There's no such thing as a 'disagreement-free' church and even if one were ever to be formed the members would find something to disagree on sooner or later.
The quest for a 'purer' or more perfect church is something that seems to cross theological and ecclesial boundaries - there are Orthodox examples as well as RC and Protestant ones of course.
At what point 'too far' is 'too far' can only be determined on a case-by-case level and according to the norms and whatever 'canons' or procedures are in place in whichever instance we are talking about.
So, for instance, were I to consider the 'evidence' and issues at stake in the instance @Hugal cites I may form an opinion or even 'take sides' to some extent or other but essentially it would be up to those on the ground to decide as they may well have a different way to evaluate these things than I would from my particular ecclesial affiliation.
There would, of course, be principles that extend across ecclesial bounds - such as maintaining good relations, not bad-mouthing one another and so on - and it's good to hear that the people involved still sent Christmas cards to one another.
Even so, I think there's more to it than that, but again, it's not for me to try and 'impose' that on any other group or individual and the onus is on me to practice what I preach within my own context.
Nick, your comment about a disagreement -free church brings me back to Alan29’s comment about the (schismatic) SSPX which is intransigent regarding the “invalidity” of all the post V2 reforms in the RCC. It is my impression that the SSPX is frozen in time and that although they receive some new congregants, more leave because of its spiritual lifelessness. I hold no hope for a reunion with the rest of the RCC because of the intransigence of their bishops and would not be surprised if the SSPX dies by attrition in the next few decades.
Schisms after Councils have not been uncommon in the past. The outcome has sometimes been slow death (the Arians as an institution) or sometimes drifting further away from the main body in beliefs and practices (Old Catholics.) Arrogance seems to run strong in the SSPX. They do not accept the authority of the pope (while saying they do,) and flatly reject what Vat 2 said about ecumenism. They refer to the RCC as being heretical and corrupted by Freemasonry. The Vatican has repeatedly tried to engage with them, but when push comes to shove the SSPX refuses to comply, preferring to follow their own leader. Sometimes the main body of a church is better off without members who spread bile. Sometimes schism is a good and healthy thing.
I still stand by what I say a church that doesn’t have disagreement is not a living church. Yes it can go too far but it is not too bad.
Yes, but by that analysis, a church that splits because of disagreement is no longer a living church, as the point of the split would seem to be to separating from those with whom one disagrees in order to form a disagreement-free church.
Surely the more faithful way to follow Christ is, at least when possible, to figure out how to live together while disagreeing. Of course, that likely isn’t possible when the disagreement results in harm to part of the group. But when that’s not the case . . . .
I guess too far has very scope. Would you say your example is too far?
My view is that schisms and splits can be a good thing. . . . Being able to disagree with each other shows that we are not a cult and that we are serious about our faith. If we agreed all the time the opposite would be true.
I still stand by what I say a church that doesn’t have disagreement is not a living church. Yes it can go too far but it is not too bad.
I’m saying I think this is an internally inconsistent claim: Disagreement in the church is a good thing because it shows we take out faith seriously, therefore separation and schism so that we are no longer in the same church as those with whom we disagree is a good thing. What comes before and after the comma seem to me to be inconsistent with each other.
I agree that, as @Alan29 says, schisms can be a healthy and necessary thing. But it’s not because disagreement in the church is an inherently good thing.
People can disagree and remain in relationship. They can also sometimes decide that a different kind of relationship is required to stay in any kind of relationship at all.
It reminds me of a quip I heard in undergrad from a friend "Know what's worse than your parents divorcing? Spending your childhood trapped in a house with two adults who hate each other, but insist on staying together 'for you.' Even in the absence of physical abuse or any kind of direct harm, it's not a good place to be."
Sometimes severing a connection is the best way to save a relationship.
And sometimes severing a connection is an act of craven selfishness. It really depends on the situation.
Apart from those groups which seceded from the RC Church at the time of the Protestant Reformation,many of the others simply disappear within a generation or so.
One of the largest to remain are perhaps the 'Old Catholics of Utrecht' joined in the late 1800s by German and Swiss 'Old Catholics' or 'Christian Catholics' who could not accept the dogma of papal infallibity.
Others particularly in Eastern Europe have returned from Orthodoxy to 'Catholic Unity' mainly,in the first instance at least ,for political reasons.
As others have said it is unlikely that the Society of St Pius X will survive for too long,though Gamma G will be able to tell us about the Russian 'Old Believers' who refused to accept liturgical changes brought in to the Russian Church in the 17oos (I think) and who still exist today.
There are various 'non-canonical' Orthodox groups which aren't recognised by any of the canonical autocephalous Orthodox Churches, just as there Catholic groups which aren't in communion with the Pope.
Or 'continuing' Anglican groups which aren't in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Russian 'Old Believers' are probably the best known historically, but no, I can't tell you any more about them than anyone here could find out from reference books or Wikipedia.
It might be different if I were in a parish of 'Russian tradition' or living in Russia but the Old Believers aren't particularly on my radar, other than knowing that they still exist in Russia and, it has to be said, suffered persecution.
There were also some very exotic breakaway sects who allegedly got up to all manner of inappropriate things in bath houses and basements.
A lot of Orthodox have a downer on the 'Uniates' or Eastern Catholics because they believe they were lured away by the blandishments of Rome.
You'll still meet Greeks and people from the Balkans who think that everything 'bad' is the result of a nefarious and Jesuitical plot.
On the issue of whether splits and schisms can be 'good' - well, like a divorce they can sometimes be better than the alternatives but I don’t think they are intrinsically good in and of themselves.
A lot depends on levels of ecclesiology of course. The 'higher' the ecclesiology the more lamentable the schisms appear, which isn't to say that people with a 'high' ecclesiology are necessarily better at healing such things.
If you have a 'low' ecclesiology, as I imagine @Hugal does, and that's a statement not a criticism, then a split isn't a big deal provided people aren't hurt.
If an evangelical church splits people simply start a new group all over again. I understand that and lived through several church splits in my 18 years in a charismatic fellowship, none of which were particularly pleasant. We ended up leaving in the end, but as an individual family not as part of a breakaway group.
On the 'macro' level someone from a Reformed or other Protestant tradition is going to see the Reformation as a 'good thing' without necessarily having a downer on the present Pope or individual RCs.
Equally, many RCs would concede the Reformers had a point whilst perhaps hoping that reconciliation might be possible one day - although not necessarily on a 'structural' level. Everyone seems to have withdrawn the anathemas and official animosity - at least in 'mainstream' circles - but there's a long way to go yet.
Orthodox views on the Reformation vary. Generally, though, it's fair to say that the prevailing view is that the Reformers had a point but went too far in some ways but not far enough in others.
There is, sadly, a kind of virulent anti-ecumenism at the moment promulgated by loud and lairy Interdox influencers online and by very anti-Western elements in Russia and elsewhere.
Ever met any? The ones I know the best are the Ukrainians ( my generation) who mostly came to Oz post WW2. I recall one who needed a dispensation from his bishop to be married in the Latin rite ( the bride being Irish Catholic). Same bloke ( born in W Germany as parents were displaced persons from Lviv) was not baptised till the age of 5 when the family emigrated as there were no Greek Catholic( as they were known) priests in or near his birthplace) and a Roman rite priest was unacceptable.
Despite 1591 they were Orthodox in all but name.
I gather that those oz- born Greek Catholics post 1960 have largely fallen away.
Mind you the most recently appointed Austraalian cardinal is a Ukrainian-born Greek Catholic ( ++Mykola Bychok) who appears to bw be bi-ritual despite turning up in full Byzantine fig.
The Ukrainians who came to Edinburgh during and after WW2 soon had a church which had large numbers attending. the priests indeed visited each weekend in turn other centres of Ukrainian groups,particularly Lockerbie (known later for its air disaster,nothing to do with the Ukrainians). In the intervening 80 years a lot of things have changed.
Of those with a Ukrainian heritage a number will have abandoned the church, others will have merged with the local Roman Rite Catholics and some will have passed on the Ukrainian rite to their children.
The present priest is a wonderful fellow,married with children, Long before the present difficult situation in Ukraine he had got a job as a priest in Croatia and from there came to the UK
(For various reasons having to do with both Eastern and Western rite Catholics in certain parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire Roman rite Mass was often celebrated in Croatian long before Vatican 2)
I don't need to add that relations with the large number of Polish Catholics who came to the area during and after WW2 was not of the best,though they would mix at the local Catholic schools.
The present incumbent of the Ukrainian church has part time job as a very useful prison chaplain.
Ever met any? The ones I know the best are the Ukrainians ( my generation) who mostly came to Oz post WW2. I recall one who needed a dispensation from his bishop to be married in the Latin rite ( the bride being Irish Catholic). Same bloke ( born in W Germany as parents were displaced persons from Lviv) was not baptised till the age of 5 when the family emigrated as there were no Greek Catholic( as they were known) priests in or near his birthplace) and a Roman rite priest was unacceptable.
Despite 1591 they were Orthodox in all but name.
I gather that those oz- born Greek Catholics post 1960 have largely fallen away.
Mind you the most recently appointed Austraalian cardinal is a Ukrainian-born Greek Catholic ( ++Mykola Bychok) who appears to bw be bi-ritual despite turning up in full Byzantine fig.
Yes, I have met some, one priest and three laymen, all of whom are British and have ended up in Eastern-rite Catholicism for whatever reason.
Hardly a cigarette paper's thickness between them and me on doctrinal issues it seemed to me.
As you say, Orthodox in all but name. So it seemed.
A living church is a changing church. Any time someone joins a fellowship it changes. Any time a person leaves the body it changes.
I can think of many times when our congregation has changed. It is no longer the mainly Norwegian church that formed up 100 years ago--yes, I know that is rather young in European and Middle Eastern circles. There have been a number of disagreements, but it has never gotten to the point where a group of people have wanted to divide the fellowship. I have to say we have continued to thrive because we have never lost sight of the mission set before us.
.
On the other hand, I can think of a church in a neighborhood near mine. The tale I got from the pastor - a friend - was that the immigrant congregation wasn't comfortable with the newcomers to the neighborhood, who were mostly whiter and wealthier. Might've been some vice versa in there as well, it can go both ways. This was a UMC church in a city neighborhood. Now the building is vacant. It's a shame.
Ever met any? The ones I know the best are the Ukrainians ( my generation) who mostly came to Oz post WW2. I recall one who needed a dispensation from his bishop to be married in the Latin rite ( the bride being Irish Catholic). Same bloke ( born in W Germany as parents were displaced persons from Lviv) was not baptised till the age of 5 when the family emigrated as there were no Greek Catholic( as they were known) priests in or near his birthplace) and a Roman rite priest was unacceptable.
Despite 1591 they were Orthodox in all but name.
I gather that those oz- born Greek Catholics post 1960 have largely fallen away.
Mind you the most recently appointed Austraalian cardinal is a Ukrainian-born Greek Catholic ( ++Mykola Bychok) who appears to bw be bi-ritual despite turning up in full Byzantine fig.
Yes, I have met some, one priest and three laymen, all of whom are British and have ended up in Eastern-rite Catholicism for whatever reason.
Hardly a cigarette paper's thickness between them and me on doctrinal issues it seemed to me.
As you say, Orthodox in all but name. So it seemed.
Tons of Eastern Catholics in the Middle East, East Africa, and India, and in their respective diasporas. Lots of UK Catholic churches hold Syro-Malabar services.
I attended mass in a Uniate church in Western Ukraine a few years back, while touring. My (very) RC Polish friend seemed OK with it. Parish was very busy, all ages, lots of enthusiastic singing, young priest. The only place I ever saw people giving their collection and taking change from the plate where necessary! A nice, young, posh (OK, well-dressed and made-up) lady cleaned my girl's face with a tissue, having smiled and tried a couple of languages to communicate - we were motorcycling and a bit grubby!
Orthodox in all but name must mean, put the other way ,that Orthodox are Catholic in all but name.
Well, the terms were co-terminous before the Great Schism.
As I understand it, though Eastern Catholics are allowed to drop the filioque clause.
One of the Eastern Catholics I've spoken to didn't accept the Immaculate Conception of Mary either, which is an Orthodox view rather than an RC one of course.
I don't know how common that is among Eastern Catholics but it's part of what I meant by Orthodox in all but name.
One day, of course, I'd like to see all these issues resolved.
In the meantime the differences that persist don't stop me regarding Roman, Eastern and Whatever Else Catholics as my brothers and sisters in Christ alongside my Protestant brothers and sisters.
Pedantically perhaps, the Orthodox Church does claim to be 'Catholic.' Big C.
But not Roman Catholic.
Howbeit, I'd regard all Trinitarian Christians as small c catholic.
I also like the defining of Catholicism I've heard which is effectively 'towards Catholicity'.
Work in progress.
I mean...I've always thought of my Protestant self that way. I believe in the Holy Catholic Church that I understand myself to be part of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the sacraments I partake in.
Yes, it's a little nutty...*shrugs in Protestant*...Sometimes you just have to trust the Spirit, which might make me small-c charismatic?
Orthodox in all but name must mean, put the other way ,that Orthodox are Catholic in all but name.
Well, the terms were co-terminous before the Great Schism.
As I understand it, though Eastern Catholics are allowed to drop the filioque clause.
One of the Eastern Catholics I've spoken to didn't accept the Immaculate Conception of Mary either, which is an Orthodox view rather than an RC one of course.
I don't know how common that is among Eastern Catholics but it's part of what I meant by Orthodox in all but name.
One day, of course, I'd like to see all these issues resolved.
In the meantime the differences that persist don't stop me regarding Roman, Eastern and Whatever Else Catholics as my brothers and sisters in Christ alongside my Protestant brothers and sisters.
BiB.
Blimey I know plenty of Romans who don't accept that either, plus a shedful of other stuff we Carfliks are supposed to swallow.
Bullfrog I don't think you should think that the RC Church does not recognise your sacraments. It is much clearer to say the the RC Church does not recognise the sacraments you partake of as Roman Catholic sacraments for the simple reason that they are not celebrated as a liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church with a mandate so to do from the local Catholic bishop.
Whatever may or may not have been said in the past (by all sides) we recognise now that we are all Christians with our own backstories and liturgical practices.
Bullfrog I don't think you should think that the RC Church does not recognise your sacraments. It is much clearer to say the the RC Church does not recognise the sacraments you partake of as Roman Catholic sacraments for the simple reason that they are not celebrated as a liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church with a mandate so to do from the local Catholic bishop.
Whatever may or may not have been said in the past (by all sides) we recognise now that we are all Christians with our own backstories and liturgical practices.
While I appreciate the sentiment this does rather dodge the fact that Rome claims universal jurisdiction and insists that only sacraments meeting its standards are valid. If it was simply a matter of having permission from the RC bishop there would be no distinction in canon law between valid and licit sacraments.
Bullfrog I don't think you should think that the RC Church does not recognise your sacraments. It is much clearer to say the the RC Church does not recognise the sacraments you partake of as Roman Catholic sacraments for the simple reason that they are not celebrated as a liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church with a mandate so to do from the local Catholic bishop.
Whatever may or may not have been said in the past (by all sides) we recognise now that we are all Christians with our own backstories and liturgical practices.
While I appreciate the sentiment this does rather dodge the fact that Rome claims universal jurisdiction and insists that only sacraments meeting its standards are valid. If it was simply a matter of having permission from the RC bishop there would be no distinction in canon law between valid and licit sacraments.
The fact that some churches accept/deny the validity of the sacraments of other churches (the RCC is far from alone in this) does not in any way limit the ability of God to bestow grace through them all.
Bullfrog I don't think you should think that the RC Church does not recognise your sacraments. It is much clearer to say the the RC Church does not recognise the sacraments you partake of as Roman Catholic sacraments for the simple reason that they are not celebrated as a liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church with a mandate so to do from the local Catholic bishop.
Whatever may or may not have been said in the past (by all sides) we recognise now that we are all Christians with our own backstories and liturgical practices.
While I appreciate the sentiment this does rather dodge the fact that Rome claims universal jurisdiction and insists that only sacraments meeting its standards are valid. If it was simply a matter of having permission from the RC bishop there would be no distinction in canon law between valid and licit sacraments.
The fact that some churches accept/deny the validity of the sacraments of other churches (the RCC is far from alone in this) does not in any way limit the ability of God to bestow grace through them all.
On that much I agree. I'm content with the maxim "we know where the church is; we do not know where the church is not".
While agreeing in some ways with your statement @arethosemyfeet we can know where the Roman Catholic Church is and is not.It is gathered around a bishop who is in full communion with the Holy See.
The Roman Catholic Church recognises that there are many Christians who are for various reasons not in full communion with the Holy See.
Indeed the Bishop of Rome does in a sense claim universal jurisdiction but that universal jurisdiction is surely limited to those Christians who wish to be in full communion with the Holy See. (and who would be prepared in the final analysis to accept that universal jurisdiction.)
Jurisdictional problems are not confined to the Bishop of Rome.
A few years ago the Church of Scotland at its General Assembly made a pronouncement on what SOF calls DH issues. At least two congregations in Edinburgh said that they disagreed with the views of the General Assembly and claimed that there was no divine or biblical mandate for what the Church of Scotland had pronounced.
In one of the congregations it was clear that the gathered group coming from all over the city favoured the views of the minister rather than the official views of the Church of Scotland. They abandoned the church building and hired premises from the University until they were able to buy a redundant church,now running separately from the Church of Scotland and is a successful independent group attracting lots of evangelically minded students.
The other Edinburgh church which objected to the views of the General Assembly claimed that they had done a lot of repair and maintenance work to their church building but at the end of the day they had to accept that they had done this work in the name of the Church of Scotland who were still the owners of the building. If the congregation didn't like it they just had to go - which they did.
To me these 'problems' seem no different from the jurisdictional problems which have been mentioned as in some way peculiar to the Bishop of Rome.
It is the age old problem of the individual versus the community.
Some Christians see the 'Church' as a series of individuals,other Christians see the Church as a community first before the individual.
Originally posted by Forthview: In one of the congregations it was clear that the gathered group coming from all over the city favoured the views of the minister rather than the official views of the Church of Scotland. They abandoned the church building and hired premises from the University until they were able to buy a redundant church,now running separately from the Church of Scotland and is a successful independent group attracting lots of evangelically minded students.
Very similar situation in Aberdeen. The new church, whilst successful, full of young people and separate from the Church of Scotland, benefits from inward investment from America - I'm not sure why.
Originally posted by Forthview: In one of the congregations it was clear that the gathered group coming from all over the city favoured the views of the minister rather than the official views of the Church of Scotland. They abandoned the church building and hired premises from the University until they were able to buy a redundant church,now running separately from the Church of Scotland and is a successful independent group attracting lots of evangelically minded students.
Very similar situation in Aberdeen. The new church, whilst successful, full of young people and separate from the Church of Scotland, benefits from inward investment from America - I'm not sure why.
I am not at all surprised to hear of US investment in any conservative UK denomination and especially one formed via schism from a more liberal denomination. I assume the funding is coming from the PCA or another conservative US Presbyterian group [PC(USA] is the progressive US Presbyterian denomination].
While agreeing in some ways with your statement @arethosemyfeet we can know where the Roman Catholic Church is and is not.It is gathered around a bishop who is in full communion with the Holy See.
But the Roman Catholic Church has never claimed to be just the Roman Catholic Church, it's always claimed to be The Church, full stop. By acknowledging that Christians exist outwith its hierarchy there is a tacit acknowledgement that, while they do know where the Church is (as you say, in communion with Rome), they cannot say with certainty where it is not. It seems to me that you're imputing an acceptance of denominations, or perhaps a form of branch theory, that the RCC doesn't really have.
Rather than an acceptance of 'denominations' it is an acknowledgement that all the baptized are part of the 'Church' ,even if in imperfect communion with the Holy See.
Pedantically perhaps, the Orthodox Church does claim to be 'Catholic.' Big C.
But not Roman Catholic.
Howbeit, I'd regard all Trinitarian Christians as small c catholic.
I also like the defining of Catholicism I've heard which is effectively 'towards Catholicity'.
Work in progress.
I mean...I've always thought of my Protestant self that way. I believe in the Holy Catholic Church that I understand myself to be part of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the sacraments I partake in.
Yes, it's a little nutty...*shrugs in Protestant*...Sometimes you just have to trust the Spirit, which might make me small-c charismatic?
I'd contend that all Christians are small-c charismatic, not in the sense of going around with demonstrative spiritual gifts but in the sense of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit - although we leak like collanders.
Originally posted by Forthview: In one of the congregations it was clear that the gathered group coming from all over the city favoured the views of the minister rather than the official views of the Church of Scotland. They abandoned the church building and hired premises from the University until they were able to buy a redundant church,now running separately from the Church of Scotland and is a successful independent group attracting lots of evangelically minded students.
Very similar situation in Aberdeen. The new church, whilst successful, full of young people and separate from the Church of Scotland, benefits from inward investment from America - I'm not sure why.
Although I believe at least two of the churches @Forthview is referring to were both well attended and relatively well healed. The third probably got funding from one of the North American outfits.
Originally posted by Forthview: In one of the congregations it was clear that the gathered group coming from all over the city favoured the views of the minister rather than the official views of the Church of Scotland. They abandoned the church building and hired premises from the University until they were able to buy a redundant church,now running separately from the Church of Scotland and is a successful independent group attracting lots of evangelically minded students.
Very similar situation in Aberdeen. The new church, whilst successful, full of young people and separate from the Church of Scotland, benefits from inward investment from America - I'm not sure why.
A combination of Churches in general being more affluent than they used to be, and Europe being seen as a 'mission field' -- it's not just the UK, there are groups doing church planting all over Europe.
Originally posted by Forthview: In one of the congregations it was clear that the gathered group coming from all over the city favoured the views of the minister rather than the official views of the Church of Scotland. They abandoned the church building and hired premises from the University until they were able to buy a redundant church,now running separately from the Church of Scotland and is a successful independent group attracting lots of evangelically minded students.
Very similar situation in Aberdeen. The new church, whilst successful, full of young people and separate from the Church of Scotland, benefits from inward investment from America - I'm not sure why.
I am not at all surprised to hear of US investment in any conservative UK denomination and especially one formed via schism from a more liberal denomination. I assume the funding is coming from the PCA or another conservative US Presbyterian group [PC(USA] is the progressive US Presbyterian denomination].
No idea where it has come from. We were told by a member of the congregation that they had received "millions" which seems a lot to give to one congregation. I don't think my own parish church would even know what to do with that amount of money.
Originally posted by Forthview: In one of the congregations it was clear that the gathered group coming from all over the city favoured the views of the minister rather than the official views of the Church of Scotland. They abandoned the church building and hired premises from the University until they were able to buy a redundant church,now running separately from the Church of Scotland and is a successful independent group attracting lots of evangelically minded students.
Very similar situation in Aberdeen. The new church, whilst successful, full of young people and separate from the Church of Scotland, benefits from inward investment from America - I'm not sure why.
I am not at all surprised to hear of US investment in any conservative UK denomination and especially one formed via schism from a more liberal denomination. I assume the funding is coming from the PCA or another conservative US Presbyterian group [PC(USA] is the progressive US Presbyterian denomination].
No idea where it has come from. We were told by a member of the congregation that they had received "millions" which seems a lot to give to one congregation. I don't think my own parish church would even know what to do with that amount of money.
If it's the case I am thinking of they renovated a building, which probably amounts for most of that money. It's a city with links to the oil industry - I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few weel healed individuals even locally who were willing to put their hands in their pockets.
Pedantically perhaps, the Orthodox Church does claim to be 'Catholic.' Big C.
But not Roman Catholic.
Howbeit, I'd regard all Trinitarian Christians as small c catholic.
I also like the defining of Catholicism I've heard which is effectively 'towards Catholicity'.
Work in progress.
I mean...I've always thought of my Protestant self that way. I believe in the Holy Catholic Church that I understand myself to be part of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the sacraments I partake in.
Yes, it's a little nutty...*shrugs in Protestant*...Sometimes you just have to trust the Spirit, which might make me small-c charismatic?
I'd contend that all Christians are small-c charismatic, not in the sense of going around with demonstrative spiritual gifts but in the sense of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit - although we leak like collanders.
I appreciate that take. I'm not sure what I'd make of a Christian who denied their own indwelling Holy Spirit.
I always found the idea of an indwelling Holy Spirit to be quite creepy - like some kind of parasite. The Holy Spirit is a Person and I don't want another person dwelling inside me, like those mushrooms that grow in bugs.
Back in my full on big C charismatic days we tended to see it as some kind of dopamine hit - although to be fair we did recognise that there was more to it than that.
No-one can say 'Jesus is Lord' without the Holy Spirit. That doesn't imply particular experiences or some kind of 'alien possession' as it were.
I always found the idea of an indwelling Holy Spirit to be quite creepy - like some kind of parasite. The Holy Spirit is a Person and I don't want another person dwelling inside me, like those mushrooms that grow in bugs.
I'd never thought of it like that. And there is of course the fact that a large proportion of the human population do experience 'another person dwelling inside them' for nine months at a time! Now I'd never thought of pregnancy as being in any way analogous to having the Holy Spirit within, but your comments gave me pause for thought!!
I always found the idea of an indwelling Holy Spirit to be quite creepy - like some kind of parasite. The Holy Spirit is a Person and I don't want another person dwelling inside me, like those mushrooms that grow in bugs.
I think most people have multiple personae if they think about it hard enough. There's a work-me, a husband-me, a father-me. All of these are a little different. But they're all me.
The question of the division between these parts is interesting, and likely varies by person. I think most of us are performers to an extent, socially.
Obviously you have a right to your opinion, but my own experience has been just the opposite--that having Christ/the Spirit indwelling is not a problem, rather a comfort. I think because this is what human beings were made for--unlike the horror of being taken over by something demonic. The one is "natural," intended, according to how creation is meant to work (like pregnancy, for another example); the other (demonic possession) is a horror because it was never intended and does harm to the person (like various kinds of parasitism).
In my own experience also, a lot of why I welcome this is because of the Lord's behavior--he is generally rather quiet, well-mannered, waits to be asked before interfering, that sort of thing. And yet, when I need him, he's right at hand to deal with whatever a problem might be. (Once it was counseling a ten year old rape survivor whose mother had chosen to deal with the situation by attempting suicide (and failing, thank God!--but you can see why I felt in need of help from someone much greater and wiser than I, as I had no idea how to be caring, how to help instead of creating further pain.)
I think we got involved in that case because the police wanted someone who spoke the language, and asked us to come along.
I should also say that I was one of those children who was scared of Father Christmas/Santa, because we had an electric fireplace (so no chimney he could use) and so I was told that Father Christmas had a special key to the front door....which I then found to be a terrifying prospect! Even as a child believing in Santa, I didn't *know* him personally as a person so the idea of a stranger in my space to be frightening, and more frightening because everyone else thought it was good.
Well, that sounds sensible, particularly if you've never been introduced in any way by someone who knows him personally. Which is always the case with Santa, at least with truthtellers.
Well, that sounds sensible, particularly if you've never been introduced in any way by someone who knows him personally. Which is always the case with Santa, at least with truthtellers.
I find that a rather disturbing train of thought.
Some of the scariest people I have known were introduced to me by people who knew them well and thought they were wonderful. (And all of whom were indwelt by the Holy Spirit.)
I have a friend who told me about his family. Everyone at church thought they were wonderful because they were the family that always showed up for everyone else and were super helpful all the time. Internally, the father was horribly abusive, authoritarian.
I've learned that every relationship is different, and one person's hero can be another person's villain. He grieved pretty hard when his dad died, and he also had told me horror stories from his childhood that dad had left him with.
One thing I'm certain of is that people are complicated.
Well, that sounds sensible, particularly if you've never been introduced in any way by someone who knows him personally. Which is always the case with Santa, at least with truthtellers.
I find that a rather disturbing train of thought.
Some of the scariest people I have known were introduced to me by people who knew them well and thought they were wonderful. (And all of whom were indwelt by the Holy Spirit.)
You mean the scary people were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, or the introducers were indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
Comments
The quest for a 'purer' or more perfect church is something that seems to cross theological and ecclesial boundaries - there are Orthodox examples as well as RC and Protestant ones of course.
At what point 'too far' is 'too far' can only be determined on a case-by-case level and according to the norms and whatever 'canons' or procedures are in place in whichever instance we are talking about.
So, for instance, were I to consider the 'evidence' and issues at stake in the instance @Hugal cites I may form an opinion or even 'take sides' to some extent or other but essentially it would be up to those on the ground to decide as they may well have a different way to evaluate these things than I would from my particular ecclesial affiliation.
There would, of course, be principles that extend across ecclesial bounds - such as maintaining good relations, not bad-mouthing one another and so on - and it's good to hear that the people involved still sent Christmas cards to one another.
Even so, I think there's more to it than that, but again, it's not for me to try and 'impose' that on any other group or individual and the onus is on me to practice what I preach within my own context.
Schisms after Councils have not been uncommon in the past. The outcome has sometimes been slow death (the Arians as an institution) or sometimes drifting further away from the main body in beliefs and practices (Old Catholics.) Arrogance seems to run strong in the SSPX. They do not accept the authority of the pope (while saying they do,) and flatly reject what Vat 2 said about ecumenism. They refer to the RCC as being heretical and corrupted by Freemasonry. The Vatican has repeatedly tried to engage with them, but when push comes to shove the SSPX refuses to comply, preferring to follow their own leader. Sometimes the main body of a church is better off without members who spread bile. Sometimes schism is a good and healthy thing.
I agree that, as @Alan29 says, schisms can be a healthy and necessary thing. But it’s not because disagreement in the church is an inherently good thing.
It reminds me of a quip I heard in undergrad from a friend "Know what's worse than your parents divorcing? Spending your childhood trapped in a house with two adults who hate each other, but insist on staying together 'for you.' Even in the absence of physical abuse or any kind of direct harm, it's not a good place to be."
Sometimes severing a connection is the best way to save a relationship.
And sometimes severing a connection is an act of craven selfishness. It really depends on the situation.
One of the largest to remain are perhaps the 'Old Catholics of Utrecht' joined in the late 1800s by German and Swiss 'Old Catholics' or 'Christian Catholics' who could not accept the dogma of papal infallibity.
Others particularly in Eastern Europe have returned from Orthodoxy to 'Catholic Unity' mainly,in the first instance at least ,for political reasons.
As others have said it is unlikely that the Society of St Pius X will survive for too long,though Gamma G will be able to tell us about the Russian 'Old Believers' who refused to accept liturgical changes brought in to the Russian Church in the 17oos (I think) and who still exist today.
Or 'continuing' Anglican groups which aren't in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Russian 'Old Believers' are probably the best known historically, but no, I can't tell you any more about them than anyone here could find out from reference books or Wikipedia.
It might be different if I were in a parish of 'Russian tradition' or living in Russia but the Old Believers aren't particularly on my radar, other than knowing that they still exist in Russia and, it has to be said, suffered persecution.
There were also some very exotic breakaway sects who allegedly got up to all manner of inappropriate things in bath houses and basements.
A lot of Orthodox have a downer on the 'Uniates' or Eastern Catholics because they believe they were lured away by the blandishments of Rome.
You'll still meet Greeks and people from the Balkans who think that everything 'bad' is the result of a nefarious and Jesuitical plot.
On the issue of whether splits and schisms can be 'good' - well, like a divorce they can sometimes be better than the alternatives but I don’t think they are intrinsically good in and of themselves.
A lot depends on levels of ecclesiology of course. The 'higher' the ecclesiology the more lamentable the schisms appear, which isn't to say that people with a 'high' ecclesiology are necessarily better at healing such things.
If you have a 'low' ecclesiology, as I imagine @Hugal does, and that's a statement not a criticism, then a split isn't a big deal provided people aren't hurt.
If an evangelical church splits people simply start a new group all over again. I understand that and lived through several church splits in my 18 years in a charismatic fellowship, none of which were particularly pleasant. We ended up leaving in the end, but as an individual family not as part of a breakaway group.
On the 'macro' level someone from a Reformed or other Protestant tradition is going to see the Reformation as a 'good thing' without necessarily having a downer on the present Pope or individual RCs.
Equally, many RCs would concede the Reformers had a point whilst perhaps hoping that reconciliation might be possible one day - although not necessarily on a 'structural' level. Everyone seems to have withdrawn the anathemas and official animosity - at least in 'mainstream' circles - but there's a long way to go yet.
Orthodox views on the Reformation vary. Generally, though, it's fair to say that the prevailing view is that the Reformers had a point but went too far in some ways but not far enough in others.
There is, sadly, a kind of virulent anti-ecumenism at the moment promulgated by loud and lairy Interdox influencers online and by very anti-Western elements in Russia and elsewhere.
Ever met any? The ones I know the best are the Ukrainians ( my generation) who mostly came to Oz post WW2. I recall one who needed a dispensation from his bishop to be married in the Latin rite ( the bride being Irish Catholic). Same bloke ( born in W Germany as parents were displaced persons from Lviv) was not baptised till the age of 5 when the family emigrated as there were no Greek Catholic( as they were known) priests in or near his birthplace) and a Roman rite priest was unacceptable.
Despite 1591 they were Orthodox in all but name.
I gather that those oz- born Greek Catholics post 1960 have largely fallen away.
Mind you the most recently appointed Austraalian cardinal is a Ukrainian-born Greek Catholic ( ++Mykola Bychok) who appears to bw be bi-ritual despite turning up in full Byzantine fig.
Of those with a Ukrainian heritage a number will have abandoned the church, others will have merged with the local Roman Rite Catholics and some will have passed on the Ukrainian rite to their children.
The present priest is a wonderful fellow,married with children, Long before the present difficult situation in Ukraine he had got a job as a priest in Croatia and from there came to the UK
(For various reasons having to do with both Eastern and Western rite Catholics in certain parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire Roman rite Mass was often celebrated in Croatian long before Vatican 2)
I don't need to add that relations with the large number of Polish Catholics who came to the area during and after WW2 was not of the best,though they would mix at the local Catholic schools.
The present incumbent of the Ukrainian church has part time job as a very useful prison chaplain.
Yes, I have met some, one priest and three laymen, all of whom are British and have ended up in Eastern-rite Catholicism for whatever reason.
Hardly a cigarette paper's thickness between them and me on doctrinal issues it seemed to me.
As you say, Orthodox in all but name. So it seemed.
I can think of many times when our congregation has changed. It is no longer the mainly Norwegian church that formed up 100 years ago--yes, I know that is rather young in European and Middle Eastern circles. There have been a number of disagreements, but it has never gotten to the point where a group of people have wanted to divide the fellowship. I have to say we have continued to thrive because we have never lost sight of the mission set before us.
.
Tons of Eastern Catholics in the Middle East, East Africa, and India, and in their respective diasporas. Lots of UK Catholic churches hold Syro-Malabar services.
Well, the terms were co-terminous before the Great Schism.
As I understand it, though Eastern Catholics are allowed to drop the filioque clause.
One of the Eastern Catholics I've spoken to didn't accept the Immaculate Conception of Mary either, which is an Orthodox view rather than an RC one of course.
I don't know how common that is among Eastern Catholics but it's part of what I meant by Orthodox in all but name.
One day, of course, I'd like to see all these issues resolved.
In the meantime the differences that persist don't stop me regarding Roman, Eastern and Whatever Else Catholics as my brothers and sisters in Christ alongside my Protestant brothers and sisters.
But not Roman Catholic.
Howbeit, I'd regard all Trinitarian Christians as small c catholic.
I also like the defining of Catholicism I've heard which is effectively 'towards Catholicity'.
Work in progress.
I mean...I've always thought of my Protestant self that way. I believe in the Holy Catholic Church that I understand myself to be part of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the sacraments I partake in.
Yes, it's a little nutty...*shrugs in Protestant*...Sometimes you just have to trust the Spirit, which might make me small-c charismatic?
BiB.
Blimey I know plenty of Romans who don't accept that either, plus a shedful of other stuff we Carfliks are supposed to swallow.
Whatever may or may not have been said in the past (by all sides) we recognise now that we are all Christians with our own backstories and liturgical practices.
While I appreciate the sentiment this does rather dodge the fact that Rome claims universal jurisdiction and insists that only sacraments meeting its standards are valid. If it was simply a matter of having permission from the RC bishop there would be no distinction in canon law between valid and licit sacraments.
The fact that some churches accept/deny the validity of the sacraments of other churches (the RCC is far from alone in this) does not in any way limit the ability of God to bestow grace through them all.
On that much I agree. I'm content with the maxim "we know where the church is; we do not know where the church is not".
The Roman Catholic Church recognises that there are many Christians who are for various reasons not in full communion with the Holy See.
Indeed the Bishop of Rome does in a sense claim universal jurisdiction but that universal jurisdiction is surely limited to those Christians who wish to be in full communion with the Holy See. (and who would be prepared in the final analysis to accept that universal jurisdiction.)
A few years ago the Church of Scotland at its General Assembly made a pronouncement on what SOF calls DH issues. At least two congregations in Edinburgh said that they disagreed with the views of the General Assembly and claimed that there was no divine or biblical mandate for what the Church of Scotland had pronounced.
In one of the congregations it was clear that the gathered group coming from all over the city favoured the views of the minister rather than the official views of the Church of Scotland. They abandoned the church building and hired premises from the University until they were able to buy a redundant church,now running separately from the Church of Scotland and is a successful independent group attracting lots of evangelically minded students.
The other Edinburgh church which objected to the views of the General Assembly claimed that they had done a lot of repair and maintenance work to their church building but at the end of the day they had to accept that they had done this work in the name of the Church of Scotland who were still the owners of the building. If the congregation didn't like it they just had to go - which they did.
To me these 'problems' seem no different from the jurisdictional problems which have been mentioned as in some way peculiar to the Bishop of Rome.
It is the age old problem of the individual versus the community.
Some Christians see the 'Church' as a series of individuals,other Christians see the Church as a community first before the individual.
In one of the congregations it was clear that the gathered group coming from all over the city favoured the views of the minister rather than the official views of the Church of Scotland. They abandoned the church building and hired premises from the University until they were able to buy a redundant church,now running separately from the Church of Scotland and is a successful independent group attracting lots of evangelically minded students.
Very similar situation in Aberdeen. The new church, whilst successful, full of young people and separate from the Church of Scotland, benefits from inward investment from America - I'm not sure why.
I am not at all surprised to hear of US investment in any conservative UK denomination and especially one formed via schism from a more liberal denomination. I assume the funding is coming from the PCA or another conservative US Presbyterian group [PC(USA] is the progressive US Presbyterian denomination].
But the Roman Catholic Church has never claimed to be just the Roman Catholic Church, it's always claimed to be The Church, full stop. By acknowledging that Christians exist outwith its hierarchy there is a tacit acknowledgement that, while they do know where the Church is (as you say, in communion with Rome), they cannot say with certainty where it is not. It seems to me that you're imputing an acceptance of denominations, or perhaps a form of branch theory, that the RCC doesn't really have.
I'd contend that all Christians are small-c charismatic, not in the sense of going around with demonstrative spiritual gifts but in the sense of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit - although we leak like collanders.
Although I believe at least two of the churches @Forthview is referring to were both well attended and relatively well healed. The third probably got funding from one of the North American outfits.
A combination of Churches in general being more affluent than they used to be, and Europe being seen as a 'mission field' -- it's not just the UK, there are groups doing church planting all over Europe.
No idea where it has come from. We were told by a member of the congregation that they had received "millions" which seems a lot to give to one congregation. I don't think my own parish church would even know what to do with that amount of money.
If it's the case I am thinking of they renovated a building, which probably amounts for most of that money. It's a city with links to the oil industry - I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few weel healed individuals even locally who were willing to put their hands in their pockets.
I appreciate that take. I'm not sure what I'd make of a Christian who denied their own indwelling Holy Spirit.
I've never thought of it that way though.
Back in my full on big C charismatic days we tended to see it as some kind of dopamine hit - although to be fair we did recognise that there was more to it than that.
No-one can say 'Jesus is Lord' without the Holy Spirit. That doesn't imply particular experiences or some kind of 'alien possession' as it were.
I'd never thought of it like that. And there is of course the fact that a large proportion of the human population do experience 'another person dwelling inside them' for nine months at a time! Now I'd never thought of pregnancy as being in any way analogous to having the Holy Spirit within, but your comments gave me pause for thought!!
I think most people have multiple personae if they think about it hard enough. There's a work-me, a husband-me, a father-me. All of these are a little different. But they're all me.
The question of the division between these parts is interesting, and likely varies by person. I think most of us are performers to an extent, socially.
In my own experience also, a lot of why I welcome this is because of the Lord's behavior--he is generally rather quiet, well-mannered, waits to be asked before interfering, that sort of thing. And yet, when I need him, he's right at hand to deal with whatever a problem might be. (Once it was counseling a ten year old rape survivor whose mother had chosen to deal with the situation by attempting suicide (and failing, thank God!--but you can see why I felt in need of help from someone much greater and wiser than I, as I had no idea how to be caring, how to help instead of creating further pain.)
I think we got involved in that case because the police wanted someone who spoke the language, and asked us to come along.
Some of the scariest people I have known were introduced to me by people who knew them well and thought they were wonderful. (And all of whom were indwelt by the Holy Spirit.)
Thought not. Absolute certainty scares me rigid.
I've learned that every relationship is different, and one person's hero can be another person's villain. He grieved pretty hard when his dad died, and he also had told me horror stories from his childhood that dad had left him with.
One thing I'm certain of is that people are complicated.
You mean the scary people were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, or the introducers were indwelt by the Holy Spirit?