Obedience, schism, and a growing philosophy

The following excerpts concerning the relations of individuals to their churches is presented with the hope that we might bear in mind that those who followed Eastern Orthodox Christianity and those who took part in Luther's reformation did have, among their philosophical arsenal, the texts from which these excerpts are derived. I am striving to maintain context, though please consider that they are excerpted, and I will be happy to address contextual issues, as needed, to the best of my ability.

* "In the same way, my brothers, when we offer our own Eucharist ot God, each one of us should keep to his own degree. His conscience must be clear, he must not infrince the rules prescribed for his ministering, and he is to bear himself with reverence. The continual daily sacrifices, peace-offerings, sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings are by no means offered in every place, brothers, but at the altar in front of the Temple; and then only after a careful scrutiny of the offering by the High Priest and the other ministers aforesaid [deacons and clergy]. Anything done otherwise than in conformity with God's will is punishable with death. Take note from this, my brothers, that since we ourselves have been given so much fuller knowledge, the peril that we incur is correspondingly greater." (First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, section 41)

* "In the same way as the Lord was wholly one with the Father, and never acted independently of Him, either in person or through the Apostles, so you yourselves must never act independently of your bishop and clergy. On no account persuade yourselves that it is right and proper to follow your own private judgement; have a single service of prayer which everybody attends, one united supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and innocent joyfulness, which is Jesus Christ, than whom there is nothing better." (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, section 7)

* "Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with His Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice--even as also there is but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow-servitors the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God." (Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, section 4)

* * * * *

Such ideas, I'm sure, were dragged out as a bandage for any growing schism in the early church. But do we restrict these ideas to the "catholic" faith? (Ignatius was the first to use this term in his letter to Smyrna.) Or do such ideas transcend the political divisions that fracture the "Church" into Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist, Puritan, Huegenot, and the entire American descendancy of faith?

And if the idea does transcend such fractures, how does it play out in modern faith?

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa,

Perhaps you would be so kind as to rephrase the question? Are you asking about whether or not the practice of "communion" or "sacrament" (eating a piece of bread and drinking either a sip of water or wine as a symbol of remembrance of the body and blood of Christ) is one that is limited to the Catholic church? Or are you talking about the idea of keeping the "flock" together as one body being limited to the Catholic Church? I'm sorry for being so obtuse here, but I really don't understand the question (not that I would necessarily have the answer even if I understood the question, but I'd like to at least understand what you are asking first

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

<img src ="http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/searcher_anim_1.gif">

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Searcher--

Fair enough .... Actually, though, I'm just seeking commentary. I can assert nothing, due to the historical conditions here, without crossing certain bridges of assumption.

However, I think if it must be directly applied, I would point toward one of the sticking points some of us have encountered, of late, as we focused our religious and philosophical energies on Christianity. Specifically, we've heard from Truestory and myself regarding the relationship between the church and the individual, as well as the philosophical diversity of modern Christianity.

That diversity of ideas, and the idea of an apparently unnecessary relationship between the churches and people of like faith, makes me wonder if even the foundling church was unnecessary, or what devices of history have altered the relationship between the church and its people.

If we consider, for the sake of argument, Christianity as a paradigm, and liken it to Capitalism, Democracy, or other large ideas of human spirit--that is, if we might, for the moment, except the "Godly" aspect of Christianity--then we can include these ideas as part of an attempt to understand the relationship people carry on with their institutions.

Just as easily as, for instance, you could show me an honest accountant who never advises his clients to cheat their taxes, I could point out a CEO who preaches the virtues of capitalism to his defense, but secures his position by buying the vote and thus subverting the very device his capitalism is supposed to uphold. Just as easily as True or Lori could show me their idea of a proper Christian, I could point to ... well, we're all aware of the mud slung at the Cross and Its minions. Just as one might show a slobbering Communist fool, another might point to a scholar who understands Communism's value, even if only in terms of raw data to demonstrate how humanity, en masse, interacted with that particular paradigm.

As a general historical thesis, I might assert that the Church body politic did escort the faith of Christ across the globe; as such, I think one of the key mysteries in understanding one of the most potent social forces--human forces--of all history is the relationship between the church institution and the people it guides.

As Truestory demonstrates, modern Western Christians are free--politically, at least--to shed aspects of their "church" relations. I would not challenge one's spiritual freedom in this aspect, but I would say I'm quite curious about the historical progression of the relationship between the church, the faith, and the people who believe.

But Clement (ca. 96 CE) and Ignatius (ca. 110 CE) were among the foundling church, so I would hope these excerpts might offer at least a couple of perspectives from the beginnings of the institutional church. If it isn't too combative a question, I would ask what the modern perspective is, whether or not it regards these excerpts specifically.

On the other hand ... if I'm wordy here it's for two reasons. One, I've been brushing up on my Hegel, and well, this seems to happen when I do that. Also, I'm trying to be very careful--as you noted--to not reduce this to "Catholic flock" arguments.

If I might offer a couple of contextual notes: Both Clement and Ignatius were addressing entire congregations in their letters. Ignatius, apparently, wrote his letters as he journeyed to Rome in shackles to be martyred; thrown to the lions, according to legend. In Ignatius' case, he was quite cautious to make disclaimers like "not that I have observed this amongst yourselves" while advising as such, except in a couple of cases of Docetism (a heresy of some sort).

Okay, I'll hush now.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good post, tiassa,

I'll be brief. Schism = disunity.

If one feels compelled to identify a Christian with a "church" then please allow mine to be the church of Jesus Christ.

It has no walls, no doors, no boundaries... it's for everyone, everywhere.

Thank you.

 

TS,

You say that like it's a bad thing!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Okay, if disunity is a bad thing, then would a one-world religion be a good thing? Only as long as it's your religion? Just wondering...



------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com

 

Yes, it can be a bad thing, especially if the schismatic body or sect loses its focus... if Jesus Christ is no longer the focus... that is... if the focus is on their "differences" rather than the ultimate common goal of salvation through Jesus Christ.

 

Searcher,

I'm not sure if I can explain this in a way that will bring us to an understanding, but, I'll try...

First: I consider the existence of God to be a fact, not a belief.

Second: I consider that God sent Jesus Christ to save us to be a fact, not a belief.

Third: I look at being a Christian as living a certain lifestyle, not a religion.

For example: If I'm not mistaken, Mother Teresa was a Catholic. If so, then Catholicism was her religion. Although I am not the ultimate judge of such things, from what I could see of how she conducted herself, Mother Teresa also strived to lead a Christian lifestyle.

Does that mean that ALL Catholics are Christain? NO.

Does that mean that ALL Christians are Catholic? NO.

Some Catholics, like Mother Teresa, are also Christain.

Some Christains, like Mother Teresa, also practice Catholicism.

There are Christians all over the world who practice various "schisms" of so-called "Christianity" and there are people all over the world who practice the same "schisms" who are not actually Christians.

Some Christians, like myself, strive to lead a Christian lifestyle but do not practice any "schism".

Clear as mud???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I wanted to stick in yet another note ...

First, let me beg an apology for constantly amending my approach to the questions I've posed. I feel the considerations involved here are myriad, and balance a complex formula.

But it seems that, as I bandy about the term "catholic", I've neglected to post the excerpt that might offer a better approach. (I believe my thought at the time of the topic post was that it was getting long for a topic post.) Thus, I offer, from Ignatius' letter to the Church at Smyrna, the following:

* "Abjure all factions, for they are the beginning of evils. Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too, as you would the Apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command from God. Make sure that no step affecting the church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop's sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is present, we have the catholic Church. Nor is it permissible to conduct baptisms or love-feasts without the bishop. On the other hand, whatever does have his sanction can be sure of God's approval too. This is the way to make certain of the soundness and validity of anything you do." (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, section 8)

Note the difference between "catholic Church" and "the Catholic Church". In this context, I offer Mirriam-Webster's website. I looked up the word "catholic", and eventually came to the prefix "cata-", from the Greek "kata-", meaning "down", "in accordance with", and "by", and includes a note to Old Welsh and to Hittite, of all things, in the etymology.

Thus, are we dealing with, in Ignatius' term, a "catholic" church, or "the Catholic church"? That seems to be the first thing. In the long run, I'm curious how the investment of authority moved from the church establishment to the people, and how this leaves our regard to the historical evolution of Christian ideas throughout history.

But the modern regard is vital here ... I can hardly start from one arbitrary point and progress toward an idea we have yet to settle on. All of this I stress because if this were solely about Catholics, per se, the issues were settled when Luther sang, "If I Had a Hammer".

Thanx ... I hope this isn't getting too far lost in my obscure ideas.

Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

 

Perhaps, in light of Ignatius and Clement (and others), we might also ask how authority came to be invested in a church body. Sorry I didn't get to that in my last post.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

 

tiassa,

God is "the" authority of "the Word" of God. There are those who have been called, authorized?, to spread God's Word.

Perhaps in earlier times, "the Word" was not readily available to "the people" to spread. Now it IS more readily available... and God is calling upon more and more people to deliver the divine message of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Make sense?

 

Truestory--

Makes perfect sense. And it's so authoritative. So immaculately definitive.

The entirety of Western history comes down to market availability. It's so neat. And it didn't matter that one philosophy held a heavily armed monopoly on cultural expression. After all, monopolies hadn't been invented yet, as such.

Where were you when I was in college? Should I convert to your religion because it's easier to get a history degree?

So ... now that people are free to spread the Word without any central guidance--that is, free to interpret the Bible as they will--which Word is the Good Word? Or does it really matter? After all, if their message is wrong, they're not really Christians; so for the potential converts, it's a crap shoot.

--Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

 

tiassa,

You forgot...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is a theory in answer to your question, tiassa. And, to tell you the truth, given the extremely sarcastic tone of your reply, I am sorry that I even bothered responding at this point.

So, the logic is not as complicated as you had hoped. All I can tell you is that I was called by God to spread the Word before I even knew what it actually was and I was one of "the people" in that I was not a member of a church. So, my experience went to your question.

It is really not that hard to do (spread the word). It is there in black and white and RED. The words of Jesus Christ have been documented quite adequately and quite consistently for our benefit and the message of salvation is clear.

And, as I stated, God is the "authority" of the Word and God's Word, perfected for us during the life of Jesus Christ, is the central guidance.

Smile, tiassa.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

God loves ya!


[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 30, 1999).]

 

Truestory--

Don't be sorry. It's just that I find it absolutely ridiculous to reduce two-thousand years of history to nothingness that has nothing to contribute to who and what we have become today as individuals and as a collective human race.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

 

tiassa,

That God came to us in the form of Jesus Christ to deomonstrate in the flesh, right relationships through love and to show us the way to eternal salvation is the most important contribution in human history.

Thousands of years might have passed, but God's pure message is still the same.

What we do with that message, who we are and where we are going with respect to God has always been up to us as individuals. This will never change.

 

Truestory--

Such faith. Hell, what's the point of trying? I'd have better success smashing a Sherman tank with my skull.

How many little things that you dismiss are factors in that degree of faith? You know, the paring, bowdlerizing, and revising of the Gospels; the philosophical process of empowerment that bestowed what was formerly church authority onto the individual; in a hundred years our own efforts, if significant, will be regarded with the same uncertainty. Imagine, all of your philosophy dismissed out of hand by future Christian minds because your insight is worthless. Now, maybe that won't bother you; perhaps you have no interest in the well-being and guidance of future or present Christians.

Which means that, as of tomorrow, what you thought today is either wrong or extraneous to the immediacy of your faith.

Christian, Buddhist ... anything, really ... it doesn't matter what label you slap over the method. It just seems really bizarre, and quite limiting to slap such a vague template over history simply because it's easier to reconcile that product with your own faith.

--Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

 

tiassa,

NOW you're talking! You might kill yourself in THAT futile process and you might even mar the metal of the tank with your blood, guts, hair and brain matter but, no matter how hard you try, you can't mar God's incontrovertible message of salvation through Jesus Christ!

The Prayer of Jesus:

"Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your son, so that your son may glorify you, just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave him. Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. I glorified you on earth by accomplishing the work that you gave me to do. Now glorify me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.

I revealed your name to those whom you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything you gave me is from you, because the words you gave to me I have given to them, and they accepted them and truly understood that I came from you."

Praise God!!!

 

Truestory:

Who ever said I was trying to mar "God's incontrovertable message ...."?

If we go way back in our discussions to where we debated how people interpreted God, then yes, I can agree that God has an incontrovertable message.

However, we can't even discuss that incontrovertable message because of your insistence that all ideas right and proper must have Jesus' signature on them. I understand that you accept this myth as fact. That's all well and fine. The tragedy comes when you refuse to explore the subtle grace of that myth, and stumble forward swinging the crude edge of blind faith.

If we adopt your kind of simplicity amid these notions, they do all conveniently fall away ... and, not having been explored, we run a better-than-average chance of following the same savage processes as we always have, and the whole time we'll think we're doing great.

Out of sight, out of mind. Got a problem you can't figure out? Dismiss it, because its conditions aren't relevant to God.

It's not my place to feel any sense of loss for the limitations you've accepted in exchange for a promise. But just once I'd love to hear you answer a question standing in the open, away from your shield of convenient, interpretive faith. The ideas you seem to be stagnating among have value, but only taken in terms of their historical development and their future potential. But neither of those ideas are important because, as you've so succinctly noted, the past is irrelevant, and God will provide for the future.

Recycling ammo is okay ... it's not the ammo's fault when you miss. Aim better.

Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

 

tiassa,

As you know, I was the one who said:

Please, let me rephrase that.... You cannot obliterate or exterminate God's incontrovertible message of salvation through Jesus Christ by calling it a belief or a philosophy... or based on a misperception that it exists only if you acknowledge that God exists.

Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, lived a simple life. His message, although powerful, was also pure and simple. It will withstand the test of time for all eternity. It need not be analyzed, sliced and diced into an unrecognizable state through schisms or the violent history of mankind. If we do NOT focus on and understand the simplicity of God's message concerning salvation, then, as we have previously discussed and as history has shown, mankind has a tendency to fall away from grace.

If you want to explore true grace, tiassa, then truly allow Jesus Christ to enter into your life.

Peace be with you!

 

Truestory ....

Hmmm ... I could say that if I want grace I'll take up ballet.

Or I could just say "Faith, faith, faith, and faith." All apologies for all assumptions, eh?

Or I could ask that, for once, you take some time and display an aspect of your faith that isn't utterly predictable.

It's just that every one of these exchanges we're going through is centered around one thing: You cannot imagine a God not named "Jesus". Or you refuse to. Every attempt to reconcile Christianity with the conventional logic humans apply to more definitive and tangible aspects of your life requires its own unique leap of faith. And I'm really sorry that some of us can't follow you down that road of perilous assumption. Your church of Jesus Christ leaves out many miracles. Wouldn't it be nicer to account for their value in the world instead of just writing them off because it doesn't have Jesus Christ's John Hancock?

--Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited December 30, 1999).]

 

tiassa,

Yes, Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, left His great signature on the world. Call Him what you will... Jesus Christ by any other name is still Jesus Christ... The pure, holy, loving, wise, patient and peaceful Saviour.

Praise Jesus!!!