Why did Christ not intervene to prevent schism?

[mikeledes]

What are these essentials and who determines them?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Atemi]

What are these essentials and who determines them?

God in His Word.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What are these essentials and who determines them?

God Bless,
Michael

atemi:

God in His Word.

But since God no longer walks amongst us in the flesh, and since there are many who would pervert His message, He commissioned His Church to teach and guide us, and gave it the Kharisma of Infallibility that we might not be led astray.

 

[jmcrae]

God in His Word.

Through whom and how does He communicate this information to us?

If you say, “The Bible,” explain how the information got into the Bible, and who (by name) were the persons who put it there - and by what authority? (If you say “by God’s authority,” explain how they got God’s authority, how they knew they had it, and how other people knew they had it.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Through whom and how does He communicate this information to us?

If you say, “The Bible,” explain how the information got into the Bible, and who (by name) were the persons who put it there - and by what authority? (If you say “by God’s authority,” explain how they got God’s authority, how they knew they had it, and how other people knew they had it.)

If a Protestant says, “My church is based on the Bible,” he’s right. Someone, sometime after 1500 AD interpreted the Bible to produce the beliefs that form the core of his particular church.

But if a Catholic says, “My church is based on the Bible,” he’s wrong. Our Church existed for hundreds of years before the New Testament canon was formed. We taught and believed based on the living tradition handed down by the Apostles. And we are the ones who formed the New Testament canon, based on their relationship to that same tradition.

 

[jmcrae]

If a Protestant says, “My church is based on the Bible,” he’s right. Someone, sometime after 1500 AD interpreted the Bible to produce the beliefs that form the core of his particular church.

But if a Catholic says, “My church is based on the Bible,” he’s wrong. Our Church existed for hundreds of years before the New Testament canon was formed. We taught and believed based on the living tradition handed down by the Apostles. And we are the ones who formed the New Testament canon, based on their relationship to that same tradition.

Good points.

I am trying to get Atemi to think about the fact that there is a history that occurred between the end of the Book of Acts, and the events of October 31, 1517.

I want him to consider the fact that, before we had the Bible, we had no Bible - that God’s Word came to us in some other way - and I want to get him to figure out what that way was.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Good points.

I am trying to get Atemi to think about the fact that there is a history that occurred between the end of the Book of Acts, and the events of October 31, 1517.

I want him to consider the fact that, before we had the Bible, we had no Bible - that God’s Word came to us in some other way - and I want to get him to figure out what that way was.

Careful – cognitive dissonance can cause cracking of the skull.

 

[cor]

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?

Assuming the truth of the Christian and Catholic religion, I would say that we don’t know why. One possible reason though is that he wants to glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary – it is said in some texts that she will be instrumental in the defeat of heresy.

It does seem to me though – I agree with you – that Jesus was concerned more with the “spiritual” aspects of religion like the Beatitudes than with things like disputes between different Sees. But he seems to have perhaps prepared for that by giving the See of Peter pre-eminence to resolve disputes among Sees (Matthew 16)

 

[guanophore]

The principal schism which led to the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation originated in flaws within the Catholic Church of the middle ages.

I think you are failing to make a distinction between the Church teaching and the fallen members thereof.

Breakaways happened. We generally assume - as above - that those who were left behind are those who were approved.

I don’t think YOU have ever assumed that! Who are these “we” people ?

But perhaps it was the other way around: that those who left the Catholic Church sustained Christendom’s integrity, at least until the Catholic Church succeeded in re-establishing its legitimacy.

In whose eyes? Society? I think there were pious and faithful people on both sides. Who determines legitimacy??

How are we to understand this - that factions were actually foreseen, although after Christ’s death and resurrection? And which faction was the saved, and which the damned?

Jesus was clear that we were not to attempt to pull weeds, but to let them grow together until the harvest. It is not appropriate to go around finding wrongdoing, and attempting to uproot it, or determine “which are the saved and which are the damned”. Only God decides that. Our charge, rather, is to hold fast to the truth, and judge not.

God does not impell anyone to believe. But the corollary which you did not mention is that the Catholic Church teaches that anyone who knows God, and has confronted him, but rejects him, is lost forever. So free will yes, positive outcome not always unless the Teaching of the Church is followed, leaving many outside the Gate.

I think your definintion of "church " here is too narrow. Catholicism holds to the Apostolic teaching handed to us from Jesus that there is only one body, only one church. There is no way to the father but by Him.

And here we are with the issue of authority again: the authority of God, and the authority of the Church, which may or may not be the same. I understand that for Catholic Christians they are one and the same. But it is an issue for thought.

I think authority is at the very heart of all the schismatic activity that has happened.

But you see, not everyone accepts that Christ’s Church = the Catholic Church (see #56), and the thread on ‘one true church’. Can we say that all those outside those confirmed in the Catholic faith are heretics, pagans, dissidents? How does this refer to those who are not Christians, but adhere to other faiths - Buddhistsm, Hindus, Moslems etc?

Jesus knows those who are His, whatever background they come from. In his house, there are many rooms. He only established one church, and He brings into it those whom He has called, and chosen.

How do you define ‘Christ’s Church’?

Those who have chosen Him. He has called everyone, but only some answer the call. These are the chosen.

Are you saying that it is the duty of a good Catholic to follow the Pope as a matter of priority, rather than God? (See also #56).

This is that limiting black and white/all or nothing thinking that is contrary to God’s revelation. Jesus said that if we see Him, we have seen the father. So, it is not seeing the Father “instead” of seeing the son. Jesus told his Apostles “he who receives you, receives me”. So it is not “rather than” it is “both and”. The Pope represents Christ, and in following the Pope, we follow the teaching of Jesus. This is one of the essential elements of apostolic tradition, that we can trust the example of those who have come before us as they trusted in God.

“For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, 8 we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. 9 It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate.” 2 Thess 3:7-9

" Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; 14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. " 2 Tim 1:13-14

Rom 4:12
follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

1 Cor 4:15-18
15 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me. 17 Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.

 

[Atemi]

I am trying to get Atemi to think about the fact that there is a history that occurred between the end of the Book of Acts, and the events of October 31, 1517.

Really?

Wow.

Thanks.

I want him to consider the fact that, before we had the Bible, we had no Bible - that God’s Word came to us in some other way - and I want to get him to figure out what that way was.

Like word of mouth???

The horror!

LOL.

Please take one more step up in your apologetic…at least.

…

 

[Michael_Francis]

Having drifted off topic this thread is now closed.