The Unity of the Catholic Church?

[Greg]

When speaking with someone who is Roman Catholic, he tried to make a case for the historical unity of the Catholic church as contrasted with the many 'divisions' and 'factions' that comprise the various denominations of Protestantism. His claim was that the Catholic church does not have the same alleged history of 'division' within their own ranks. He was trying to make the case that this type of division is the fruit of the Reformation. I'm sure that's not a new argument to the folks here. But, admittedly, I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to the history of the Catholic church.

How would you answer this person? What divisions of historical significance have the Catholic church had from within?

 

[Michael]

I'm sure you will get plenty of itemized answers here, but just suffice it to say that the RCC has flip flopped and contradicted itself over the years to the point of nausea. The saddest part though is that the things which they have held the most firm are the very things which establish them to be apostate.

 

[Grillsy]

The Society of Saint Pius, The Jansenists (sic?), Mel Gibson...there have been divisions within its ranks.

 

[Michael]

For what it's worth, here is a list from a Roman Catholic of contradictions and divisions of Pope John Paul II.

 

[Prufrock]

For what it's worth, here is a list from a Roman Catholic of contradictions and divisions of Pope John Paul II.

Most of the above, however, should be taken with a grain of salt; and I would not recommend using this as a resource to attempt to show a Roman Catholic that there is great division in their church. It seems to be compiled mostly by some extremist who will stop at nothing to show that John Paul was an Anti-Pope. It will hold as much credibility to most Romanists as a bunch of similar bit quotes some Roman Catholic would compile to attempt to show *us* how *we* have distorted the teachings of ________ (insert name of Reformer/theologian of your choice here). While there certainly have been great and profound changes/developments in the Roman church in the last century, I would venture that *most* of the items in the above list, considered in their proper context, amount to no "unorthodoxy" (with respect to RCC teachings) at all.

 

[Rich Koster]

The Eastern Orthodox is a split from when there were 2 (or more) popes claiming authority simultaneously. Rome vs. Constantinople.

 

[Casey]

How many popes can we have at the same time? Oops, we need a council to fix this.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism]Western Schism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Constance]Council of Constance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Christusregnat]

A study of the high middle ages reveals the splintering and disunity of the papal church. I would not refer to them as Catholics, since catholic means universal. Roman Catholic is a contradiction, since Rome is local, not universal.

Anywho, in the middle ages, the monastic orders ranged from Augustinians (dedicated, ostensibly) to the teachings of Augustine. Then there were Franciscans, or the followers of the lunatic who freed birdies, ran around naked, and preached the gospel to squirrels. Then there were the Dominicans who immitated the Lollards and the Waldenses as itinerant preachers. There were mystics, rationalists, adiaphorists, statists, anarchists, augustinians, pelagians, semi-pelagians, atheistic popes, double or treble popes, lions and tigers and bears, Oh My!

You get the point. It is still this way today; you have mystics, rationalists, self-flagelators, semi-protestants (in America), and every shade of belief and conviction within the papal church. In fact, you can see the difference among papal churches from country to country, or from church to church in your local neighborhood. The facade of unity is tiresome.

Cheers,

 

[DTK]

The Eastern Orthodox is a split from when there were 2 (or more) popes claiming authority simultaneously. Rome vs. Constantinople.

This is really misleading. The Great schism of 1054, which was really the final resolution of a long estrangement between the Eastern and Western Church, marks the year when Pope Leo IX pronounced with a papal bull an excommunication that, in effect, anathematized the Eastern patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople, and with him all the Eastern Christians/Churches. One of the disputes was over unleavened bread in communion. But the Eastern Church never accepted papal primacy (or the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome). Moreover, there were a number of factors which precipitated and led up to the the Great Schism of 1054.

DTK

 

[Marrow Man]

How many popes can we have at the same time? Oops, we need a council to fix this.

It's a regular Pope-pourri.

 

[Rangerus]

Catholics don't splinter, they excommunicate.

 

[Rich Koster]

Catholics don't splinter, they excommunicate.

or incinerate

 

[plandazuri]

In my country almost everyone consideres himself as a "Catholic" so I have had to do some research about it. First, I also prefer the term "Catholic Roman" rather than "Catholic" for the same reason Adam told before. Then, I think the issue is very complex. However, I think that they do not have any obvious internal division mainly because once someone is "regenerated" would look for a different place to worship and learn. This simply because something does not match between what is preached there and what the Gospel says. Therefore the logical thing to do is to become a Protestant. Off course there are exceptions and not all the "Evangelical options" are good. On the other hand, if you see it deeply, their divisions are expressed in a different way. For example take th eissue of "Salvation". I have taught for a few years a basic course about Grace Doctrines to RC´s. I can tell you that 100% of them had no clue about Grace. After learning our Biblical position, they go back to the RCC and try to get an answer. The answer they come back with is normally this:
Salvation=Baptisim+rest of Sacraments+Faith+Merits.
So, if you ask them if Salvation comes through faith they say: yes. Is it "earned" they say: yes. Was is gained by Christ? :yes. Do you have to do anything to be saved?: yes off course.
My point is that it is "easy" to be right and also easy not to have any "divisions" when all the options are "correct answers". As it was mentioned before the issue is can be complex but the cause is clear at the same time, the main issue that RCC has not solved has to do with the infalibility and the inerracy of the Scripture.

 

[MMasztal]

There's also the Polish National Catholic Church which my grandparents belonged to. I used to walk by it everyday in my way to the Roman Catholic parochial school I attended as a kid.

They are essentially Catholic in liturgy and most beliefs, but do not recognize either the Pope or papal infallibility.

http://www.pncc.org/content/apostolic_succession.pdf

 

[kvanlaan]

Speaking of the Eastern Orthodox; I heard this quote from a BR (not TR) pastor:

"The Eastern Church is actually a great deal more stable than our reformed church. While ours was born of strife, and has had regular infighting, theirs has been unchanged for more than a thousand years."



Let's hear it for the Belhar Confession!!

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 07:47:59 EST-----

Catholics don't splinter, they excommunicate.

or incinerate

They immolate their reprobate!

 

[Grillsy]

You know what else has been unchanged for a thousand years? The Eastern Orthodox are still heretics.


Plus I also am tired of the whole "EO has remained unchanged" argument, they have had no real theology or theologians for almost the entirety of their existence. It is all subjective and mystic.

 

[Marrow Man]

Catholics don't splinter, they excommunicate.

or incinerate

Or Reform

 

[Rogerant]

Well, I just attended my first Roman service in over 35 years and there did not appear to be much change. But, when 90% of the service is repetitive liturgical ritualism, there is not much variance.

 

[Zenas]

For what it's worth, here is a list from a Roman Catholic of contradictions and divisions of Pope John Paul II.

Likely a sede vacantist. They believe JPII wasn't the real Pope, and therefore, the Seat remains empty.

 

[johnbugay]

When speaking with someone who is Roman Catholic, he tried to make a case for the historical unity of the Catholic church as contrasted with the many 'divisions' and 'factions' that comprise the various denominations of Protestantism. His claim was that the Catholic church does not have the same alleged history of 'division' within their own ranks. He was trying to make the case that this type of division is the fruit of the Reformation. I'm sure that's not a new argument to the folks here. But, admittedly, I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to the history of the Catholic church.

How would you answer this person? What divisions of historical significance have the Catholic church had from within?

One of the most significant, Protestant-like "divisions" in the early church may be found in the simple designations of "The School of Antioch" or "The School of Alexandria," both of which held differing views of Scripture, and later, of the person of Christ. This manifested itself in "The Great Schism," a schism of church governments of "The Church of the East," the separation of the Church of Alexandria, etc.

Samuel Hugh Moffett, in his work, "A History of Christianity in Asia," describes this "Great Schism" this way:

What finally divided the early church, East from West, Asia from Europe, was neither war nor persecution, but the blight of a violent theological controversy, that raged through the Mediterranean world in the second quarter of the fifth century. It came to be called the Nestorian controversy, and how much of it was theological and how much political is still being debated, but it irreversibly split the church not only east and west but also north and south and cracked it into so many pieces that it was never the same again. (pg. 169)

This is an ugly memory for the "Greco-Roman" church -- it is a far larger and messier divide than the 1054 schism alluded to earlier in this thread. It makes a lie of the "unified church" claims of today's Roman Catholic apologists. It is the clearest example that there never was a governmentally-unified church -- especially not "under the papacy" -- ever in the history of the church.

 

[the Internet]

The Roaming Catholic church is a business that spans every continent. It was in fact the first true global business to be established. As a business

: Management can change depending on corridor-votes and sometimes even the dissatisfaction of the masses
: When the money slows down, it simply undertakes a bit of market research, pulls out to undertake a SWOT analysis, re-'visionises' itself, and hits the market with a redefined product
: When the competition becomes fierce, its simply a matter of 'if you can't beat them join them' and hence the birth of modern day ecumenism
: If the government of a country doesn't agree with their strategies, pay them off
: When the people want more license to sin, reprint the Code of Ethics to be a little more inclusive.

Who needs to divide when you are running a business?

 

[awretchsavedbygrace]

54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama. So much for unity.

 

[Frank Brito.]

Down here in Brazil, all my relatives are Roman Catholics (My parents and my sister are exceptions)...

Half of them believe in reincarnation and a third also attend meetings of afro-pagan religions and also believe in african gods... Maybe one or two acctually go to the Mass once in a while..

Yeah... That's what I call unity...

 

[Jennie]

There aren't a lot of surviving "divisions" and "factions" from the Catholic Church because the Roman church had an unfortunate tendency to burn anyone who disagreed with whatever the Pope said at any given time. (Seen a Cathar lately?) Many of the monastic orders grew as rebellions against the corruption of earlier orders. But they definitely want to maintain the illusion of unity; Pope Benedict XVI has made significant overtures to LeFavre's group, and the Trinedine (sp?) mass is being allowed more frequently to halt the steady loss of members. Oh, and he also made it easier for Anglicans/Episcopalians to rejoin Rome.

 

[NRB]

The anti-Catholic rhetoric in this thread is disturbing to say the least!

I was born and raised in the Catholic Church and 26 years later I left it for my own reasons after a 2 year theological study and found that the institution is apostate, not the people in a general sense. Became a Southern Baptist, and unfortunately joined a church that was much milk with a spoonful of meat. The pastor is a friend, but a self-described "reformed 4-point Calvinist".
Sorry it just tweaks me when people have fun making jest of the Catholic Church, like they are the most apostate in the world! Don't talk to me about Pentecostals!

Anywho....I joined, along with my lovely gift of a wife.....the PCA.


Sorry back to the OP:

Not many divisions in the current Catholic church now a days. Heck, the "charismatic movement" within the Catholic Church is dead.
In fact they have now begun "negotiations" for lack of a better term, to invite Anglicans into itself as their own "ordinariate".
Division overall is there throughout history...but, it doesn't matter.
Catholic Church unity is obviously been broken, hence the reformation, and before that the Eastern Orthodox departure.
It is historically proven that the Eastern Orthodox churches are more unified with the original churches than the Roman Church. Many of today's Catholics have no clue(they weren't taught) that their first major division was with the East eh. That's how I'd approach the question given forth in the OP.
I would state simply to a Catholic concering the subject of unity: you do realize that 1/2 of your church or more split before the Protestant Reformation was even conceived in the glint of Luther's eyes right? And then I would state historical facts telling them that it wasn't "their church" in the first place.

I'm rambling now and I apologize.




Thankyou for listening.

 

[KaphLamedh]

There aren't a lot of surviving "divisions" and "factions" from the Catholic Church because the Roman church had an unfortunate tendency to burn anyone who disagreed with whatever the Pope said at any given time. (Seen a Cathar lately?) Many of the monastic orders grew as rebellions against the corruption of earlier orders. But they definitely want to maintain the illusion of unity; Pope Benedict XVI has made significant overtures to LeFavre's group, and the Trinedine (sp?) mass is being allowed more frequently to halt the steady loss of members. Oh, and he also made it easier for Anglicans/Episcopalians to rejoin Rome.

Liberalism has caused that many churches have gone closer to Roman catholic church.

I remember when one Finnish minister (she is Lutheran I think) kneeled before Pope Benedict XVI. The very same minister (ex-ministeractually) hug also Mother Amma.

I have to add that catholic church and Pope Benedict have been more strict in questions about homosexuality and abortion than liberal churches.

 

[johnbugay]

There aren't a lot of surviving "divisions" and "factions" from the Catholic Church because the Roman church had an unfortunate tendency to burn anyone who disagreed with whatever the Pope said at any given time. (Seen a Cathar lately?) Many of the monastic orders grew as rebellions against the corruption of earlier orders. But they definitely want to maintain the illusion of unity; Pope Benedict XVI has made significant overtures to LeFavre's group, and the Trinedine (sp?) mass is being allowed more frequently to halt the steady loss of members. Oh, and he also made it easier for Anglicans/Episcopalians to rejoin Rome.

These are good points. I think a lot of Reformed people, out of good motives to seek peace and pursue unity (and such like that), forget just what a danger the Roman church has been, and can be in the future. The recent overture toward conservative Anglicans is one case in point. It would consume all of us

Yet it will never yield. Its dogmas, which it regards as "irreformable," were put into place centuries ago in many cases. "The Church" listens to its own counsel, and it will only make any changes grudgingly.

The "liberalism" that affected Protestantism in the late 19th century is still rattling around Catholicism today. It takes a different form, though. It gained a good deal of acceptance at Vatican II, but that has largely been tamped down by JPII and Ratzinger's 25 years in the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith," (formerly the "Holy Office," and prior to that, the Inquisition).

It is still around in the form of critical biblical scholarship, and this bothers Ratzinger. One of the good outcomes of this (from our perspective) is that this critical scholarship has confirmed that Peter was barely ever in Rome, and that there was no such thing as a monarchical bishop in Rome until about the year 175 ad. This has had the effect of having forced their doctrine of the papacy into a posture that it "developed," while still trying to maintain that Christ somehow made Peter the head of the church for all time.

It is kind of hard to retain "all time" if, for the first 150 years, there was no such thing. But there are persistent rascals out there trying to do just that.

 

[johnbugay]

I have to add that catholic church and Pope Benedict have been more strict in questions about homosexuality and abortion than liberal churches.

I will grant you that they are better on abortion, but with regard to homosexuality, it's an entirely different story.

In the 1994 work on Roman Catholicism, Dr. Robert Strimple cites Raymond Brown, probably the leading Catholic Biblical Scholar of the late 20th century.

Brown said, "Essential to a critical interpretation of church documents is the realization that the Roman Catholic Church does not change her official stance in a blunt way. Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time. (Brown, "Critical Meaning of the Bible, 1981, pg 18.)

Now look at the section in the CCC that discusses homosexuality:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Do you see the flow in these three paragraphs? This is written in such a way that homosexual acts are "disordered," but the "law" is "restated" in such a way that the homosexual priest can still "practice," then go to confession, and "gradually and resolutely" approach perfection. But "gradually" is permissible.


If you think this is a bit harsh, note that Michael Rose, a freelance journalist (and one who has written about good priests, too), in his book "Goodbye Good Men" documented a gay subculture in Catholic Seminaries in which huge percentages the seminarians were homosexuals. (Individuals such as Rod Dreher, Michael Novak and Ralph McInerny endorsed this book, as well as William Donohoe, PhD, who was President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.)

 

[KaphLamedh]

I have to add that catholic church and Pope Benedict have been more strict in questions about homosexuality and abortion than liberal churches.

I will grant you that they are better on abortion, but with regard to homosexuality, it's an entirely different story.

In the 1994 work on Roman Catholicism, Dr. Robert Strimple cites Raymond Brown, probably the leading Catholic Biblical Scholar of the late 20th century.

Brown said, "Essential to a critical interpretation of church documents is the realization that the Roman Catholic Church does not change her official stance in a blunt way. Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time. (Brown, "Critical Meaning of the Bible, 1981, pg 18.)

Now look at the section in the CCC that discusses homosexuality:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Do you see the flow in these three paragraphs? This is written in such a way that homosexual acts are "disordered," but the "law" is "restated" in such a way that the homosexual priest can still "practice," then go to confession, and "gradually and resolutely" approach perfection. But "gradually" is permissible.


If you think this is a bit harsh, note that Michael Rose, a freelance journalist (and one who has written about good priests, too), in his book "Goodbye Good Men" documented a gay subculture in Catholic Seminaries in which huge percentages the seminarians were homosexuals. (Individuals such as Rod Dreher, Michael Novak and Ralph McInerny endorsed this book, as well as William Donohoe, PhD, who was President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.)

I didn´t know that before about homosexuality really is accepted in catholic church. Thanks for information.

 

[johnbugay]

I didn´t know that before about homosexuality really is accepted in catholic church. Thanks for information.

I wouldn't say it's "accepted in the Catholic Church." But there are those there who have made it much more possible to exist there.