Catholicism, Ecumenism and Salvation

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Taijasi!

Well, I couldn't resist saying, juantoo, that on the Travel Channel (in the US) right now, they're about to feature Glastonbury and the Cathedral (Tower?) there. Amazing! You posted, and the TV delivered. lol

Hmmm, interesting. Since I do not have or get (nor even want) cable or satellite tv, and have never watched the travel channel...coincidence?

 

[Thomas]

Hi all –

I think in many cases here the argument is more with the human aspect of the institution rather than the spiritual. That the church is burdened by sin is inevitable, but not the principle under discussion here, nor should it blind the viewer to its reality.

That there are abuses does not mean that the principle itself is wrong.

The root of my doctrinal intransigence stems from the following:
The focus of the life of the Christian is the Church;
The focus of the life of the Church is the Liturgy;
The focus of the life of the Liturgy is the Eucharist.

Any argument to separate Christ from his Church invariably takes no account of the liturgical or sacramental dimension.

The Church is not simply a body of knowledge (although it is that),
The Church is not a body of rituals for a sentimental or psychic effect (although they do that),
The Church, in the Liturgy, brings one into the presence of a Mystery that transcends individual being - that transcends the world, its cosmologies and all its knowledge.

No formal qualification is required, other than a profession of faith.

That God might operate 'outside' the Church I do not question - it is not for me to say - but equally it is not for anyone to assume thereby that obedience to God is not a requirement placed upon him, no matter to what degree we might define ourselves a 'special case' (which tacitly assumes that Gods made the church for man, but set me aside as special).

Nor do I assume that God founded the church for no particular reason.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew -

I think our particular argument revolves around how we see Christ - you as an avatara and me as hypostasis.

My problem with 'synthesis' (having been of such mind) in the religious sphere is that it reduces everything to a flat plane and insists thereby that everything is equal to everything else, except the synthesis itself, which is necessarily superior to make a claim of synthesis in the first place.

Whilst there are many things in common between all religions (man is the same everywhere) that does not mean that they all must necessarily say the same thing, or that Christianity must conform to the principles of Buddhism, or Vadanta, or the Tao.

Thus to extract lines of Scripture that prove a point is to ignore the shape of the work as a whole. The esssential message of Christianity in this aspect consists in the Incarnation of God in the flesh, not the appearance of a divine aspect that to a greater or lesser degree subsumes the person - in the Incarnation, uniquely, the Person is God, something said and reinforced continually throughout scripture and throughout the Christian Tradition.

You can accept it, or denty it, but you cannot logically mmake it something other than it is.

We can seek to relativise the message if we will, but we cannot relativise the messenger withour rendering the whole meaningless. Christ is the Word and the Word is God - and such a word can never be only relative.

+++

In the last resport, religion is about salvation - it is in Buddhist terms an 'upaya' - a providential means - and here again 'synthesis' is effectively meaningless - it can do nothing on its own account - it has nothing on its own account - everything it has is borrowed and derived - it has no heart.

Thomas

 

[Bandit]

Hi all –



No formal qualification is required, other than a profession of faith.

That God might operate 'outside' the Church I do not question - it is not for me to say - but equally it is not for anyone to assume thereby that obedience to God is not a requirement placed upon him, no matter to what degree we might define ourselves a 'special case' (which tacitly assumes that Gods made the church for man, but set me aside as special).

Nor do I assume that God founded the church for no particular reason.

Thomas

good stuff Thomas. preach it my brother

 

[Quahom1]

I think one of the issues here is what is the church?

Some argue that it is a formal body, while others consider it the body of worshipers.

One of the reasons the "Catholic Church" struggles so much in maintaining a foothold in the US, is rather simple. The Church refuses to consider the individual as an entity equal to itself. Wherein the typical American refuses to give up individual identity to anyone (including and/or especially the Church).

In this case, the construct of church and and the construct of state are diametrically opposed to each other.

Until the heiarchy of the church learns to strive to become "human", it will never hold the attention of those who are intelligent, learned and questioning. Not even if the cannon codes were written in gold ink. It will continue to lose parishners.

That is all I have to say on this matter.

Thank you for reading me.

v/r

Q

 

[wil]

I used to think utilizing the term Catholic (universal) was awful pompous. But have changed as I learned more. During the time it was organized and put together and its mission to unify the various strands of Christianity. Universal (catholic) was an appropriate name. Since Christ left earth the concepts, ideas, sects were as diverse as they are today. The Church did a good job coalescing and distilling the thought into one thought and quite possibly gave the movement the organization and foundation it needed to grow into what it is today.

Now I'm not saying I agree with all the cannons, decisions or ritual that is performed, and not saying that a lot of good information was overlooked, destroyed, discarded and or made heretical...but all in all, it seemed a good idea at the time.

Today I meet countless numbers of people that refer to themselves as recovering Catholics (going through a twelve station program) in various churches many of them deem Catholic Light or Guilt Free Catholisism. I don't know what exactly drove them from the church of their parents, and what appealed to them in the church they encountered.

But I do know that communion, something I never took part in unitl recently (as I wasn't sanctioned to do so), is ritual that is much a part of me today. And your posting the ccc's was very valuable and informative.

I see a similarity between the rise and struggle of unions today and that of the Church. It filled a void when it was desperately needed, provided the organization and protection that was desired by individuals who felt they had no power by themselves. The number of individuals that feel the need for the service that it provided is dwindling as they find the protections, the service elsewhere....and both these organizations which have grown accustomed to people coming to them for help...need to change their appeal...as just maybe they lost their focus, or got to big...

I also see an analogy between the Catholic Church and Amway (more than one, but I'll stick to this one) Many network marketers, mlmers decry Amway, but it was the original, the one that took and takes the brunt of the abuse, the one that paved the way for the rest. We have to appreciate the pioneers.

 

[Thomas]

"Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship"
This book is for the reader ... perhaps only intuitively, that psychology has become more a sentiment than a science, and is now part of the problem of modern life, rather than part of its resolution.

...Selfist psychology emphasizes the human capacity for change to the point of almost totally ignoring the idea that life has limits, and that knowledge of those limits is the basis of wisdom.

... The tendency to give a green light to any self-defined goal is undoubtedly one of the major appeals of selfism, particularly to a people in a culture in which change has been seen as intrinsically good...

...The claim that self-theory is a science in invalid by any useful meaning of the term science, since humanist definitions no longer distinguish psychology and psychotherapy from religion, literature, political theory, and ethics. Yet by keeping the name psychology, which has been represented as a science for decades, by having self-theory taught by psychologists (that is, experts), in countless university classes, and by vaguely suggesting ways in which self-theory might be tested, selfism has falsely benefited from the prestige and generally acknowledged special truth value accorded to any science..."
http://www.narth.com/docs/vitz.html

Ralph Waldo Emerson and the cult of "self-esteem"
"The modern school of self-esteem, however, sees no need to transcend, no reason to make what Emerson called an "effort at the perfect" — to find out the best and strongest places in one’s soul. The modern proponents of self-esteem argue that the undeveloped self, however callow, should be praised as it is. In contrast to Emerson’s work, the primitivist ethic of the self-esteem movement promotes not the discovery but the abdication of the self...
http://www.kimberlyswygert.com/archives/001764.html

Thomas