Tree diagram of denominations
Gerald
Can someone provide a tree diagram of the different christian denominations
and the differences between them? (just the major ones will do)
Please assume that this person has never heard of the different denominations
before, so make it layman.
In particular, where does Orthodox fit in?
[The top level of the tree would probably look like
the "Great Church"
/ \
/ \
Orthodox Catholic
/ \
/ \
proto- /\------------\
Protestants / \ \
/ \ \
Radical Magisterial Anglicans
Reformation Reformation
I haven't shown the very top of the tree. There were a number of
Christian groups competing with what finally became the mainstream
Church. These included groups such as Gnostics and other early
alternate groups.
The Orthodox and Catholics share a large number of their beliefs. It
seems to me (from the outside) that the most serious difference is
over church organization. The Orthodox accept a somewhat looser
organization. Thus they don't accept the Catholic role for the pope
(though they would accept him as a leader), and the lay people have a
somewhat larger role in accepting doctrinal definitions. There are a
few actual doctrinal differences, but they tend to be subtle (e.g. the
procession of the Holy Spirit).
Historically the split between Orthodox and Catholic is a split
between the East and West parts of the old Roman Empire. There were
differences in approach between East and West from very early days.
These got larger as the Empire split, and contact between East and
West broke down. The final split is conventionally dated to 1054, but
it had been present de facto for centuries before.
Here's my attempt to summarize the Protestant groups:
In general the "first-generation" Protestant churches are those that
go back directly to the Reformers: the Lutheran and Reformed. The
Baptists could claim this, going back to the 16th Cent Left Wing,
except that in practice the current U.S. Baptists are actually an
offshoot of the Puritans in England. The U.S. has been the catalyst
for much of the creation of new denominations. The original Lutheran
and Reformed churches tended to be territorial -- when a city or
country adopted the Reformation, they generally became either Reformed
or Lutheran. These turned into multiple denominations in the U.S. as
people from each of these areas immigrated, and retained their own
language and theological traditions. (Something similar has happened
with the Orthodox churches in the U.S.) Further splits occurred
because of the civil war, and various controversies involving
conservative/liberal approaches.
However the majority of denomination formation seems to have occurred
among groups that do not go back to the Reformers. Historically, many
(maybe even most) of our denominations can ultimately be traced to the
Anglicans. Many of them come through the Methodists. The holiness
and pentecostal movements are both originally Methodist. The Baptists
can also be connected historically with the Anglicans, as the Baptist
movement in the U.S. started from the English Baptists, who were
basically radical Puritans. (There are actually some groups in the
U.S. that can be traced to the original 16th Cent. Left Wing. However
they are fairly small, e.g. the Amish, Hutterites, etc.) There are
also a number of denominations that formed in the U.S. from thin air,
though not as many as the holiness, pentecostal, and baptist
movements. Two major groups are the restoration movement and the
adventists, as well as a few "sui generis" groups such as Christian
science. (Note that this review is very U.S.-centric. There are
"new churches" in many third world countries that I don't list here.)
There are conservative and liberal churches within each of the major
families. Some of the major families are as follows. It should be
obvious from this that I am a Presbyterian, and so most familiar with
the Reformed tradition. I also know the Methodists fairly well.
Baptist - non-liturgical, non-confession, and non-connectional.
Sacraments are simply memorials. Creeds are minimal to
non-existent: the important thing is to follow Christ.
Though in fact Baptists do generally teach and believe
orthodox theology. The point is that they do not
believe the church should impose creeds. Each church is
independent. There are central organizations through which
they cooperate in various ways, but no one can tell a
local church what to do. Tend to emphasize the decision
for Christ and individual discipleship of Christ. Insist
on baptizing only adults, since baptism is a sign of
the decision, and only adults can make it
Reformed - liturgy is still fairly low-key, but do believe in
the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament (although
mediated spiritually, not via transsubstantiation).
Generally have confessional documents, though the degree
of compulsion varies. Presbyterian (USA) requires members
only to accept Christ as Lord and Savior, but officers
are to be "guided by the confessions". Normally
connectional, meaning there is a central organization
with some authority over the local church. Elected,
of course. Leaders are all ordained. This has a somewhat
subtle implication. It means that leaders aren't
properly speaking repesentatives. They are chosen by the
people, but once ordained are responsible to God.
Technically speaking there are no "lay" leaders in these
churches. The group responsible for each local church
(equivalent of "vestry" or "administrative board" of
other churches) are ordained as Ruling Elders. This is
the same New Testament office as pastor, though with a
different role. Tend to emphasize
the church as a covenant community. Thus infant baptism
is proper, because infants are part of the community. A
bit more emphasis of God's call and the community than
on the "decision for Christ", though of course people are
still called on to make a commitment. Known for
emphasizing election and grace, though not all that many
Reformed churches really hold to predestination any more.
(The two conservative Presbyterian ones do, though.)
Lutheran - liturgical, sometimes almost as much as Episcopal.
Believe in Real Presence with "consubstantiation", rather
than transsubstantiation, i.e. bread and wine are still
there physically, as well as Christ's presence.
Confessional. Generally theology is more
important to them than to Episcopal. Connectional (I think.
I confess that I don't know Lutheran church order very
well.) Theology very much centered on Christ's incarnation.
Episcopal - generally the most liturgical Protestant church. Some
question even as to whether it is Protestant. Connectional
(has bishops, etc.). Role of confessions is limited.
Methodist - originally offshoot of Episcopal. Has titular
bishops, but local church and all policy issues handled
by elected bodies. Bishop does assign pastors to
churches. Connectional. Somewhat more concern about
doctrine than Episcopal, but not as much as the real
confessional churches. Liturgy based on Episcopal, but
communion not as often, and general orientation not as
"liturgical". Originally played a leading role
in revivals, emphasized "heart religion". Association
with revivals is not longer so visible. Often not all
that different in orientation from Reformed churches.
Holiness - historically an offshoot of Methodism, in the U.S.
Wesley originally had the idea that it was possible for
a Christian to be freed from sin. This is referred to
as "Christian perfection," though the holiness movement
is more likely to use the term "entire holiness." The
holiness movement was originally within Methodism, but
has now separated. Whereas the Methodist Church has
deemphasized Christian perfection, the holiness churches
emphasize it. Typically they teach "crisis sanctification",
by which holiness comes as a gift from the Holy Spirit.
This is very close to the "second baptism" of
Pentecostalism, and in fact Pentecostalism is an offshoot
of the Holiness movement. The Holiness denominations
tend to act as the conservative wing of the Methodist
movement. The largest church is the Nazarenes, but
several groups with names involving Wesleyan, Holiness,
etc, can be considered Holiness. The Salvation Army
can also be grouped here. There are also Baptist and
Reformed participants in the Holiness movement.
Pentecostal -- the Pentecostal churches are in effect an
offshoot of the Holiness movement. The Holiness idea
of crisis sanctification has become a second baptism
in the Spirit. For much of Pentecostalism this is
always (or normally -- depending upon the group)
manifested in speaking in tongues. Pentecostal churches
generally emphasize all of the gifts of the Spirit,
often including healing. Most are still generally
Wesleyan, though the Assemblies of God are not.
Church polity varies, though it's common to have some
sort of bishops (based on the generally Methodist
background -- as far as I know, they do not regard
consecration of bishops as sacramental, nor do they
claim the apostolic succession. For this reason
Methodist bishops are called "titular bishops", and
I assume this is true of pentecostal bishops as well.)
Church in this group often have the word "Pentecostal"
in their names, though the "Church of God" and variants
are also Pentecostal, as is the Assemblies of God
and International Church of the Four-Square Gospel.
Restoration -- During the 19th Cent, there was a good deal
of unhappiness about the number of denominations, and
their often acrimonious relationship to each other.
A number of people believed that the answer was to
jetison the whole set of denominations and start again
with the New Testament. These denominations are generally
referred to as "restoration". They generally deny being
denominations, and sometimes believe that they are the
only true church. They generally practice adult baptism.
They are congregational, some of them radically so.
At least historically they tend to hold communion every
Sunday. The movement divided, over issues such as
whether it is appropriate to have organized mission
societies (and indeed in general the extent to which
organizations above the local church are appropriate),
the use of musical instruments, and the general
fundamentalist/liberal split in the 20th Cent. The major
restoration churches are the Christian Church (Disciples
of Christ), which is generally the "liberal" wing, the
Christian Church/Churches of Christ (Independent), a
conservative offshoot of the Disciples (refusing to
accept organized missions, and generally opposing the
liberalizing tendencies of the Disciples), and the
the Churches of Christ (Noninstrumental), an older
conservative offshoot, which accepts neither organized
missions nor the use of musical instruments. The Mormons
may also be considered a Restoration church. A number of
their earliest members came from this movement, and their
original intent is quite consistent with the general
intent of the restoration. More recently, the "Boston
Movement", a.k.a. "International Church of Christ", can
be considered an offshoot of this. It strongly emphasizes
church discipline and commitment, and practices close
supervision of the lives of individual members. It
appears to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation,
and that no one outside its membership is likely to be saved.
(These beliefs have sometimes been held by others in the
restoration movement, though it's not clear how widespread
they currently are.) It is sometimes classified as a "cult",
though definitions of cult can be slippery.
If you want to take the more literal view, then the largest
denomination is probably the Southern Baptists. There are also plenty
of Baptist churches not associated with any particular denomination,
since Baptist organization doesn't require central authority. From
the Reformed family we have the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or
Presbyterian Church in America, which are smaller conservative
branches of Presbyterianism. They would be more connectional than the
Baptists, and would hold historically Reformed theology. For someone
who wants more liturgy, Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Synod Lutheran are
probably worth looking at. (Missouri Synod is known as a very
conservative church. Wisconsin is supposedly even more so, though I
have a friend from that background, and he seems sane enough.) These
are all relatively "cerebral" churches. Wesleyan Methodist is a
smaller conservative branch of Methodism. Methodism has emphasized
"heart religion" and revivalism, but not to the extent of the
pentacostals. I think this distinctive heritage is tending to blur,
and there may now be little practical distinction between Methodists
and Presbyterians. I'm not as familiar with the holiness and
pentacostal churches. But there are plenty of them. Some of the
comments under Baptist apply to them, though their polities tend to be
different, often involving some sort of titular episcopacy (because of
the Wesleyan heritage). These are churches that have more emphasis on
speaking in tongues, etc. Churches with names involving "holiness"
and "pentacostal" tend to be in this direction. But there are a huge
number of denominations, and I have only started the list...
If you are willing to take a more flexible view of the Bible, then
there's another set of churches. Roughly the same set of choices
present themselves, but you're now dealing with slightly more
"liberal" representatives from the same basic families. (Well, more
or less the same. I don't think I know of any liberal pentecostal
churches, though there are pentecostal wings within several liberal
churches.) From the Baptist tradition, we have the American Baptists.
Relatively "low church", informal. Believe in adult baptism. Still
relatively conservative in their view of Scripture, but they're not
purging their seminaries of people who take more liberal views. In
the Reformed tradition you have churches like Presbyterian (USA),
United Church of Christ (the old Congregational), Congregational
(those that didn't join the UCC), and Reformed in America. Slightly
more liturgy (though this depends a lot on the church), slightly more
central organization (except for Congregational), infant baptism.
Generally slightly more liberal on social issues (probably UCC is the
most) and Biblical interpretation, but still tend to be "Biblical".
Congregational hold Reformed views on most things, but are not
connectional. Methodists are often indistinguishable from these,
though historically they were more associated with "heart religion"
(revivals, etc.), and recently some of them have been involved more in
the "social gospel". This depends upon the local church. I've seen
Methodist churches with real fire and brimstone preaching, and some
very social action. The more liturgical churches are Evangelical
Lutheran Church and Episcopal. Lutheran is probably more
theologically oriented and Episcopal more sacramentally oriented. The
Disciples of Christ are the "liberal" wing of the restoration
movement.
I have not mentioned the groups that I consider outside "orthodox
Christianity," though among these groups I have a great admiration for
the Quakers. (Actually, the degree to which they differ from the
mainstream depends upon the branch of Quakerism. There are branches
that are orthodox, as well as individuals within other branches.)
Everyone should experience a Quaker service at least once. It will
change your attitude towards silence and prayer. (I attended a Quaker
church for a year in college.) Other groups that I consider outside
the scope of this document are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses,
Christian Scientists, and Unitarian/Universalists. They tend to be
"sui generis", though historically I consider the Mormons to be an
offshoot of the restoration movement, and the U/U's to be an offshoot
of the Reformed. JW's are one part the Adventist movement -- the
Seventh-Day Adventists are a reasonably orthodox group from the same
movement. (The connection is historical. They wouldn't see themselves
as part of the same movement today.)
--clh]
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <5kjm3o$7...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, geral...@post1.com (Gerald)
writes:
> Can someone provide a tree diagram of the different christian denominations
> and the differences between them? (just the major ones will do)
I'd like to thank the moderator for his response to this question, because
while there are a few publications that describe the various Christian
denominations, none that I have found compare them systematically; each article
tends to be independent, and issues emphasized by the writer on one
denomination may be totally ignored by the writer on another. I would like to
see the sketch posted expanded into a full book.
But, as was revealed near the end of the article when the discussion turned to
the liberal/conservative spectrum which cuts across the `genealogical' tree, a
tree or a two-dimensional chart could not adequately present the doctrinal
relationships. What would be needed would be a multidimensional diagram, or,
more practially, several charts, each dealing with a single dimension.
Gary Williams
---
[For the US and Canada, the "Dictionary of Christianity in America"
has charts for the major families of denominations, along with
articles on the major denominations. Leo Rosten's book "Religions
of America" has articles on 17 major groups, most of which are
Christian denominations. They answer many of the same questions.
--clh]
Bryan J. Maloney
> few actual doctrinal differences, but they tend to be subtle (e.g. the
> procession of the Holy Spirit).
Orthodoxy rejects "merits" of the Saints as some sort of transferrable
"currency" or as some kind of substance, created Grace, purgatory, the
doctrine that permits indulgences, transubstantiation, and many other
Medieval Roman doctrines. Before the Roman apologists pull out Dosetheus,
let me counter by mentioning another bishop of the East who was also
guilty of incredible error: Peter Moghila espoused extremely Calvinist
doctrine. So, according to the claims of the Dosetheus-citers, using
their own method, Orthodoxy is every bit as Calvinist in Doctrine as they
claim Dosetheus makes it Roman. Of course, Orthodoxy rejects both.
>
> Historically the split between Orthodox and Catholic is a split
> between the East and West parts of the old Roman Empire. There were
> differences in approach between East and West from very early days.
> These got larger as the Empire split, and contact between East and
> West broke down. The final split is conventionally dated to 1054, but
> it had been present de facto for centuries before.
Actually, no. The _de facto_ split occurred about well after the glitch
of 1054, when Constantinople was viciously and bloodily raped by Western
"Crusaders". Excommunications are not irrevocable excisions of tumors.
Various patriarchs have excommunicated each other many times throughout
history. Most of the quarrels have been resolved.
The differences are not just administrative.
> for much of the creation of new denominations. The original Lutheran
> and Reformed churches tended to be territorial -- when a city or
> country adopted the Reformation, they generally became either Reformed
> or Lutheran. These turned into multiple denominations in the U.S. as
No. This is an artifact of the Treaty of Westphalia, which settled the
30-years war. The terms of the treaty stated that whatever religion was
practiced by a local prince, REGARDLESS of the beliefs of his people,
could be given status as the only legal religion in that prince's lands.
Kind of like the political situation that occured after the 1940s in a few
eastern European countries vis. the Communist party.
> people from each of these areas immigrated, and retained their own
> language and theological traditions. (Something similar has happened
> among groups that do not go back to the Reformers. Historically, many
> (maybe even most) of our denominations can ultimately be traced to the
> Anglicans. Many of them come through the Methodists. The holiness
Uh, how is this any different from the situation with the "Reformed or
Lutheran" groups? The only difference is that the majority of immigrants
of any influence or power in what became the USA happened to come from
England. It seems to be still just as "ethnic" as for the
continental-originating protestant denominations.
--
To reply via email, use bj...@cornell.edu.
The above address is spurious, generated by the necessity of deflecting slimeballs unfit to walk the face of the earth spamming my mailbox.
---
[The details of territorial churches differ from country to country.
You're describing the situation in Germany. Switzerland and Holland
each had its own history. I agree that I oversimplified. I was
simply pointing out that much of the original variation in the US
reflected the variety of churches in Europe, which were originally
more geogrphical than theological. I understand that Lutherans and
Reformed had plenty of arguments, but I maintain that they existed as
separate traditions primarily because of the local way in which the
Reformation occured, and not because (for example) a group of
Lutherans found Lutheranism problematical and so split off to form the
Reformed tradition. These traditions formed in parallel in different
areas, sharing many of their ideas.
It seems that the Lutheran and Reformed traditions have maintained
more coherence than the churches that started from Anglican and
Baptist roots. Yes, there were splits in Lutheran, Reformed, and
Presbyterian branches. But there were also reunions. The Old
Side/New Side Presbyterian split no longer exists. The Presbyterian
splits due to the Civil War mostly no longer exist. There's a bit
more variation in Reformed and Lutheran churches, but even there most
of the existing denominations started out originally as ethnic groups,
with some splitting due to conservative/liberal issues. The chart of
major Lutheran groups in the Dictionary of Christianity in America
shows more unions than splitting.
I agree that the Anglican tradition is in many ways parallel with the
Lutheran and Reformed traditions. It is also orginally territorial,
and there was a good deal of interaction between Anglican and
particularly Reformed theology. If we were just dealing with the
Episcopal church and a couple of direct offshoots, I would treat them
as parallel with Lutheran and Reformed.
However trom an Anglican start, we can trace progressions such as
Methodist to Holiness to Pentocostal, each of which are fairly
distinct new traditions with their own set of denominations. And of
course groups such as the Restoration movement have no territorial
basis.
--clh]
Constantine K Christakos
The Orthodox, in my mind (as an Orthodox), would fit in as
being the Church that grew out of the early Churches of the
Middle East and Asia Minor-- the Christians who were the
same as those like St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp (and,
by extension for most Orthodox, the Apostles).
> Historically the split between Orthodox and Catholic is a split
> between the East and West parts of the old Roman Empire. There were
> differences in approach between East and West from very early days.
> These got larger as the Empire split, and contact between East and
> West broke down. The final split is conventionally dated to 1054, but
> it had been present de facto for centuries before.
In my opinion, which is becoming a bit more common as a revival
in historical interest in Byzantine studies occurs is that even
when the Western Empire broke down, there were few theological
problems (or even political problems) between the East and the West.
(Augustine's writings would be a notable exception).
Long after, for example, the _filioque_ was added to the
Creed, Latin Popes were known to enscribe the original
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed on tablets to defend its traditional
status.
However, after the Coronation of Charlemagne as "Emperor of the Romans"
(formerly a title held exclusively by the Emperors in Constantinople)
in 800 AD, a true political and theological split developed, especially
as the western emperors would make sure to place pro-Frankish bishops
on the Papal throne.
In my mind, this event was what contributed to a split by creating
a second "Roman"
empire whose purpose was to compete both theologically and
politically with the East.
-Dean
Ron & Lee Troup
Gerald wrote:
> Can someone provide a tree diagram of the different christian denominations
> and the differences between them? (just the major ones will do)
> Please assume that this person has never heard of the different denominations
> before, so make it layman.
Our moderator then gave a flying over-view. I would like to fine-tune one part
of his discussion-
> Baptist - non-liturgical, non-confession, and non-connectional.
Better to say "associational"; we do have some ties. And liturgy is left for
each church to decide for themselves.
> Sacraments are simply memorials.
This whole area is left up to the individual; if they want to believe in
transubstantiation, they are free to do so.
> ...Each church is independent.
"Autonomus" better catches our emphasis. Each congregation rules itself, even
as it cherishes (or should cherish) co-operative work.
> ...Insist on baptizing only adults, since baptism is a sign of
> the decision, and only adults can make it
"Believer's" baptism better catches our emphasis.
I would recomend the two Eerdman's Handbooks on Christian history (one
world-wide, the other in America) as good sources for over-views.
><> Ron Troup
Joseph Davidchik
In article <5kp0n9$c...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
all.advertis...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>
> Orthodoxy rejects "merits" of the Saints as some sort of transferrable
> "currency" or as some kind of substance
Tell me what you think is the difference between what Catholics and Orthodox
believe about saints.
Mike
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <5l5vc2$n...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, davi...@oro.net (Joseph
Davidchik) wrote:
> Tell me what you think is the difference between what Catholics and Orthodox
> believe about saints.
1: A saint need not have committed "miracles" to have been a saint. For
example, many of the saints of 20th century Russia are Holy Martyrs, with
no miracles to their name. There is no "supernatural" requirement to
sainthood. It is true that there are saints who have and do perform
miracles, but that is no pre-requisite to being considered a saint.
2: The saints do not store up some sort of "reserve" of "merit" that can
be dispensed to the benefit of others. The "merits" of the saints in
Orthodoxy are their own--an EXAMPLE we are to emulate. They are not some
sort of "currency" that can be "cashed in" for the benefit of others (to
partially "pay off" a debt of sin) at the behest of the hierarchy. That
is to say, "merit" is not a thing transferrable to others.
There are other differences, but I suggest you contact an Orthodox priest
for detailed information.
Joseph Davidchik
In article <5l8pp3$q...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, bjm10@c$or$ne!ll#.e&du (Bryan
J. Maloney) wrote:
>
> 2: The saints do not store up some sort of "reserve" of "merit" that can
> be dispensed to the benefit of others. The "merits" of the saints in
> Orthodoxy are their own--an EXAMPLE we are to emulate. They are not some
> sort of "currency" that can be "cashed in" for the benefit of others (to
> partially "pay off" a debt of sin) at the behest of the hierarchy. That
> is to say, "merit" is not a thing transferrable to others.
I have trouble understanding the statement, above. You must be confusing
adoration of the saints with other alleged doctrines. I am not a
religious scholar, but it is my understanding that a human being might
pray to a saint that he or she intercede on their behalf with God. This
is just asking that the saint pray for you. The saint cannot give you any
grace or forgive you for your sins...only God does. The saint cannot give
you any of his or her grace...the saint can only help you get it from
God.
There is no "added grace." The grace that you are trying to get is the
grace that you lost through sinfullness. If you ask the saints to help
you get it back, that's not "currency or transferring merit."
Prior to the 11th Century, Catholics and Orthodox had the same set of saints.
Most of the most honored saints today are recognized by both churches. The
"communion of saints" idea has existed from the beginning of Christianity.
The criteria for canonization has changed in both churches. For example,
I cannot understand the canonization by the Russian Orthodox Church of the
Romanovs.
They might have been very moral people, but they did no great deeds on behalf
of Christianity. They didn't die for their faith, they were victims of
circumstances. They were only martyrs to Autocracy. Using this rationale,
all executed royals would be candidates for sainthood.
Mike
Annie!
Eerdmans' books have been a great source of knowledge to me as well...for
my Early Church class this year, I used their Bible Handbooks and found
them very useful, and also contained things that related the surrounding
culture with Bible passages.
Anne
********************************************
* Anne Elaine Crowell *
* x1...@unb.ca *
* "A technocracy promotes bad hygiene. *
* The more you're at your computer, the *
* less baths you take and the worse you *
* smell." *
********************************************
Kathy Moser
Bryan J. Maloney (bjm10@c$or$ne!ll#.e&du) wrote:
: As for the Romanovs, they are not canonized, as far as I know. There is a
: popular movement, but it has not been recognized as a canonization by the
: Patriarch of Moscow.
However, they WERE glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia in the early 80's (1980 or 1981).
Rebekah Moser
Chris Csernica
Joseph Davidchik wrote:
>
> In article <5l8pp3$q...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, bjm10@c$or$ne!ll#.e&du (Bryan
> J. Maloney) wrote:
>
> >
> > 2: The saints do not store up some sort of "reserve" of "merit" that can
> > be dispensed to the benefit of others. The "merits" of the saints in
> > Orthodoxy are their own--an EXAMPLE we are to emulate. They are not some
> > sort of "currency" that can be "cashed in" for the benefit of others (to
> > partially "pay off" a debt of sin) at the behest of the hierarchy. That
> > is to say, "merit" is not a thing transferrable to others.
>
> I have trouble understanding the statement, above. You must be confusing
> adoration of the saints with other alleged doctrines.
The Treasury of Merit is not an "alleged doctrine." It is an authentic
teaching of the Roman Church, and it is a crucial support to the
teachings on indulgences. The section concerning indulgences in the
_Catechism of the Catholic Church_ has:
*****
1475 In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists
between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those
who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still
pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of
all good things." In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one
profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause
others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite
sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments
for sin.
1476 We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the
_Church's treasury_, which is "not the sum total of the material goods
which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the
contrary the 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can
never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. They were
offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and
attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the
satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their
efficacy."
1477 "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the
Blessed Virgin Mary. They area truly immense, unfathomable, and even
pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the
prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in
the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives
holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this
way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in
saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."
1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the
power of binding and loosing grantd her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in
favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the
merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the
remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the
Church does not want simply to come the the aid of these Christians, but
also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.
*****
Naturally, "the Church" here which opens the "treasury of ... merits" is
to be interpreted to mean the magisterium or hierarchy of the Church of
Rome, which is considered in every case to be acting on behalf of the
Church as a whole, as if the Holy Spirit were incapable of inspiring the
whole Church to act with one accord.
The "spur" refers to the acts required of the faithful to earn an
indulgence. At one time they could be had for money, and this practice
was a significant catalyst to the Reformation.
So the issue is not framed in terms of regaining grace which has been
lost due to sin, in which cause the prayers of the saints really are of
great help. Rather, this is about remission of temporal punishments for
sins that have already been forgiven. Oddly, Rome teaches that God
still punishes us for the sins He forgives, as we see earlier in the
same section of the Catechism:
1471 ... An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal
punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven...
This doctrine the Orthodox Church rightly rejects.
In Christ,
Chris Csernica
Randal Mandock
In article <5mlbhr$9...@geneva.rutgers.edu> Chris Csernica <cser...@mtnweb.com> writes:
<quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church deleted>
>to be interpreted to mean the magisterium or hierarchy of the Church of
>Rome, which is considered in every case to be acting on behalf of the
>Church as a whole, as if the Holy Spirit were incapable of inspiring the
>whole Church to act with one accord.
This is not juridically correct. The _Enchiridion indulgentiarum_
says the following:
Norm 10. From the outset of their pastoral office, diocesan
bishops and those equivalent to them in law have the right
to:
1. grant paritial indulgences...
2. impart the papal blessing with a plenary indulgence...
Norm 11. Metropolitans may grant partial indulgences in their
suffragan dioceses just as in their own.
Norm 12. Patriarchs may grant partial indulgences in every
place, even those exempt, of their patriarchate, in churches
of their own rite outside the boundaries of their patriarchate,
and everywhere in the world for the faithful of their own
rite. Archbishops major have the same power.
Norm 13. Cardinals possess everywhere the power to grant on
particular occasions a partial indulgence...
See also CIC can. 995.
There is no way that the patriarchs of any of the 14 Eastern
Catholic Churches consider themselves members of the hierarchy
of the Church of Rome.
For more information about the relationship of the Church
of Rome to the other particular churches, see CCC nn. 832-835.
>The "spur" refers to the acts required of the faithful to earn an
>indulgence. At one time they could be had for money, and this practice
>was a significant catalyst to the Reformation.
Since simony has been a moral crime from the beginning (cf.
Prv 23:23, Acts 8:18-23), it is wrong to say "At one time
they could be had..." Indulgences could not be "had" at
one time or at any time because remission of temporal
punishment cannot be based on wrong intent or sinful act.
It is better to say that some in the past had attempted
to accomplish the remission of temporal punishment by means
of an indulgence, but failed due to the sinful means they
wished to employ.
>From the CIC:
Can. 1380 -- One who celebrates or receives a sacrament
through simony is to be punished with an interdict or a
suspension.
Can. 1385 -- One who illegitimately makes a profit from
a Mass stipend is to be punsihed with a censure or another
just penalty.
<text deleted>
>Oddly, Rome teaches that God
>still punishes us for the sins He forgives, as we see earlier in the
>same section of the Catechism:
It is not odd, but natural. The guys out playing baseball
on a Sunday afternoon still have to pay to have the window
replaced that they accidently broke with that last home
run, even if the owner of the house has forgiven them and
has agreed not to take them to court. Thus temporal
punishment remains after the guilt and more severe (eternal
punishment in the case of sin) punishment have been
forgiven.
Randal L. N. Mandock
cate...@netcom.com
Joseph Davidchik
In article <5mlbhr$9...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, Chris Csernica
<cser...@mtnweb.com> wrote:
You are mixing two different concepts together. My contention was that the
concept of adoration of the saints in both churches are similar. I wasn't
talking about indulgences. If a person asks a saint to intercede with God
on his or her behalf, that person isn't asking the Church to do anything
and the Church is not necessarily giving any indulgences.
Your statement about the "treasury of merit" is misleading. "The Church"
does not necessarily mean only the magesterium or hierarchy, and Catholics
do not believe that the Holy Spirit cannot inspire the whole Church. In
fact, Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church and can
inspire anybody to do anything. You misrepresented the term, "spur," which
does not necessarily refer only to indulgences.
Tell me that you do not believe that "the Church" has any special powers
when Orthodox believe in Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments
(including Confession). Why does this institution exist if not to
assist in mankind's salvation by allowing him to gain grace? Orthodox
are also encouraged to pray to the saints, including the BVM, by their
Church authorities. The Orthodox Church "spurs" on similar acts of
devotion, penance, and charity.
Before you want to mix penance and purgatory, remember that the Orthodox
Church does have formal confession with a priest (who represents Christ)
and the confessing person is expected to show a firm purpose of amendment
by saying prayers (what Catholics call penance).
Temporal punishment and God's forgiveness are not the same idea. Who says
that if God forgives you, you still cannot be punished. Catholics believe
that only God really forgives.
The bottom line is don't exaggerate the differences between the Western
and Eastern Churches. There are differences, particulary on papal
infallibility and purgatory, but they are both ...The Church.
Mike Davidchik
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <5mvup7$h...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, davi...@oro.net (Joseph
Davidchik) wrote:
> and Eastern Churches. There are differences, particulary on papal
> infallibility and purgatory, but they are both ...The Church.
These differences prevent Rome from being part of the Church. They are
not as far in error as are other groups, but they are still not within the
Church--Rome is in schism.
--
To respond via email, remove non-licit characters to change my site to "cornell.edu".
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation."
Joseph Davidchik
In article <5n2lkm$l...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, bjm10@c$or$ne!ll#.e&du (Bryan
J. Maloney) wrote:
> These differences prevent Rome from being part of the Church. They are
> not as far in error as are other groups, but they are still not within the
> Church--Rome is in schism.
>
So much for ecumenism. By definition, both are in schism. By canon law,
they are both still part of the Church. The Orthodox have never had a
council to declare what are the "errors" or to excommunicate all
Catholics who believe in these so-called "errors."
Mike
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <5n58tg$p...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, davi...@oro.net (Joseph
Davidchik) wrote:
> So much for ecumenism. By definition, both are in schism. By canon law,
True ecuminism is opening the Church for those in error to return to it,
not admitting every possible doctrine into the Church, no matter how
erroneous.
Chris Csernica
In article <5mtcj3$f...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, cate...@netcom.com (Randal
Mandock) wrote:
> In article <5mlbhr$9...@geneva.rutgers.edu> Chris Csernica
<cser...@mtnweb.com> writes:
> <quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church deleted>
> >Naturally, "the Church" here which opens the "treasury of ... merits" is
> >to be interpreted to mean the magisterium or hierarchy of the Church of
> >Rome,
[snip]
> This is not juridically correct. The _Enchiridion indulgentiarum_
> says the following:
[snip]
> Norm 10. From the outset of their pastoral office, diocesan
> bishops and those equivalent to them in law have the right
> to:
> 1. grant paritial indulgences...
> 2. impart the papal blessing with a plenary indulgence...
> Norm 11. Metropolitans may grant partial indulgences ...
[snip]
> Norm 12. Patriarchs may grant partial indulgences...
[snip]
> Norm 13. Cardinals possess everywhere the power to grant on
> particular occasions a partial indulgence...
[snip]
I have difficulty seeing the point of the above citations. Every one of
them concerns a member of the hierarchy, and thus does not contradict me.
> There is no way that the patriarchs of any of the 14 Eastern
> Catholic Churches consider themselves members of the hierarchy
> of the Church of Rome.
First, not every patriarch is the head of a uniate church. Pope John Paul
I was Patriarch of Venice before his election to the See of Rome.
Secondly, it is a mere technicality to consider uniate patriarchs not to be
members of the Roman hierarchy. They are all subjected to the Pope of
Rome. Some of them are cardinals and thus titular clergy of a church
within Rome's proper jurisdiction. I do not see the need to be much more
Roman than that.
[snip]
> >The "spur" refers to the acts required of the faithful to earn an
> >indulgence. At one time they could be had for money, and this practice
> >was a significant catalyst to the Reformation.
[snip]
> It is better to say that some in the past had attempted
> to accomplish the remission of temporal punishment by means
> of an indulgence, but failed due to the sinful means they
> wished to employ.
There was a significant period before the Reformation where Rome profited
handsomely from the sale of indulgences. It is your position that the
Roman Church was deliberately defrauding its flock at the time, or that
they were mistaken when they thought that the indulgences thus sold would
be of any effect? If the second, how do you reconcile the fact that the
Magisterium was therefore teaching the people erroneous doctrine when it is
not supposed to be capable of doing so, whether by the formal mechanisms of
infallibility or otherwise?
> Can. 1380 -- One who celebrates or receives a sacrament
> through simony is to be punished with an interdict or a
> suspension.
>
> Can. 1385 -- One who illegitimately makes a profit from
> a Mass stipend is to be punsihed with a censure or another
> just penalty.
Neither of these canons really apply, since an indulgence is not a
sacrament and the purchase of an indulgence does not represent a "Mass
stipend". Perhaps there are other canons that are more relevant?
> <text deleted>
> >Oddly, Rome teaches that God
> >still punishes us for the sins He forgives, as we see earlier in the
> >same section of the Catechism:
>
> It is not odd, but natural. The guys out playing baseball
> on a Sunday afternoon still have to pay to have the window
> replaced that they accidently broke with that last home
> run, even if the owner of the house has forgiven them and
> has agreed not to take them to court. Thus temporal
> punishment remains after the guilt and more severe (eternal
> punishment in the case of sin) punishment have been
> forgiven.
You realize this is a lousy analogy. A homeowner with a broken window has
suffered property loss, and perhaps does not actually forgive the careless
baseball players _until_ they have replaced the window. God is completely
self-sufficient. He suffers no loss on account of our sins, so there is
nothing for us to make good on.
Suppose Jean Valjean had received a pardon from the local competent
authority for stealing a loaf of bread soon after his arrest, but Javert
retained him in prison for the duration of his term even while conceding
that he had no real guilt. That would not be a pardon worthy of the name.
In Christ,
Chris Csernica
Randal Mandock
In article <5nfqsl$5...@geneva.rutgers.edu> cser...@mtnweb.com (Chris Csernica) writes:
>There was a significant period before the Reformation where Rome profited
>handsomely from the sale of indulgences. It is your position that the
>Roman Church was deliberately defrauding its flock at the time, or that
>they were mistaken when they thought that the indulgences thus sold would
The practice of redeeming penance...now led to an alteration of
far-reaching consequences in the penitential discipline. Among
the penalties into which due penance might be commuted was that
of almsgiving, and it had also, even earlier, been a custom
among penitents to seek the aid of others in performing the
penance imposed: thence it was an easy step to the practice of
buying-off a penance at the right price of money. Subsequent
to the eighth century the Penitentials contain tariffs showing
the sums which, should he be unable to fast, the penitent must
devote to pious works. So far as public penance is concerned,
such buying-off cannot be traced farther back than the ninth
century, and the Council of Tribur (895), which first allows
it, does so only in certain special cases, and requires a solid
motive, besides insisting on the performance of a part of the
penance. It was evidently not the intention of the Council to
detract from the severity or the reality of the penitential
practice; it merely aimed at accommodating as far as possible
the Church's discipline to the case of the penitent: yet its
decision opened out a way by which the Church's laws might be
evaded, besides conducing to the crime of sacerdotal avarice.
In 1048 the Council of Rouen was obliged to forbid the clergy
to increase or diminish through such motives the penances they
imposed on their flock. (See F.X. Funk's "Manual of Church
History," vol. 1)
Catholic historians--Gasquet, Pastor, Janssen, Michaels, Paulus--
have frequently mentioned the abuses connected with the preaching
of indulgences in the Middle Ages. Orders for the arrest of the
medieval pardoner were issued in Germany at the Council of Mainz
in 1261, and in England by order of the Bishop of Durham in 1340.
While Catholics believe that the building of St. Peter's in Rome
was a matter of interest to the whole Catholic world, they
heartily condemn with Grisar (_Luther_, i., 329) and Janssen
(_History of the German People_, iii., 91) the manner of financing
the indulgence, and the exaggerations of the preachers in extolling
unduly its effects and privileges. (See Conway's "The Question Box")
Pope Martin V in _Ad instar alterius indulgentiae_ revoked all
indulgences granted in Germany since 1378 in imitation of
previous indulgences. (See Hughes' "A History of the Church,"
vol. 3)
On 4 December 1563 Trent ordered that "all evil traffic in
[indulgences], which has been a most prolific source of abuses
among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished" (C. 2,
in Clem., _De poenit. et remiss., V, 9).
Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from
superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other
source, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places
and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently
be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently
to make note of, each in his own church, and report them in
the next provincial synod, so that after having been examined
by the other bishops also they may forthwith be referred to
the supreme Roman pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that
may be ordained which is expedient for the universal Church;
that thus the gift of holy indulgences may be dispensed to all
the faithful piously, holily, and without corruption.
["The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent," transl. by
Rev. H.J. Schroeder]
On 18 March 1666 the following moral error was condemned by
Pope Alexander VII:
37. Indulgences conceded to regulars and revoked by Paul V
are today revalidated. [Denzinger n. 1137]
>be of any effect? If the second, how do you reconcile the fact that the
>Magisterium was therefore teaching the people erroneous doctrine when it is
>not supposed to be capable of doing so, whether by the formal mechanisms of
>infallibility or otherwise?
As is made clear above, the Church never taught that simony or
the avarice of certain clergymen is a doctrine, infallible
or otherwise, of the Catholic faith.
>> Can. 1380 -- One who celebrates or receives a sacrament
>> through simony is to be punished with an interdict or a
>> suspension.
>>
>> Can. 1385 -- One who illegitimately makes a profit from
>> a Mass stipend is to be punsihed with a censure or another
>> just penalty.
>
>Neither of these canons really apply, since an indulgence is not a
>sacrament and the purchase of an indulgence does not represent a "Mass
>stipend". Perhaps there are other canons that are more relevant?
None that I can find in the 1983 CIC. Evidently the immoral
traffic in indulgences lies so far back in Church history
that only her detractors concern themselves about it. The
brief examples shown above should suggest that all the
legislation needed to curb the abuses was applied back then
and that the problem is now a dead issue.
>> <text deleted>
>> >Oddly, Rome teaches that God
>> >still punishes us for the sins He forgives, as we see earlier in the
>> >same section of the Catechism:
>>
>> It is not odd, but natural. The guys out playing baseball
>> on a Sunday afternoon still have to pay to have the window
>> replaced that they accidently broke with that last home
>> run, even if the owner of the house has forgiven them and
>> has agreed not to take them to court. Thus temporal
>> punishment remains after the guilt and more severe (eternal
>> punishment in the case of sin) punishment have been
>> forgiven.
>
>You realize this is a lousy analogy. A homeowner with a broken window has
>suffered property loss, and perhaps does not actually forgive the careless
>baseball players _until_ they have replaced the window. God is completely
>self-sufficient. He suffers no loss on account of our sins, so there is
>nothing for us to make good on.
Ok. Then substitute the judge for the home-owner. He, as
well, suffers no loss on account of the transgression. But
if you still don't like the analogy, review a part of the
Scriptural basis for temporal punishment: the seven-day
punishment of Miriam and the punishment of David due to the
murder of Uriah.
>Suppose Jean Valjean had received a pardon from the local competent
>authority for stealing a loaf of bread soon after his arrest, but Javert
>retained him in prison for the duration of his term even while conceding
>that he had no real guilt. That would not be a pardon worthy of the name.
I don't see any reference to temporal punishment in your scenario,
but only to eternal punishment and guilt. For example, did he return
or pay for the bread he stole? Did he apologize to the store
owner for taking it and promise him restitution in some other
way if he was too impoverished to pay for it?
St. Paul in 1 Cor 11 explains that sin is the continuing cause of
physical evils inflicted upon the communion of saints. These are
indeed temporal punishments due to sin--punishments that cannot
necessarily be traced back to any given individual but which
result from wilfull ignorance of the rule of faith nonetheless.
Chris Csernica
Randal Mandock wrote:
> St. Paul in 1 Cor 11 explains that sin is the continuing cause of
> physical evils inflicted upon the communion of saints. These are
> indeed temporal punishments due to sin--punishments that cannot
> necessarily be traced back to any given individual but which
> result from wilfull ignorance of the rule of faith nonetheless.
Are you sure that you are citing the passage you intend here? This
chapter is mostly about conduct during divine services. The only
punishments due to sin mentioned here are most certainly traceable to a
given individual - these are the punishments meted out to those who
partake of the Holy Mysteries without discernment. Of particular
interest to this discussion, though, is verse 32.
I do not deny that there are temporal punishments due to sin. I have
had your Old Testament examples flung at me before, and I am not
convinced that they were not intended to bring the sinner to a fuller
repentance. It is the clear consensus of the Eastern Fathers that this
is often the reason for Divine punishment in this world.
In Christ,
Chris Csernica
Randal Lee Mandock
In article <5nqfcb$i...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
Chris Csernica <cser...@mtnweb.com> wrote:
>Randal Mandock wrote:
>> St. Paul in 1 Cor 11 explains that sin is the continuing cause of
>> physical evils inflicted upon the communion of saints. These are
>> indeed temporal punishments due to sin--punishments that cannot
>> necessarily be traced back to any given individual but which
>> result from wilfull ignorance of the rule of faith nonetheless.
>
Sorry.
I was one chapter off.
1 Cor 12:26
If one member suffers, all suffer together.
But this verse can be related to 1 Cor 11:30 in that those
who sin harm not only themselves but the body of Christ
as well. This is also part of the basis for temporal
punishment - the communion of saints is injured by every
sin committed, even though God suffers no loss whatsoever.