Why are there so many different branches of Christianity?

[mdrummer5]

I realize that the extended answer is going to be different depending on which branch you’re looking at but I’m just curious from a general perspective. With Catholicism being able to trace it’s roots back to being the first Church and the only one that can make this claim what is the logic behind denying some of the teachings for the sake of creating a new church?

I realize that this has the potential to turn into a very heated debate between members of different faiths. That is not my intent at all. In fact I point this out to ask that if you’re thinking of posting anything that is in any way degrading to another faith, please do not.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I believe your premise is faulty. Several churches trace their origins to the Apostles through apostolic succession. And they do have significant disagreements still.
Some attempt to trace their origins in the shadows of Christianity. However some, and I am one of those, believe in doctrine and practice as being most important.

 

[uxordepp]

I think the reason for the divisions is human pride. I don’t necessarily mean only on the side of those who have split away from the Catholic Church, either.

I truly believe that if there had been more humility on all sides, the initial ruptures could have been avoided.

Which isn’t to say something like those ruptures wouldn’t have happened later.

One doesn’t have to read too far into Martin Luther’s work to hear pride at work. I feel the same could be said about Henry VIII, too.

And once that ball got rolling, the shattering just picked up speed.

 

[Will_B]

There are only two reasons for church division.

• 1. Pride
  2. Justification of sin.
  The first divide where East and West split was Pride.
  
  Others have been justification of sin.
  
  I have talked to several women and asked why they are still in a certain denomination where 80% of what is taught they do not believe… They say that they believe all that the Catholic Church teaches (except humane vita). They don’t want the church telling them what they can do with their body (contraception, etc)… So they stick with their current denomination and drown in lies… Is this pride or justification of sin, maybe both??
  
  Then there is the “Once Saved always Saved” theology. Most of the folks I know who follow that teaching will say. “I’m saved, so I can commit adultery and still go to heaven” Yep, justification of sin.
  
  I like what CS Lewis said in Mere Christianity… Paraphrased >> The job of a Christian is to seek and follow the truth. If you are in a denomination and you know the truth isn’t being taught, it’s time to move on. Often we hear what we like and think it’s the truth because we like it, when in reality it’s a lie and a deception. (This was paraphrased, not the actual quote from his book)
  
  Think about it !!

 

[Barbkw]

I’ve heard a priest say, that had Martin Luther and the Church found amenable ways to correct error in the Church (Luther’s 95 Thesis) that Luther would be a saint today.

We can see even in this era of technology, with the priest sexual abuse scandals, that althou the Catholic Church is sinless in that she is Christ’s Church, she is also filled with sinners who can and do publically shame Him with their scandals.

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

"On 31 October, 1517, the vigil of All Saints’, Luther affixed to the castle church door, which served as the “black-board” of the university, on which all notices of disputations and high academic functions were displayed, his Ninety-five Theses.

The act was not an open declaration of war, but simply an academic challenge to a disputation.

“Such disputations were regarded in the universities of the Middle Ages partly as a recognized means of defining and elucidating truth, partly as a kind of mental gymnastic apt to train and quicken the faculties of the disputants. It was not understood that a man was always ready to adopt in sober earnest propositions which he was willing to defend in the academic arena; and in like manner a rising disputant might attack orthodox positions, without endangering his reputation for orthodoxy” (Beard, op. cit.).

The same day he sent a copy of the Theses with an explanatory letter to the archbishop.

The latter in turn submitted them to his councillors at Aschaffenburg and to the professors of the University of Mainz. The councillors were of the unanimous opinion that they were of an heretical character, and that proceedings against the Wittenberg Augustinian should be taken.

This report, with a copy of the Theses, was then transmitted to the pope. It will thus be seen that the first judicial procedure against Luther did not emanate from Tetzel. His weapons were to be literary."

 

[JonNC]

I think the reason for the divisions is human pride. I don’t necessarily mean only on the side of those who have split away from the Catholic Church, either.

I truly believe that if there had been more humility on all sides, the initial ruptures could have been avoided.

Which isn’t to say something like those ruptures wouldn’t have happened later.

One doesn’t have to read too far into Martin Luther’s work to hear pride at work. I feel the same could be said about Henry VIII, too.

And once that ball got rolling, the shattering just picked up speed.

I agree, and would add Pope Leo X to your list.

Jon

 

[Saul_DelTarso]

Several churches trace their origins to the Apostles through apostolic succession.

Well, there’s an assertion that cries for proof. Which ones? Which Apostle(s)?

Are these Apostolic successions outside the Catholic orthodoxy?

Please, show us that. I’m really and sincerely interested to know.

Thanks.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well, there’s an assertion that cries for proof. Which ones? Which Apostle(s)?

Are these Apostolic successions outside the Catholic orthodoxy?

Please, show us that. I’m really and sincerely interested to know.

Thanks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

Too many to list.

 

[gmcbroom]

Off hand I would have said the Orthodox. However they are catholic. Hmmm…I wonder if the Gnostics have a legitament Apostolic succession thats documented?
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[Publisher]

Off hand I would have said the Orthodox. However they are catholic. Hmmm…I wonder if the Gnostics have a legitament Apostolic succession thats documented?
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

If I remember correctly…Valentinius was taught by Theudus who was taught directly by Paul.

I believe some of the other Gnostic sects…like those found in Alexandria, claim Mark as lineage…some from what I remember claim John as well.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It should be noted that in Catholicism exists both Eastern and Western Rites, these (Rites) should never be confused as “different” churches because both East and West possess valid apostolic succession to the apostles, valid holy orders (priest hood) and valid sacraments. Their is much more to reveal here between those Orthodox not in communion with the Pope and those Orthodox (Eastern) Catholics who remained united and in full communion with the Popes and the magisterium.

This matter of small seperation deals with the authority of the pope not necessarily in matters of doctrine. These few Orthodox who refuse communion with the pope deal with technical matters in definition of "developed = defined doctrine against heresies and heretics and councils of authority to proclaim infallible teachings on faith and morals. This is a complicated “internal” matter between the Orthodox who refuse communion with the Pope in authority, which never refutes the validity of the Catholic Apostolic faith from East and Western Catholic Church.

Protestantism severed itself from valid apostolic succession, valid holy orders, valid sacraments. The protestant reformers removed itself from the Apostolic Sacred Traditions and invented new interpretations of the bible and new man made theologies from their “Sola scriptura, Sola fide traditions”. In these new protestant reformed theologies is what creates the great divide between Catholics and western protestant reformers in “authority”, doctrinal matters, and the valid sacramental ecomony of salvation instituted by Jesus Christ.

From this divide protestantism begins the course of “freedom” to interpret the bible on the authority of the bible alone. From here begins the “different” christian denominations from the Protestant reformers. Thus protestantism gains many different communities of teaching and interpretations which leads to “so many different branches of Christianity”.

The Catholic Church both East and West remain as One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church holding to apostolic succession, valid holy orders and valid sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ himself. THere is only one faith, one baptism and one Lord, this biblical teaching can be found interpreted from biblical times in the One Holy Catholic and apostolic Church which consists of both Eastern and Western Catholic Church united in authority, Apostolic succession, valid holy orders, valid liturgies, valid sacraments. The one thing that unites both East and West is the communion in the Holy Eucharist.

mdrummer5;7537803]I realize that the extended answer is going to be different depending on which branch you’re looking at but I’m just curious from a general perspective. With Catholicism being able to trace it’s roots back to being the first Church and the only one that can make this claim what is the logic behind denying some of the teachings for the sake of creating a new church?

I realize that this has the potential to turn into a very heated debate between members of different faiths. That is not my intent at all. In fact I point this out to ask that if you’re thinking of posting anything that is in any way degrading to another faith, please do not.

 

[Skeptic92]

I realize that the extended answer is going to be different depending on which branch you’re looking at but I’m just curious from a general perspective. With Catholicism being able to trace it’s roots back to being the first Church and the only one that can make this claim what is the logic behind denying some of the teachings for the sake of creating a new church?

I realize that this has the potential to turn into a very heated debate between members of different faiths. That is not my intent at all. In fact I point this out to ask that if you’re thinking of posting anything that is in any way degrading to another faith, please do not.

the Split of East and West (the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church) was due to various things, from mistranslations, misunderstandings and political reasons.

The Reformation came from corruption at the foot level of the Catholic Church, never condoned, but a very widespread problem that did need to be dealt with, and eventually was, and also Pride and Justification of the Reformers (however, I would actually argue Luther had admirable goals, but took the wrong road, he should of called for a Ecumenical Council to be called)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

Too many to list.

Anglicans in general have no valid Apostolic Succession, as there ordination rite was changed so the Ordination was never valid, however it has been changed to be more “Catholic” now, so if the Bishop did have valid Apostolic Succession (and there is likely to be some) the Ordination would be entirely Valid.

Luther never had the faculties to ordain, so he could never pass on Apostolic Succession, as he could never Ordain, the only Churches that have a 100% valid claim to Apostolic Succession is the Catholic Church, the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox (I think, let one of my Brethren correct me if I am in error).

 

[ConstantineTG]

I realize that the extended answer is going to be different depending on which branch you’re looking at but I’m just curious from a general perspective. With Catholicism being able to trace it’s roots back to being the first Church and the only one that can make this claim what is the logic behind denying some of the teachings for the sake of creating a new church?

I realize that this has the potential to turn into a very heated debate between members of different faiths. That is not my intent at all. In fact I point this out to ask that if you’re thinking of posting anything that is in any way degrading to another faith, please do not.

Christ has made a promise to Peter that He will preserve His Church from all evil, which includes heresy. So when people break away from Peter, they lose this protection and fall into heresy. Thus you have the multitudes of differing opinion on what God is saying. But only one is protected by Christ to teach without error.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Luther never had the faculties to ordain, so he could never pass on Apostolic Succession, as he could never Ordain, the only Churches that have a 100% valid claim to Apostolic Succession is the Catholic Church, the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox (I think, let one of my Brethren correct me if I am in error).

Don’t forget the Assyrian Churches of the East who also has Apostolic origin from St. Thomas the Apostle. Their Catholic counterparts are the Chaldeans.

 

[Skeptic92]

Don’t forget the Assyrian Churches of the East who also has Apostolic origin from St. Thomas the Apostle. Their Catholic counterparts are the Chaldeans.

Are they not Oriental Orthodox? I thought the Oriental Orthodox encompassed the Ethiopian, Coptic, Assyrian etc Orthodox? Or am I mistake?

 

[JonNC]

=Skeptic92;7539452] the Split of East and West (the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church) was due to various things, from mistranslations, misunderstandings and political reasons.

True, but one should not understate the doctrinal differences, especially since 1054.

The Reformation came from corruption at the foot level of the Catholic Church, never condoned, but a very widespread problem that did need to be dealt with, and eventually was, and also Pride and Justification of the Reformers (however, I would actually argue Luther had admirable goals, but took the wrong road, he should of called for a Ecumenical Council to be called)

Actually, I think he did at one point, but I’m willing to be corrected. That said, I think this is an even-handed comment on your part.

Anglicans in general have no valid Apostolic Succession, as there ordination rite was changed so the Ordination was never valid, however it has been changed to be more “Catholic” now, so if the Bishop did have valid Apostolic Succession (and there is likely to be some) the Ordination would be entirely Valid.

This is certainly the Catholic view. I suspect the Anglicans will beg to differ.

Luther never had the faculties to ordain, so he could never pass on Apostolic Succession, as he could never Ordain, the only Churches that have a 100% valid claim to Apostolic Succession is the Catholic Church, the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox (I think, let one of my Brethren correct me if I am in error).

Well, there are Old Catholics, PNCC, and perhaps others. And through some joint ordinations, the Anglicans claim a “dutch touch”, which has happened since Apostolicae Curae. By extension, some Lutherans, in joint ordination with Anglican bishops, now claim the same. Also, in Scandinavia, some bishops came along with the Lutherans during the reformation.
All that said, Lutherans do not view AS as necessary for validity - important and desirable, yes.

Jon

 

[GeorgeTheWild]

Then there is the “Once Saved always Saved” theology. Most of the folks I know who follow that teaching will say. “I’m saved, so I can commit adultery and still go to heaven” Yep, justification of sin.

Maybe the majority of the evangelical Christians you know actually do believe this. I can’t judge that. But I do know that the vast majority of protestant denominations do not, have not, and will not ever teach this. Let me repeat this because it seems to come up often. The mainstream protestant denominations do not teach that salvation is a license to sin. Rather they teach that it is a driver for continued repentance and sanctification.

 

[Skeptic92]

True, but one should not understate the doctrinal differences, especially since 1054.

From what I hear from those Orthodox I have met, Doctrinal differences are not that huge, there are some differences, but in the end half of them are differences in understanding, but yes some doctrinal differences do need to be overcome before unity can be restored between east and west.

Actually, I think he did at one point, but I’m willing to be corrected. That said, I think this is an even-handed comment on your part.

He may have, and I wish instead of the Reformation the Council of Trent was called sooner, so the West could be One, just as our Lord prayed.

This is certainly the Catholic view. I suspect the Anglicans will beg to differ.

I wont question SOME Anglican Priests have valid Holy Orders, as validly ordained Priests and Bishops have seperated from Rome and joined the Anglican Church, making the ordination now valid, but as a whole the Anglican Communion doesn’t have valid Orders, it is a generalization, but I doubt a majority in the Anglican Communion have valid Orders

Well, there are Old Catholics, PNCC, and perhaps others. And through some joint ordinations, the Anglicans claim a “dutch touch”, which has happened since Apostolicae Curae. By extension, some Lutherans, in joint ordination with Anglican bishops, now claim the same. Also, in Scandinavia, some bishops came along with the Lutherans during the reformation.
All that said, Lutherans do not view AS as necessary for validity - important and desirable, yes.

Jon

Hmm, I can’t argue that Old Catholics likely have valid Orders, as they’ll have kept the ordination rite, and validly ordained Bishops, I’m not sure who the PNCC is, again i was making a generalization, and some Lutheran groups may have valid AS, but I do have to speak in general, as Protestant denominations are so wide and varied, there is going to be differentiation

Yours fraternally in Christ

 

[Hesychios]

Don’t forget the Assyrian Churches of the East …

No.

In the long series of Christological debates and controversies, they are actually polar opposite to the non-Chalcedonians (what some would call “Oriental” Orthodox).

BTW & off topic, which monastery or congregation are you associated with?

 

[Hesychios]

… I wish instead of the Reformation the Council of Trent was called sooner, so the West could be One, just as our Lord prayed.

It was called earlier.

It was named Lateran V and it was intended to be a reform Council. It was very timely, and a dismal flop because the hierarchy of the church lacked the will to do what was necessary. But even this one was called by the Pope only because he was forced into it.

Had it succeeded, father Martin would probably have died a faithful priest, a dreadful schism would have been avoided, and even the Thirty Years War and the sack of Rome might have been avoided.

The sad fact is, Trent was called for immediately after Lateran V while northern Europe was seething, to no avail. It only got going when half of Europe was already lost to the church and the rest was tottering.

---

Lateran V: called 1511 - held 1512 to 1517 intermittently

Martin Luther: monastic 1505, ordained 1507, visited Rome 1511, awarded doctorate 1512, - 95 Thesis posted 1517 - calls for a Council in 1520 - excommunicated 1521 - publishes catechism 1529

1527AD - Charles V, loyal son of the church and Catholic king of both the Holy Roman empire (Germany, Bohemia and Austria) and the Spanish empire in Europe and America attacks the city of Rome and sacks the city. The Swiss Guards are almost annihilated, the Pope is at first isolated in Castel Sant’Angelo and then surrenders to the emperor. The emperor wants to call a reform Council but France will not agree.

Trent: Called to start in 1537, is opposed by the hierarchy and does not begin to meet until 1545. It is actually like a series of three Councils because it has to be restarted twice. The last session ends in 1563.

The Catholic catechism comes out in 1568, intended for use by priests. The Roman Mass is codified and standardized in 1570 and the latest revision of this version is often still called the Tridentine after the Council.

Saint jerome’s Vulgate Bible is revised in 1592.