Wow. Protestants split and divide churches based on conflicting ideologies of both major and minor issues and interpretations.
Eastern and Western Catholics, through different expressions, are still united in beliefs, hence the “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.”
Many Protestant denominations share exactly the same beliefs. Catholics have a lot of false ideas about Protestant denominations.
Just a few examples:
The Mennonites, the Church of the Brethren, and the Brethren in Christ have different historical origins and some different practices (the latter two immerse; the Mennonites historically didn’t), but they fully recognize each other and members of one will easily attend a church of the others. Some people have dual ordination in two of these denominations.
The United Brethren and the Missionary Church nearly merged–they decided not to, not because they had any doctrinal differences, but because a lot of folks in the UB clung to their distinct identity while recognizing the fully orthodox faith of the other denomination (indeed, both these denominations would take the stance that any evangelical denomination is fully orthodox and fully part of the Church–they are two tiny denominations that I just happen to know something about because I taught at a UB college for some years).
Similarly, the Nazarenes, the Wesleyans, and the Free Methodists have no significant theological differences and fully acknowledge each other.
Many “mainline” denominations now have relationships of “full communion”: the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, for instance.
This is not to claim that Protestants
as a whole are doctrinally united, of course. Furthermore, the relationships among denominations are complex and muddy. So I’m not claiming that it’s exactly the same. What I am claiming, and stand by, is that Protestant denominations are not
necessarily distinguished from each other by dogmatic differences or a refusal of sacramental intercommunion. What distinguishes denominations, per se, is that they have distinct organizational structures.
Perhaps I’m over simplifying a bit, but are you suggesting that the Oriental and Eastern Churches should have stayed in their own national countries and those who moved to the West were to assimilate into the local RCC?
Certainly not. As a number of posters have pointed out, early Christians frequently faced this situation and found ways to accommodate the liturgical traditions of the newcomers, if there were a significant number of them (though I’d like to see a bit more documentation on specific examples).
By all means, bring in a priest of the appropriate liturgical tradition and either start a new parish or (under present circumstances, where the ground in most of the world is pretty thick with churches already) hand over one of the existing parishes to the immigrant group. Put the parish in a place where most of the immigrants live, and establish the non-coercive expectation that Latins living within the boundaries of the “immigrant” parish will attend it, and immigrants who live outside those boundaries will attend the appropriate parish. (I’m not insisting on this, though–this is the most “legalistic” of the positions I’m arguing for and I certainly wouldn’t want it to be coerced, just treated as the normal procedure.)
Or, to be really revolutionary and offend everyone, there could be a merger of traditions. The newcomers could say, “hey, here’s how we do things,” and the existing inhabitants could say, “OK, and here’s how we’ve been doing things,” and they could learn from each other. I see no theological reason why “Traditions” should be hermetically sealed from each other–that is certainly not how it was in the early Church. It’s an understandable response to the sinful way Christians have treated each other over the centuries. We have built walls to protect ourselves from each other. I’m just suggesting that the walls themselves are a problem, and are at best a temporary expedient in situations where a minority is in danger of being mistreated.
My personal agenda here is that I think Western Christianity has developed some very distorted ways of doing things, and that the “segregated” approach now current allows Westerners to go on in their flawed practices without being challenged and corrected.
Bottom line: if we aren’t mutually accountable and if we can’t worship with each other when we happen to share the same point on the space-time continuum, then we aren’t fully one. I stand by my claim that this replicates the more relatively benign features of Protestant denominationalism, features which are still, in my experience, spiritually toxic and prevent Christians from living fully into their calling as the Body of Christ.
Edwn
