Why did Christ not intervene to prevent schism?

[Carol_Coombe]

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

Some of us assume that God does not interfere in the physical world, which would become random and unpredictable if he did. There are some miracles such as transubstantiation that may indicate he intervenes occasionally - but not regularly.

It is possible to assume, from observation, experience, and life as a Christian, that he does in fact intervene in the course of humanity. Not only has He given humankind brains to think (although not highly evolved), but there are suggestions all through the Bible that as believers we are expected to get on with the task of ameliorating the pain of others. Beyond that, through prayer, meditation, contemplation, silence, reading, God communicates with His people and certainly - as we see through His Church - influences the course of history on one hand, and individual lives on the other.

This may be 50% deistic. But it looks right to me. And someone above has suggested something similar.

I am asking why there bad things happen to good people, but more particularly why God/Christ did not make an obvious move to keep His Church intact. Assuming He knew it would happen, was there nothing he could have done at the time of its establishment, or at the time of the principal schism for example?

 

[jmcrae]

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).

I refer you back to Numbers chapter 16, the story of Korah.

Korah said to the people, “Should we follow Moses, or God?” 250 men and their families followed Korah to their doom by leaving off following Moses, because they had become sincerely convinced by the words of Korah that to follow Moses was something different than or opposite of following God.

In the same way that to follow Moses was to follow God when the Israelites were escaping from Egypt, so also today, to follow the Pope is the same thing as to follow God - let no latter-day “Korah” deceive you into thinking otherwise.

Don’t end up like the followers of Korah, by turning away from the leader that God has appointed for us.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Carol, again I ask, why didn’t God keep Adam and Eve from sinning? Surely He knew what would happen. . .

I think what really I’d like to know is, why are you focusing on schism as though it was the most important thing in history?

Certainly we are called to unity, but Scripture has always taught there will be factions and divisions. A simple study of Church history will reveal that from the gnostics through the ‘spirit of vatican 2’ (not to be confused with the reality of Vatican 2, which was perfectly legitimate), the Church has been plagued with division, with heresy, with schism, with factions.

Is the most important thing to consider, then, the lack of unity? Certainly many think so today and push for ‘ecumenism’ (which is not a bad thing). . .but too many argue for a false ecumenism which is nothing more than an attempt to get the Catholics to jump off the high horse and get down with the rest of Christianity --more particularly protestant Christianity–and adapt to ‘reality’. Acknowledge that ‘things change’. Make as your god ‘unity’. Fudge the beliefs–it’s easy if you try–so that ‘everybody can be right’ and we’ll all be ‘together’.

Unfortunately, that is pretty much the scenario for the one-world religion of Revelation–not exactly what we want to see!

A better question is:
Why do we ourselves not follow Christ in obedience, and submit to His authority?
Now I’m not claiming that Catholicism doesn’t have problems here (it does, there are a lot of Catholics who are really Protestants but refuse to acknowledge themselves as such) . . .but when it comes down to it, the Protestants are more responsible for leaving the true church–and they are thus more responsible for rejoining. Not by trying to force the church to ‘bend to them’ but by their having to acknowledge–and this is a humiliating thing, but humility is GOOD–that they were wrong. That the Catholic Church is right. That the Catholic doctrines and dogma which they ‘threw away’ need to be regained, and that the Protestant doctrines and dogma which were pridefully proclaimed as ‘real’ need to be thrown away as false.

Where we Catholics also have to be humble is in not thinking that just because we’re Catholic we are already ‘right’ (as noted, plenty of Catholics need to drop THEIR protesting and rejoin the real church, as much as any Protestant!), and not in thinking that we don’t have to do anything but sit tight. No, we also have to be humble. We have to model obedience. In some ways it is harder to be the ‘forgivers’ than the forgiven. It is harder to keep from pride or judgmentalism. So we all will be having to sacrifice.

 

[jmcrae]

I am asking why there bad things happen to good people, but more particularly why God/Christ did not make an obvious move to keep His Church intact. Assuming He knew it would happen, was there nothing he could have done at the time of its establishment, or at the time of the principal schism for example?

The Council of Trent and the lives and actions of the Reformation Saints (St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. John of the Cross, and St. Teresa of Avila being the most famous) seem to me to be God’s instruments in preserving His Church.

There is also the miracle at Guadalupe, which took place on December 12, 1531, and which resulted in the conversions of 9 millon Aztecs to the Catholic faith by Easter of 1541 - almost exactly replacing the 9 million Northern Europeans and British who turned to Protestantism during the same decade. I believe that this, too, was God’s action in preserving His Church - and, indeed, it is still here today; it has never gone away anywhere.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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?

No, perhaps we could say that those who dissented saved the faith which the CC had somewhat dented, and perhaps CC got it back, or maybe it did not get it back. So the entire reason for the dissent was not to safeguard ‘the Catholic faith’, but to safeguard Christian faith.

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.

You are absolutely right. and I would suggest here that the same might be said of other faiths outside Christendom which have their own version of ‘truth’. I *know *this is relativistic, but I can’t help it.
I wonder too if the Church’s current drive to proselytise is because it *does *care if people accept the truth as it is interpreted and presented by the Catholic Church.

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

That means we must all - all humanity - abide by the Church’s one truth, or be damned (save those who have never heard of the truth, and they go to limbo or purgatory)?

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. **

‘If the Catholic Church is the one true Church - as is claimed and proven - then it **is **the one true Church’? I think this is somewhat tautological. Nevertheless, by what right does the CC claim its unique ownership of Absolute Truth? This has been bothering me for days. You seem sure. Help me here.

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.

Yes, but my question is whether that Hindu can have his or her own ‘truth’ or even ‘absolute truth’ in the face of the CC claim to unique ownership? Or is that ownership only within Christendom, and applied in terms of damnation only to those who have turned their backs on the One Absolute Truth? I would find it hard to deny other people of other distinct cultures their own truths.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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

Two people have just made the point that there is no way that God/Christ could have forced people to deflect schisms. It is an important one. It did not occur to me when I asked the first question, about Christ intervening to prevent schisms in his Church. I assumed that intervention would take other forms far more subtle and sophisticated than simply telling people what to do. The variety of interventions of God/Christ are numberless: is it not possible that He would or could have intervened in a way that we do not see explicitly, in a way that is not obvious?

Another possibility is of course that He did intend the schism to happen, for some reason that is not immediately obvious to any of us. That is, he foresaw schisms, and he allowed them to happen, or he wanted them to happen. I am not being provocative; I am thinking out loud. And staying on track.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think I see what you’re driving at, if I’m wrong let me know.

First, the Catholic Church does not ‘damn’ anybody. (Bet that’s a relief!)
Now, the Catholic Church is the one true church. But there are, outside the Catholic Church, for various reasons, other churches, other faiths.

The Catholic Church does teach (I think I can find the relevant paragraph in the CCC) that other faiths can contain “some” truth.
Further, it considers that all peoples–no matter what faith, or no faith–that they profess, are members of the Catholic church.

It further teaches, in paragraphs 839 and on, that

Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

From 843:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

845

To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

So you see, it is not a question of ‘denying somebody their truth’.

Truth is truth. It is not ‘your truth’ or ‘my truth’. The truth that is found in your Hindu’s religion is the same truth found in the Catholic religion IF it is truth. If a Hindu holds as a truth that Vishnu is a real god, that is not a truth, however much he wishes it. But the ‘ultimate truth’–the idea that there is ‘a God’, is believed by that Hindu (even if he calls god, ‘vishnu’). And THAT truth–the truth of a supreme God–is true.

We cannot have an ‘equality of truth’ such that we say, "well, I believe in Jesus but you who believe in anything and nothing are entitled to what you hold as true for you’. But we do not necessarily say, “All that you believe and hold as true is a LIE”–because as seen above, that is not so. There is a kernal of truth in all religions (even Satanism, because Satanism’s truth is seen in its reversal–worship of Satan is a twisting of worship of God, just as evil is a spoiling or reversal of good. It is not ‘good’ to worship Satan, but the instinct to worship is not evil–the OBJECT of that worship (Satan) is.)

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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.

How do you know? And why are you so sure?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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.

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.

Do you suggest therefore that God/Christ did not intervene in schismatic tendencies or in the major schism of the middle ages because He meant actively to separate the wheat from the tares, the chaff from the corn? Is that why He did not intervene - or at least is it one possibility?

…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Carol, if God created us, if we are not just random beings in a random universe, then there must be ways that we can ‘know’ things. And there are. We know that the earth travels around the sun (even though with just our own eyes we cannot ‘see’ this). We know that if we drop an object, it will fall to the ground (unless we’re in some space station or simulation). We know a lot of things but we don’t necessarily know everything absolutely fully. . .nor do we need to.

Do you know exactly how your car functions–every little detail in its workmanship, how they function, how the fuel functions, etc.? Most people do not. But they drive, and drive well, often, despite not knowing every detail.

God has given us ways to know Him–the universe we live in, other people who likewise are created in His image and likeness-the Word He gave us, the scripture, the tradition, the people who carry on the faith and the teachings, and our own souls which can communicate with Him through prayer.

Since we are creatures we can never ‘totally know’ God --or ourselves. But we can take the faith in Him (informed by reason and all the ways God has given us to know Him) and be reasonably sure that we do know Him, and His will.

It isn’t easy–but it isn’t easy to know ourselves or any other person. However, it isn’t impossible. After all, God already has shown, by creating us, how much He wants to love and care for us. By sending His Son, and by His Son’s work in setting up His Church, and the Holy Spirit who guides us, we can know and be sure.

Now you will tell me that many others, nonChristians, nonCatholics, will say that they are equally ‘sure’ and equally ‘know’. And as I said earlier, there is a core or kernal of truth everywhere. It is entirely possible that somebody out there who does not share my Catholic faith is far more ‘knowing’ of God than I am. . .but there is more than just ‘our’ being sure and “our” knowledge. When it comes right down to it, we can deceive ourselves. If there were no Catholic Church, though, no place that reaches back unbroken to the apostles, no Church that has kept the faith as intact (and yes, I include our Orthodox brethren for the early part as well), we would have long ago experienced a impossible conundrum in that the gates of hell would have prevailed. But we have that intact faith, we have that one ‘fullness’–and every other group, no matter how much ‘truth’ it contains, does not have that fullness. THAT is how we know the truth. We trace it back to the apostles. We trace it back to Christ Himself–not to a king, or a cleric, or minister, or some ‘angel’ or to a ‘legend’.

We can only know the truth or falsity of anything by what the Catholic Church teaches. It alone has the fullness of truth. Everything else falls short. Either it lacks the gospel itself (nonChristian religions), or it lacks essential early teachings or changes them (Protestant religions). Either way, there is a huge chunk of ‘knowing God’ missing. And what is put in its stead is either a false god (no matter how interesting or attractive, but still incomplete) of the non-Christians, or a false Spirit (no matter how clothed in “christ” and how much it uses the name of God).

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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.

Thank you! Couldn’t have said it better myself. Except for the text in blue. I have never denied that it is possible that the Magisterium holds a constant and comprehensive understanding and interpretation of Christ’s messages through the centuries. This is one of the great strengths of the Catholic Church: it has a corporate memory on which it builds; it has an archive on which Christendom depends; it leads in scholarship and teaching, although it is sometimes awesomely presumptuous in doing so. OK.

Second, it is not correct to say that equal truth is found in all ‘Christian’ denominations, some of which are not Christian at all. When posters refer to 30,000 ‘non-Catholic’ denominations I flinch, because this is just not true. There is nevertheless a great difficulty in determining, defining the root core of Christianity, and criteria by which a community of believers would be regarded as part of the universal and mystical body of Christ.

And we have left out my constant care for those of faiths outside Christendom, the issue of authority, and the principle of Absolute Truth. There will be other threads, doubtless.

 

[jmcrae]

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” (which contradict each other in every place - God is both trinity and not trinity; Jesus is God made man, an inspired mad-man, clever magician, angel, St. Michael in disguise, etc., Mother Mary is everything from the Whore of Babylon to the sinless Virgin, and so on) then there is no such thing as truth - in which case, why bother with any of it?

 

[Atemi]

How do you define ‘Christ’s Church’?

Good question.

Christ’s church, His assembly and Body, is made up of all who believe in Him and are born again of the Spirit.

Christ alone is the only head of His Body.

 

[Atemi]

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

I think it is more difficult to accept than 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.

And also from the inability of the Catholic Church of the time to coerce and persecute those who merely chose not to believe exactly as she dictated.

The Reformation was late, IMO, but could bloom after the power of the RCC faded.

Breakaways happened.

We must also understand that these breakaways were only the visible manifestation of what was going on for many years before.

In actuality, the Reformation was only the symptom of the true breakaway that was happening in hearts for centuries.

The same can be said of the Great Schism 500 years before.

Like a divorce, it did not just up and happen.

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

Yes. That is the RC position.

But perhaps it was the other way around: that those who left the Catholic Church sustained Christendom’s integrity

That is the non-Catholic position.

The third option is the Orthodox position: the schismatics (the RCC) had schismatics (the Reformers) leave them.

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 think it would be a mistake to label factions or groups as saved or lost.

Only individuals are saved or lost.

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.

Of course Catholics equate the authority of God and the authority of the Church. The problem is that they misdefine “church,” IMO.

…

 

[Carol_Coombe]

The Council of Trent and the lives and actions of the Reformation Saints (St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. John of the Cross, and St. Teresa of Avila being the most famous) seem to me to be God’s instruments in preserving His Church.

There is also the miracle at Guadalupe, which took place on December 12, 1531, and which resulted in the conversions of 9 millon Aztecs to the Catholic faith by Easter of 1541 - almost exactly replacing the 9 million Northern Europeans and British who turned to Protestantism during the same decade. I believe that this, too, was God’s action in preserving His Church - and, indeed, it is still here today; it has never gone away anywhere.

We must be careful. There are two sides to every story:

Measles and smallpox attack Aztecs on eve of attack on Mexico City 1532
Aztecs die in droves, and psychologically affected by realization that Spaniards – fighting under a Christian god – were not affected (already immune)
Aztecs interpreted this as superior strength of Christian god over native gods
Direct consequence of mass infection was subjugation and exploitation of native Americans and Mexicans by Spaniards; destruction of native culture; conversion of millions of Indians to Christianity.
***During the time of the Spanish Conquest in the New World it is estimated that more than one-third of the total native population had been killed by viruses. ***(Oldstone, Viruses, Plagues and History)

We must be careful when identifying ‘miracles’.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

If “equal truth is found in all denominations” (which contradict each other in every place - God is both trinity and not trinity; Jesus is God made man, an inspired mad-man, clever magician, angel, St. Michael in disguise, etc., Mother Mary is everything from the Whore of Babylon to the sinless Virgin, and so on) then there is no such thing as truth - in which case, why bother with any of it?

Whoops. On one hand we have the perfect, unique and principled One Absolute Truth of the Catholic Church. On the other we have the despicable, Satan-inspired, stupidity of the rest of Christendom (however we define that - certainly not 30,000 denominations!). This is how it is sounding to me, and it troubles me, as you know. You were part of The Other for 17 years before your epiphany.

The issue of Absolute Truth, the super-moral certainty that surrounds it, and the inability or unwillingness of Catholic Christians even to consider that there are other thought, belief and value systems of merit is more than troubling.

Lack of tolerance, lack of love, understanding and compassion have been responsible for much of the world’s misery. We know about the Salem witch-hunts; the Spanish Inquisition; the advent of missionaries and with them colonial administrations etc ad nauseam. Surely it is time to leave these tendencies behind?

Christ must have known, not only that schisms would happen, but also that there would be terrible conflict and tension between schismatics and the ‘mother church’. Was he testing us? What is he observing? Is it what we would wish him to watch? He must have expected this kind of squabbling among his people. It started early, and it continues late. What does it prove?

 

[jmcrae]

We must be careful when identifying ‘miracles’.

I was referring to the miracle of the Tilma on Tepeyac Hill, which happened before that.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Good question.

Christ’s church, His assembly and Body, is made up of all who believe in Him and are born again of the Spirit.

Christ alone is the only head of His Body.

But you stated earlier that ‘Christ’s church could never fracture or break’.

So are you saying that all Christians - those who believe in Christ, as we are instructed in the scriptures - constitute the universal body of Christ?

If so, we know that this (potential perhaps) universal church of Christ is indeed fractured, broken and fragmented.

Or are you saying that even if it *appears fractured, *it is really not because Christians are all bound together by their common belief in Christ, his mission, and his resurrection?

 

[jmcrae]

Whoops. On one hand we have the perfect, unique and principled One Absolute Truth of the Catholic Church. On the other we have the despicable, Satan-inspired, stupidity of the rest of Christendom (however we define that - certainly not 30,000 denominations!). This is how it is sounding to me, and it troubles me, as you know. You were part of The Other for 17 years before your epiphany.

Yes I was. If I had remained on that path, I would have most certainly gone to Hell. (Notice that I am only speaking for myself, here.)

The issue of Absolute Truth, the super-moral certainty that surrounds it, and the inability or unwillingness of Catholic Christians even to consider that there are other thought, belief and value systems of merit is more than troubling.

Once the blind man has had his sight restored, he no longer speculates about whether or not the sky exists, nor what is meant by the idea of “colour.”

Lack of tolerance, lack of love, understanding and compassion have been responsible for much of the world’s misery. We know about the Salem witch-hunts; the Spanish Inquisition; the advent of missionaries and with them colonial administrations etc ad nauseam. Surely it is time to leave these tendencies behind?

Are you equating certainty with lack of love? Do you think that I mean to burn someone at the stake?

Why do you assume that love can only be accompanied by confusion and error?

Christ must have known, not only that schisms would happen, but also that there would be terrible conflict and tension between schismatics and the ‘mother church’. Was he testing us? What is he observing? Is it what we would wish him to watch? He must have expected this kind of squabbling among his people. It started early, and it continues late. What does it prove?

That we are beset by concupiscience and pride, and that there is nothing new under the sun. Heresies have beset the Church right from the start. There is nothing “special” about the Protestant heresy. It’s just the same old story, over and over again - Arius, Mani, Macedonius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Berengarius, Waldo, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Jansenius, Nietze, Marx - human beings who think they’ve got a better idea than God and His Church.

 

[Atemi]

But you stated earlier that ‘Christ’s church could never fracture or break’.

Yes.

So are you saying that all Christians - those who believe in Christ, as we are instructed in the scriptures - constitute the universal body of Christ?

Yes.

If so, we know that this (potential perhaps) universal church of Christ is indeed fractured, broken and fragmented.

Fractured?

No.

Churches may be fractured, but not the Body of Christ.

Or are you saying that even if it *appears fractured, *it is really not because Christians are all bound together by their common belief in Christ, his mission, and his resurrection?

Yes. Exactly.

Unbroken doctrinal uniformity across the board is not the unity we are called to by Christ.

If that was the case, then even the RCC is bitterly fractured and the Body of Christ would always be broken.

Not possible.

True unity among Christians is in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Gal 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Unity in the essentials and liberty in everything else.

The problem is that some keep adding and adding to the “essentials.” This is the recipe for strife and schism…and that is exactly what we see through history.

…