Anatomy of a Schism
I believe that in every religion, we have people who were raised in a faith, hear something, and misunderstand it. THOSE people, when sharing their faith, pass their misinformation on, someone else hears it and explains it to someone else and it is passed on until it reaches someone who knows better (either knows better as in, "That isn't the teaching" OR knows better as in, "That shouldn't be the case because the Bible says THIS ).
Now, the original mistake maker didn't make the error with 'criminal intent'...we are talking about a 'milk' believer as opposed to a 'meat' believer. The person simply didn't know any better. If anything, the first thing taught in any confirmation class (in my humble opinion) should be, "Don't answer questions that you don't fully comprehend the answers to," but I digress.
Now...welcome to the point of my post:
These mistakes sometimes get magnified over time and poor vertical communication and a schism forms. By vertical communication, I mean that when the church leader (priest/pastor/minister) is being taught, something is missed in their education. Then, they pass that on within the church community and the ground level faithful hear the poor message and misinterpret further what has been taught (leading to poor horizonal communication and the spread of misinformation). It is my belief that schisms of all churches then tend to form from an excess of pride in RELIGION rather than an excess of humility in faith.
Now, I am not just referring to the schismatic church, I am also referring to the original church.
Before anyone gets upset...think of this...
When you excommunicate someone and demand that they see things YOUR WAY (or they can't come back to the church) when they don't understand it the way you are communicating it, then who is being prideful? Is it the person who is staying honest to the fact that they truly cannot agree with their UNDERSTANDING of the teaching, or the person who refuses to see that the other person is not being deliberately obtuse, they are simply not understanding the way it is being related to them? How about when you don't even INVITE someone to a Papal conclave, and when the person contacts you to find out why not, and you use that as an opportunity to excommunicate them, who is being prideful? Where is the dialogue? Shouldn't the dialogue occur while the church is whole BEFORE a schism occurs?
Not all, but several, schisms of the Catholic Church were because of individual pride in the RELIGION rather than a desire to maintain the integrity of the faith. Do I believe it is painful for the schisms to be in place? Absolutely...for BOTH sides. Do I believe that it is always the fault of the schismatic church? No. Do I believe it is always the fault of the Church whose earthly guidance comes from Rome? No. Do I believe that BOTH sides are always at fault? Yes.
Let's look at what generally (not always) occurs once the church leader is excommunicated...
1) Communication with Rome GENERALLY ceases.
2) Due to the lack of communication, over time further discrepancies creep into the doctrine and further schisms occur in the schismatic church...leading to MORE distance from the original Church fathers.
When I pray for the unity of the faith, it is not me praying for others to come to 'my religion'. I am literally praying for the UNITY of the various religions under God to all work together for God's will and not personal pride or prejudice. THAT INCLUDES MY RELIGION. I would not say, "I hope that you leave your schism and return to the true church," because that strikes me as prideful, not recognizing the humanity that is still a part of all church leaders. In my heart, I have NEVER met a church leader of ANY faith that did not have pride issues about their own faith (I refer to an "I am perfectly right and if you do not agree with me then you are wrong" attitude). That doesn't mean they aren't God and man loving, good, wonderful church leaders...it means that they are human.
Finally, if you want to attack me for what my religion is...don't go into the history...because I wasn't the person who got into the argument that caused the excommunication...I wasn't there and neither were you. Recognize that I respect your religion and expect the same in return. I don't agree with ALL aspects of my faith, but sadly, I deliberately didn't choose the Roman Catholic Church because FAR too many times I was treated with contempt because I wasn't 'Catholic' and FAR too many people were worshipping the Religion rather than the Lord. That isn't the fault of Rome, that is the fault of the treatment I received at the 'ground level' of the faithful.
Truly, the more I read of what the Vatican has taught during the times of Pope John Paul the Second, the more I agree with the FAITH and DOCTRINE of the Roman Catholic Church...but I cannot and will not worship before and beside people who won't put those doctrines into practice.
Now, the original mistake maker didn't make the error with 'criminal intent'...we are talking about a 'milk' believer as opposed to a 'meat' believer. The person simply didn't know any better. If anything, the first thing taught in any confirmation class (in my humble opinion) should be, "Don't answer questions that you don't fully comprehend the answers to," but I digress.
Now...welcome to the point of my post:
These mistakes sometimes get magnified over time and poor vertical communication and a schism forms. By vertical communication, I mean that when the church leader (priest/pastor/minister) is being taught, something is missed in their education. Then, they pass that on within the church community and the ground level faithful hear the poor message and misinterpret further what has been taught (leading to poor horizonal communication and the spread of misinformation). It is my belief that schisms of all churches then tend to form from an excess of pride in RELIGION rather than an excess of humility in faith.
Now, I am not just referring to the schismatic church, I am also referring to the original church.
Before anyone gets upset...think of this...
When you excommunicate someone and demand that they see things YOUR WAY (or they can't come back to the church) when they don't understand it the way you are communicating it, then who is being prideful? Is it the person who is staying honest to the fact that they truly cannot agree with their UNDERSTANDING of the teaching, or the person who refuses to see that the other person is not being deliberately obtuse, they are simply not understanding the way it is being related to them? How about when you don't even INVITE someone to a Papal conclave, and when the person contacts you to find out why not, and you use that as an opportunity to excommunicate them, who is being prideful? Where is the dialogue? Shouldn't the dialogue occur while the church is whole BEFORE a schism occurs?
Not all, but several, schisms of the Catholic Church were because of individual pride in the RELIGION rather than a desire to maintain the integrity of the faith. Do I believe it is painful for the schisms to be in place? Absolutely...for BOTH sides. Do I believe that it is always the fault of the schismatic church? No. Do I believe it is always the fault of the Church whose earthly guidance comes from Rome? No. Do I believe that BOTH sides are always at fault? Yes.
Let's look at what generally (not always) occurs once the church leader is excommunicated...
1) Communication with Rome GENERALLY ceases.
2) Due to the lack of communication, over time further discrepancies creep into the doctrine and further schisms occur in the schismatic church...leading to MORE distance from the original Church fathers.
When I pray for the unity of the faith, it is not me praying for others to come to 'my religion'. I am literally praying for the UNITY of the various religions under God to all work together for God's will and not personal pride or prejudice. THAT INCLUDES MY RELIGION. I would not say, "I hope that you leave your schism and return to the true church," because that strikes me as prideful, not recognizing the humanity that is still a part of all church leaders. In my heart, I have NEVER met a church leader of ANY faith that did not have pride issues about their own faith (I refer to an "I am perfectly right and if you do not agree with me then you are wrong" attitude). That doesn't mean they aren't God and man loving, good, wonderful church leaders...it means that they are human.
Finally, if you want to attack me for what my religion is...don't go into the history...because I wasn't the person who got into the argument that caused the excommunication...I wasn't there and neither were you. Recognize that I respect your religion and expect the same in return. I don't agree with ALL aspects of my faith, but sadly, I deliberately didn't choose the Roman Catholic Church because FAR too many times I was treated with contempt because I wasn't 'Catholic' and FAR too many people were worshipping the Religion rather than the Lord. That isn't the fault of Rome, that is the fault of the treatment I received at the 'ground level' of the faithful.
Truly, the more I read of what the Vatican has taught during the times of Pope John Paul the Second, the more I agree with the FAITH and DOCTRINE of the Roman Catholic Church...but I cannot and will not worship before and beside people who won't put those doctrines into practice.




