Forum: 

Sects and Factions

Atratus's picture
Submitted by Atratus on

There are few threads in this category now talking about Christians in general, but really how does one really do that? There have been so many schisms in Christianity how does one really talk about the religion in general terms? Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Mormons, Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Dutch Reform, Calvinists, etc., etc....

The Westen Schizm was mostly a political/economic thing. The legitimate and pope resided in Avignon for quite some time, but much of the administration remained in Rome (basically because in the early part of the Middle Ages Rome was a shit-hole) but a pope happened to die while visiting Rome. The Romans took the opportunity to restore the papacy to Rome and the cardinals there elected a new pope, but the administration surrounding the pope in Avignon didn't see the election as valid (for a variety of substantial reasons) and a pope was elected for Avignon. Fourty years went by and there was much confusion as to which was the valid election. Eventually the Roman line prevailed and the names of the Avignon popes from the time of the Schiszm have been re-used by Roman popes since (i.e. the pope elected in Avignon was Clement VII, but there was a Roman Clement VII a couple centuries later). The Church's official line now is that when there are two elections the earlier one takes precedence, but I don't know much about the assertation that the election in Rome was invalid. I don't know what the grounds for that was, but they must have been pretty good, considering that it was the cardinals who were is direct, day-to-day contact with the pope that made the assertation.

So, hypothetically, thing about what it could mean if the fallable, human cardinals bickering over which election counted, decided incorrectly? What if the line in Avignon was the correct line of Apostolic Succession? Clement VII of Avignon had a successor, but that was the end of that line. What if the current line of Roman popes is not in the line of Apostolic Succession?

If you grant that Apostolic Succession is questionable on the grounds of human fallibility (i.e. the human cardinals selecting incorrectly) then can you see how Protestantism and all the branches thereof become equally valid "branches" off the same trunk? Each division forks from the same trunk, each claiming (with the same human fallibility) to have a better grip on the truth than the next branch over.

Hey, lol. Finally someone to discuss with.

When there were two popes that was corruption or something. Yes it's absolutely true that some popes were in fact corrupt and decadent. But remember, popes are humans; they aren't supernatural beings that only do good. They're not perfect. What's perfect is the christian church itself.

Yes, but what of the schizm within the Catholic church when there were *two* popes, one in Avignon and one in Rome? What of Protestant assertations that the papacy had become corrupt and decadent? It's just not as simple as Christ calling Simon Bar-Jona the rock (Peter) he would build his church on.

It's true that christianity has suffered many schisms, but the correct "division" historically would be catholicism. Why? Because Jesus Christ said to Peter that he would be the founder of his church, and blah blah. Peter became the first pope, and then followed the next pope and the next, until pope John Paul II. Another fact that i find interesting is that you can trace back through a sort of "family tree" who consacrated a certain priest, and then find out who started that line, being one of the apostles. (yeah, i'm not very eloquent in english)

Yipes, talk about a major blonde moment.  Excuse my blatant display of over-tired ignorance.  Yes, Atratus, you're right.

However, the differences between Mormon's and other Protestants are a little more than believing that there are more books to the Bible and that Jesus visited America.  Catholics, too, have more books than Protestants, too (the arguement of whether or not they're divinely inspired is why they are not considered Holy Scriptures to Protestants).  The thing with Mormonism is is that they believe very different things about the afterlife, the deity of Jesus, and even things such as marriage.  This is not the case with all Mormons, but in Utah, especially, polygamy is acceptable among Mormons.  In the same way, they believe that once you die that you become something of a deity yourself, being in control of your own "celestial kingdom" if you will, and the men continue to sire children after death.  This is a major difference, not just the existance of some "extra books".  Also, the fashion in which they were "discovered" and could only be read by only one man is a little suspicious.

Jehovah's Witnesses, too, have some very different beliefs about the afterlife; namely that the number of 144, 000 in Revelation is literal, that only those select people will make it into Heaven, and the rest will live on the new earth.  Because of this, they believe that anyone who died before Jesus was crucified cannot get into Heaven.  This includes men like Moses, Noah, and King David who was a "man after God's own heart" will live on the new earth.  Since such a small number of people can make it into Heaven, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that one must work to gain entry, which is not Biblical ("For it is by grace you have been saved, not through works so that none of you can boast").  The belief that no man before Jesus made it into Heaven also goes against the account of Elijah who was gathered up in a firey chariot and taken up into Heaven.  I have had lengthy discussions with J.W.'s and they say that he was just taken to another land, but there are some real inconsistancies with that version of the story, and, truthfully, many holes in the J.W. doctrine.

Now, as for the End Times, people have been anticipating it and predicting it forever.  Jesus said that His return would be "soon", and for 2000 years, people have been thinking that "soon" must mean sometime in their lifetime.  However people fail to remember that since Jesus is, in fact, God, then time means little to Him, and thus "soon" could mean tomorrow, or in 100, 000 years.  Sure, it might be in 2014, but I'm not counting on it.

Some corrections: 7th Day Adventists and Mormons are not the same thing. I think you are getting confused with "The Church of Latter-Day Saints" which is another name for the Mormon.

The difference with Mormonism compared to other Christian sects is the belief in the additional gospels that make up the Book of Mormon. These additional gospels are made up of two parts, and "older" tome that is supposed to taken place shortly after the Ressurection in New Testament times. At this point the Mormons maintain that Jesus visited the Americas and proof of this is the a gold-paged book allegedly discovered in New England. The discoverer of the book and his followers moved west, settling in Utah, and their stories, make up the newer portion of the book.

7th Day Adventists, on the other hand, are more run-of-the-mill, believing solely in the same Bible as other Christians. Like Jehovah's Witnesses, theirs is a millenial, apocalyptic sect, believing that judgement day is just around the corner. The amusing thing about 7th Day Adventists is the founder of the sect originally claimed that the end of the world was coming in 1897. When it failed to materialize the Adventists modified their doctrine to say, essentially, that then end is nigh, but they just can't put their finger on exaclty how nigh it really is because God has not revealed that tidbit yet. Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, believe, for whatever reason it will be in 2014.

Fundamentally these people share the same basic belief in Jesus, but the devil is in the details, to coin a phrase.

I think that the thing with talking about Christianity in general is that they are all based on the same belief: The sovreignty of Jesus.  Believing that Jesus is the Son of God, and God incarnate, perfect and blameless, and that he died for the sins of man and rose to life again is the basis for every sect of Christianity. 

Ask any Protestant or Catholic, however, and they would almost all surely say that Mormons *edited for idiocy* and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, or at least that it is questionable because of their skewed teachings.

Yes, there are differences between denominations, but mainly they are on where one puts more focus (for example, a Baptist puts more emphasis on baptism, while a Pentecostal puts emphasis on speaking in tongues).  There is the difference between Catholics and Protestants about where authority lies.  Protestants encourage seeking truth alone, asking questions, testing God's word, etc while a Roman Catholic says that all interpretation of the Bible is to be done by Rome, that Rome calls all the shots, basically.

However, despite these differences, the main points are the same, and the sources (God, the Bible) are the same.