Regarding the following: "In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christian churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church."
This sounds un-nuanced to the point of inaccuracy. When the South Bound Brook Ukrainaians were received by the Patriarch of Constantinople, for example, he recognized their apostolic succession even though they had not been in communion with the mainstream Orthodox Churches. --Fr Lev 19:37, February 6, 2009 (UTC)
- Ultimately, this question is eschatological, of course. In cases such as the one you mention, it is rather a temporary breach of communion that is being referenced. Schisms are always something hard to make a final statement on, though. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 03:35, February 7, 2009 (UTC)
Sure. And, given the length of Christian history, s breach of communion for many decades can reaonably be described as "temporary." --Fr Lev 15:08, February 7, 2009 (UTC)