Why did Christ not intervene to prevent schism?

[vern_humphrey]

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

…

And who was the Roman bishop at the time Paul wrote?

 

[Atemi]

And who was the Roman bishop at the time Paul wrote?

Don’t know. Nobody does for sure.

The Catholic Encyclopedia pegs this letter to the Roman church to be written around 57-58 AD.

Do you suppose the church at Rome was bishop-less at this time?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Don’t know. Nobody does for sure.

The Catholic Encyclopedia pegs this letter to the Roman church to be written around 57-58 AD.

Do you suppose the church at Rome was bishop-less at this time?

Wow! Ya think?

 

[SPH1]

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.

I have to agree and disagree.

I agree that Peter had not yet passed on his commission, as Peter was most likely still alive when Paul wrote Romans.

I disagree that Peter was not yet at Rome…or had been there. I posted above some indications from Romas why Peter may have already been in Rome.

I don’t see how a small assembly could have its faith and obedience known to the whole Christian world. There seems to have been something very special about the Church at Rome indicated by Paul, and picked up by many later Church Fathers.

At Pentecost, many Jews were in Jerusalem, including Jews from Rome. As “Apostle to the Jews”, it would have been imperative that Peter go to Rome to minister to them.

Come to think of it, Peter at least indirectly founded the Church of Rome immediately, through the Roman Jewish converts at Pentecost. Other Churches throughout the world also.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have to agree and disagree.

I agree that Peter had not yet passed on his commission, as Peter was most likely still alive when Paul wrote Romans.

Most authorities agree Peter reached Rome about the time Paul died. At the time Paul wrote, he was not at Rome.

I disagree that Peter was not yet at Rome…or had been there. I posted above some indications from Romas why Peter may have already been in Rome.

I don’t see how a small assembly could have its faith and obedience known to the whole Christian world.

How big was the Christian world in those days? Paul personally knew every Apostle (except Judas), so he could tell any community that he and the Apostles knew about them.

At Pentecost, many Jews were in Jerusalem, including Jews from Rome. As “Apostle to the Jews”, it would have been imperative that Peter go to Rome to minister to them.

Why? As opposed to going to say, Alexandria and ministering to the Jews there?

Come to think of it, Peter at least indirectly founded the Church of Rome immediately, through the Jewish converts at Pentecost. Other Churches throughout the world also.

Which expands the concept so much that it is no longer useful in discussing where Peter was, when, or what he did.

 

[Philthy]

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.

…

Hi Atemi -

I’ve read over this a few times and have considered all the confusing dialogue which ensued following this post. I dont necessarily disagree with much of what you say, but you have said too little and implied too much for me to commit further. Especially with respect to how, exactly, you feel this verse relates to church unity. Your claim that God doesnt force anyone to obey is something we can all agree on. But your application of it to doctrinal unity within the Church in light of the clear deviation of doctrinal unity within Protestantism seems misguided and unjustified. In addition, you seem to imply that this is the case for ALL men, which would include, for example Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Peter and John. Or do you give them exceptions, and if so, on what basis? It doesnt all add up with what little you have affirmed.
In addition, in my opinion, you have inadvertantly confused a few things. The first is the distinction between the “Church” and the members of the Church; and, as has been attempted to be conveyed, the “church at Rome” and the Catholic Church. The truths revealed to the members of the church at Rome are universal truths to all earthly members of the mystical Body of Christ - ie the Church. There is not a single member of the Church who cannot fall away, be grafted in, etc.
Lastly, to conclude that “factions” among church members which allow leaders to be revealed is somehow analogous to, or a justifation for what has happened since the Protestant reformation - namely the proliferation of denominations and a disunity of faith - is pretty weak IMHO. You can hang your hat on it all you want, but it won’t sell among those who don’t “need” a reason to believe it.

Phil

 

[Atemi]

Hi Atemi -
I’ve read over this a few times as well as considering all the confusing dialogue which ensued following this post. I dont disagree with much of what you say, but you have said too little and implied too much. Especially with respect to how, exactly, you feel this verse relates to church unity.

Since schism is the opposite of unity, how else would it relate?

Your claim that God doesnt force anyone to obey is something we can all agree on.

Actually it is not, but that is probably a different thread.

But you seem to imply that this is the case for ALL men, including, for example Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Peter and John. Or do you give them exceptions, and if so, on what basis?

God did not force any of those men to obey Him.

In addition, in my opinion, you have inadvertantly confused a few things. The first is the distinction between the “Church” and the members of the Church

Can’t have the former without the latter. That is all I would say about that.

and, as has been attempted to be conveyed, the “church at Rome” and the Catholic Church.

I do know the difference, though not really the topic of the thread.

BTW, where the former goes, so does the latter.

The truths revealed to the members of the church at Rome are universal truths to all earthly members of the mystical Body of Christ - ie the Church. There is not a single member of the Church who cannot fall away, be grafted in, etc.

Agreed.

Lastly, to conclude that “factions” among church members which allow leaders to be revealed is somehow analogous to, or a justifation for what has happened since the Protestant reformation - namely the proliferation of denominations and a disunity of faith - is pretty weak IMHO.

I never said anything about leaders being revealed. I think you have the wrong post.

You can hang your hat on it all you want, but it won’t sell among those who don’t “need” a reason to believe it.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I never said anything about leaders being revealed.

…

 

[Philthy]

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.”

…

Here’s the RSV:

“To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Just for the record - Paul is addressing the members of the church at Rome. Not one of them should consider themselves saved for all eternity… (but that they should persevere in faith ). This is perfectly Catholic. It says nothing, however, about things such as the gift of infallibility which you repeatedly hint at without coming right out and saying. You seem to be confusing the possibility of a Pope being “cut off” with the gift of infallibility - but they are UNRELATED.

 

[Philthy]

God did not force any of those men to obey Him.

Correct. However, in addition to not being forced to obey, were they given a gift of teaching infallibility?

atemi:

Can’t have the former without the latter. That is all I would say about that.

This is true, but there is more to say. The church, as a body, is made of members with different functions: prophets, teachers, etc. Having “factions” within the church may simply be a means of discerning who is approved in the functions to be performed by the members of the church. You somehow have tried to put forward that the disunity in the Church today - the topic of the thread - what I have called doctrinal disunity, is what was meant by “factions among you” in your verse from 1st Corinthians. I dont see it that way and you really havent put anything forward other than the isolated verse to justify your interpretation.

atemi:

I never said anything about leaders being revealed. I think you have the wrong post…I never said anything about leaders being revealed.

Here’s the post I was referring to:

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

Factions within the church reveal (ie, “become evident”) those who are “approved”. There simply is nothing in this verse which suggests or justifies the doctrinal disunity we have all seen since the reformation. That was my point…

 

[Atemi]

Correct. However, in addition to not being forced to obey, were they given a gift of teaching infallibility?

At times as they spoke prophetically.

But that is speaking forth the very words of God.

The church, as a body, is made of members with different functions: prophets, teachers, etc. Having “factions” within the church may simply be a means of discerning who is approved in the functions to be performed by the members of the church. You somehow have tried to put forward that the disunity in the Church today - the topic of the thread - what I have called doctrinal disunity, is what was meant by “factions among you” in your verse from 1st Corinthians. I dont see it that way and you really havent put anything forward other than the isolated verse to justify your interpretation.

A faction is a faction. I don’t differentiate their locales.

Please note that the word used in the verse is hairesis: heresies.

Some translations say “heresies” and some say “divisions.”

If you would not call non-Catholic Christian doctrines “heresies,” than I can’t help there.

Here’s the post I was referring to:

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

Factions within the church reveal (ie, “become evident”) those who are “approved”. There simply is nothing in this verse which suggests or justifies the doctrinal disunity we have all seen since the reformation. That was my point…

And my point is that your “doctrinal disunity” was God’s will all along. All factions, heresies, and divisions have doctrinal disunity, by definition.

It is with the heresies where those that are approved of God are discerned.

That is God’s Word.

…

 

[Philthy]

At times as they spoke prophetically. But that is speaking forth the very words of God.

This is expectedly vague and evasive.

atemi:

A faction is a faction. I don’t differentiate their locales. Please note that the word used in the verse is hairesis: heresies. Some translations say “heresies” and some say “divisions.”

I didnt know that - thank you. I was basing my comments on the translation you chose.

atemi:

And my point is that your “doctrinal disunity” was God’s will all along.

God’s WILL? Where did you come up with that exactly? Certainly not from the verse you quoted. As I went to read the verse in context I accidentally opened to this section from Romans 16:
Against Factions
“I urge you brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions… in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites… and they decieve the hearts of the innocent.”

Would you say that God wills some people to not serve our Lord Jesus, and to deceive innocents? I wouldnt.

atemi:

It is with the heresies where those that are approved of God are discerned.

That is God’s Word.

…

Yes it is. And it is also God’s Word that it is wrong even though “those who are approved” are discerned in the process. So what do we conclude regarding doctrinal disunity and God’s Word as it relates to this thread?

Doctrinal disunity is a bad thing which God disapproves of.
Those who engage in it endanger the hearts of innocents.
A good can result despite of this fact.

 

[guanophore]

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.

He spoke about this. He taught about the tares and the wheat.

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)?

He DID leave instructions!

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” Matt 18:15-17

He commanded that we should resolve our differences one to another, if we could not, get help, and if that did not work, take it to the church, which is the pillar and the bulwark of truth. He did NOT say " if you don’t like the teachings of the Church start a new church".

He prayed for unity. "Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. "
John 17:11-12

It is not His intention that we should revolt against His established authority.

Why does he not intervene to recreate a unified Catholich Church on earth?

God intervenes daily by preserving truth in His church. His spirit guides the teaching authority into all truth. All who embrace this truth will automatically be unified.

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

10 **that through the church **the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord," Eph 3:9-11

I think there are many that don’t grasp that the world will know Him by our unity one with another. We must begin each as individuals, working out our differences with one another in charity.

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?

It is as if three blind men go to the petting zoo, and visit the elephant. Later when they sit for a soda, each one talks about his experience. The first blind man says “the elephant was long and thin, like snake”. The second blind man says “no! the elephant was like the trunk of a tree, round and solid as a pillar”. the third blind man says “no, you are both wrong, the elephant was like a large flat flap that moves like a fan”.

They all experience the elephant, though not all. Everyone’s experience is authentic, though limited. Jesus wants us all to be one, as He and the father are one. For this purpose he left us the instructions to work out our differences with one another, and if we get stuck, to take it to the church.

 

[guanophore]

This question (why didn’t God prevent schism) 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?

I think Carol’s premise is that the reformers did a great service to God’s church, and that Protestantism has authentic gifts to offer to Catholicism. I believe she sees that unity (oneness in the body) will work best if the Catholic church recognizes that it is one denomination among many, and that all need to unite together into a universal Christendom. For this to happen, the Catholics need to stop touting the primacy of their Pope, and the infallibility of their magesterium, and accept that equal truth is found in all the denominations.

 

[DJPJ]

I think Carol’s premise is that the reformers did a great service to God’s church, and that Protestantism has authentic gifts to offer to Catholicism.

I don’t think that is here premise, but even if it is I’m not sure that is disputed. Few would argue the Church needed reforming, the question is if it needed social and practical change or theological change.

I believe she sees that unity (oneness in the body) will work best if the Catholic church recognizes that it is one denomination among many, and that all need to unite together into a universal Christendom.

The Church for the most part does recognize other denominations (separated brethren), it just says that it is the one true place where the fullness of revelation resides. It also says that all of them do need to unite, and it really is the only place that all denominations ever could unite.

For this to happen, the Catholics need to stop touting the primacy of their Pope, and the infallibility of their magesterium, and accept that equal truth is found in all the denominations.

If equal truth is found in all denominations than no truth is found in any denomination.

 

[Atemi]

**At times as they spoke prophetically. But that is speaking forth the very words of God. **

This is expectedly vague and evasive.

That is as clear as can be.

LOL. What were you looking for?

And my point is that your “doctrinal disunity” was God’s will all along.

God’s WILL? Where did you come up with that exactly?

God’s Word.

We have read it mulitple times already.

Certainly not from the verse you quoted.

Of course. Read it again.

As I went to read the verse in context I accidentally opened to this section from Romans 16:

Against Factions

“I urge you brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions… in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites… and they decieve the hearts of the innocent.”

Would you say that God wills some people to not serve our Lord Jesus, and to deceive innocents? I wouldnt.

You are missing it.

I did not say it is God’s will that some people not serve the Lord, but it is God’s will to allow divisions and heresies.

That is the whole point of the OP.

It is not God’s will that people embrace errors, but it surely is God’s will to allow it.

The verse in question tells us WHY.

**It is with the heresies where those that are approved of God are discerned.

That is God’s Word.**

Yes it is. And it is also God’s Word that it is wrong even though “those who are approved” are discerned in the process.

No. Not all factions are wrong. That is His whole purpose in explaining this to us.

So what do we conclude regarding doctrinal disunity and God’s Word as it relates to this thread?

Doctrinal disunity is a bad thing which God disapproves of.

Not exactly.

God approves of certain doctrinal disunity.

You assume that all unity is in truth.

That is wrong.

Doctrinal unification with error is not good and is condemned by God.

It is not mere doctrinal unification that God seeks, but unification in the truth.

There is a difference.

Unity for the sake of unity is the way of the world, not God.

Those who engage in it endanger the hearts of innocents.

Again, see above.

Sometimes doctrinal disunity protects the hearts of the innocents…it depends on the doctrine.

A good can result despite of this fact.

Agreed.

…

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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.

…

Thank you. This is an important verse, but hard to understand.

The principal schism which led to the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation originated in flaws within the Catholic Church of the middle ages. Breakaways happened. We generally assume - as above - that those who were left behind are those who were approved. 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. 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?

I agree with you that 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.

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.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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.

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?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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

Christ’s church could never fracture or break.

How do you define ‘Christ’s Church’?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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.

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).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Re-established, Carol? You mean you think there was some time where the Protestants (and it would actually have to be one group because every single group had ‘differences’ when it came to protestant groups–Hugenots are not synonymous with Anabaptists who are not synonymous with Calvinists/Anglicans/etc.etc. etc) had the authority the Catholic Church lost, and that there was a point in time where the Catholics ‘got it back’? And so the entire reason for the protestant revolt was to safeguard the Catholic faith?

That seems quite a leap there.

As for people ‘not accepting’ the truth of the one true church being the Catholic Church, well, it really does not matter whether people accept the truth of something or not. . .because something doesn’t just ‘become true’ if somebody accepts it, and ‘become false’ if they don’t.

Here is where you are allowing modernism and ‘relativity’ to drive your thinking awry.

If the Catholic Church is the one true Church–and agree or not with the premise, the fact remains is the claim has been made and there has been proof offered, whether it is accepted or not–then** it is the one true Church regardless of whether or not anyone–be they Hindu, Muslim, pagan, atheist, Prostestant or even a Catholic–says or believes it is.**

IOW, the fact that I, a Catholic, say the Church is the one true Church doesn’t make that statement ‘true for me, not for others.’ The statement is true whether I say it or not. Conversely, were I to be a Hindu and say, "the Church is not the one true church’ does not make this right for me (a Hindu). It is a wrong statement, a false statement, whether I believe it ‘true’ or not.