Three Branches Of Christianity

[gelsbern]

3 “branches” of Christianity:

1. Churches with valid bishops in Communion with the Church of Rome.
2. Churches with valid bishops but not in communion with the Church of Rome.
3. Church-like communities without valid bishops.

You hit the nail on the head on what the Church teaches. I find it odd, that with things people disagree on, they pull out old catechisms, but when it’s something they do agree with, then they pull stuff from the current catechism. I think I’ll follow suit.

From the CURRENT Catechism of the Catholic Church

1398 The Eucharist and the unity of Christians. Before the greatness of this mystery St. Augustine exclaims, "O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!"237 The more painful the experience of the divisions in the Church which break the common participation in the table of the Lord, the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time of complete unity among all who believe in him may return.

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."238

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240

And from Dominus Iesus which was authored by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before his elevation to the papal seat.

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.

 

[mercygate]

Sorry if I sounded angry but I do not take kindly to being called a heretic. I am a “Protestant” and worship every Sunday in my church as well as daily prayer. I believe in the Trinity and every word of the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed, that makes me a Christian and not a heretical Infidel. I am a descendant of both Scottish Presbyterians and French Calvinists so I suppose my ancestors have been called “Heretics” in the past by your church but I do not call Catholics heretics or accuse you of flawed worship (though I do believe the RC Church has fallen away from the gospel a bit over the years).
I reserve the title Heretics for followers of Joseph Smith, the JW and other groups which have twisted Christianity into an unknown form by adding new “scriptures” and such.
Rant Over.
WP

What’s so surprising about being considered a heretic by Catholics? When I was an Episcopalian, I knew that I held a heretical ecclesiology as defined by the Catholic Church, and by virtue of the fact that I rejected the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church – as defined by the Church that authored the Creed – I recognized that I was a heretic.

There is nothing the least bit elitist about a Catholic stating the truth of Catholic teaching. In fact, it would be deprecating and patronizing to do otherwise.

If one does not believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Communion of Saints, and the forgiveness of sins as the Church herself understands these things, then one is in obstinate denial of a key article of the Christian faith, and thus – a heretic.

Don’t take it so hard.

 

[Zooey]

The two-volume World Christian Encyclopedia (2001) has four classifications: (Roman) Catholic, (Eastern) Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant. The main editor (David Barrett) is a statistician and a priest of the Anglican church, so (I assume) he holds the “3-branch theory” of the True Church: i.e., that the Catholic Church consists of three branches, namely Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican.
Peace be with you.

Yeah, but this version is going to have problems defining us Methodists…Because, as far as I can see, we are Anglicans. But you know that the Anglicans are going to argue that one! (This despite the fact that Methodism’s founders, John & Charles Wesley are in the Anglican calendar of saints!)

 

[Vigis]

Could somebody tell me what the Catholic Church says on what is considered heresy. Does the Catholic Church believe that heretics can enter the Kingdom of Heaven? God speed.

 

[rr1213]

What’s so surprising about being considered a heretic by Catholics? When I was an Episcopalian, I knew that I held a heretical ecclesiology as defined by the Catholic Church, and by virtue of the fact that I rejected the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church – as defined by the Church that authored the Creed – I recognized that I was a heretic.

There is nothing the least bit elitist about a Catholic stating the truth of Catholic teaching. In fact, it would be deprecating and patronizing to do otherwise.

If one does not believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Communion of Saints, and the forgiveness of sins as the Church herself understands these things, then one is in obstinate denial of a key article of the Christian faith, and thus – a heretic.

Don’t take it so hard.

I agree that there is no value in denying the truth (or what we believe to be the truth). Having said that, the truth can be presented in a manner that is edifying to people or not. The Catholic Church believes that the Protestant Churches are heretical…to a greater or lesser degree depending on what Church we are talking about and to what extent such Church otherwise conforms itself to Catholic teaching. Likewise, many Protestant Churches consider the Catholic Church to be heretical as well, again the degree of heresy asserted depends on the Church you are talking about. So, if an outsider were to look at use he’d see us calling each other heretical…so we are all heretics if we are all to be believed. I don’t think that we should pretend that differences don’t exist when they most certainly do, but what does the use of such terminology such as “heretical” or “heretics” gain us in the end?

 

[rr1213]

Yeah, but this version is going to have problems defining us Methodists…Because, as far as I can see, we are Anglicans. But you know that the Anglicans are going to argue that one! (This despite the fact that Methodism’s founders, John & Charles Wesley are in the Anglican calendar of saints!)

When I was confirmed as a child in the Methodist Church my pastor repeatedly said that I was wrong to consider the origins of the Church as being in the Reformation. He insisted that the origin of the Methodist Church was in the Church of England. Of course, both of us were right and both of us grossly oversimplified the applicable history. Methodists? They are dissident Anglicans!

 

[Neithan]

rr1213:

I don’t think that we should pretend that differences don’t exist when they most certainly do, but what does the use of such terminology such as “heretical” or “heretics” gain us in the end?

The label ‘heretic’ is mostly for Catholics not formally in schism, to clearly mark them out as potentially dangerous to the faith of others. It’s different than merely ‘heterodox/unorthodox’ I think, because a heretic is deliberately opposed to Church teaching, yet still considers themself Catholic.

 

[st_michael]

They say that there are three branches of Christianity
Catholicism
Protestantism
Eastern Orthodoxy

My question is where do you put:
Palmarian Catholic Church
German “Old Catholics”
The followers of “Pope Gregory XVII” aka Jean-Gaston Tremblay
The followers of “Pope Peter II” aka Chester Olszewski??

Hope someone can clarify this.
WP

Hello, If you have a 66 book Bible then you might be a Protestant! :thumbsup:If your Church is in communion with the Catholic Church then you might be a Catholic!

If your Church can trace their origins from succession of Bishops to the Apostles and is not in communion with the Pope then you might be an Eastern Orthodox!

If you do not fall in any of these groups than you are few and far between in comparison to the whole of Christendom and might be considered a leaf that fell off the tree, the Church!

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,

How about if we break into 2 groups and make it really simple.

1.)Those who believe and follow Christ

2.)Those who dont

Because you know what–in the end when we stand in front of JESUS CHRIST KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS–the only thing that is going to matter is whether or not we followed Christ.

 

[st_michael]

Hi,

How about if we break into 2 groups and make it really simple.

1.)Those who believe and follow Christ

2.)Those who dont

Because you know what–in the end when we stand in front of JESUS CHRIST KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS–the only thing that is going to matter is whether or not we followed Christ.

This is true! Those who follow Christ! Amen!

I understood the question to be thought of in a Historical or cultural sence… Theologically it is correct to be 2 groups… those who are in communion with Christ and those who are not…

I know the communion in christ is not black and white. This does not change the fact that all three camps profess Christ as Lord and God and thus belong to the tree which is called the Church…

That being said, Christianity is divided in its understand on Christianity itself! Therefore you will have the branches and the simplicity of your request to have two groups is mute… (IMHO)

 

[Atreyu]

The label ‘heretic’ is mostly for Catholics not formally in schism, to clearly mark them out as potentially dangerous to the faith of others. It’s different than merely ‘heterodox/unorthodox’ I think, because a heretic is deliberately opposed to Church teaching, yet still considers themself Catholic.

What you are describing is sometimes called “formal heresy”, as opposed to “material heresy”. Those who are material heretics have inherited the heresies from previous generations, instead of actively rejecting an article of faith (formal heresy).

 

[Reformed_Rob]

I would not call it heresy. I would say that they do not hold the full truth. As long as they believe in the basic Christian doctrine established at the Council of Nicea then they are not heretics to me. God speed.

Hi everyone!

I just read about half this thread, so I apologize if I’m saying something that has already been mentioned or perhaps proved wrong.

From the newadvent article on heresy, there are distinctions made between different types of heresy.

A person can be what Atreyu termed a “material heretic” and not be what we call a “formal heretic.”

Probably what first comes to mind when the word heretic is used is a person who just obstinately denies the truth and is bad in every sort of way regarding doctrine.

That’s not what we always mean when we use the term “heretic.” Quiet often the term can be used in reference to a person who would fit the description given by St. Augustine:

Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas), especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected"

And though the term “heretic” is sometimes used for such people, but it is used in reference to a “material heretic” as opposed to a fire-breathing formal heretic person who knows the truth but rejects and speaks against it openly.

Probably you’re on to another topic, but I thought I’d submit that.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

What you are describing is sometimes called “formal heresy”, as opposed to “material heresy”. Those who are material heretics have inherited the heresies from previous generations, instead of actively rejecting an article of faith (formal heresy).

Boy did I ever just repeat what someone just said!!

 

[spauline]

this is a little off topic, but isn’t it interesting that Jesus feeds the multitudes with FIVE loaves and TWO fish, and there are SEVEN Sacraments, and when heretics separate from us over the Eucharist, they lose five sacraments.

 

[Zooey]

When I was confirmed as a child in the Methodist Church my pastor repeatedly said that I was wrong to consider the origins of the Church as being in the Reformation. He insisted that the origin of the Methodist Church was in the Church of England. Of course, both of us were right and both of us grossly oversimplified the applicable history. Methodists? They are dissident Anglicans!

http://bestsmileys.com/wink/1.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/thumbs/2.gif

 

[Atreyu]

Boy did I ever just repeat what someone just said!!

Yeah, but you said it so much better! And with Augustine too, I love Augustine

 

[rr1213]

http://bestsmileys.com/wink/1.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/thumbs/2.gif

I don’t know how you get those smiley things to do that. Guess I will have to stick with the standard issue smileys…

 

[Ignatius]

Could somebody tell me what the Catholic Church says on what is considered heresy. Does the Catholic Church believe that heretics can enter the Kingdom of Heaven? God speed.

For a good explanation, see post #27

 

[Vigis]

For a good explanation, see post #27

Thank you for answering my question. God speed.

 

[PauloFreire2]

“Palmarian Catholic Church
German “Old Catholics”
The followers of “Pope Gregory XVII” aka Jean-Gaston Tremblay
The followers of “Pope Peter II” aka Chester Olszewski??”

Some of these are sub-Catholic communities, and others are heretics.