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

[jschwartz]

In the West, the reason why Old Catholics and the other independent churches splintered off has to do with Vatican I. They felt that the statements of Vatican I were incompatible with universal church teaching, as the Eastern churches don’t accept papal infallibility and the literal assumption as dogmas. Later, the strident positions on contraception and other social issues caused other bodies to splinter off.

 

[worldcitizen]

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.

Isn’t the Eucharist really an outward expression of an inward spiritual truth because Jesus gave the meanings of drink and eat and He wasn’t referring to His body in His discourses.

he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”( John 6: 35) The bread of life is a symbol for the heavenly food that is to be found in His teachings. That the bread of life is the Word of God given to us by Jesus is clearly indicated in this verse: “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God” (Luke 4: 4) Symbol of “His meat” Another time Jesus said to His disciples: “I have meat to eat that ye know not of.”( John 4: 32). The disciples were discussing what kind of meat it was that Jesus had that they did not have. However, Jesus explained to them, “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me …”( John 4: 34).

 

[rcwitness]

Isn’t the Eucharist really an outward expression of an inward spiritual truth because Jesus gave the meanings of drink and eat and He wasn’t referring to His body in His discourses.

he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”( John 6: 35) The bread of life is a symbol for the heavenly food that is to be found in His teachings. That the bread of life is the Word of God given to us by Jesus is clearly indicated in this verse: “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God” (Luke 4: 4) Symbol of “His meat” Another time Jesus said to His disciples: “I have meat to eat that ye know not of.”( John 4: 32). The disciples were discussing what kind of meat it was that Jesus had that they did not have. However, Jesus explained to them, “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me …”( John 4: 34).

Yes and no. We receive the Word, believe, and are being saved when keeping it. This is true! While it is also true that His Word became flesh and Blood in order to be a sacrifice for us. Therefore, the Word is bound to this Bread and Cup, which then is vastly different from common bread for our bellies. He said, take and eat, all of you, for this is my body and blood… the blood of the New and everlasting Covenant.

If we receive His Word, we must receive this bread and cup for Him to bring us together into one body. Then He is in us and we are in Him. It IS His will that we come to Him in this meal, and with a clear conscience.

Divisions have come. And they are an offense to His Eucharist! Yet division is not necessarily mortal, since we understand Invincible Ignorance.

 

[worldcitizen]

Yes and no. We receive the Word, believe, and are being saved when keeping it. This is true! While it is also true that His Word became flesh and Blood in order to be a sacrifice for us. Therefore, the Word is bound to this Bread and Cup, which then is vastly different from common bread for our bellies. He said, take and eat, all of you, for this is my body and blood… the blood of the New and everlasting Covenant.

If we receive His Word, we must receive this bread and cup for Him to bring us together into one body. Then He is in us and we are in Him. It IS His will that we come to Him in this meal, and with a clear conscience.

Divisions have come. And they are an offense to His Eucharist! Yet division is not necessarily mortal, since we understand Invincible Ignorance.

Thank you very much for mentioning the New and everlasting Covenant a most important and essential aspect of belief in Jesus. The Covenant is so important.

Aren’t the churches really one? All believe in Jesus and the Bible? Theres only one covenant so isn’t that with all Christians?

 

[rcwitness]

Isn’t the Eucharist really an outward expression of an inward spiritual truth because Jesus gave the meanings of drink and eat and He wasn’t referring to His body in His discourses.

I appreciate your Scripture references, and I would support my statements with specific passages also, but I’m trying to address this in between work.

He definitely does explain Spiritual food as believing in the Word. I don’t want to contradict this observation at all. I want to relate it to what we are eating in His Supper. He is the source (for us) of the Word which we were delivered. John’s gospel, which gives the profound discourse of the bread of life, initiates with telling us “the Word became flesh”. He then relates Jesus’ Teaching about Himself coming down from the Father. All who hear the Father come to Jesus. And Jesus gave us His body and blood (as sacrifice) for the life of the world. The manner in which we eat of this, is Sacramental. Meaning, we come together, join in the prayers, bless the gifts of mere bread and wine, and our Father observes/remembers/considers them to be His Son’s body and blood.

There are comparable instances where Jesus places the need to receive something as of equal necessity as believing in Him. One is Baptism: “Whoever believes and is Baptized will be saved.” Or when He is washing the feet of the Apostles and Peter attempts to refuse: “If I do not do this to you, you have no part in me.”

Partaking in the Eucharist is accepting the Word in Spirit. It is knowing that Jesus passes with the Spirit. He moves through locked doors. He appears and vanishes. And like the disciples on the road to Emmaus, we can fully know Him in the Breaking of Bread.

 

[worldcitizen]

I appreciate your Scripture references, and I would support my statements with specific passages also, but I’m trying to address this in between work.

He definitely does explain Spiritual food as believing in the Word. I don’t want to contradict this observation at all. I want to relate it to what we are eating in His Supper. He is the source (for us) of the Word which we were delivered. John’s gospel, which gives the profound discourse of the bread of life, initiates with telling us “the Word became flesh”. He then relates Jesus’ Teaching about Himself coming down from the Father. All who hear the Father come to Jesus. And Jesus gave us His body and blood (as sacrifice) for the life of the world. The manner in which we eat of this, is Sacramental. Meaning, we come together, join in the prayers, bless the gifts of mere bread and wine, and our Father observes/remembers/considers them to be His Son’s body and blood.

There are comparable instances where Jesus places the need to receive something as of equal necessity as believing in Him. One is Baptism: “Whoever believes and is Baptized will be saved.” Or when He is washing the feet of the Apostles and Peter attempts to refuse: “If I do not do this to you, you have no part in me.”

Partaking in the Eucharist is accepting the Word in Spirit. It is knowing that Jesus passes with the Spirit. He moves through locked doors. He appears and vanishes. And like the disciples on the road to Emmaus, we can fully know Him in the Breaking of Bread.

Thanks for that. It’s late here and I have to go also so we’ll catch up tomorrow.

Thanks again

David

 

[Peter_J]

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.

OP question-

Perfect answer from jwchwartz-

I chose

I think we want to be a little bit careful here, lest we fan the embers of disharmony between converts and cradles into a flame of discord (or whatever ). I’m a “cradle” myself, but I have to ask: can’t we all, ultimately, say “I chose” (either to stay in the church we were brought up in, or to join a different one)?

 

[Micosil]

I think we want to be a little bit careful here, lest we fan the embers of disharmony between converts and cradles into a flame of discord (or whatever ). I’m a “cradle” myself, but I have to ask: can’t we all, ultimately, say “I chose” (either to stay in the church we were brought up in, or to join a different one)?

That is correct, we do have free will, but in my humble opinion, the best choice is always a fruit of looking at the evidence, which can only come from a sincere searching heart that yearns for truth.

In my personal case, from what I have looked at, that is only found in the Catholic Church.

 

[jschwartz]

Perhaps I should say my path chose me.

 

[Peter_J]

That is correct, we do have free will, but in my humble opinion, the best choice is always a fruit of looking at the evidence, which can only come from a sincere searching heart that yearns for truth.

Hmmmm … evidence, sincerity, searching. Yeah, I guess those are pretty good things.

But seriously, after my last post I got to thinking: adf417’s post was pretty terse, so I don’t want to assume that it was either negatively or positively intended, until adf clarifies.

 

[ChristianDude]

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.

I hadn’t thought of this, actually. It’s a good point. I guess it makes the Catholic Church all the more special, at it’s a Western church, yet it hasn’t gone down a liberal path.

 

[Padres1969]

I hadn’t thought of this, actually. It’s a good point. I guess it makes the Catholic Church all the more special, at it’s a Western church, yet it hasn’t gone down a liberal path.

The Catholic Church itself hasn’t gone “liberal” this is true. But do remember that the Catholic Church has had it’s own breakaways (outside of Protestant Church breakaways) like every other branch of Christianity. Some have been more liberal as time has gone on, some more conservative than the RCC. The big difference is that proportionally the breakaways make up a smaller amount of the overall church because the Catholic Church is larger and worldwide, not just in the west.

Also another thing to consider when discussing “breakaways” and “splits” withing various branches of Christianity is to remember that it’s not a one way street. Denominations do quite often find themselves coming together in formal communion even absent total reintegration with each other. For example the ECLA and ECUSA are Lutheran and Anglican respectively and yet they are in full communion with each other, share each others sacraments, each others priests/ministers, etc… We were blessed to have a ELCA minister give the sermon at mass at my Episcopal Church a few weeks ago. And as I understand it the more “conservative branches” of Lutheranism and Anglicanism in the US, the LCMS and ACNA are similarly working toward a communion with each other.

 

[adf417]

I think we want to be a little bit careful here, lest we fan the embers of disharmony between converts and cradles into a flame of discord (or whatever ). I’m a “cradle” myself, but I have to ask: can’t we all, ultimately, say “I chose” (either to stay in the church we were brought up in, or to join a different one)?

I agree completely Peter and I sure wasn’t trying to incite. On the other hand, we mustn’t cloud truth with niceties, lest we end up with a new passage in Mark saying…

“As soon as morning came, some people held a council.* They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate.”

God gave us the grace to choose, and he certainly expects us to use it.

Peace!!!

 

[Peter_J]

I agree completely Peter and I sure wasn’t trying to incite. On the other hand, we mustn’t cloud truth with niceties, lest we end up with a new passage in Mark saying…

“As soon as morning came, some people held a council.* They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate.”

God gave us the grace to choose, and he certainly expects us to use it.

Peace!!!

Oh I see. I wasn’t sure because there are many, for example, Catholics who say that protestants are people who choose which church to belong to, whereas Catholics are people who are led by God to where he wants them to be. Or variations on that dichotomy.

 

[GKC]

The Catholic Church itself hasn’t gone “liberal” this is true. But do remember that the Catholic Church has had it’s own breakaways (outside of Protestant Church breakaways) like every other branch of Christianity. Some have been more liberal as time has gone on, some more conservative than the RCC. The big difference is that proportionally the breakaways make up a smaller amount of the overall church because the Catholic Church is larger and worldwide, not just in the west.

Also another thing to consider when discussing “breakaways” and “splits” withing various branches of Christianity is to remember that it’s not a one way street. Denominations do quite often find themselves coming together in formal communion even absent total reintegration with each other. For example the ECLA and ECUSA are Lutheran and Anglican respectively and yet they are in full communion with each other, share each others sacraments, each others priests/ministers, etc… We were blessed to have a ELCA minister give the sermon at mass at my Episcopal Church a few weeks ago. And as I understand it the more “conservative branches” of Lutheranism and Anglicanism in the US, the LCMS and ACNA are similarly working toward a communion with each other.

And, not quite on topic, the Continuum is continuing its efforts to get itself back to as few jurisdictions as possible. This is a continuing process.

 

[ChristianDude]

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.

This might have something to do with it, actually. It’s sort of what I was trying to get at, that the newer churches, being less historical, are more “innovative”.

 

[Micosil]

I hadn’t thought of this, actually. It’s a good point. I guess it makes the Catholic Church all the more special, at it’s a Western church, yet it hasn’t gone down a liberal path.

Indeed, which is why the Church is often viewed as “outdated”, “irrelevant”, “unnecessary”, “unable to keep up with the times”, …

That the Church hasn’t caved into Western liberal tendencies is good evidence, I think, that a non-human, divine element is at work here.