Why did Christ not intervene to prevent schism?

[Carol_Coombe]

Christ is divine, therefore omniscient and omipotent.

He therefore ***knew ***that there would be a schism in his Church, and that various ‘denominations’ would break away, fragmenting the body he instituted through St Peter.

If he knew, why did he not do something to prevent it happening? Why did he not intervene to prevent it? Why did he not leave guidelines for church organisation and behaviour, as he did for our lives (Beatitudes etc)? Why does he not intervene to recreate a unified Catholich Church on earth?

Or does he have another agenda which we have not grasped?

 

[edward_george]

We were given the gift of free will, otherwise we would not truly love God. Love is an act of the will, and so to be forced to love God would not be love at all. Sin is an abuse of free will, and schism and heresy are both sins. If God had intervened to prevent schism, that would be contrary to how we are created–to either choose God or not choose him.

-ACEGC

 

[puzzleannie]

Christ is divine, therefore omniscient and omipotent.

He therefore ***knew ***that there would be a schism in his Church, and that various ‘denominations’ would break away, fragmenting the body he instituted through St Peter.

If he knew, why did he not do something to prevent it happening? Why did he not intervene to prevent it? Why did he not leave guidelines for church organisation and behaviour, as he did for our lives (Beatitudes etc)? Why does he not intervene to recreate a unified Catholich Church on earth?

Or does he have another agenda which we have not grasped?

he has an agenda, he stated it in the last supper discourse when the last thing he warned his apostles about was unity. He has no need to restate what he has already said. It is up to his followers to either obey or disobey. he has intervened, many times throughout history, through sending the Holy Spirit to call gifted preachers, theologians, reformers and prophets at critical points in the history of the Church. Like most such figures, they were disregarded by many, as was Christ himself. What makes you think of Christ came today he would not be scorned and disregarded by schismatics, heretics and pagans?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

We were given the gift of free will, otherwise we would not truly love God. Love is an act of the will, and so to be forced to love God would not be love at all. Sin is an abuse of free will, and schism and heresy are both sins. If God had intervened to prevent schism, that would be contrary to how we are created–to either choose God or not choose him.

-ACEGC

Does that mean that God never intervenes in our lives? In answer to prayer, or to protect us, guide us and nurture us? Or in any other way? Perhaps I have not understood the implication of your answer?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

he has an agenda, he stated it in the last supper discourse when the last thing he warned his apostles about was unity. He has no need to restate what he has already said. It is up to his followers to either obey or disobey. he has intervened, many times throughout history, through sending the Holy Spirit to call gifted preachers, theologians, reformers and prophets at critical points in the history of the Church. Like most such figures, they were disregarded by many, as was Christ himself. What makes you think of Christ came today he would not be scorned and disregarded by schismatics, heretics and pagans?

Thanks. Again, I’m not understanding. If God/Christ intervenes regularly in our lives, then why did He not intervene in one of the most important events in the history of the Church? Did He have another intention? Did He plan to leave it to us to sort this out? Why?

 

[puzzleannie]

If by intervention you mean micromanaging, no God does not work that way. Jesus established the Church, managed by humans, weak and frail as were the first apostles, but he sent his Holy Spirit who continually guides and protects the Church. He does not however force anyone to heed that guidance or to stay in the protection of the Church. Jesus decided in establishing the Church on earth in this way that he would chose humans to govern it and humans to intervene in time of crisis – think of Francis, Dominic, de Sales, Borromeo, Ignatius, for example. As in all human events, humans have free will as to whether or not they will obey God’s commands, obey the teachings of Christ, or heed the promptings of the Holy Spirit. What type of intervention do you envision? Lightning strikes on schismatics? Tsunamis wiping out heretics?

 

[Atemi]

Christ is divine, therefore omniscient and omipotent.

He therefore ***knew ***that there would be a schism in his Church, and that various ‘denominations’ would break away, fragmenting the body he instituted through St Peter.

If he knew, why did he not do something to prevent it happening? Why did he not intervene to prevent it? Why did he not leave guidelines for church organisation and behaviour, as he did for our lives (Beatitudes etc)? Why does he not intervene to recreate a unified Catholich Church on earth?

Or does he have another agenda which we have not grasped?

Coming from a non-Catholic Christian, fracturing and sectarianism is totally in God’s plan for His church. It is His will that such be.

1Cr 11:19 “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.”

From a non-Catholic perspective, God will not force ANYONE to obey or believe Him, nor teach perfect doctrine.

As has always been His will, we are all free to follow Him or follow ourselves. With that in mind, I submit that our Lord never makes anyone obedient to His Word, nor faithful teachers of it…whether Catholic bishop, Orthodox Patriarch, or Protestant pastor or overseer.

…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Christ knew He would be cruicified. He knew His Apostles would be put to death (all but John.) He knew His Church would be persecuted. He knew the Muslims would overrun much of Christianity. He knew about the Black Death,
Communism, the Second World War and many other bad things.

Why didn’t He intervene to prevent all that?

Maybe because that’s our responsibility. Because we have free will, and it is our duty not to sin, not His to make it impossible for us.

 

[SPH1]

Christ is divine, therefore omniscient and omipotent.

He therefore ***knew ***that there would be a schism in his Church, and that various ‘denominations’ would break away, fragmenting the body he instituted through St Peter.

If he knew, why did he not do something to prevent it happening? Why did he not intervene to prevent it? Why did he not leave guidelines for church organisation and behaviour, as he did for our lives (Beatitudes etc)? Why does he not intervene to recreate a unified Catholich Church on earth?

Or does he have another agenda which we have not grasped?

Atemi got it correct,
1Cr 11:19 "For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you."I will go on to say that Christ’s Church IS NOT fractured. The Holy Catholic Church is completely intact. All that has occurred, and this goes back to the early centuries (Arianism, etc.), has been a pruning of heretics, dissidents, etc.

 

[Atemi]

I will go on to say that Christ’s Church IS NOT fractured.

As a non-Catholic Christian, I will say that is totally correct as well.

Christ’s church could never fracture or break.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As a non-Catholic Christian, I will say that is totally correct as well.

Christ’s church could never fracture or break.

Is this really what the Word of God says? :nope:

Romans 11:17-24
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Hope this helps! :tiphat:

 

[Atemi]

Is this really what the Word of God says? :nope:

Romans 11:17-24
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Paul tells the Roman church that they could be cut off?

 

[jmcrae]

Numbers 16:1-50

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Paul tells us all that we could be cut off. That is why we work out our salvation ‘with fear and trembling’.

The letter to the Romans was not to ‘the Roman church’ (a phrase that most Catholics of the Latin rite find annoying at best and anti-Catholic at worst).

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks. Again, I’m not understanding. If God/Christ intervenes regularly in our lives, then why did He not intervene in one of the most important events in the history of the Church? Did He have another intention? Did He plan to leave it to us to sort this out? Why?

God only intervenes when He is invited to do so. He also does not interfere with people’s free choices, just as He did not interfere with Korah’s choice to rebel against Moses in the story found in Numbers 16. (It’s interesting that Korah even says to the people, “Should we follow God, or Moses?” He sounds very much like those who say, “Should we follow God, or the Pope?”)

God didn’t prevent Korah from leading 250 men and their families away from Moses. God also didn’t prevent them from experiencing the consequences of that choice - and then, after it was all over, God continued to lead Moses those who had remained loyal to him to the Promised Land.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul tells the Roman church that they could be cut off?

“Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.”

 

[Mijoy2]

As in all human events, humans have free will as to whether or not they will obey God’s commands, obey the teachings of Christ, or heed the promptings of the Holy Spirit. What type of intervention do you envision? Lightning strikes on schismatics? Tsunamis wiping out heretics?

No, not Tsunamis or lightening strikes. However I have often wondered about a greater discern of what the Holy Spirit is speaking. Catholics and Protestants alike believe they are open to the guidence of the Holy Spirit. Catholics and Protestants alike believe they have been moved by the Holy Spirit. Yet on many theological topics, Catholics are Protestants are diameterically opposed.

How do we expalin this? If one is correct and the other wrong, one with Truth and the other with falsehood, yet both truly open and welcoming the Holy Spirit, how do we explain the communication breakdown between the Holy Spirit and ourself?

Furthermore if we can prove a communication breakdown, how can trust we ever get the message correct? Isn’t the whole thing rendered meaningless?

 

[Contarini]

Christ is divine, therefore omniscient and omipotent.

He therefore ***knew ***that there would be a schism in his Church, and that various ‘denominations’ would break away, fragmenting the body he instituted through St Peter.

If he knew, why did he not do something to prevent it happening? Why did he not intervene to prevent it? Why did he not leave guidelines for church organisation and behaviour, as he did for our lives (Beatitudes etc)? Why does he not intervene to recreate a unified Catholich Church on earth?

Or does he have another agenda which we have not grasped?

Carol,

I continue not to understand why this applies to schism in the Church any more than to the Holocaust or AIDS or any other evil.

Edwin

 

[Philthy]

…therefore omniscient and omipotent…
He therefore ***knew ***that there would be a schism in his Church, and that various ‘denominations’ would break away, fragmenting the body he instituted through St Peter.

This is actually an unsubstantiated claim and it’s invalidation renders the rest of your speculations meaningless. Christ did not possess omniscience during his earthly existence, did he? Did he not say “But as for that day and hour, nobody knows it, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, no one but the Father alone.” (Matt24) and did he also not pray for “this cup” to pass him by - IF it were the will of the Father, which he apparently didn’t know?
I therefore reject the first premise of your argument.
Carol coombe:

If he knew, why did he not do something to prevent it happening?
Why did he not intervene to prevent it? Why did he not leave guidelines for church organisation and behaviour, as he did for our lives (Beatitudes etc)? Why does he not intervene to recreate a unified Catholich Church on earth?

The Catholic Church is still around after 2000 years of corruption, scandal, incompetence and you-name-it, and you dont think God has intervened in the Church? I would have to respectfully disagree with that assessment.

Carol:

Or does he have another agenda which we have not grasped?

This question is no more answerable than why did a loving God allow evil to exist? Are you going somewhere with this line of questioning or are these simply random questions?

 

[Atemi]

Paul tells us all that we could be cut off. That is why we work out our salvation ‘with fear and trembling’.

Paul was specifically addressing the Roman church at the time. Why is this problematic?

The letter to the Romans was not to ‘the Roman church’ (a phrase that most Catholics of the Latin rite find annoying at best and anti-Catholic at worst).

So you prefer “the church at Rome,” “the Roman assembly”…what?

The letter to the Romans was written to the Roman what?

I myself am not much for political correctness, censorship, or arbitrary speech codes. I am only using language common to us all.

If “Roman church” is offensive to Catholics as either “annoying” or somehow “anti-Catholic,” how do you explain its constant use in RC writing and speech?

Maybe they did not get the memo that such may be an “anti-Catholic” phrase.

Please consult the Vatican archives, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and even the Catechism to see just a sampling of what I am talking about. Maybe you can get the word out that the phrase “the Roman church” is an anti-Catholic epithet.

It is interesting that even repeating what the RCC says herself is anti-Catholic. This was also the case on another recent thread.

Amazing to witness from a non-Catholic perspective.

…