Posted by jonvon on November 13, 2001 at 23:39:44:
In Reply to: Re: verses- help me find one or more posted by john on November 13, 2001 at 09:49:43:
ok, a little background on me and catholicism: when i was in the 5th grade we converted to catholicism. i went to catechism at the ripe old age of 10, and now that i think about it this had to have been shortly after a real conversion/born again experience at a billy graham crusade. before that we were presbyterian. from 5th through 12th grade i went to catholic school, and continued going to mass for another year, after which i got involved in a very "less institutionalized" bible study, and a prayer meeting that met every monday night. neither of these activities were really associated with any church at all. then i went to a non-denominational church (referred to in recent threads) for about 6 or 7 years, after which i floated a bit and finally landed at refuge. so really ever since a year out of high school i haven't really been back to catholicism other than a brief visit to mass once in a while. so i had a pretty heady dose of the catholic thing for a good long time, about nine years worth.
: Well I understand you were just running with a thought, so no need to belabor the point, but I was refering to the fact that in the non-institutionalized, or at least less-institutionalized versions of Christianity there is no solid definition of what qualifies one as married in the eyes of God. Many just use the marriage license, but I touched on that. The Catholic comment was because in that institution the Church itself is God's authority on matters that are unclear otherwise. so to someone who submits to this authority then marriage in the eyes of God is marriage according to church rules.
yeah i think you are right about that, at least from outward apearances. i think i know what you mean anyway. i guess i tend to look at things more in terms of the mystery that is underneath the surface. if two people have gotten married, wherever it is that they have gotten married (catholic, protestant, jewish, hindu, whatever) there is a sacred bond that everyone recognizes. if you walk up to a guy who is from another country and has non-christian religion (or not, it doesn't matter) and he introduces you to his wife i think for most people there is a recognition that there is a sacred bond between those two people. its pretty much universally recognized. so to me, no matter what someone has submitted to or not submitted to, the mystery that is marriage is still there. i guess i just don't really care about the rest of it. for me there isn't anything to speak out against because for me anything added on top of that transcendent mystery is irrelevant. i suppose if someone WERE to take all that really seriously about the church authority as an institution and so forth (and i know a lot of people do) that it might cause them some kind of problem down the line, maybe? when it comes to the catholics, i think the only thing people get bent about is that they have a hard time getting divorced.
for me the stuff outside of the mystery just doesn't exist very much. i'm really not sure why that is, its just the way i'm wired.
: We as "protestants", or whatever, suffice to say "non-catholics", as a rule don't abide by Papal decrees. So without debating the merits of rome and church authority, the fact is we don't have that standard and are forced to look elsewhere.
: Now to expand slightly on some of your ideas. (Caveat: I do not find special exception with the Catholic church. and honestly think they do very well as far as instituions of Chrisitanity go. And I think Carol Wotia (sp) is very cool.)
Karol Joseph Wojtyla
: I think that one of the main problems with institutions of religion, apart from the possibility of abuses which you mentioned, is that there is a tendency in human nature to say, "I don't want to think, just tell me what to do." Thus when an institution, either intentionally or by way of explaining things to form concensus, lays out something that becomes "doctrine" people check their brains and eventually they end up buying indulgences. In other words they quit trying to work on relationships and just follow the rules.
: "If I go to mass and confess regularly I'm going to heaven." "If I go to church every Sunday and do my devotions every morning, I'm right with God" "If I boycott all aspects of the evil empire in our government, I'm bringing in the Kingdom of God." You get the idea.
yeah this is a really good point, this is also true of a lot of other institutions like governments or big corporations or whatever. its just human nature. institutions aren't quite as "biologically flexible" as the organisms that live inside them, they are a bit more brittle and tend to come apart eventually as life and ideas and zeitgeist finally slip past them. the church isn't any exception, it has to adapt or die. for me the weaknesses inherent in institutions don't necessarily mean that all institutions are no good. from a public service standpoint if from no other (which you mention below), big institutions seem to be able to serve a lot of people in ways that are sometimes vital to survival. on the other hand i tend to think that as soon as a real live idea becomes a movement (which eventually becomes an institution) it is already mostly lost to the majority of people involved. at the end of the day everyone has to look inside themselves for truth. i guess your argument seems to center around accepting or not accepting the authority of an institution... again for me this whole authority thing just doesn't exist much. i think i tend to think more about the truth that sparked the revolution in thought that gave birth to the movement that solidified into the institution. i don't really care about what claims the institution or denomination or whatever makes. these claims to "ultimate authority" like papal infallibility or what have you just don't really add up to anything that makes a difference in my life at all. you know? i don't sit at home worrying about it, it just doesn't affect me.
: We both know that it's a relationship, not a system of rules. Doctrine is a human creation. This brings me back to my original comment about God knowing what he was doing and the heart being hard to fool. It is the burden of freedom that we can't skip out on our responsiblity. This is the sum total of Existentialism, really. We have to evaluate and make choices and, right or wrong, we have to live with the consequences. The reason this is not hopelessly bleak is that we add in the dimension of a loving God who is there to help us and restore us. So for me, no institution will suffice, despite all the good they do, they are fundamentally flawed.
if you are saying here that an institution won't suffice because you have to make your own choices about things, moral choices or whatever... hm i don't really know if i'm following you here. wait, maybe you are saying that (i'll use the catholic church as an example):
1. the church takes a stance on some issue like marriage for instance
2. you make decisions based on the church's stance, like not getting divorced or something
...however for YOU this is bunk because you feel that your existential responsibility is to determine your own path. am i off here?
: To me the body of Christ is all of his followers including their denominations and their flawed theology. But I completely disagree that any human institution, or human for that matter, no matter how big or old or how well they can justify their authority as coming from God, has such authority to tell me what God says.
hm. i think i agree with you here, at least to some degree. i've always thought it was a little silly for anyone to claim some kind of "direct link" with the apostle peter via the laying on of hands through all the popes. historically the catholics might be totally right about that, and who knows maybe there is something to it beyond just a historical link. BUT i think that truth is eternal, transcendent and beyond the grasp of anyone to control. i am always listening for that "tremor in the force" whenever i hear anything at all, whether it is coming from a priest or a pastor or a medicine man or a professor or my wife or some guy typing madly on the message board. i don't tend to pay attention much to the "corporate voice" of any institution or company or government because people in those institutions are often just trying to cover their asses and protect corporate assets. there isn't much to learn from such pronouncements. but the priest saying mass on sunday doesn't have quite that same corporate axe to grind (hopefully) so there is a good chance that i will hear something that might change my life in some profound way. its the glimmers shining in the corners that matter. i guess what i am saying is that the claims, true or untrue, of some central governing body just really don't matter when it comes down to the practice of my faith, whether i am practising it in a big church with stained glass in the windows or in a smoke filled room with people arguing and drinking coffee and mountain dew and everyone with a bible open (i've been in both of those rooms and they were both wonderful).
: so I guess my point was that while institutions may serve a purpose to people, it is the people who are important and God who has the authority.
yeah, i think that is what i am getting to as well.
: I guess the postulation that gave rise to this whole Refuge/ Crossover phenomenon is still very active in my heart. Steve told me once that it started with the idea: If there really was a God trying to reach out to each and every one of us personally, what would that church look like? Where God talks to the hearts and minds of the people and they respond to his leading.
THIS is what i am talking about, exactly. i think that this can happen via the sacraments (or whatever you want to call them) where people working in and on behalf of huge institutions like the catholic church are touching peoples lives. it can happen anywhere at all.
: It redefines our boundaries because someone who is called by God to join the priesthood could be just as right as someone who is called to leave the Institutional church. Wow!
i couldn't agree more. i've been both of those guys, sort of. i have NO idea who i am right now. :-)