So, in previous posts, we have established that God almost certainly exists, and that the resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation of the available historical data. Knowing these things, we can conclude that Christianity is therefore almost certainly true. However, as you may or may not know, there are nevertheless internal divisions within Christianity.
Most are familiar with the divide between Catholics and Protestants, but there exists Eastern Orthodoxy as well. There also exists the Old Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Church of the East. Moreover, within Protestantism, there are many different competing denominations. It might therefore come across as confusing trying to navigate this landscape of differing 'branches' of Christianity.
One unites all disparate branches of Christianity are two things: belief in God as Trinity, and belief in the resurrection. So, really, Trinitarianism is the one single, unique defining feature of all versions of Christianity. For that reason, we can rightly dismiss Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons as not being Christians, because they do not believe in the Trinity. Same thing applies to Unitarian Universalists.
For the first four centuries of its existence, the Church was essentially one and whole. Sure, there were minor heretical movements, but these were universally condemned by the whole Church. It was not until 431 AD when the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorius and Nestorianism that the Church of the East, which had already claimed to be distinct from the Church in the West as early as 410, broke off communion and split off on its own.
Now, there is some quibble about whether or not the Church of the East is truly Nestorian, but they largely follow his teachings and venerate him as a saint, so, really, if it walks like a duck... Really, the onus is on those who claim that the Church of the East isn't Nestorian to show that this is, in fact, the case. Now, Nestorius denied that Mary was the Theotokos or God Bearer.
He instead came up with the term Christotokos or Christ Bearer. This was condemned as heresy since it basically means that Jesus is two persons, therefore resulting in a quadrinity, rather than a Trinity. Now, since then, there was a schism in 1552, whereby part of the Church of the East joined the Roman Catholic Church. There was then a schism in 1968, resulting in the Church of the East splitting in two: the Ancient Church of the East and the Assyrian Church of the East.
The next schism in the history of the Church occurred just 20 years after the Church of the East split off, in 451 AD, when the churches in Armenia, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and India broke off communion with the rest of the church. This was as a result of the Council of Chalcedon, which, aside from re-affirming the condemnation of Nestorius, also condemned Monophysitism.
Monophysitism was the position that Christ has only one nature, whereas the position of the Church was that Christ has two natures: one human, and one divine. Well, the five churches mentioned maintained that Christ had a single, mixed nature: one nature that was both human and divine, rather than two separate natures. This position, known as miaphysitism to differentiate from traditional Monophysitism, was nevertheless also condemned as heresy.
The five churches mentioned then broke off communion and became to be known as the Oriental Orthodox Church. The biggest schism in Church History, however, was known as the Great Schism, that occurred in 1054. Of course, the events that lead to this were long in the making. There were a number of key doctrines that the Roman Church began teaching that put them at odds with the Eastern churches.
The Roman Bishop, known as the Pope, asserted jurisdiction of authority over the whole Church, which ran contrary to the notion of the Patriarchs of the Church being a confederacy of brother Bishops. Second, western Churches altered the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed without approval. They added the now-infamous 'Filioque' clause.
The original creed read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, whereas the western Churches added the phrase 'and the Son' afterwards. Whilst the Roman Church initially condemned this addition, it was eventually adopted by it and all the western Churches. Lastly, the Roman Church had moved to using unleavened bread in the Eucharist.
In 1054, the Pope sent a representative, Cardinal Humbert, to Constantinople who promptly excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch excommunicated the Cardinal in return. The western churches sided with the Church of Rome and became what is now the Roman Catholic Church, whereas the eastern churches became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Since then, the Catholic Church has undergone numerous changes in its teachings over time. The sale of indulgences in particular kicked off the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, and then the first Vatican council resulted in various parts of the Catholic church breaking away to become the Old Catholic Church.
Protestantism in particular consists of numerous denominations. It can be roughly divided into high church denominations, such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism, and low church denominations. The chief difference being that low churches do not have the formal priesthood and the ceremonial pomp of the Catholic Mass and Eastern Orthodox Liturgy, whereas the high church denominations still have those things.
The problem is not too dissimilar from the problem facing the person who knows God exists but is unsure which, if any, religion is true. Quite simply, which branch or denomination do I pick? Are they all equally valid ways to Jesus? Or is only one branch the true way to Jesus? To answer these questions, then, aside from looking at the history of the Church, it is vital to have the correct epistemology.
Protestants subscribe to sola scriptura, which is the position that Scripture is the final and ultimate authority on matters of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, maintain that one requires the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to properly interpret Scripture. Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, as well as the Church of the East, all maintain that the correct way to approach matters of faith is through Holy Tradition.
By Holy Tradition, they mean all of Scripture (of course), but also teachings of Jesus and the Apostles not recorded in Scripture but passed on through the writings of the Church Fathers. Moreover, they also include the writings of the Church Fathers themselves, as well as the deliverances of the various councils, particularly the Ecumenical Councils.
The chief difference between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox is that the Oriental Orthodox reject the Council of Chalcedon, whereas the chief difference between Eastern Orthodox and the Church of the East is that the Church of the East rejects the Council of Ephesus. So, assuming you agreed with the Tradition approach, which one you would pick would depend on whether you count the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon as binding.
The Catholic Church agrees with the Ecumenical councils, it must be said, but also holds its own councils held since the Great Schism as being binding, including Vatican I and Vatican II. These are the two councils where, amongst other things, Papal Infallibility was properly defined. Vatican I, however, also led to the breaking away of the Old Catholic Church.
So, in many ways, the Roman Catholic Church stands or falls on Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. As such, whether you would pick the Catholic Church or the Old Catholic Church would depend on whether you accepted Vatican I and II or not. Which Protestant denomination one would pick is a trickier subject, since there are as many different interpretations of Scripture as there are individual Protestants.
However, many Protestant denominations have their own individual professions of faith and statements, and so on. Nevertheless, there is very much the danger of treating the matter like a spiritual 'buffet', picking and choosing which beliefs one wants to entertain and then finding the exact denomination that matches your exact whims.
In the next few posts, I will be going over arguments for and against the general epistemological approaches mentioned above and ultimately try and arrive at a conclusion regarding which branch of Christianity, if any, is the 'correct' version of if they're all essentially valid approaches to faith in Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment