a particularly perilous indulgence because it creates the appearance of the Church recognizing schismatic sacraments or sacred acts as significant, not only in the eyes of schismatics or outsiders but even within the consciousness of the Church's majority and its authorities. What’s more, this practice is used precisely because it creates this appearance.
If the Church were completely convinced that baptism does not occur in schisms or heresies, for what purpose would it reunite schismatics without baptism? Could it be merely to spare them the shame of openly admitting that they had not yet been baptized? Can such a motive be considered worthy, persuasive, or blessed? Can it truly benefit neophytes to reunite them through ambiguity and silence?
In response to the justifiable question, “Can we analogously receive Jews and Muslims into the Church without baptism under the principle of oikonomia?” Metropolitan Anthony of Volyn answered candidly:
“After all, such neophytes, as well as those baptized in the name of Montanus and Priscilla, would not claim to join the Church without immersion with the words: ‘In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ Such a claim, due to a vague understanding of Church grace, could only be made by those schismatics and heretics whose baptism, liturgical practices, and hierarchical structure outwardly differ little from the Church’s. For them, it is offensive to be equated with pagans and Jews upon joining the Church. This is why the Church, condescending to their weakness, did not perform the external act of baptism over them, granting them this grace in the ‘second sacrament.’”
I transcribe this passage with profound dismay. From the reasoning of Metropolitan Anthony, common sense would suggest the exact opposite conclusion. To lead "neophytes," weak and ignorant as they may be, to a clearer understanding of Church grace, it would be all the more necessary and appropriate to perform the external act of baptism, rather than, through a pretense of accommodating their "offense," giving them and others reason to be misled by the ambiguous fact that their "baptism, liturgical practices, and hierarchical structure outwardly differ little from the Church’s."
Who, indeed, has given the Church the right to simply abolish the external act of baptism in such cases, reducing it to a mere mental or intentional act performed during the "second sacrament" (for the unbaptized)? Of course, in extraordinary cases, the external act (the "form") can indeed be omitted—such as in baptism by blood (baptisma sanguinis) or by desire (baptisma flaminis). But this is permissible only in casu necessitatis (in cases of necessity), and there seems to be no analogy between this and systematically indulging others’ sensitivity or self-deception.
If oikonomia is pastoral discretion aimed at the benefit and salvation of souls, in such cases one could only speak of a reverse oikonomia. It would be a deliberate retreat into ambiguity and lack of clarity for the sake of external success, as true internal Church membership for neophytes cannot occur under such silence. It seems unthinkable to ascribe to the Church such a misguided and deceitful intention. In any case, the practical result of this oikonomia must be recognized as entirely unexpected: within the Church itself, the majority has come to believe that sacraments are valid among schismatics and that there is a significant (though illicit) hierarchy in schisms. The true intention of the Church in its actions and rules becomes extremely difficult to discern. From this perspective, the oikonomic interpretation of such rules must be deemed implausible.
Even greater challenges arise when this oikonomic interpretation is examined in light of its broader theological premises. It is hard to attribute to the Church the authority or right to retroactively transform "what is non-existent into what is significant"—to render the invalid valid "by virtue of oikonomia." The question becomes particularly acute when it comes to the reception of schismatic clergy "in their existing rank."
The Boundaries of Sacramental Grace in Schism: A Reflection
In the Russian Orthodox Church, converts from Roman Catholicism, Nestorianism, and similar groups are received into communion "through renunciation of heresies," specifically in the Sacrament of Repentance. For clerics, absolution is given by the bishop, lifting the canonical prohibition upon the schismatic cleric. However, this raises a serious question: can we assume that in this act of absolution, other sacraments—Baptism, Confirmation, and Ordination, sometimes even Episcopal consecration—are mysteriously performed simultaneously, without any explicit "form" or visible "external act"? Such an assumption introduces twofold ambiguity: both regarding intent and the factual reality of what occurs.
Can sacraments truly be performed solely by "intention," without a visible act? This seems implausible, not because the "form" has any magical or self-sufficient power, but because in the sacramental reality, "external acts" and the descent of grace are essentially inseparable and indivisible.
The Church is indeed the steward of grace, endowed with the authority to preserve and bestow these divine gifts. However, this authority does not extend to altering the very foundations of Christian existence. It is difficult to imagine that the Church has the right, "under the guise of oikonomia," to permit schismatic clerics, even those lacking Apostolic Succession, to serve liturgically without ordination, filling not mere deficiencies but total absence of grace solely by the power of Church authority, intention, and implicit recognition.
This interpretation renders the sacramental structure of the Church overly flexible and susceptible to misuse. Even the theologian Alexei Khomyakov, defending the Greek practice of baptizing reunited Latins, argued with William Palmer that:
"All sacraments are ultimately fulfilled only within the Orthodox Church. The form in which they are completed is secondary. Through reconciliation (with the Church), the sacrament is renewed or perfected by virtue of this reconciliation; the imperfect heretical rite receives the fullness and perfection of the Orthodox sacrament. The very act of reconciliation essentially repeats the preceding sacraments. Therefore, the visible repetition of Baptism or Chrismation, though unnecessary, does not constitute error; it reflects differences in rite, not in understanding."
However, Khomyakov's reasoning reveals a duality of thought. "Repetition" of a sacrament is not only unnecessary but impermissible. If the "sacrament" had not been validly performed before, but merely an "imperfect heretical rite," then the sacrament must be performed for the first time, openly and transparently. Sacraments in the catholic sense are not mere rituals, and treating the "external" aspects of sacramental acts with such disciplinary relativism seems unwarranted.
The interpretation of canons through the lens of oikonomia could only be convincing with clear and direct evidence. Instead, it is often supported by indirect data, assumptions, and conjecture. Moreover, this interpretation is not the definitive teaching of the Church but merely a "theological opinion," emerging relatively late and in response to the need to distance Orthodox theology sharply from Roman doctrine during times of theological confusion.
Augustinian Perspectives on Sacramental Validity in Schism
Roman theology recognizes the validity of sacraments within schisms and even among heretics, acknowledging the continuation of Apostolic Succession and the possibility of valid sacramental acts under certain conditions. These theological premises were first systematically articulated by St. Augustine. His views merit careful consideration within the framework of Orthodox doctrinal synthesis.
St. Augustine closely ties the validity of sacraments in schisms to his broader ecclesiological teachings. For him, the efficacy of schismatic sacraments reflects a continued connection to the Church. Augustine explicitly states that in the sacraments of schismatics, the Church acts: some she gives birth to within herself, others she gives birth to outside herself. Schismatic baptism is valid precisely because it is performed by the Church (De Baptismo, 1.15.23). What remains significant in schisms is that which belongs to the Church—what schismatics still retain as part of the Church’s treasure and sanctity, through which they remain connected to the Church to some extent (in quibusdam rebus nobiscum sunt).
Augustine emphasizes the paradoxical nature of schismatic existence: schismatics remain connected to the Church in the grace of the sacraments, even as they sever ties in love and conciliar unity. This leads to Augustine's critical distinction between the "validity" (or reality) and "efficacy" of sacraments. While the sacraments in schism remain valid, their spiritual benefit is nullified without the unity of love and peace.
This paradox underpins Augustine's sacramental theology and continues to challenge the Church’s understanding of schism, grace, and sacramental validity. The question remains: how does the Church reconcile the tension between sacramental continuity and ecclesial rupture? In addressing this, the Church must tread carefully, balancing pastoral care with doctrinal clarity.
Sacraments in Schism: Valid but Ineffective
The sacraments performed by schismatics are valid, meaning they are true sacraments. However, they are ineffective (non-afficacia) due to the division or separation from the Church. In schism, love ceases, and without love, salvation is unattainable. Salvation encompasses two aspects: the objective action of grace and the subjective effort of fidelity and commitment.
The Holy Spirit still breathes and sanctifies within schisms. Yet, healing and completion are not achieved within the obstinacy and weakness of schism. It would be incorrect to claim that nothing occurs in schismatic rites; to do so would imply that their actions and words are not only empty but become profanations and deceptions. If the sacraments performed by schismatics are not sacraments at all, they become blasphemous caricatures. In such a case, neither oikonomia nor pastoral silence can cover or excuse the sin.
A sacramental rite cannot be merely a ritual, empty yet harmless. The sacrament is indeed performed in truth. However, it cannot be said that sacraments "benefit" in schism. This is because sacraments are not "magical acts." For example, partaking in the Eucharist can lead to "judgment and condemnation" if approached unworthily (cf. 1 Cor. 11:29). This does not negate the reality or validity of the Eucharistic sacrament itself. Similarly, baptismal grace must be continually renewed through effort and service; otherwise, it remains "ineffective."
Baptism and Its Fulfillment in Spiritual Life
From this perspective, St. Gregory of Nyssa strongly criticized the habit of delaying baptism until one's deathbed or old age, under the pretense of keeping baptismal robes unsullied. Gregory emphasized that baptism is not merely the conclusion of a sinful life but, most importantly, its beginning. Baptismal grace is not solely for the remission of sins; it is also a gift and a pledge for spiritual struggle. Baptism enlists one's name in the ranks of the faithful, but the honor of the faithful lies in their deeds, not in their title alone. What value does baptism hold without the effort of spiritual growth?
This understanding is echoed in St. Augustine's distinction between the "character" of baptism and its "grace." According to Augustine, every baptized individual carries an indelible "mark" or "seal," even if they fall away from the Church. This mark is a pledge that holds each baptized person accountable before God on Judgment Day. Even those who squander their lives and fail to bear the fruits of baptismal grace remain distinct from the unbaptized because they bear the lasting imprint of Divine touch.
This mark, this trace of God's grace, is indelible—a reminder of the divine calling that cannot be erased, even when the fullness of baptismal grace is not realized through works and spiritual growth. In this sense, baptism is both a gift and a responsibility, calling each Christian to strive for holiness in their lives.
For Augustine, all sacramental theology is characterized by a clear distinction between two inseparable factors of sacramental existence: God's grace and human love. The sacrament is accomplished by grace, not by love. However, salvation occurs in freedom, not compulsion. Thus, outside the Church's communion and love, grace does not ignite into life-giving flame. A question remains: how does the Spirit act beyond the canonical boundaries of the Church? What is the significance of sacraments outside communion? Sacraments taken, sacraments in the hands of usurpers…
Later Roman theology addresses this question with the doctrine of sacramental validity ex opere operato (as opposed to ex opere operantis). Augustine does not employ this terminology but understood the significance of sacraments outside canonical unity similarly. Even opus operatum primarily signifies the independence of the sacrament from the personal action of the celebrant—sacraments are performed by the Church, in which Christ, the High Priest, acts.
Sacraments are performed through the prayer and action of the Church—ex opere orantis et operantis Ecclesiae. In this sense, the doctrine of significance ex opere operato should be accepted. For Augustine, it was not as important that sacraments among schismatics were "unlawful" and "illicit" (licita); what mattered more was that schism represented the dissipation of love. However, God's love surpasses and overcomes human lack of love. Even within schisms (and among heretics), the Church continues its salvific and sanctifying work. It might not be entirely accurate to say that schismatics remain within the Church—this phrasing is ambiguous. It is more accurate to say that the Church continues to work within schisms, awaiting the mysterious moment when hardened hearts melt under the warmth of prevenient grace, igniting a longing for communion and unity.
The "significance" of sacraments among schismatics serves as a mysterious pledge of their return to Catholic fullness and unity. Augustine's sacramental theology was not widely embraced by Byzantine theology, not because it was considered foreign or excessive, but simply because Augustine was not well-known in the East. In modern times, Orthodox theology in the East and Russia has often expounded on sacraments using Roman frameworks, though this has not equated to a creative integration of Augustine's conceptions.
Contemporary Orthodox theology must seek to interpret the Church's traditional canonical practices concerning heretics and schismatics based on the broader principles established by Augustine.
It is crucial to remember: in affirming the "validity" of sacraments and hierarchy in schisms, Augustine did not soften or erase the boundary dividing schism from ecclesial communion. This is not merely a canonical boundary but a spiritual one—the boundary between conciliar love within the Church and separatism and estrangement in schisms. For Augustine, this distinction is one of salvation.
Grace acts but does not save outside ecclesial communion. (Interestingly, Augustine here closely follows Cyprian, who asserted that even martyrdom for Christ outside the Church does not avail.) This is why, despite the "reality" and "significance" of schismatic hierarchy, it is impossible to speak strictly of the preservation of "apostolic succession" beyond the bounds of canonical communion. This question is thoroughly and insightfully examined in the remarkable article by the late C.G. Turner, "Apostolic Succession."
The Limitations of the Church-Branch Theory
And from this, it follows with certainty that the so-called "Church-branch theory" cannot be accepted. This theory presents an overly optimistic and harmonious picture of the division within the Christian world. An external observer might not immediately distinguish between the "schismatic" branches and the "Catholic" trunk. Yet, in its essence, schism is not merely a branch; it also involves the will to schism. There exists a mysterious and even enigmatic realm beyond the canonical boundaries of the Church, where sacraments are still performed, where hearts often burn brightly in faith, love, and ascetic effort. This must be acknowledged, but it is also essential to remember that the boundary is real and that unity does not exist.
A.S. Khomyakov seemed to address precisely this. "Since the earthly and visible Church is not yet the fullness and completion of the entire Church, which the Lord has destined to reveal itself at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and governs only within her own limits, without judging the rest of humanity (as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians), and only recognizing as excluded, that is, not belonging to her, those who separate themselves from her. The rest of humanity, whether estranged from the Church or connected to it by ties that God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day."
Similarly, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow dared to speak of Churches that are "not purely true." "Know this — I would not dare call any Church that believes Jesus is the Christ false. A Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and salvific Divine teaching without admixture of false and harmful human opinions, or not purely true, mixing false and harmful human opinions with the true and salvific teaching of Christ's faith." In his concluding dialogue, Metropolitan Philaret further remarked: "You now expect how I will judge the other half of present-day Christianity. But I simply observe it. In part, I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals many and deep wounds inflicted by the ancient serpent in all parts and members of this body, applying at times gentle remedies, at times strong ones, and even fire and iron, to soften the hardness, to extract the poison, to cleanse the wounds, to remove wild growths, to renew spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed limbs. And thus, I strengthen my belief that the power of God will ultimately triumph over human frailties, good over evil, unity over division, life over death."
Unity in Diversity: The Role of Love and Sobornost
This is merely a framework or a general characterization. Not everything in it is clear or fully articulated, but the question is correctly posed. Many connections still remain unbroken, holding schisms within a certain unity. All attention and will must be directed toward the exhaustion of discord's obstinacy. "We seek not victory, but the return of brothers, the separation from whom tears us apart" (Gregory the Theologian).
Written by: Fr. Georges Florovsky