• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No true Christian?

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
This differentiation that you've outlined between sacerdotalism and experientialism is very interesting to me.

Since we're in a debate thread, I would like to present some of my own respectful qualifications to this thesis (tomorrow) as I feel it to be a tad too reductionist, even though it has merit in my opinion.

The least "mystically-inclined" branch of Christianity, arguably, is the one that is least priestly in nature: Evangelical Protestant Christianity, which is a sect of the Baptist branch of Protestantism and congregationalist in ecclesial structure (no ordained clergy, just pastors). Calvinism, similarly, adopted much of Augustinian theology but stripped of Augustine's profound neoplatonic mysticism, just as it rejected his clericalism in favour of presbyterian church order (lay presbyters rather than priests, teaching priesthood of all the faithful rather than an ordained caste).

Within mainstream Christianity, the more sacerdotal a denomination is in theology, typically correlates with a higher appreciation for mysticism (consider Eastern Orthodoxy, it's liturgy wholly centered around mystical communion resulting in deification), the Quakers and some other Anabaptists being the main exception to this rule.

Mysticism is also not "minor" within any of the pre-Reformation churches, all of which were strongly clerical in nature and actually produced Christianity's predominant mystical literature between them (again, excepting some Radical Reformation mystical sects).

One of the primary criticisms traditional Protestant polemic advanced in relation to Catholicism - and pre-Reformed Christianity on general - was that it had been too mystical and too mysterian, which the Reformers denounced as "superstition".

I thought my OP was getting long enough without the qualifications, but you're right --- Ideally, I should have better qualified my remarks, maybe even used different terms -- in order to head off as many misunderstandings as possible. At least, ideally, for in practice that becomes quite a chore, risks allowing just a handful of posts on an internet forum to, in combination with each other, eat up hours of my life, and threatens to reduce me to boredom with my own words, and a profound feeling I've wasted my day, among other things. :D

Having said that, you raise some good, solid points that I will study a bit because even after a skim of them, I can see they are engaging and potentially invaluable to my understanding. Add to that your posts on nearly any subject always make that subject more interesting. I'm grateful to you for those things and so much more.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way? Lots of people like throwing at us Jews the expression "Two Jews, three opinions" - but in the end, we're all Jews, for better or for worse. It doesn't seem to me that the same can be said of Christians. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, I'd be happy to hear why this is so

Great question!

If we expect unity then we have no idea who or what is responsible for the great division in the first place.

Like the Jewish faith, which began well enough, with good leadership, chosen by God himself, it encountered a very human problem. The people were often discontent with God’s provisions and they demonstrated a propensity to want to do things “their” way, which always caused trouble.

God demonstrated forcefully that his chosen representatives were not to be disrespected and his laws were not negotiable. Whatever instruction came through Moses was to be obeyed. Later, when Kings ruled in Israel, if the king deviated from the law, the people deviated along with him. Because they failed to obey God and wandered off into false worship, He sent his prophets to keep correcting them, and kept them in existence until he fulfilled his end of the covenant that he made with them to produce their Messiah.

According to Christian belief, with their refusal to accept Jesus as that promised seed of Abraham, his covenant with them ended. (Matthew 23:37-39)

Jesus led “the lost sheep” out of that unfaithful nation and into a new arrangement, under a “new covenant”...one that God had foretold through Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Again we saw a good beginning. A united group of both Jews and Gentiles who became "one" under the leadership of Jesus Christ and his 12 apostles, who were led by God's spirit......but interestingly, it was foretold that what happened in Judaism, would repeat in Christianity. It is about human nature....which basically does not change.

Since the defection of Adam and Eve, humans have preferred to do what they want to do rather than to be told by someone in authority, especially if that authority was not respected. The authority of the Bible is also questioned by many professing to worship God as Christians.

Jesus said something interesting about the division that he would cause among his followers.....
Matthew 10:32-40...
"Everyone, then, who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father who is in the heavens. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. 34 Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his soul will lose it, and whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.

40 “Whoever receives you receives me also, and whoever receives me receives also the One who sent me."

This can work in various ways....those who chose to follow Christ back then, often faced stiff opposition from family and friends. It would have taken courage to choose Jesus over our family members (who will often exert emotional pressure to give up their new found faith.)

History attests to the fact that Christianity became apostate, deviating from the teachings of Jesus and introducing an elevated clergy class and adopting beliefs and practices from non-Christian religions. Jesus foretold that "weeds" would be sown by God's adversary among the "wheat" and people would be influenced by those false teachings, being convinced that these were true.

That 'weed-like' Christianity introduced a new Christ and therefore a new god into their worship. By placing Jesus on equal footing with his Father, (introducing the concept of the trinity) they actually broke the first Commandment.

Jesus' response to this situation, at the judgment time is shocking to those who have followed any deviation from his original teachings. Instead of hearing his commendation about their activities, he gives them a stinging rejection. (Matthew 7:21-23) By telling them that he "NEVER knew" them, he indicated that he has never accepted them as his own.

So the division in the faith was foretold and to be expected. With the parable of the "wheat and the weeds", only at the time of the "harvest", would there be a marked difference in their teachings and way of worship. The difference between them would be very marked, so similarity would not be an identifier....look for the difference. Jesus also said that "few" are on the road to life, (Matthew 7:13-14) so large numbers mean nothing either.

That is the way we understand the scriptures.
 
Last edited:

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
No true Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Baha'is, nor Scotsmen.
I can't speak for any other beliefs (or non-beliefs), but you'll find that many secular Jews still consider themselves Jews. The reason for this is because Judaism considers them Jews, as it's an ethno-religion.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I find that to be an exception more than a rule.
a. So if I'll ask a random Christian if he considers Mormons to be Christians, will he nod emphatically? How about JWs? Or some random tiny denomination in the middle of the pacific ocean? If I ask a Protestant about Catholics, will I get the same answer?
b. What are considered exceptions here?
 
In extensively interviewing self-identifying Christians from around the world, I have asked numerous in-depth questions of many representatives existing today, and have found they seem to largely lack many formal practices and efforts or rules of conduct they are strictly aware of or even many beliefs, so in my opinion, I have found all that I've encountered, numbering in the thousands and from every group like even radical Catholic separatists who are opposed to Vatican II policy changes, that they simply are a whole lot of talk, a whole lot of talk even in their prayers, and not a lot of anything I'd consider formal, traditional, or Ancient-style worship.

They just talk, argue, dispute, and seem to never worship God very directly or deeply or even ponder on God much, they always focus somewhere else mostly seemingly and talk and talk and talk and do very little in most other regardz and often can't answer or define clearly all the things one should best believe or perform because they themselves have a mostly empty seeming lack of much of a religion, even a lack of much clear guidance from the Books which are interpreted in wildly variant fashions at times.

So, I think there is "No True Christian" in the sense that they lack a religion for the most part, which for me are clear beliefs followed by actions based on those beliefs leading towards some end or objective in sight, rather than just basically doing nothing or visiting a building once a week to hear talk or talk and say some prayers (more talk) and spend the whole week doing nothing much, even reading the Bible weekly and not thinking about or understanding much about what is being read or how it may be applied.

I think earlier Christians in history may have actually worshipped and performed more clear "acts of worship" than koombaying on a guitar or yelling at each other by text on Youtube.

I look down upon Christians (the ones I've questioned) for their very apparent seeming lack of a religion and resistance to practice anything daily which might be considered genuine contact attempts and interaction where they worship God directly.

The majority of popular and nominal Christians and even those who call themselves "practicing", often seem to be of all religions the least religious or least practicing anything at all. They mostly seem like atheists and justca step away from doing nothing. Many of the yammering Atheists are former yammering Christians, since it was always a lot of talking and arguing and very little meditation, thoughtfulness, spiritual thinking, or worship, based on their own reports and descriptions.

If anyone doesn't think so, then identify step by step the Christian practice and method of worship.

Very few remaining Christians seem to perform traditional and ancient worship practices. I take issue with people calling themselves religious and not being able to describe anything but thoughts and statements and no daily or regular activities or practices with a clear purpose towards worship and remembering God specifically.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
In the last couple of years of my surfing forums and engaging online with people of different religions, I've come to realize that not only are there literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many - if not most of those denominations - appear to deny the Christianity of other denominations and consequently, consider those "outsiders" to be blasphemous sinners condemned to whatever punishment that denomination holds to be the worst possible.

My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way? Lots of people like throwing at us Jews the expression "Two Jews, three opinions" - but in the end, we're all Jews, for better or for worse. It doesn't seem to me that the same can be said of Christians. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, I'd be happy to hear why this is so.

It is because of the reformation. The unintentional effect of Martin Luther trying to reform the church was that it caused people to believe that they can interpret the Bible for themselves without a governing authority. Various groups, like the Anabaptists, immediately sprung up with their own interpretation of the Bible, some with and extreme doomsday mentality which we see to today, and it was all downhill from there. In the 1800's, 1844 i think, William Miller was a baptists who was the progenitor of Millerism, which influenced Adventist (which split into many branches) and the International Bible Students (some of them branched into Jehovahs Witnesses in the early 20th Century) thinking and other doomsday movements, which focused on being prepared for Armageddon. They in turn influence groups till this day. The Mormons also started in the 1800's.

The reason why doomsday groups especially are exclusive when it comes to salvation, is because they focus on "who are the true Christians who will be saved at Armageddon", and many use this message to instill fear in others so that they will joing them and make money out of them.

Generally protestant groups have differences but still see other protestant groups as true christians if they follow certain basic tenets.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
In the last couple of years of my surfing forums and engaging online with people of different religions, I've come to realize that not only are there literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many - if not most of those denominations - appear to deny the Christianity of other denominations and consequently, consider those "outsiders" to be blasphemous sinners condemned to whatever punishment that denomination holds to be the worst possible.

My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way? Lots of people like throwing at us Jews the expression "Two Jews, three opinions" - but in the end, we're all Jews, for better or for worse. It doesn't seem to me that the same can be said of Christians. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, I'd be happy to hear why this is so.

The problem is that Christians like to speak only about irrelevant things during their personal relationships with Jesus.

Ciao

- viole
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

*banned*
a. So if I'll ask a random Christian if he considers Mormons to be Christians, will he nod emphatically? How about JWs? Or some random tiny denomination in the middle of the pacific ocean? If I ask a Protestant about Catholics, will I get the same answer?
b. What are considered exceptions here?

Years ago I had a good friend who was Mormon. He is long since been with the Lord. We had many good discussions, some pretty volatile. I finally said to him one day, Bob, (not his real name), answer me this. Do you believe Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and Saviour and have prayed to God to accept Him as such. He told me, 'yes I have'.

That's as far as I go in saying whether one is a Christian or not.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
What if you are all wrong and the term Christian means a religious agreement with creation/science Revelations?

Especially when you do a review of humans owning the naming of countries, towns, cities and changing them whenever they please, when a new leader comes about enabled to develop a following.

For every year there is a new group or a new leader espousing spiritual truth and damning everyone else.

Unless of course you join under a promise.

Yet every human living today are born no matter who you are, by 2 human beings having sex. No matter what denomination you are or what hierarchal group you claim makes you different.

When any human tells a story about self, and history and creation and pose questions and answers as a human they are in fact owning a form of scientific persuasive meaning, regarding the human ability to express that they "know".

To the greater world community struggling to find a compatible place to say, how about agreeing to just stop all forms of abuses...and develop true human spirituality of kindness/caring and a loving mutual support of diversity and mean it.

To have to constantly like science thinking/theming and also what theorising did. To go back over history again and again and again....for explanation and details.

Therefore it is a constant basis of human inferred information, that is a science basis relating to creation and meaning of self presence.

Yet in rational human advice self presence simply is just a human sexual choice.

No sex...humans would age and die out....no more human argument, as basic information details. As simple as the expression is.

Christ as a historical status quotes that the Old Testaments were revised and a new Testament was written based on observations that are science taught.

Hence Rome, the leader in life as an elite society, prove that they originally owned no belief in the context of what was detailed...as history proves.

Which means a society aligned to that era was the same....for it is taught that only a small of group of individuals actually supported the data and awareness.

Proof that the Christ Revelations state that a multi world witness to changes on Earth relative to the Sun certainly changed their minds.

The argument today was whether or not in that period of time if science was being practiced. And Temple information with the pyramid provides enough detail to claim, yes they were, but not the form of science understood today in human rationale.

Reasoning for that status, humans today reading that literature are still arguing about it....yet claiming that they know what the read information infers.

If you truly believed that you knew, no argument would even exist being expressed today.
 

Jesuslightoftheworld

The world has nothing to offer us!
In the last couple of years of my surfing forums and engaging online with people of different religions, I've come to realize that not only are there literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many - if not most of those denominations - appear to deny the Christianity of other denominations and consequently, consider those "outsiders" to be blasphemous sinners condemned to whatever punishment that denomination holds to be the worst possible.

My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way? Lots of people like throwing at us Jews the expression "Two Jews, three opinions" - but in the end, we're all Jews, for better or for worse. It doesn't seem to me that the same can be said of Christians. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, I'd be happy to hear why this is so.

That is very interesting and I agree. I think it’s our human sinful nature that all know what the right way is and everyone else is...going to Hell!! Lol! Just kidding; sort of..well you know we can agree and unify on Praying, reading the Bible, and singing praises to the Lord, go hug someone tell them God loves them and call it good. And leave the Jews alone; y’all are just jealous cause they’s God’s chosen people.The others are called Gentiles. We’re good too!
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
@Harel13 In furtherance of my last post, where I set out the major denominational families of Christianity (Catholicism with its 1.3 billion followers, Protestantism with its 800 million+ and Orthodoxy with its 260 million) and the historical trajectory of the primary schisms, here are some of my own reflections on the state of Christendom:

The largest Christian church by far - because it represents both its own 'branch' (like Protestantism and Orthodoxy) and a single consolidated denomination/sect of over a billion persons - is my own Catholic one and following official pronouncements on ecumenism at the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, Catholicism defined itself positively in relation to what we call "our separated brethren" dispersed throughout the other branches and denominations.

Even before the conciliar decrees in the 1960s, Catholics had already viewed other Christians as "Christians", especially but not limited to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox (for them, in every sense with valid sacraments, liturgies and theologies etc.), primarily because of the validity of other Christians' water baptisms which incorporated them into the One Church of Christ, His Mystical Body, which Catholics believe subsists in the Catholic Church in its fullness:

The matter was infallibly defined no later than the Council of Trent (1545), whose Canons on Baptism contain the following:


Canon 4. If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema.


Thus, the pre-Vatican II church might have regarded some other churches (apart from the Eastern Orthodox) as teaching 'heretical' doctrines or lacking the fullness of a sacramental life in some respects, however it recognised the validly baptised members of those communities as 'true Christians'. And the canon above actually condemned any statement to the contrary as "anathema".

Consider the following pre-Vatican II statement from Pope Pius XI:


“…Catholics are sometimes lacking in a right appreciation of their separated brethren, and are even wanting in brotherly love, because they do not know enough about them. People do not realize how much faith, goodness, and Christianity there is in these bodies now detached from the age-long Catholic truth. Pieces broken from gold-bearing rock themselves bear gold. The ancient Christian bodies of the East, for instance, keep so venerable a holiness that they deserve not merely respect but complete sympathy…”

(Pope Pius XI, 1927 (cf. Radio Replies, Volume 2, pp. 76))

And also this nice one from the young Pope John XXIII (who, when he assumed the papacy in the 1959, would implement Vatican II, speaking as official papal ambassador to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church:


“…Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

- Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) 1926, Letter to Young Bulgarian Orthodox Christian



But until 1960, the Catholic church did not engage in much ecumenical dialogue with these other churches and at times even proscribed it. This practice was reversed entirely at Vatican II (along with the description of these groups as 'heretical', language that is no longer in use), with the promulgation of Unitatis redintegratio:


Unitatis redintegratio - Wikipedia


Unitatis redintegratio (Latin for "Restoration of unity") is the Second Vatican Council's decree on ecumenism. It was passed by a vote of 2,137 to 11 of the bishops assembled at the Council, and was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 21 November 1964.

The title of the document is taken from the opening words of the Latin text. The opening words of the official English translation are: "The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council."

It focuses on the unity of the people of God and on separate Christian brethren rather than insisting according to the classical formulation that schismatics must return to the fold under the unity of the Vicar of Christ.

Unitatis acknowledges that there are serious problems facing prospects of reunion with Reformation communities that make no attempt to claim apostolic succession as the Anglican communion does. Ecclesial communities which adhere to Calvinism are a particularly challenging case because they and Catholicism have important doctrinal differences on key issues such as ecclesiology, liturgy and mariology.

I. Catholic Principles on Ecumenism (2-4)


"...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church"



Unitatis redintegratio


The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.


Lumen Gentium the Vatican II constitution on the Church, moreover stated in regard to other Christian churches:


Lumen gentium


15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities.

...They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.


Because Catholics comprise just over half of all Christians and are a unitary bloc under a single spiritual leader (the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, the office presently occupied by His Holiness Pope Francis) within one megachurch body comprised of different 'liturgical rites', our relations with the rest of Christendom are far more coherent and stable than the eparchic federalism of the Orthodox communions (its ethnarchic federation of national churches in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, or the Coptic pope in Egypt for the Orientals) or the multifarious ecclesialism of the thousands of disparate Protestant churches.

Thus, when the Pope defines something in an encyclical or apostolic exhortation (or indeed the global episcopacy under the magisterium of the Pope does so at an ecumenical council, such as Vatican II) regarding ecumenical relations with the other churches, his words really carry weight as being representative of the definitive stance of the entire Church (all 1.3 billion of us in communion with the Pope) because "he's the Daddy", surrounded by his college of other world bishops and handpicked cardinal-bishops.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
a. So if I'll ask a random Christian if he considers Mormons to be Christians, will he nod emphatically? How about JWs? Or some random tiny denomination in the middle of the pacific ocean? If I ask a Protestant about Catholics, will I get the same answer?
b. What are considered exceptions here?
There are really good questions.. maybe a poll for Christians?

my opinion only.... JW and Mormons - probably not an "emphatic nod" but more of a "I think so--I'm sure God knows". As far as a tiny denomination in the pacific ocean... I would say yes. Protestants about Catholics... I think basically yes. The other 31,000 subgroups of Christianity, yes.

When I said "exceptions", (if my memory serves correctly) what I meant was you will find those who will emphatically say "NO" among the 2 billion adherents.
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
@Harel13 In addition to the above post (which describes ecumenical relations at the 'institutional' level of the Vatican), at the grassroots level many Catholics and Protestants today believe much the same about many theological and moral issues, relative to our past (in addition to already sharing Nicene Christianity and Trinitarianism in common). From PEW survey data:


5 facts about Protestants around the world


In Western Europe, the home of the Protestant Reformation, Protestants and Catholics are now religiously more similar than they are different, at least on some theological questions.

Roughly 370 years after the Thirty Years’ War ended in 1648 — capping more than a century of religious conflict across Europe — many of the theological controversies of the Protestant Reformation no longer divide rank-and-file Catholics and Protestants, according to a 2017 survey conducted in 15 countries in the region. For example, the prevailing view among both Protestants and Catholics today is that faith and good works are necessary to get into heaven – the traditional Catholic position. Fewer people say faith alone leads to salvation (in Latin, sola fide), the position Martin Luther made a central rallying cry of 16th-century Protestant reforms.
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
@Sunstone Right, on this topic of Protestantism being the branch of Christianity most prone to schismatic movements and the abandonment of sola scriptura by the Reformers.

In my assesment, Sacred Tradition was an ingenious doctrinal development in early Christianity, which served to bring a modicum of theological unity to how Christians interpreted Sacred Scripture. The ingenuousness of Sacred Tradition is that it is both 'definitive' and 'flexible'. The deposit of faith received orally through the apostolic succession of bishops from the Fathers could not be changed or departed from but it did organically develop - and partly through the contemplation, prayer life and exegesis of individual believers.

What this meant was that there was room - substantial room in fact - for theological diversity (hence the emergence of different 'rites') but the Tradition also set clearly defined parameters which, sure, you were free to 'develop' in a novel way but you couldn't actually reject the fundamental 'premise' of itself.

Thus, until the 16th century every extant Christian communion had Sacred Tradition alongside Sacred Scripture as a co-equal source of divine revelation, protected by its keepers - the Bishops - under the apostolic succession.

When Protestantism broke with this model in favour of scripture alone, even though the original six denominations of the Reformed church - Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Arminianism, Baptism and Anabaptism - all strove to retain Nicene orthodoxy and the 'faith' received from the Fathers, this proved impossible: because without Tradition as the guide, standard and parameter, individual believers in these denominations - particularly in the loosely governed congregationalist churches - could simply decide one day that "biblical verse xyz" actually meant "ABC rather than EFG", break away from his or her congregation and proclaim a new doctrine based on this exegetical intepretation.

Against the original wishes of the Reformers, it thus proved to be too unwieldy IMHO.

Now, on this idea that on account of our sacerdotalism, 'mysticism' has only been a minor tradition in pre-Reformation Christianities. I need to depart yet again (but will be back later tonight) but in the meantime I'd like to leave you with a consideration question:

The Catholic Church has always understood itself to be, "The Mystical Body of Christ":


Mystici Corporis Christi (June 29, 1943) | PIUS XII



The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. Illustrating as it does the great and inestimable privilege of our intimate union with so exalted a Head, this doctrine by its sublime dignity invites all those who are drawn by the Holy Spirit to study it, and gives them, in the truths of which it proposes to the mind, a strong incentive to the performance of such good works as are conformable to its teaching...

...when the Fathers of the Church sing the praises of this Mystical Body of Christ, with its ministries, its variety of ranks, its officers, it conditions, its orders, its duties, they are thinking not only of those who have received Holy Orders, but of all those too, who, following the evangelical counsels, pass their lives either actively among men, or hidden in the silence of the cloister, or who aim at combining the active and contemplative life according to their Institute; as also of those who, though living in the world, consecrate themselves wholeheartedly to spiritual or corporal works of mercy, and of those in the state of holy matrimony. Indeed, let this be clearly understood, especially in our days, fathers and mothers of families, those who are godparents through Baptism, and in particular those members of the laity who collaborate with the ecclesiastical hierarchy in spreading the Kingdom of the Divine Redeemer occupy an honorable, if often a lowly, place in the Christian community, and even they under the impulse of God and with His help, can reach the heights of supreme holiness, which, Jesus Christ has promised, will never be wanting to the Church.


Why do you reckon Catholicism self-identifies as a "mystical body"? And how do you think the Protestant Reformers, such as John Calvin and Zwingli, felt about that assertion of identity?

Furthermore, in terms of the aforementioned 'Sacred Tradition': in Chapter 10 of his Stromata, the early church father St. Clement (c. 150 – c. 215) refers to "some things delivered unwritten" from the apostles (the Sacred Tradition) as follows:

"....mystic contemplation (he epoptike theoria); for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence...For he who neither employs his eyes in the exercise of thought, nor draws aught from his senses, but with pure mind itself applies to objects, practises the true philosophy...[Christ] Himself taught the apostles during His presence...And the knowledge itself is that which has descended by transmission to a few, having been imparted unwritten by the apostles. Hence, then, knowledge or wisdom ought to be exercised up to the eternal and unchangeable habit of contemplation".

In our discussion later, I should like to re-define the terms: Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not religions that 'have' minor 'mystical traditions' but rather are mystical traditions. Indeed, that is the 'heart' of the Sacred Tradition which flowered in medieval mystical theology:


Dictionary : MYSTICAL THEOLOGY

The science of the spiritual life, with stress on the operation of divine grace. It deals with the higher forms of mental prayer and with such extraordinary phenomena as are recorded in the lives of the saints. It is the science of the study of the mystic states.

This was the "queen" of the theological disciplines in the medieval church. Again, why might this have been the case? Why was mystical theology regarded as higher than, say, moral theology or ecclesiology (both of extraordinary importance to Catholic Christianity)?
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
In the last couple of years of my surfing forums and engaging online with people of different religions, I've come to realize that not only are there literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many - if not most of those denominations - appear to deny the Christianity of other denominations and consequently, consider those "outsiders" to be blasphemous sinners condemned to whatever punishment that denomination holds to be the worst possible.

My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way? Lots of people like throwing at us Jews the expression "Two Jews, three opinions" - but in the end, we're all Jews, for better or for worse. It doesn't seem to me that the same can be said of Christians. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, I'd be happy to hear why this is so.
Just a thought: as a non-religious person, the differences between all of the various Abrahamic religions seem pretty trivial to me. Why do you consider Christians, Muslims, Baha'i, etc. to be outsiders to you?

Thinking about why you feel this way will probably shed some light on your own question.

To me, the whole thing seems pretty fractal; it looks pretty much the same no matter what scale you're looking at:

- atheist: "those religious people - why do they have to divide themselves into so many competing groups?"

- Dharmic: "those Abrahamics - why do they have to divide themselves into so many competing groups?"

- Jew: "those Christians - why do they have to divide themselves into so many competing groups?"

- Catholic: "those Protestants - why do they have to divide themselves into so many competing groups?"

- Methodist: "those Baptists - why do they have to divide themselves into so many competing groups?"

Do you see what I mean?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
a. So if I'll ask a random Christian if he considers Mormons to be Christians, will he nod emphatically? How about JWs? Or some random tiny denomination in the middle of the pacific ocean? If I ask a Protestant about Catholics, will I get the same answer?
b. What are considered exceptions here?
I find that, Trinitarian Christians tend to use the Trinity as a dividing line: if you don't accept the Trinity, then you aren't a Christian.

The big non-Trinitarian denominations are the LDS Church ("Mormons"), the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the "Oneness" Pentecostals.

That being said, I once worked with an Evangelical Protestant who insisted that Catholics weren't Christian.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Why do you consider Christians, Muslims, Baha'i, etc. to be outsiders to you?
The first reason is that in Judaism, all nations of the world serve certain purposes - so yes, there are differences between people from different nations. Non-Jews are familiar with the Hebrew term 'goy', which many think is a degrading term. Admittingly, over the millennia of bad relations between Jews and non-Jews, that may have indeed become a little negative, but at its core, it simply means 'nation'. Jews are also referred to as a goy in the Tanach. Yes, we're all goyim - people of different nations.

The second reason is based on the first: because different nations have different purposes, so too the Jewish nation has a certain purpose. And that purpose does not allow us to intermarry with people of other nations.

The third reason is tied to the second. Some of the beliefs of other religions are blasphemous according to Judaism. That doesn't make those people any less human than Jews, and does not necessarily mean that they'll be wiped from existence (our version of the worst punishment) - we'll leave that to God. However, that does make mingling with other people problematic - we've seen the ramifications countless times over the ages - so we try to be careful.

Do you see what I mean?
Not quite. It was important for me to include in my OP that whatever disagreements there are between Jews, that, in general, doesn't mean that any of them are less Jewish inherently. You seem to suggest that every denomination and sub-denomination in every religion denies the legitimacy of all others. I don't think that's true about Judaism. Sure, we may not agree with each other on everything, but I'm sure you saw that @sun rise described himself here on-thread as a Jew, though he doesn't keep Judaism. And I, because I keep Judaism, don't deny his Jewishness.

Which makes me wonder why Christians aren't the same. Yes, as humans we tend to disagree with others. But some take those disagreements, in my view, to terrible extremes. I'm sure the differences are serious issues for Christians - but because of that to deny the Christianity of certain people? Well, that seems to me to take it a step too far. Especially when considering that 'love' and 'love thy neighbor' are central aspects in Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Top