1 Corinthians 3:3-4 condemnation of division omong Christians

[KathleenGee]

Well, we have to remember the divisions we see now happened about 500 years ago. Then there is the Orthodox Schism…

Then there is Jesus Christ calling us to be one.

I think people look at ecclesiastics beyond what they are supposed to be and do. Or Protestants look too much at Scriptures, and when people get into personal interpretation and begin to divide over it, that isn’t good either.

As a Catholic, the Church provides us the full understanding of Christ and how to get to heaven. You can’t look at the Church for itself because then you are start looking at people, and then from there you will end up with sinful humanity.

We are all sinners, but we are given the full means to become better through Christ in the Church through teachings and the sacraments, and belonging to the universal Church. It is self-reforming, can admit its wrongs, and work on them.

I look at clerics, including the Papacy as to how it can provide me Christ and new life in Him, and in finding others to share the same faith. I have to forgive those who wronged the church and misrepresented the Lord in any way.

And the Pope and bishops, all with titles, ‘Vicar of Christ’, instead draw more to the title as Servant. True leadership is in the form of servant. We only have two dogmas, and yet outsiders use that term over and over to question our faith through authority.

Lawful church authority provides authentic Christology. It is about Christ and not about them for their sake.

I think Catholicism provides so much liberty to be. I don’t feel my privacy or my freedom of expression crimped in any way. I am not spending my time thinking about the pope and bishops and priests. I try to keep it on Christ and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The pope in union with the bishops around the world in the universal church – that is when vicar of Christ is applied.

The Lord’s prayer is that we be one. The Mass is beautiful. God is present in the tabernacle.

The rest is on me to be better, to become more Christlike with the help of the parish and the communion of saints. It is about union with Christ.

I think Protestants look at authority of the Catholic Church in a way that we do not.

 

[Bluegoat]

Kathleen and Hail, your method only works if you have some sort of a priori conviction that the Catholic Church is what it says. If it isn’t, then it has no authority, nor does it give you everything that you need.

 

[JRKH]

This passage tells us that we are supposed to be unified, and that quarrals and divisions are bad. As far as I know every Christian agrees with this at some level.

But it also raises questions:

What does it mean by unity? We know that it is ok to have different congregations. What about beliefs, what is necessary, and what is not? What about worship style, or type of liturgy?

Jesus clarifies the unity question when he prays that we be one as He and the Father are one. (John 17:21) What sort of unity does this suggest?
To me such unity suggests very close and visible unity perfected in Love and a desire for Truth.
What is necessary needs to be determined by the Church (ekklesia) which is the community and the leaders of the universal community so that the above described unity is maintained.
True Chrisitians should desire and humbly seek such visible unity for the protection and the propigation to the Truth of the Gospel.

Is there ever a time when breaking unity is appropriate? Should the CC tell those who are not in communion with her not to bother about doctrinal differences in order to have unity? Is it wrong to end communion with a group that is doing something wrong? In such cases, how do we determine if one group is the real church, and another isn’t? Could both be part, or is that impossible as well as undesirable?

In the non-catholic world obviously breaking communion is quite acceptable. When the idea os the “invisible church”, and “Sola Scriptura and Private interpretation” were introduced, visible authoritative unity were cast aside. without this it can be quite difficult to even know who is “doing wrong” except in your own personal determination.
As for there being times when it’s appropriate to “break unity” - That might depend on what you mean by breaking unity. There certainly are instances where a heresy needs to be called heresy and those holding with it put away from the church. Yet there should also always be an effort to retain and regain unity through conversation aimed at finding the Truth.

If we know people are “In Christ” who are outside our group, in what way can we say they are not unified?

So while I think this is an important passage, I don’t think it clearly shows that the CC is “right” while all other groups are wrong. You would have to show a lot more to make that argument.

We can say that they are not unified in the sense that Christ prayed for - to be on as He and the Father are one. Even within the Church we have trouble achieving this.
I do think that there is a lot of “right” in most all ekklesial communities. Much more dialog is needed to find our way to greater unity.

Peace
James

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Bluegoat…

I am plugging through church history…all the events, like a pendulum, but what made an impression on me was the trevail Christianity endured, whether by barbarians, or this swing between church authority to the times the temporal rulers were pretty much telling the Church what to do…in the midst as well of all sorts of kingdoms and their relationships to each other and all the other issues combined…very complex.

So to bring unity, clarity, consistency, cohesion, the popes more and more spoke of their centralized authority. There was rejection by temporal rulers…but they would experience in time the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking through the insistence…that the Church is superior to temporal rulers because it proclaims God and His will among the people.

The Church is to conform to Christ, and only ecclesiastics can do that with grace and calling.

Ancient Rome had a dominance in part due to its international and cultural position, as well as its wealth to support the new and budding churches…and there was this this awareness that the final say would eventually end in Rome, in spite of all the splendor and richness of faith in eastern jurisdictions.

The focus is always the deposit of faith handed down by the apostles, and you have to have men chosen by God. You have a separate body from the temporal professing and promoting Christ so we can model Christ, rather than a temporal model, and end up reflecting more that of man.

By reflecting more on the model of man, I mean nationalistic churches, ethnic churches that are to a certain degree, can’t define it well, of their own type.

I prefer to remain in the universal church and its deposit of the apostolic faith, tested through time, upholding the sanctity of life without compromise, always calling us out of ourselves to reach out to people outside our ethnic group or nationality, thus affirming that Jesus died for all.

 

[MartinJordan]

In my way of thinking, if different Churches (not believing in unison as one), is ok then Jesus didn’t need to bother collecting 12 men. Why did he do it? Why does he tell Peter “strengthen your brothers”?, etc?

There needed to be a system and a whole Church to spread the Good News.

MJ

 

[KathleenGee]

People also need to realize the impetus comes from the Holy Spirit.

When Peter said to Christ, ‘You are the Christ’, then Christ knew Peter had the Holy Spirit.

No mortal man, even that ordained, can claim and enforce that the seat of Peter represent Christ as head of the Church. It is the working of the Holy Spirit. It is this union with the Holy Spirit in the depth of faith that we can look beyond the mortal and experience the Good Shepherd present in those who are called by Him…

Christ, Peter, and the Apostles, in union with the Holy Spirit founded the Church, and they went out to various parts to spread the Good News…12 also representing the fulfillment of the 12 tribes. and the number of perfection of the Church…a gathering of people rather than a denomination or new form of Christianity founded on one person.

You have to have those checks and balances…because of the problem of self-deception.

In modern film making of documentaries, it is said that the witness of one or two or three do not mean anything, and can’t be counted. It is when you have 10 people at least experiencing the same, contemporary film makers have credible witnesses to an actual event. Christ picked 12…

 

[cooterhein]

However, if Protestant Churches did not dissent then they would be part of the Catholic Church.

If you did not dissent from [any one denomination, fill in the blank] you would belong to it. Does this mean you dissent with each and every Christian denomination that is not Catholic?

Our situations are similar in some ways. You and I…we can only belong to one denomination, at most. You seem to be trying to define “dissent” as “not belonging to a particular denomination,” and that not belonging to a denomination automatically implies dissent. This proves to be an unwieldy definition, however, because it is impossible for anyone to belong to every Christian denomination simultaneously. This definition of “dissent” also succeeds in making you into as much of a dissenter as anyone else- you’re confined to one single denomination, and I must therefore infer dissent against all other denominations because you do not belong to any of them.

Protestant Churches all exist for this reason.

Yes, there are a variety of reasons.

They either dissented from the Catholic Church

This is true of a handful of mainline denominations.

or they dissented from the original dissenters.

And this covers…about 93 denominations during and after the time of the First Great Awakening. And between then and now, how many other denominations formed for sectarian reasons and still survive today? Hundreds? Maybe a thousand?

What about the 30,000-plus denominations that aren’t covered in either of these descriptions?

You could say some are just ignorant. Even ignorance is a dissension for being "ignor"ant is to intentionally ignore the truth.

Can you make a credible link between “dissent by ignorance” and the passage of Scripture that you initially selected?

As the famous scholar Bart Ehrman said (former evangelical now atheist/agnostic) early Christians were either Gonstics or part of the Catholic Church

All Christians within the Roman Empire, that is. Early Christians may have also belonged to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, or one of the Syriac Orthodox traditions. But they weren’t owned by the Roman Empire, they have darker skin, and most of them don’t have computers and consequently are not represented on Internet forums at this point. So it’s ok to overlook them.

Would that be an example of Bart Ehrman demonstrating “dissent by ignorance”?

and all modern Christians come from the Catholic Church.

Tell that to the average Christian in Ethiopia.

They are dissenting from their own original Church.

The current pope has long made the distinction between those who separate themselves from Catholicism and those who grew up in some tradition besides Catholicism. Would you please follow his example?

The Pope is the weakest Christian leader there is.

That is absurd.

Continuing to subsequent posts)

1. Protestants cannot be mobilized as a whole any better that Catholic.

This is also absurd. If you tried to show me one example of Catholics being effectively mobilized in a presidential election, you would not be able to because it hasn’t ever happened. By contrast, I can give you several examples of Evangelicals being effectively mobilized, starting with 2004. And I can show you several election cycles where the majority of Evangelicals have voted for a losing candidate on the basis of social issues, especially abortion. If you look at any presidential race from Reagan onward, the Catholic vote has always gone to the winner, never the loser.

When Evangelicals get mobilized, voter turnout is high and 75-80% of that vote goes to a candidate whose platform is consistent with social issues that are also important to the Catholic Church. Relatively speaking, Catholics can barely make 60% in a good year, and they’ll only do so when the rest of the country is identifying the candidate as a winner.

1. This lack of unity has weakened Catholic unity.

Evangelicals consistently vote for candidates that are strong on social issues of importance to the CC. We have a tendency to vote this way whether a particular candidate is going to win or lose. We’d love it if Catholic voters would join us and act in their own best interest at the same time. Don’t blame us for the fact that US Catholics haven’t done it yet. We’re leading the way. Don’t pretend we’re holding you back.

What you are saying implies that the King has no kingdom.

No it does not.

 

[Hail_Linus]

All Christians within the Roman Empire, that is. Early Christians may have also belonged to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, or one of the Syriac Orthodox traditions. But they weren’t owned by the Roman Empire, they have darker skin, and most of them don’t have computers and consequently are not represented on Internet forums at this point. So it’s ok to overlook them.

This is just silly, what the does the Roman Empire have to do with the Church established by Jesus. What does skin color have any thing to do with Catholicism.

That is absurd.

There is nothing absur about the Pope’s weakness. The Pope cannot end the priest hood, liturgy, the sacraments, etc. All Protestant Churches have the power to change Christianity to suit their desire. This is a simple fact and not an opinion.

Continuing to subsequent posts)

Evangelicals consistently vote for candidates that are strong on social issues of importance to the CC. We have a tendency to vote this way whether a particular candidate is going to win or lose. We’d love it if Catholic voters would join us and act in their own best interest at the same time. Don’t blame us for the fact that US Catholics haven’t done it yet. We’re leading the way. Don’t pretend we’re holding you back.

No it does not.

Proposition 8 passed in California mainly because of Catholics and Mormons. Many Evangelicals are Pro-Choice.

 

[cooterhein]

This is just silly, what the does the Roman Empire have to do with the Church established by Jesus.

The main centers of power just happen to correspond pretty closely to the capitol and borders of the Western half of the Roman Empire, and it initially included the Byzantine portion.

What does skin color have any thing to do with Catholicism.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church is just as old as either the Eastern or Western halves of Christianity that come from the Roman Empire, and the raw number of Ethiopian Orthodox Christians doesn’t fall very far short of how many Eastern Orthodox Christians are out there. But they’re generally treated as if they don’t exist. I think this has a lot to do with differences in technological/media development in that country, but I also think there’s a bit of a tendency for European Catholics to pay more attention to European Catholicism at the expense of the more ancient African Christians and Syriac Christians- particularly if they belonged to a tradition that wasn’t affiliated with the Roman Empire.

There is nothing absur about the Pope’s weakness. The Pope cannot end the priest hood, liturgy, the sacraments, etc. All Protestant Churches have the power to change Christianity to suit their desire. This is a simple fact and not an opinion.

The pope is your rock, yes? Your bulwark, you anchor. Your mainstay. His rule is over time and space; long may he live. That guy?

But you also say he’s weak. What kind of rock is he, then? Chalk? Talc? Limestone? Those are weak rocks. They erode and fall apart quite easily.

Proposition 8 passed in California mainly because of Catholics and Mormons.

Not Mormons as much- they were unfairly scapegoated to a large extent. But I would say Mexicans were responsible for that. There are a lot of Mexicans in California. Most of them are Catholic, at least when they go there. And most of those Catholics are nominal. Second-generation Mexicans (initially Catholic) are just as likely to be Protestant as Catholic, though. So for the most part, it was a mixture of nominal Catholics and Mexican Protestants who did that- along with some Mexican Catholics that actually practice Catholicism.

Many Evangelicals are Pro-Choice.

According to the last comparative numbers I saw (they’re from around '08), Catholics made up about 22% of the US population. They also made up 45% of the traffic in abortion clinics.

Catholics are disproportionately represented among those who actually make that choice at a rate more than double their representation in the overall population.

Obama did not get the Evangelical vote in '08 and he won’t get it in '12. Obama did get the Catholic vote in '08 and he will probably get the Catholic vote in '12. Because he will probably win.

Oh, I should amend one of the stats I gave earlier. There is one election in which the Catholic vote did not go to the president-elect. That was in 2000- but they did continue the trend of giving the Catholic vote to the winner of the popular vote.

Are you going to tell me about any elections when the Catholic vote got mobilized? If you do, I’m sure I can look up the Evangelical numbers from the same election and ask you why the Catholics lagged behind by 15-20%.

 

[john_aurelius]

I’m sure there was a quote from a pope that said that whoever prays the öur Father"is our brother…

anybody know who originally said it?

 

[Hail_Linus]

The main centers of power just happen to correspond pretty closely to the capitol and borders of the Western half of the Roman Empire, and it initially included the Byzantine portion.

There is no dispute about Peter’s see being in Rome. Furthermore, did you ever consider that Jesus intended for the Christians to conquer Rome. I find it interesting that our King Jesus referred to Eunichs of his Kingdom (an obvious reference to celibate priests and Bishops) and the Roman Emperors closest circle were a group of Eunichs. To get to the Emperor you had to speak with the Eunuchs.

Furthermore, long before the Edict of Milan the Catholic Church had already established its structure within in the empire. That is why the Romans tried to imitate the Church and organize their Pagan religion in the same way.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church is just as old as either the Eastern or Western halves of Christianity that come from the Roman Empire, and the raw number of Ethiopian Orthodox Christians doesn’t fall very far short of how many Eastern Orthodox Christians are out there. But they’re generally treated as if they don’t exist. I think this has a lot to do with differences in technological/media development in that country, but I also think there’s a bit of a tendency for European Catholics to pay more attention to European Catholicism at the expense of the more ancient African Christians and Syriac Christians- particularly if they belonged to a tradition that wasn’t affiliated with the Roman Empire.

I do not know what you mean by ignored. The Latin Rite is the largest rite and this is why people seem to associate it with the entire Catholic Church. Nonetheless, even where there is schism, all Apostolic CHurches are part of the Catholic Church whether in full communion or not.

The pope is your rock, yes? Your bulwark, you anchor. Your mainstay. His rule is over time and space; long may he live. That guy?

But you also say he’s weak. What kind of rock is he, then? Chalk? Talc? Limestone? Those are weak rocks. They erode and fall apart quite easily.

The Pope as well as the entire Magisterium keep us grounded in the true Christianity. It is there job to make sure any development does noy make us stray from authentic Christianity.

He is a strong rock that keeps a Grounded. But he is humble. He just makes sure we never forget what is right and what is wrong as we were taught by the Apostles. If you do not know right from wrong how can you measure progress?

The Pope is the weakest link in our chain and that is why the Catholic Church will never die. For a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. (I ripped this one off from G.K. Chesterton. )

I am not perfect and I do not know everything and neither does anyone on this board. However, you in particular are missing a lot of facts and have a lot of wrong facts. In other words you are using logic to come to conclusion based on insufficient and erroneous facts. This of course leads to illogical conclusions.

I once hated the Catholic Church for many of the reasons you seem to dislike the Church so I can sympathize with you. However, if you dig deeper you will learn the truth. You may still come to a different conclusion than me but at least you won’t be making the uniformed statements you are making.

Make yourself humble. I always assume I am stupid and know nothing and that is what keeps me learning.

 

[PRmerger]

You may like this article, I did:

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/toward-reuniting.htm

Or maybe you have already read it.

God bless

Kreeft is one of my faves!

-PR “Keeftophile” merger