If God existed, why would He preside behind the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I’m back, but only for about 20 minutes more.

 

[benedictus2]

For all posters on this thread, thank you very much for your responses. I haven’t ignored anyone. I’m coming back to respond to those I haven’t responded.

I’m logging off now to mourn. I’ll come back here later.

I am not sure what you mean by mourn here but if it due to a death, then I pray:

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord and Let your perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. (her and she as the case may be).

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I wasn’t aware the Church splintered. History says people broke away from the Church and the Church remained an ever constant. Not being confrontational, but the burden of proof is on you to show us how the Church “splintered” or the one truth became “multiple truths”. Rather, it seems that God has preserved the Church like your analogies, the Church cannot be blamed for rebellious people or schisms but the sin of pride of not showing obedience to the Bishop of Rome is the root cause of this.

Both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church claim to be the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. Even if we agree that history says people (i.e. Protestant reformers) broke away from the Church, that is difficult to say about the Eastern Orthodox. At least Protestants admit they believe their church(es) are a “reform” of the much older system; the Orthodox claim they are the original church. That seems like a splinter to me, not to mention the fact that the Church sometimes speaks of uniting back with the Orthodox. How can you unite with something unless it has been broken? Hence why historians refer to it as the “Great Schism”, or more correctly, “the East-West schism”. It almost literally divided Europe into two.

Is it not written that he did reveal Himself to those of the Old Testament? Though not fully, but in accordance to His Divine Plan. I seem to remember the first humans, Adam and Eve (being literal or metaphorical) knew of God and sinned against His will and were removed from the Garden. If all humans proceeded from Adam and Eve, is it not plausible to suggest that knowledge of Him would’ve been past down?

What I meant in my original post was that God never revealed Himself to Mankind initially. It was Man that originally found God. This is backed up historically, as Hinduism and a select number of pagan faiths predate the existence of Judaism. Now to say that it was part of God’s “Divine Plan” is interesting, but it doesn’t stack up to reality. God punishes the Ancient Egyptians in the Book of Exodus for worshiping “false gods”. How does that make sense - if God had established Judaism from the start, then He would be right and just in punishing the Egyptians. But He didn’t. The Ancient Egyptians derived their sense of God from the fact that it was the River Nile that gave sustenance to their civilization. As the economist Adam Smith notes in the The Wealth of Nations, “The extent and easiness of this inland navigation was probably one of the principal causes of the early improvement of Egypt”. And they were punished for using their sense of reason and faith, for Scripture narrates to us the Ten Plagues.

Just to gauge the conversation, do you accept the written word as a valid means of historical evidence (namely the Pentateuch in this conversation)? Or do we need to employ scientific means to suggest humans sourcing from one region on the global (which is strangely close to or identical to the suggestion where the Garden was) or the Mitochondrial Eve?

I accept that the Bible is a historical text. But simply because it is a historical text does not make it accurate. As a Catholic, you know this. You know that the Bible is inerrant concerning faith and morals, but not about science and history. Indeed, the Bible glaringly tells us that Man and dinosaur lived together: "“Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.” (Job 40:15). The Bible’s historiography is disputable. Joshua apparently commanded the sun to “stand still” (Joshua 10:12). I find that dubious as well - it seems more like literature written by victors of a war than authentic history.

I find it rather interesting that “early humans” were searching for God at all. I wonder where that idea of an immaterial/supernatural existence sourced from. Either humans have an intrinsic nature that is drawn to divine or such an idea was extrinsically dispensed by an outside nature or agent to humankind. Either case suggests the existence of God. More or less, this line of reasoning is a branch of the “argument from desire” by Peter Kreeft, peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm Though, as he even stated that it is not a very strong argument but nevertheless deserves thought.

Humans didn’t always believe that God was immaterial. In fact, many still don’t. Early humans believed that the sun was god by virtue of the fact that the sun ensured they lived. Everything inevitably boiled down to the sun. Now the “argument from desire” is a weak argument because not every human is concerned about God. Look outside your window. Society keeps ticking. No one cares about God. Everyone is going about their own daily business. When I was at the World Youth Day, we had a Bishop who told us that the greatest threat to Christianity aren’t Atheists, but people who are indifferent. For, he says, atheists are still willing to talk about God, but those who are indifferent are completely absorbed in their daily activities they couldn’t give two hoots about whether God existed or not. Why else are vocations in the Western world plumetting - after all, humans supposedly desire God?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Why do you think God presided over the Reformation? The whole concept of a split in the Church flies in the face of the revealed truth, please clarify.

He presided over it by virtue of the fact that both the Great Schism and the Reformation occurred. Individuals who participated and were involved in both events clearly believed they were acting in God’s name. God didn’t give them any revelation of any kind that the path they were taking was the incorrect one - yet He supposedly manages to do so with St. Paul.

Secondly, (to steel a thought from Frank J. Sheed) there are many people who will not accept any teaching of the Catholic Church, even the truth of Jesus Christ and therefore maybe God decided to allow avenues of some means of faith to be brought into existstence.

Dubious. Either you believe in Truth or you don’t. From what I’ve read, God doesn’t create “extra avenues”. Yes, He permits some people to enter Heaven through other avenues, but He doesn’t create extra avenues (as far as Catholicism teaches). In fact, Mr. Sheed’s comments reflect what we call “universalism” - the belief that everyone goes to Heaven. That immediately begs the question - why should Jesus even start a religion at all? Why not just die, resurrect, ascend, and leave it as that?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Why? why? why?
What if? what if? what if?
Evil? Evil? Evil?
Atheist - former devout Catholic.

<snipped to save space, but I have read everything you’ve written>

You know, Bible says, more or less, that as High the Sky is so up High from Earth, so God’s thoughts are from human’s thoughts. So, either you trust God and put your life into His Hands not knowing what comes next but putting you future into His thoughts or rather you remain within your little tiny shell thinking and rethinking your narrow minded thoughts (compared to God not to me), in your insignificance. If you put your hope in God and come back to the Church, you becoming Infinite, everlasting, Eternal.

So, because you can’t answer a question I’ve set out, I’m in the wrong for “asking too many questions”. As a Catholic, don’t you believe that you should use reason, or is that prohibited too? Reminds me of the quote from Galileo Galelei:

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”

 

[Jkimbo]

The “one body, many parts” doesn’t really refer to the different Christian denominations as it does refer to the different spiritualities within the Catholic Church - Traditionalist, Charismatic, Contemplative, etc… This of course is rooted in the belief that only the Catholic Church can lay claim to being “the body of Christ”, whilst Protestant churches are more appropriately called “ecclesial communities”. Of course, this boils down to what is the exact and correct meaning of “Catholic” (universal, or the Catholic Church), but that’s a different topic entirely. For the purpose of this thread, we’re assuming Catholic refers to the “Catholic Church” and not the universal Christian community.

It is a proven “assumption” by virtue of the fact it is what we see. We can only speak of what we see, and what we see are random patterns. You speak of what is unseen, but there is no evidence - either implicitly or explicitly - of what is unseen. And even if there was, if I brought a Muslim, a Hindu, a Jew, a Sikh, they would all claim about a “different unseen”, which is the problem that this thread is pointing out.

I don’t really like that flow chart. It ignores many other possibilities. Again, this ignores the purpose of the thread - Jews believe Jesus was only a teacher; some even deny His existence altogether. Muslims believe He was merely a prophet. Even in the early Church, there were some who believed Jesus was God in appearance only (Docetism). The question of this thread is why God presides, or allows, all of this confusion. Either, then, that God is a god of disorder, no different from Satan. Or God doesn’t exist, and Man has merely projected an image of God - in short, “God was made in the image of Man”, to paraphrase one Marxist philosopher.

Your question is beyond our ability to answer fully because who knows the Mind of God? One could question why God permits any thing at all, death, evil, suffering, hunger, etc. The point is God does what He Does, and the Why’s are not necessarily easily understood to humans.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Your question is beyond our ability to answer fully because who knows the Mind of God? One could question why God permits any thing at all, death, evil, suffering, hunger, etc. The point is God does what He Does, and the Why’s are not necessarily easily understood to humans.

I could answer all of those, in case you’re interested:

1. Why does God permit death?
   Answer: Catholicism maintains that God is perfectly merciful as well as perfectly just. When Adam and Eve fell, they brought sin into the world. The consequence of sin was death, just as Scripture says: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23). God permitted death as a way of remunerating what was an evil act. If God did not permit death, or provide some other means that Adam and Eve bore the consequences of their evil actions, God would not be perfectly just. The problem that God faced wasn’t physical death, but the resulting spiritual death. Jesus Christ - it is said - solved that by descending into Hell (Harrowing of Hell) which opened up Heaven for the Patriarchs and those who were favourable in God’s eyes (e.g. Abraham, Moses, King David etc). I believe St. John Chrysostom remarked something along the lines that Man actually gained more from the Fall, because now Man can enter into Heaven and enjoy the Beatific Vision (this wasn’t possible before). In short, Man gained Heaven and lost the Garden of Eden. I found that perspective very interesting…
2. Why does God permit evil/suffering?
   Answer: Refer to St. Thomas Aquinas. Too long to explain here.
3. Why does God permit hunger?
   Answer: This is an economics question

In the Garden of Eden, there was no scarcity in the sense that we understand it today (scarcity is the economic idea that human wants exceed resources). Adam was given everything he really needed, apart from a partner, which God gave Adam subsequently (there is a reason behind this as well). Thus, Adam and Eve’s sin was particularly grave because they were essentially given everything they asked for and still disobeyed God’s one simple commandment. When Adam and Eve fell, it introduced what we call scarcity into the world, as Scripture says: “To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:17). The ground was cursed and resources became limited. From an economic perspective in the New Testament, Jesus fed the 5000 to show that as God, He was not bound by the laws of scarcity. He was over and above the economic law of scarcity. Now some respond why would God permit hunger across developing nations? The simple answer is that Jesus has already promised that “the poor will always be with you . . .]” (Matthew 26:11). I found this interesting because it is true - we will always have what we consider “absolute poverty” and “relative poverty”. So it’s a fact of life that poverty will always exist. That’s why I didn’t start a thread about world hunger, which would be even more egregious, as I haven’t done much to help the world’s poor lately (not too rich myself lol).

 

[babylonsfalling]

This is something that always bothered me, even as my time as a Catholic.** If God truly existed, why would He preside behind the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation?** <—Here we go again… Why did God “preside behind” ANYTHING that seems senseless to man? Better question, how did you get the notion that "if God truly existed, everything He he did would pass your smell test and make sense to you? If you parents punished you as a child and it made no sense to you, should you have stopped believing they were your parents? *** So instead of what Catholics say is the “one truth”, you now have “multiple truths”, <—No we don’t. And I doubt that even you really believe that ANY type of disagreement necessarily means that there are “multiple truths”. Someone is wrong and someone else is right. Happens all the time Bohm. with different people preaching different things. How can this be so, when the Bible even says “God is not a God of disorder” (1 Corinthians 14:33)? So something is definitely rotten in the State of Denmark, to quote Shakespeare. To say, “God gave Man free will” is a weak argument. <—It’s actually a great point. Free will is a very self evident thing to most of us, very few people are in denial that it came from God, and free will accounts for almost all of man’s good or bad decisions to follow God or go their own way. God gave Man free will to kill Jesus as a child,*<–Read your Bible Bohm…they tried and failed to kill Jesus as a child. God prevented it. but God preserved Him from that. God gave free will to Man to kill the Virgin Mary, St. Anne, and all the other ancestors that would have broken their lineage, but they seem to have been preserved from that. <—God gives men the free will to try killing those people. We have the free will to try blowing up the sun too Bohm, that doesn’t mean your necessarily going to do it or that God would allow you to succeed if you DID try. So, in the same fashion, God could have equally preserved the Catholic Church or whatever is the “true religion” from disintegrating into several parts.***<—The Catholic Church IS preserved Bohm. It’s preserved even though everyone is not Catholic. ***

In addition, if God existed, why wasn’t Judaism the first religion? Why didn’t God reveal Himself to Mankind at first? <—Read your Bible Bohm. God revealed himself to man BEFORE Judaism existed, unless you think Adam and Eve were Jewish people, which I’ve NEVER heard before. Why is it that Hinduism and several branches of paganism all predate mainstream Judaism by about a thousand years, and it’s subsequent successor - Christianity - by several thousand years. This is quite an intriguing thought, as early humans searched for God rather than God searching them. Early humans didn’t receive revelation.*** <—God revealed himself to man before Judaism. Read your Bible, see who who makes first contact, does God speak to Adam first or does Adam speak to God first?*** But doesn’t Scripture say - “. . .]anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). So he rewarded these early humans with Hinduism/paganism - the very same religions that are now deplored across by the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

I seem to remember you being an atheist, a Catholic, and now an atheist again. Going back further I think I remember that part being blank too, and other descriptions being used at various times.

How many times in the last several months have your changed your faith identifier?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I seem to remember you being an atheist, a Catholic, and now an atheist again. Going back further I think I remember that part being blank too, and other descriptions being used at various times.

How many times in the last several months have your changed your faith identifier?

3 times actually (excluding the times I’ve left it blank, which didn’t necessarily imply disbelief). Probably explains why I look up to St. Peter

 

[babylonsfalling]

3 times actually (excluding the times I’ve left it blank, which didn’t necessarily imply disbelief). Probably explains why I look up to St. Peter

What were the different identifiers…I seem to remember something other than Catholic and atheist?

 

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by Bohm Bawerk View Post
Jesus lied - after all, He claimed that those around Him would not die until they saw the Kingdom of Heaven: “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”" (Matthew 16:28)

I can answer this. He didn’t lie and he did come back in 70 A.D when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed. The second coming is fulfilled in multiple ways because we also know that Jesus comes down to Earth every time the mass is said, and we know that he will come again at the end of all things. The destruction of the temple was the last step in ending the Old Covenant. Jesus said multiple times that he would come again within that generation and that some of them would witness it. The book of Revelation describes the destruction of the Jerusalem as well as the end of times. The 1000 years can actually be applied more directly to the 1000 years before Christ arrived on Earth starting at around 1000 B.C when God made his covenant with King David. The book of Revelation also serves as a future warning to us as to what will happen to civilizations that follow in the path of the Old Jerusalem. The destruction of the Temple was a microcosm of what is to come at the end of the World when God’s temple, the Universe, is completely destroyed.

Look into the preterist view of Revelation if your interested. The strict preterist view states that the entirety of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in 70A.D. However this is a pretty close minded view and I’m not sure many still strictly believe this and instead believe that this is the main fulfillment that points towards others.

Secondly, as seen in the Old Testament God often used the Israelite’s to spread his message by allowing them to be put into captivity. The decisively made a lot more progress this way in spreading the word of God. It may look pretty sad for Christianity right now, but if the day does come when we are all united that will be one powerful force to contend with and it also mean that many of the problems have been resolved to prevent future break up. I think in a lot of ways the Protestant Reformation has been a good thing, in that it has challenged people to learn their faith so they can share it and evangelize. We are all called to be mature in our faith, and the Reformation has definitely called people to that.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

What were the different identifiers…I seem to remember something other than Catholic and atheist?

No, it’s only ever been Catholic/Atheist/Blank.

 

[babylonsfalling]

No, it’s only ever been Catholic/Atheist/Blank.

Why are you back and forth so much?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I can answer this. He didn’t lie and he did come back in 70 A.D when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed. The second coming is fulfilled in multiple ways because we also know that Jesus comes down to Earth every time the mass is said, and we know that he will come again at the end of all things. The destruction of the temple was the last step in ending the Old Covenant. Jesus said multiple times that he would come again within that generation and that some of them would witness it. The book of Revelation describes the destruction of the Jerusalem as well as the end of times. The 1000 years can actually be applied more directly to the 1000 years before Christ arrived on Earth starting at around 1000 B.C when God made his covenant with King David. The book of Revelation also serves as a future warning to us as to what will happen to civilizations that follow in the path of the Old Jerusalem. The destruction of the Temple was a microcosm of what is to come at the end of the World when God’s temple, the Universe, is completely destroyed.

Secondly, as seen in the Old Testament God often used the Israelite’s to spread his message by allowing them to be put into captivity. The decisively made a lot more progress this way in spreading the word of God. It may look pretty sad for Christianity right now, but if the day does come when we are all united that will be one powerful force to contend with and it also mean that many of the problems have been resolved to prevent future break up. I think in a lot of ways the Protestant Reformation has been a good thing, in that it has challenged people to learn their faith so they can share it and evangelize. We are all called to be mature in our faith, and the Reformation has definitely called people to that.

Thank you. Nice post:thumbsup:.

*Although there is just this small problem that I have (very small ). Yesterday, I was reading an article by a Dominican friar who was trying to criticize bilocation (as I’m sure you know, bilocation was a gift apparently given to St. Padre Pio, and a few other saints). As a Dominican, he referred to St. Thomas Aquinas’ theology that it’s impossible for a body and a soul to appear in two different places simultaneously. Someone responded to him that Jesus “bilocates” by virtue of different Masses being said all across the world. To which the friar responded that Jesus isn’t physically present or locally present. Jesus is sacramentally present, which is different.

Given that Jesus is sacramentally present, do you believe it would change the crux of your post? I found it beautifully written, I was just curious .

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Why are you back and forth so much?

Why was St. Peter back and forth so much?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Why was St. Peter back and forth so much?

Because he was afraid of the Cross and the sacrifices it requires**.**

 

[Nate13]

Thank you. Nice post:thumbsup:.

*Although there is just this small problem that I have (very small ). Yesterday, I was reading an article by a Dominican friar who was trying to criticize bilocation (as I’m sure you know, bilocation was a gift apparently given to St. Padre Pio, and a few other saints). As a Dominican, he referred to St. Thomas Aquinas’ theology that it’s impossible for a body and a soul to appear in two different places simultaneously. Someone responded to him that Jesus “bilocates” by virtue of different Masses being said all across the world. To which the friar responded that Jesus isn’t physically present or locally present. Jesus is sacramentally present, which is different.

Given that Jesus is sacramentally present, do you believe it would change the crux of your post? I found it beautifully written, I was just curious .

I think you have to look at it in view of the book of Revelation again and the pascal feast of the lamb. The mass is being celebrated for all time, as in always, up in Heaven as “the lamb standing as though slain”. Whenever the mass is being said we are keying into the eternal mass in the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore Jesus is physically present in only one place, the Kingdom of Heaven, which is present at any given location at the exact same time because its eternal and has no time. Thus the Kingdom of Heaven really is present on Earth. I think this is what he meant by “sacramentally present”. I’m not sure if all this made sense but I’ll think on it some more and see if I can come up with better words to describe what I’m saying.

 

[JRRTFAN]

He presided over it by virtue of the fact that both the Great Schism and the Reformation occurred. Individuals who participated and were involved in both events clearly believed they were acting in God’s name. God didn’t give them any revelation of any kind that the path they were taking was the incorrect one - yet He supposedly manages to do so with St. Paul.

Dubious. Either you believe in Truth or you don’t. From what I’ve read, God doesn’t create “extra avenues”. Yes, He permits some people to enter Heaven through other avenues, but He doesn’t create extra avenues (as far as Catholicism teaches). In fact, Mr. Sheed’s comments reflect what we call “universalism” - the belief that everyone goes to Heaven. That immediately begs the question - why should Jesus even start a religion at all? Why not just die, resurrect, ascend, and leave it as that?

I don’t know what you read, but it wasn’t much of Sheed who was hardly a universalist. The facts taught by the Catholic Church include Sacred Scripture which teaches: 1 Tim 2:4 says that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” If God desires that then He must make a provision for each person, i.e., he must make adequate grace available to each and every person ever concieved in order that that person, through the exercise of free will can accept the gift. Some people don’t but that doesn’t mean God didn’t do his part.

I will go back to Mr. Sheed: there are people who, through misunderstanding, poor experience or lack of information will not accept anything the Catholic Church teaches. Provision must be made for them in some sense to gain adequate knowledge.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Why was St. Peter back and forth so much?<—You’re not Peter, you’re Bohm.

Come on Bohm, I was asking about you, not Peter. Anyone can avoid an answer by responding with a question.
I’ll humor the non-answer and answer your question as best I can, with sincere hopes that you’ll then respond to my question with an answer in reference to you, not Peter or some other person.

I believe Peter was back and forth because of his fear of persecution.

Will you now tell us why you are back and forth so much?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Come on Bohm, I was asking about you, not Peter. Anyone can avoid an answer by responding with a question.
I’ll humor the non-answer and answer your question as best I can, with sincere hopes that you’ll then respond to my question with an answer in reference to you, not Peter or some other person.

I believe Peter was back and forth because of his fear of persecution.

Will you now tell us why you are back and forth so much?

Private message me. I started a thread for the purpose of having a question answered. It seems you want to turn this into something “personal” lol (do you have a grudge against me or something?)