1 Cor 1,10-17 means in Church of Scotland that Church was there always divided

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrpenka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chrpenka

Guest
Please, how to explain to my really good friends from Church of Scotland, that it is not correct to believe according 1 Cor 1,10-17, Paul’s list to Corinthians, that there was Church always divided?
During our conversation about faith and the Church I was really shocked what they believe.
They believe, that there were always fightings in a Church and that there were disagreements from the beginning between members of the Church. And that means for them that there were many churches since about 60 A.D. ! and not from a Reformation time, so they do not think that the first big division was in the 11 century.
How I could show them that they are really wrong?
 
Your friends are correct in that the Church has been plagued by numerous schisms and heresies throughout its 2000-year history, not just the two major ones you mention. The articles on “Heresy” and “Schism” in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia mention some of the others.

Typically, when major disagreements arise in the Church, the ordained leaders of the Church, the bishops, meet together in council to decide the issues in question, with the help of the Holy Spirit. The disagreement over whether or not Gentile converts needed to be circumcised was addressed in this way in Acts 15:1-16:5.
 
Chrpenka,

Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums. I hope you have a blessed and fruitful time here.

Your friend needs to distinguish between individual opinions–which there have always been–and official church schisms. While there have been many schisms in the history of the church, God has never approved of any of them (Jesus prayed for His disciples to be one, after all) and He does not approve of the present one. The idea that there have been “many churches” since the beginning is simply wrong.
  • Liberian
 
Chrpenka,
I think your friend brings up some interesting points about the Church during “Apostolic Times”. If you study the Letters of Paul and the “Acts of the Apostles” it can be reasonably said that there was serious disagreement with in the Church. However, the disagreements, and some of this was very serious disagreements, was on the fundamental nature of the Church. That is, was the Church the perfection of the Jewish Faith or was the Church something that went beyond Judaism. The first Christians of the Church of Jerusalem - those who know and were taught by Jesus firmly believed that the Church was the perfection of Judaism. In effect, Christians were Jews and thus subject to the Mosaic Law. Christ Himself stated that He came to perfect the Law not to do away with it and this is how the Church of Jerusalem understood itself.

Then came Paul and his apostolic activity which challenged this understanding. There are many reasons for Paul’s position amoung which were the rejection Paul experienced by the Jews in the various areas he was attempting to establish the Church and along with this rejection came the acceptance of many gentiles. Paul came to see the Church as something that went beyond Judaism and the Mosaic Law.

This was the root of disagreement within the Apostolic Church as expressed in 1 Cor 1, 10 - 17 and it wasn’t rooted in any type of heresy or schism that the Church would experience later over doctrine such as the Incarnation in one form or another. It was simply, yet profoundly, rooted in the question of the Nature of the Church as being Jewish or something other. This is why the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was so important in our history
and it is really important to study the effects of the Temple’s destruction on the Church’s understanding of it self.

A second thought that seems to be expressed by your friend points to the nature of what creates the unity of the Church. If you look at Acts and Acts alone one might come to the conclusion that what the Church is, what make the Church “One” is the unity of all the Churches, which are seperate but equal. From the NT itself there isn’t the evidence of the hierarchical structure that began in Apostolic Times but would take on its recognizable form until centuries later. In the Eastern Tradition today, Church unity is seen in a collegical sense - seperate but equal Churches in union with one another. In the Western Tradtion we see the unity of the Church coming from the Petrine Ministry - that is the unity of the Church begins with and is fond in the Pope and union with the Pope.

Of coarse, your friend’s understanding of the Church would be closer to the Eastern Tradition of Seperate and Equal, however, I find it interesting that both the Eastern and Westen Traditions have always held the great source of unity is the Sacrament of the Eucharist - The Real Presence and not some symbolic presence. Baptism makes us all members of the Church but it is the Eucharist that truely unifies us (I think Paul had a thing or two to say about this).

Also, as it so happens in discussion such as the one you had with your friend a big difficulity stems from the use of Scripture alone and the rejection of Tradition as part of Revelation. The Apostolic Tradition preceeded Scripture of the NT and the development of our (The Church’s) understanding of Apostolic Tradition continues to be understood and developed even until today within ministry of the Church Magisterium.

Hopefully I didn’t go too far off the topic of your post but again my intention was to present to you a starting point for you to do further studies especially in regards to Church history.
 
Todd_Easton said:
Your friends are correct in that the Church has been plagued by numerous schisms and heresies throughout its 2000-year history, not just the two major ones you mention. The articles on “Heresy” and “Schism” in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia mention some of the others.

Typically, when major disagreements arise in the Church, the ordained leaders of the Church, the bishops, meet together in council to decide the issues in question, with the help of the Holy Spirit. The disagreement over whether or not Gentile converts needed to be circumcised was addressed in this way in Acts 15:1-16:5.
Click to expand...
So they’re right, division is OK?
 
I believe Peter Tremayne writes a series of historical mystery books based on a fictional Sister Filomena(?) that proceeds on the premise that the Celtic Church was separate, not to mention superior, to the Roman Church before the big bad Romans squelched the spunky Celts. Not intending to hijack the thread, but this idea may be what the folks in Scotland are referreding to.
 
To get more familiar with my friends’ Church of Scotland you can visit:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland
churchofscotland.org.uk 👋

The Church of Scotland is connected with John Knox (1514?–1572), could be marked as a calvinic-presbyterian church.

It is not an advertising this church.
However, my friends are my really good friends. So, I appeal passionately, without kidding, you could write your answer, please :yup: , as you would answer to your really good friends or even better to your best friends. Thank you.

And, big THANK you, TOME, for pointing me from where I could do my more studies. 👍
 
Hi,

Part of the answer to your question lies in the fact that the opinion of your friend is a result of the fact that they are looking for excuses in scripture for their denominationalism, which has been caused by various factors.

The Church of Scotland is a very broad church. It has people who have differing opinions of female clergy, homosexual marriage, the existence of hell, and other matters which partain to the faith.

The people who feel strongly enough about the existence of certain beliefs within that church have a whole host of presbyterian denominations to fall back on. The Free Church of Scotland, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland Continueing, etc etc. All at varying ends of the spectrum if you like. (For instance the Church of Scotland dropped its adherence to the article in the Westminster Confession of Faith which identifies the Pope as the antichrist as out-dated - other denominations still hold that.) Some just put up with the liberal wing of the Church of Scotland and remain. It is as i said a broad church.

What you have is a mish-mash of beliefs in various things, and a struggle for the high ground among presbyterians. Put simply, the existence of these denominations is because of an inability to co-exist either at a doctrinal level or of the “hierarchy” to sacrifice their own status by unity. This may not always be evident among lay people who sometimes claim doctrinal unity on the “essentials” i.e faith alone, scriptural alone, regeneration, etc…

But there is no avoiding it, the factionalism (they do not worship together, and interdenominational preaching is uncommon) and doctrinal differences keeps them apart. And all this from scripture alone!

They are not together. They are apart. This is not the New Testament Church.

best regards
Nicholas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top