What's the Deal With "Breakaway" Churches (I'll Explain What I Mean in the Post)?

[ChristianDude]

So obviously, evangelical or fundamentalist Christians don’t believe in apostolic succession, so I’m not going to get into those. But as someone who has been exploring denominations, I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship between apostolic churches and theological orthodoxy and/or social conservatism. The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, and the Churches of the East (Assyrian, Ancient) all seem to be on the same page for a lot of doctrines, such as apostolic succession, sacraments, or intercession of saints. And, at least by official church teaching, they tend to have more traditional stances on issues like abortion or contraception (though I’ve read that the Orthodox church has gotten more lenient).

And this is where I get to what I may call the “breakaway churches”, and by that term I mean churches that at least at one point held valid apostolic succession but are not within that group I mentioned: Anglicans, Northern European Lutherans, and Old Catholics. I’ve come to notice that unlike the churches I mentioned earlier, these churches are a lot more liberal on social issues, and while they may believe in apostolic succession and other Early Church doctrines, even this can vary (especially with Anglicans).

I guess this thread is a way for me to ponder out loud. But I’m wondering what it is that seems to makes these churches more prone to being at odds with the more ancient churches. Perhaps as they literally did break away from the Catholic Church, they have a sort of more independent attitude? Being that they are more recent, perhaps they are more prone to succumbing to societal changes unlike the ancient churches? I just wonder why it is that, for example, the Church of Sweden is so liberal, but then, as an example, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is very much conservative.

 

[FractalFire]

Hmmm… I like this question. Good job!

My opinion? – I think it has to do with Relative Rate of Ideological Change. Churches that are much more traditional change very, very slowly, meaning that, if they do imbibe new doctrines, it happens over long period of time (which can be good or bad, if they happen to accept a false doctrine and incorporate it into their teaching). Less traditional churches can change more quickly, which allows them to discard bureaucracy in favor of a more straightforward Christianity, but comes at the added risk of accepting false cultural ideologies.

 

[pablope]

So obviously, evangelical or fundamentalist Christians don’t believe in apostolic succession, so I’m not going to get into those. But as someone who has been exploring denominations, I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship between apostolic churches and theological orthodoxy and/or social conservatism. The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, and the Churches of the East (Assyrian, Ancient) all seem to be on the same page for a lot of doctrines, such as apostolic succession, sacraments, or intercession of saints. And, at least by official church teaching, they tend to have more traditional stances on issues like abortion or contraception (though I’ve read that the Orthodox church has gotten more lenient).

And this is where I get to what I may call the “breakaway churches”, and by that term I mean churches that at least at one point held valid apostolic succession but are not within that group I mentioned: Anglicans, Northern European Lutherans, and Old Catholics. I’ve come to notice that unlike the churches I mentioned earlier, these churches are a lot more liberal on social issues, and while they may believe in apostolic succession and other Early Church doctrines, even this can vary (especially with Anglicans).

I guess this thread is a way for me to ponder out loud. But I’m wondering what it is that seems to makes these churches more prone to being at odds with the more ancient churches. Perhaps as they literally did break away from the Catholic Church, they have a sort of more independent attitude? Being that they are more recent, perhaps they are more prone to succumbing to societal changes unlike the ancient churches? I just wonder why it is that, for example, the Church of Sweden is so liberal, but then, as an example, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is very much conservative.

Separation from the rock on which the Church is built…calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

Of course, in the invisible church ecclesiology of contemporary Protestantism (where no Protestant denomination claims to be the Church Christ founded), there can be no such thing as schism from the Church, because every splitting of Christian communions is a mere ‘branching’ in which each party remains within “the small-c catholic Church.” (See “Branches or Schisms?“.) Thus from within the perspective of the invisible-church paradigm, every splitting of Christian communions, though perhaps temporarily lamentable, shortly becomes a cause of celebration, as God providentially transforms it into an increase in diversity in “the catholic Church.” In this invisible church ecclesiology of contemporary Protestantism, there is not even any conceptual space for the notion of schism from the Church Christ founded. St. Optatus’ speaking of schism from the universal Church, as an action distinct from apostasy from the Christian faith, does not even fit into the Protestant ecclesial paradigm.15

 

[FractalFire]

Separation from the rock on which the Church is built…calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

Of course, in the invisible church ecclesiology of contemporary Protestantism (where no Protestant denomination claims to be the Church Christ founded), there can be no such thing as schism from the Church, because every splitting of Christian communions is a mere ‘branching’ in which each party remains within “the small-c catholic Church.” (See “Branches or Schisms?“.) Thus from within the perspective of the invisible-church paradigm, every splitting of Christian communions, though perhaps temporarily lamentable, shortly becomes a cause of celebration, as God providentially transforms it into an increase in diversity in “the catholic Church.” In this invisible church ecclesiology of contemporary Protestantism, there is not even any conceptual space for the notion of schism from the Church Christ founded. St. Optatus’ speaking of schism from the universal Church, as an action distinct from apostasy from the Christian faith, does not even fit into the Protestant ecclesial paradigm.15

You made a fair enough point with the rest, but I object to the bolded portion. It is not a cause for celebration (nor is it a cause for panic and despair). It is an unfortunate reality that the churches cannot be united – a reality, which, not being good, will be rectified with the return of Christ.

 

[dmar198]

You made a fair enough point with the rest, but I object to the bolded portion. It is not a cause for celebration (nor is it a cause for panic and despair). It is an unfortunate reality that the churches cannot be united – a reality, which, not being good, will be rectified with the return of Christ.

From my perspective, I agree mostly with you, FractalFire, on this issue, and partly with pablope. When I read Protestant works on the seemingly incessant “church splits” in Protestantism, I see mostly lamentation. But I think I’ve also also seen rejoicing occasionally, in the sense mentioned by pablope. Some Protestant writers seem to think that Church splits exhibit freedom, and that is the will of God. The Christian Courier notes that this thinking is endemic in a modern denominationalism: “[This] ideology accommodates variant ‘ecclesiastical [church] bodies’ with distinctive, doctrinal differences. … The denominational concept encourages the idea that the freedom to differ on major points of doctrine is a healthy spiritual phenomenon.” source

 

[Peter_J]

You made a fair enough point with the rest, but I object to the bolded portion. It is not a cause for celebration (nor is it a cause for panic and despair). It is an unfortunate reality that the churches cannot be united – a reality, which, not being good, will be rectified with the return of Christ.

I have only a bit of familiarity with the blog in question, but a lot of experience with “traditionalist” (I try to avoid getting into arguments about whether some Catholics should be described as “fundamentalist”) Catholics. Nevertheless, I’d be untruthful if I said I wasn’t a tiny bit surprised by the polemic that you boldfaced.

 

[adf417]

You made a fair enough point with the rest, but I object to the bolded portion. It is not a cause for celebration (nor is it a cause for panic and despair).** It is an unfortunate reality that the churches cannot be united** – a reality, which, not being good, will be rectified with the return of Christ.

I find it hard for Christians to accept the above bolded statement as reality. This sounds like despair in itself. After all, “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” and you cannot divide the body of Christ.

Is your objection driven because of your view on an unsubstantiated reality, or is this misguided reality driven by your objection?

Peace!!!

 

[FractalFire]

From my perspective, I agree mostly with you, FractalFire, on this issue, and partly with pablope. When I read Protestant works on the seemingly incessant “church splits” in Protestantism, I see mostly lamentation. But I think I’ve also also seen rejoicing occasionally, in the sense mentioned by pablope. Some Protestant writers seem to think that Church splits exhibit freedom, and that is the will of God. The Christian Courier notes that this thinking is endemic in a modern denominationalism: “[This] ideology accommodates variant ‘ecclesiastical [church] bodies’ with distinctive, doctrinal differences. … The denominational concept encourages the idea that the freedom to differ on major points of doctrine is a healthy spiritual phenomenon.” source

I do admit that some Protests do rejoice in a way, but usually its more of the “well, it isn’t so bad as it could be” sort of rejoicing. I was thinking about that when I responded actually, but I concluded that the phrasing was a bit too harsh to apply in general to protestant thought. So, yes, I see your point.

 

[FractalFire]

I find it hard for Christians to accept the above bolded statement as reality. This sounds like despair in itself. After all, “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” and you cannot divide the body of Christ.

Is your objection driven because of your view on an unsubstantiated reality, or is this misguided reality driven by your objection?

Peace!!!

I’m having trouble understanding what you are trying to ask.

I was merely pointing out the purely practical matter that the churches are not likely to be united anytime soon. Sure, *maybe *in the future, but I think only if God wills it at this point.

[Which He very well could. As an example, many interpreters of the book of Revelation predicted that the book seemed to call for a physical state of Israel. This was an unlikely proposition for hundreds of year, but guess what we have now? With God, all things are possible. So maybe he will want the churches to unite some day.]

Meanwhile, however, through human power the gaps are inseparable. Furthermore, I’m not sure any of us should actually want the gap to be bridged (at least currently). In their current state, it is obviously true that such gap bridging would require compromise. Even if some compromises would be trivial, many compromises would be absolutely deadly.

 

[worldcitizen]

The World Christian Encyclopaedia tells us that there are at least two thousand distinct denominations in the world today. How can further divisions be prevented?

As different interpretations of the Bible arose so likewise did more splits in Christianity mainly due to man made dogmas and rituals being introduced.

From the Papacy to the Divinity of Christ disputes arose about who was right and who was wrong and that is seen today with what should be one religion under Christ United now broken into thousands of fragments each claiming they have the real Christ.

Now once again issues like women in priesthood and same sex marriage threaten Christian unity again.

Yet Christ promised there would one day be “one shepherded and one fold” but when and whose fold will be the one?

 

[adf417]

I’m having trouble understanding what you are trying to ask.

I was merely pointing out the purely practical matter that the churches are not likely to be united anytime soon. Sure, *maybe *in the future, but I think only if God wills it at this point.

[Which He very well could. As an example, many interpreters of the book of Revelation predicted that the book seemed to call for a physical state of Israel. This was an unlikely proposition for hundreds of year, but guess what we have now? With God, all things are possible.** So maybe he will want the churches to unite some day

.]

Meanwhile, however, through human power the gaps are inseparable. Furthermore, I’m not sure any of us should actually want the gap to be bridged (at least currently). In their current state, it is obviously true that such gap bridging would require compromise. Even if some compromises would be trivial, many compromises would be absolutely deadly.

Jesus wants the gap filled and he prayed for in in John 17. Therefore what comprise could be deadly when it comes from God?

Peace!!!

 

[Peter_J]

Jesus wants the gap filled and he prayed for in in John 17. Therefore what comprise could be deadly when it comes from God?

Peace!!!

The Council of Trent, while not using the specific language of “We cannot compromise on …”, clearly meant that. (If anything its language was stronger.)

 

[FractalFire]

Jesus wants the gap filled and he prayed for in in John 17. Therefore what comprise could be deadly when it comes from God?

Peace!!!

When I refer to deadly practices, I refer to the acceptance of church practices that are not just technically wrong as a matter of fact, but blatantly immoral – like support for abortion. These things cannot be reasonably compromised on. (Even then it would be really difficult to compromise on some of the not-blatantly-immoral doctrines.)

 

[Peter_J]

A shame that we seem to have exhausted the OP rather quickly.

 

[ChristianDude]

A shame that we seem to have exhausted the OP rather quickly.

No problem, it happens.

 

[jschwartz]

There are also many independent Catholic churches, which fall under the Utrecht line of succession from the Old Catholic tradition.

I’m an Anglo-Catholic who also has an interest in the Liberal Catholic tradition, which is an Old Catholic-type body that emphasizes liberal theology, freedom of conscience, universalism, esotericism, and the unity of all religions/theosophy, things which I all believe in. I chose to formally affiliate as an Anglo-Catholic because I wanted the benefits of affiliation with a major recognized Christian denomination (the Episcopal Church) rather than be a dissident in the Roman Catholic church or be affiliated with an independent church, which are generally not so firmly or formally established, and have a transient, fly by night structure, with no accountability or recognition. I do sympathize with folks in these churches, such as the ANCC, Ecumenical Catholic Communion, etc. with which I share the same attitudes on social and political matters in the church, such as who gets to be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Orders, divorce/remarriage, contraception and abortion. egalitarianism, etc., but I’d rather be affiliated with the larger body of believers, and I do consider myself primarily a Catholic Christian, as there is more that unites us than divides: Devotion to Mary, which has been a very big part of ecumenical revival, affirmation of the ecumenical councils (some say the first 7, others 3 or 4), 3 creeds, 7 sacraments, the 3 ranks of holy orders, the church fathers and holy scriptures, apostolic succession. Veneration of Saints, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the historic liturgy, and shared ritual usages.

 

[adf417]

OP question-

I guess this thread is a way for me to ponder out loud. But I’m wondering what it is that seems to makes these churches more prone to being at odds with the more ancient churches. Perhaps as they literally did break away from the Catholic Church, they have a sort of more independent attitude? Being that they are more recent, perhaps they are more prone to succumbing to societal changes unlike the ancient churches? I just wonder why it is that, for example, the Church of Sweden is so liberal, but then, as an example, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is very much conservative.

Perfect answer from jwchwartz-

I chose…

Peace!!!

 

[worldcitizen]

Isn’t all the disunity and sects caused by varying interpretations of the Bible?

 

[Micosil]

So obviously, evangelical or fundamentalist Christians don’t believe in apostolic succession, so I’m not going to get into those. But as someone who has been exploring denominations, I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship between apostolic churches and theological orthodoxy and/or social conservatism. The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, and the Churches of the East (Assyrian, Ancient) all seem to be on the same page for a lot of doctrines, such as apostolic succession, sacraments, or intercession of saints. And, at least by official church teaching, they tend to have more traditional stances on issues like abortion or contraception (though I’ve read that the Orthodox church has gotten more lenient).

And this is where I get to what I may call the “breakaway churches”, and by that term I mean churches that at least at one point held valid apostolic succession but are not within that group I mentioned: Anglicans, Northern European Lutherans, and Old Catholics. I’ve come to notice that unlike the churches I mentioned earlier, these churches are a lot more liberal on social issues, and while they may believe in apostolic succession and other Early Church doctrines, even this can vary (especially with Anglicans).

I guess this thread is a way for me to ponder out loud. But I’m wondering what it is that seems to makes these churches more prone to being at odds with the more ancient churches. Perhaps as they literally did break away from the Catholic Church, they have a sort of more independent attitude? Being that they are more recent, perhaps they are more prone to succumbing to societal changes unlike the ancient churches? I just wonder why it is that, for example, the Church of Sweden is so liberal, but then, as an example, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is very much conservative.

That is an excellent question, and I am pleased to see you are approaching this from a logical, rational perspective.

I think part of the reason you note this tendency is that these “breakaway” churches all have a considerable presence in the Western world. Note for instance that recently, when the the Episcopal Church and the Anglican communion had a falling out of sorts over the issue of traditional marriage, it was the African bishops that pushed the more conservative, traditional idea. It is the Western world that has followed suit with more liberal tendencies and unfortunately, some churches have gone along with it.

It also isn’t a coincidence that the ancient Apostolic Churches you speak of mostly tend to have a stronger presence in the Eastern part of the world, as well as Africa, and Asia, where Western liberal tendencies aren’t as pronounced, which is part of the reason these churches have mostly managed to keep it together and retain legitimate Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments.

 

[rcwitness]

Isn’t all the disunity and sects caused by varying interpretations of the Bible?

Probably. And the Catholic faith believes in Traditions not necessarily written.

Most “breakaway” churches hold to principles of the faith, which can keep them within the communion of Christianity, yet leaving them out of a full unity. This becomes complicated, because it means there is a rejection of His Eucharist, yet a reception of the basic Gospel.

As Catholics, we find His Eucharist to be very profound in our “accepting Him”. And we can’t just pick and choose which interpretations to accept (if they contradict what has been declared) and still receive His Eucharist in a worthy manner.

We are truly centered around His Eucharist. And this requires examination of conscience, in light of devotion to the liturgy of the Word.