Why did Christ not intervene to prevent schism?

[Genesis315]

1 Cor. 11:18 For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.

 

[SPH1]

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

No, at most Paul meant that some in the Church at Rome could be cut off if they fell into unbelief. Each individual Christian is also a “branch.”

 

[Atemi]

No, at most Paul meant that some in the Church at Rome could be cut off if they fell into unbelief.

So only some had to not be arrogant but be afraid?

Who did Paul exempt from his letter to the Roman church?

I don’t see any exemptions. Paul addressed his teaching to:

Rom 1:7 “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints”

Who does that leave out?

…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What we are saying, Atemi, is that “the church at Rome” addressed by St. Paul in the letter to the Romans does not mean that this one particular ‘group’ was today’s ‘Catholic church’–and this church ‘alone’ was the Catholic church. The church at Phillipi, at Corinth, at Thessalonica, etc. . .ALL those groups were “Catholic”. And all of them had their problems, their troubles, their sinners and their saints. . .the church at Rome as much as any other, no more and no less. All are Catholic. There was nothing else. You’ve read St. Ignatius on that.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Atemi,

In that section St. Paul is addressing the Gentiles and excluding the Jews to make them jealous.
ROM 11:13-14 :bible1:
13: Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry
14: in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.
The reason the Jews need to be saved in this passage is because…
ROM 11:8-10 :bible1:
8: as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day.”
9: And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution for them;
10: let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs for ever.”
The moral here is that when God says: "Do it your way forever" he’s not nessisaraly giving a blessing. He’s giving a “gift” that is "a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution."

But that’s not to say that Protestants are the only ones to recieve such a “gift” of punishment. Through the Protestants, the Church has recieved some serious chastisement too. Now it seems to be mostly theological battles, but not too long ago there was actual war.

 

[Atemi]

What we are saying, Atemi, is that “the church at Rome” addressed by St. Paul in the letter to the Romans does not mean that this one particular ‘group’ was today’s ‘Catholic church’–and this church ‘alone’ was the Catholic church.

Where the Roman church can go, so can all the rest.

If the Roman church can be cut off, then what does that say of all those in union with her?

The church at Phillipi, at Corinth, at Thessalonica, etc. . .ALL those groups were “Catholic”. And all of them had their problems, their troubles, their sinners and their saints. . .the church at Rome as much as any other, no more and no less.

If the Roman church and her bishop are commanded by the Holy Spirit to not be arrrogant but be afraid because God can cut them off, then that is a clear denial that they were to be forever in God’s graces.

If the Roman church herself can be cut off by God Almighty, who needs to worry about the Gates of Hades?

It was just an observation, but this is getting off topic a bit…

…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You still do not seem to understand that “the Roman Church” in St. Paul’s letter to the Romans–i.e., one (one!) of the early Christian Churches, all (all!) of which were Catholic, does not equal = “the Roman Catholic church” of today–or that somehow all the other Churches–Galatia, Thessalonia, etc. were somehow “not Roman Catholic”.

If you can’t grasp this and still wish to argue, please start another thread. If not, this one may be closed because of being off topic. If you start another thread I’d be delighted (well, I’d at least be WILLING) to continue to try to set you straight. If you insist on going off topic here, you’ll just have to accept whatever consequences fall. Me, I’m going to stick to the original topic here which is the Protestant Schism.

And I already addressed that earlier: the omipotence etc. does not mean that He will interfere with the free will of others.

 

[DJPJ]

I definitely understand the feeling of confusion about schisms within the Church. The world seems messy enough as it is without the one place where you’re suppose to be able to find grace going all crazy on you. As I’m wrestling with the Church I think it is easy to be disheartened not just with Catholicism but with Christianity in general. Little ol’ me is suppose to root through 25,000 denominations? Even if it was just two that seems like too tough of a decision. It seems sometimes that looking back on Church history the chaos theory is in full affect (anything that can go wrong will go wrong), and that seems to be a big strike against any divine institution or revelation.

But I think the real questions we need to be asking is: What would be expect from a institution put in the hands of men? God didn’t send down some cheribum with burning swords to set dogma and He didn’t give the pope a red phone to call whenever there was a tough question. He gave something much greater, namely, Himself. In the person of Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit. If the Catholic position is true then Christ created the Church as a man (albeit a divine man) and the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church through men. Now when the Church is seen an part of the incarnation it starts to make a little more sense why things gets messy. Sinful man mixing with perfect God is a recipe for trouble. Thus schism, heresies, wars, and loads of scandal are sadly made normal. Now, personally, I don’t agree with others that this is just like God allow tornado’s or tsunamis. Because knowing God is WAY more important than if I have a house or if I’ve even alive, and the idea of not knowing God properly is like the idea of waking up and realizing you don’t know your spouses first name. So emotionally I think this question is very valid. The flip side though (which was pointed out to me by someone much wiser than myself) is that this all means there is room in the Church for screw ups like me. I don’t have to have it all together to be part of Christs Church or to know God. Gods grace is bigger than my ability get it all right and infinitely bigger than mans ability to try to screw it all up. So yes, God has a plan that we don’t know, but He also has a plan that we do know, which is seeking and saving the lost and bestowing grace on you and me.

 

[SPH1]

So only some had to not be arrogant but be afraid?

Who did Paul exempt from his letter to the Roman church?

I don’t see any exemptions. Paul addressed his teaching to:

Rom 1:7 "To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints"Who does that leave out?

…

It leaves out Paul himself…and Peter.

Many members of the Church in the city of Rome may fall away. Not the Papacy…that’s what this is all about, right?

When speaking of the “Church of Rome” regarding teaching/infallability, it properly refers to the Pope…not all members as a whole within the city limits of Rome, many of whom may indeed fall away.

And even some Popes might not have been “saved” in the end. Definitely not all are canonized saints.

 

[jmcrae]

It seems as though some of us have become confused - how did the Church at Rome to whom St. Paul wrote end up being conflated with the Diocese of Rome today?

St. Peter was not yet in Rome at the time that St. Paul was writing to the Romans - the headquarters of the Church were still at Jerusalem or else possibly already in Antioch at that time - either way, Rome was not yet the headquarters of the Church when St. Paul was writing to them.

 

[SPH1]

It seems as though some of us have become confused - how did the Church at Rome to whom St. Paul wrote end up being conflated with the Diocese of Rome today?

St. Peter was not yet in Rome at the time that St. Paul was writing to the Romans - the headquarters of the Church were still at Jerusalem or else possibly already in Antioch at that time - either way, Rome was not yet the headquarters of the Church when St. Paul was writing to them.

I don’t know that Peter was not yet in Rome, or had been there.

Paul mentions that he did not want to tread upon another’s work (Romans 15:20), and he wouldn’t be speaking of the work of his own people as that of another…for that would be Paul’s work also. So probably means Peter.

Also, the foundations of the Church of Rome were already well laid, and Paul was only intending to pay a visit passing through on his way to Spain. Romans 15:24, 28.

The Faith of the Church at Rome was known throughout the world (Romans 1:8) and it’s obedience was known to all (Romans 16:19).

There was never a chance that the “Church of Rome” would be cut off in its entirety, and no chance for the Papacy. Atemi thinks that he has stumbled upon something, but it’s much ado about nothing.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know that Peter was not yet in Rome, or had been there.

Paul mentions that he did not want to tread upon another’s work (Romans 15:20), and he wouldn’t be speaking of the work of his own people as that of another…for that would be Paul’s work also. So probably means Peter.

Good point; yes it could.

Also, the foundations of the Church of Rome were already well laid, and Paul was only intending to pay a visit passing through on his way to Spain. Romans 15:24, 28.

The Faith of the Church at Rome was known throughout the world (Romans 1:8) and it’s obedience was known to all (Romans 16:19).

There was never a chance that the “Church of Rome” would be cut off in its entirety, and no chance for the Papacy. Atemi thinks that he has stumbled upon something, but it’s much ado about nothing.

Oh, I see now. Thanks!!

 

[Atemi]

There was never a chance that the “Church of Rome” would be cut off in its entirety, and no chance for the Papacy.

Is that what the very book addressed to ALL those at the Roman church said?

“Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.”

Where do you find “never a chance” in this somber warning by the Holy Spirit?

What we do not see the Holy Spirit saying is what you do: “do not worry, the church at Rome could never be cut off.”

…

 

[clmowry]

Coming from a Catholic perspective, I don’t think it was “God’s plan” that there be divisions, but I would agree with your later point.

God cannot force anyone to be Catholic, or Christian or otherwise and allow them at the same time to have free will.

He provides us with all the help we need to discover the truth but ultimately we must still accept His Grace.

It’s not a matter of a one time “split”, it’s a matter of billions of individual decisions to respond, or not, to the graces freely given.

Chuck

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.

…

 

[rwoehmke]

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?

When a person assumes he hears the Holy Spirit because he is open to Him he may very well be hearing his own wishful thinking. Jesus left Peter and his successors to be the judge of when the Holy Spirit is in truth guiding us. If one is in agreement with “Peter” he is hearing the Holy Spirit. When he is not, he is deceiving himself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Atemi thinks that he has stumbled upon something, but it’s much ado about nothing.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[SPH1]

Originally Posted by SPH1

I knew you’d get around to including Peter (the Papacy) as supposedly being part of the Church at Rome that could be cut off.

You need to take a close look at John 21:15-19. Christ gave Peter shepherdship over the whole church - THEN forsaw into the futrue Peter’s loyal service unto Peter’s death!

Peter’s loyal and faithful service was a done deal…preordained by Christ himself. Peter could never have fallen away.

So your much ado about nothing regarding the Church at Rome supposedly falling away could never include Peter (Papacy).

You’re finished.

 

[Atemi]

I knew you’d get around to including Peter (the Papacy) as supposedly being part of the Church at Rome that could be cut off.

If the bishop of Rome is not part of the church at Rome, then that is news to me for sure.

Again, the Holy Spirit was addressing all His people at Rome.

Seeking arbitrary exemptions to this warning where there are plainly none is dangerous, IMV.

Peter’s loyal and faithful service was a done deal…preordained by Christ himself. Peter could never have fallen away.

So Peter was OSAS?

Hmmm.

Also, this is not about Peter, but about the entire Roman church:

“To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints”

Again, saying that somehow excludes the Roman bishop is actually more offensive to the bishop than anything I have claimed.

…

 

[SPH1]

If the bishop of Rome is not part of the church at Rome, then that is news to me for sure.

Again, the Holy Spirit was addressing all His people at Rome.

Seeking arbitrary exemptions to this warning where there are plainly none is dangerous, IMV.

So Peter was OSAS?

Hmmm.

Also, this is not about Peter, but about the entire Roman church:

"To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints"Again, saying that somehow excludes the Roman bishop is actually more offensive to the bishop than anything I have claimed.

…

Peter’s faithful service unto his death was a done deal, yes. Not necessarily so about Paul or any of the other apostles. But I showed you Christ’s words regarding Peter in John.

You’re still on your mistaken line of thought. Paul said at the begining of Romans that the faith of the Church at Rome was known throughout the world, and ended that it’s obedience was known to all. So obviously the Church at Rome had not fallen away, and there was no reason to believe that is was headed that way.

Romans 11:17-24
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though 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’s words could…and should…be addressed to the entire Church, not just at Rome. They apply to all of us today, in all countries. Even you might understand the total absurdity of the entire Church falling away.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It seems as though some of us have become confused - how did the Church at Rome to whom St. Paul wrote end up being conflated with the Diocese of Rome today?

St. Peter was not yet in Rome at the time that St. Paul was writing to the Romans - the headquarters of the Church were still at Jerusalem or else possibly already in Antioch at that time - either way, Rome was not yet the headquarters of the Church when St. Paul was writing to them.

Correct. The key to understanding the Papacy is that it descends from Peter – and not from a particular city. If Peter had established his seat at Toad Suck, Arkansas, the Bishop of Toad Suck would be the Pope today.

Peter was not yet at Rome, had not passed on his commission, and the Catholic community at Rome was merely one of many such small assemblies in those days.