Do you believe there is one true church?

[Carol_Coombe]

I have posited several times that Christ knew - because he was omnipotent and omniscient - that his Church would bifurcate. But he did not intervene, or make alternative arrangements for the future.

Why? If he knew, and assumed that only the Catholic Church would represent Christendom, would he not have made provision for this as he must have forseen the schism and all the rest? Why did he not? This puzzles me.

Nice thoughtful jingle:

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

Jabulani!

 

[Contarini]

I have posited several times that Christ knew - because he was omnipotent and omniscient - that his Church would bifurcate. But he did not intervene, or make alternative arrangements for the future.

Why? If he knew, and assumed that only the Catholic Church would represent Christendom, would he not have made provision for this as he must have forseen the schism and all the rest? Why did he not? This puzzles me.

You keep saying this, and I have tried to address it before, but I remain confused as to what you are arguing. I have pointed out that God foresaw all sorts of evils and this does not make them his will. You seemed to agree. So I simply don’t get your point. As you said, God clearly chooses not to intervene to prevent everything that is contrary to His will. But surely it is our business to find out what His will is, and to be instruments to bring that about. Scripture and Christian Tradition are both crystal clear that the unity of Christians is His will. Perhaps God is calling us to be His instruments to overcome the evil of schism, just as He has called you (for instance) to fight the evil of AIDS (which God also foresaw).

How is what you are saying any different from saying that since God foresaw AIDS therefore you are being presumptuous in trying to cure it? Wouldn’t that be just as logical?

Edwin

 

[Carol_Coombe]

…2

These authors have informed my understandings, and my perception of the universal church. The quotations seem apt for discussion of Catholicism, a universal church of Christendom, and the relationship between Christianity and the faiths of others.

Armstrong, Karen (2001). *Islam: A short history. *London: Phoenix Press. Author of History of God, History of Jerusalem, The Battle for God, Buddha.

The history of a religious tradition often seems divorced from the raison d’etre of faith….Power struggles are not what religion is really about, but an unworthy distraction from the life of the spirit, which is conducted far away from the madding crowd, unseen, silent and unobtrusive.

Bhave, Vinoba (1960). Talks on the Bhagavad Gita. London: George Allen and Unwin. *

We have learned how to recognise the Supreme who pervades the countless objects of the Universe…How to see God first in the gross then in the subtle, first in the simple then in the complex, and thus to see Him in all things; how to realise Him; how through practice day and night, to come to feel that the whole world is oneself.

• Borg, Marcus (2004). *The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a life of faith. *San Francisco: Harper Collins. *

*What is the heart of Christianity? What does it mean to be Christian today? [Borg] describes two answers to this question. The first is an earlier vision of Christianity; the second, an emerging vision. Both are present in the churches of *

North America today, deeply dividing Christians. * Carlton, Eric (1973). Patterns of Belief: Religions in Society. London: George Allen and Unwin. *

Whatever the ‘truth’ of religion may be in some objective sense, it is an inescapable social

• fact, and however difficult or impossible it may be to examine the truth of religion, its role as an influence on society can be studied historically, comparatively, and scientifically. *Chadwick, O (1964). *The Reformation. *London: Penguin. *

**Towards the end of the Middle Ages, as the Popes became less able to hold Christendom together, cries for reform sounded throughout northern **

Europe. To reform the exactions of churchmen, to reform errors of doctrine, and to reform the morals of society – these three became the confused aims of what are loosely called the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. *Chih I, Patriarch (1992). *Pure Land Buddhism: Dialogues with Ancient Masters. *Sutra Translation Committee of the United States and Canada. *

**The kernel of teachings can be expressed in two major concepts: purity of Mind **

**and practice. [Buddha taught]: ‘Do not what is evil. Do what is good. Keep your Mind pure’. *Dalai Lama (2002). *The Good Heart: The heart of Christianity and humanity. *London: Rider

…*explores the Gospels with the Dalai Lama and participants of a 1994 John Main Seminar… Fr Laurence Freeman…offers a Christian interpretation of the Gospel passages. *

 

[Carol_Coombe]

…3

De Chardin, T (1959). The Future of Man.New York: Harper and Row. *Pre-eminent Catholic philosopher.

The proof that the growing co-extension of our soul and the world, through the consciousness of our relationship with all things, is not simply a matter of logic or idealisation, but is part of an organic process, the natural outcome of the impulse that caused the termination of life - the proof is that it expresses itself in a specific evolution of the moral value of our actions

• (that is to say, by the modification of what is most living within us).Huizinga, J (1924).* The Waning of the Middle Ages.* New York: Penguin Books.*

Towards the end of the Middle Ages, two factors dominate religious life: the extreme saturation of the religious atmosphere, and a marked tendency of thought to embody itself in images. Individual and social life, in all their manifestations are imbued with the conceptions of faith…All thinking tends to religious interpretation of individual things…This however results in a dangerous state of tension…when all that is meant to stimulate spiritual consciousness is reduced to appalling commonplace profanity, to a startling worldliness in other-worldly guise.

Johnson, Paul (1993). A History of the Jews.* London: George Weidenfeld and Nicolson*.

…the magnitude of the debt Christianity owes to Judaism. It was not that the New Testament replaced the Old; rather, that Christianity gave a fresh interpretation to an ancient form of monotheism, gradually evolving into a different religion but carrying with it much of the moral and dogmatic theology, the liturgy, the institutions and the fundamental concepts of its forebear.

• Lewis, Bernard (1995). *The Middle East: A brief history of the last 2000 years. *Emeritus Professor, PrincetonUniversity. New York: Touchstone Books. *

In commencing my history at the beginning of the Christian era, I seek two purposes: to rescue the empires of Persia and Byzantium from the modest place assigned them; …and to establish some link between the Middle East we know today, and the ancient civilisations of the region we know from ancient texts.

*Merton, Thomas (1975). The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton. New York: New Directions Books. Eminent Catholic theologian and author. *

Those who know Merton know that his openness to man’s spiritual horizons came from a rootedness of faith; and inner security led him to explore, experience and interpret the affinities and differences between religions in the light of his own religion….Merton sought fullness of man’s inheritance; this inclusive view made it impossible for him to deny any authentic scripture or any man of faith [whether Hindu, Buddhism, Zen, Sufi mysticism].

*Nolan, Albert (2006). Jesus Today: A spirituality of radical freedom. New York: Orbis Books. Former Vicar General, Dominicans, South Africa) *

*Some people have a particularly strong attachment to their *

*ideas. One gets the impression that such people have identified themselves so completely with their ideas that they think if they were to change them, they would lose their identity and just die. Truly free persons are open-minded. Their only commitment is to the truth, whatever that may turn out to be

 

[Carol_Coombe]

…4
Nouwen, Henri (1990). *A Spiritual Journey: The Road to Daybreak. *Catholic philosopher, Harvard and Princeton, (1932-1996) *

Our generation’s Kierkegaard. By sharing his own struggles, he mentored us all, helping us to pray while not knowing how to pray, to rest while feeling restless, to be at peace while tempted, to feel safe while still anxious, to be surrounded by a cloud of light while still in darkness, and to love while still in doubt. [Rolheiser]

*O’Donohue, J (2004). *Anam Cara: A book of Celtic Wisdom. *New York: Harper Collins. *

The human journey is a continuous act of transfiguration. If approached in friendship, the unknown, the anonymous, the negative, and the threatening gradually yield their secret affinity with us.

*Rees, Martin (1997). *Before the Beginning: Our universe and others. *(Astronomer Royal). London: Touchstone Books.

A family, even an infinity, of universes could have been created, each starting with a big bang and acquiring a distinctive imprint with its own laws of physics. This multi-universe revolution in cosmological thought casts a piercing light on man’s place in the cosmos

. Rolheiser, Ronald (1999).* The Holy Longing: The search for a Christian spirituality.* London: Doubleday. *Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, ‘whose charisma is to serve the poor’.

Spirituality is often given a bad name because it can mask a damaging sentimentality. The Holy Longing

• is a bracing alternative to religious posturing. Said, E (1979).* Orientalism. Palestinian Arab, Late Chair, Columbia University. New York: Random House.

Unlike the Americans, the French and British have had a long tradition of …Orientalism, a way of coming to terms with the Orient (

Middle East) that is based on the Orient’s special place in European Western experience.
Thick Nhat Hanh (1995). Living Buddha, Living Christ. New York: Riverhead Books.

Thinker and scholar, considered to be a ‘Living Buddha’ explores the spiritual crossroads where the traditions of Christianity and Buddhism meet, and the connection between them.

**
*In anticipation of the discomfort of others about the length of my posting, I offer my apologies, and point out that as I failed to make references in my previous postings, this is just the space that would have been taken up by them. I also saved space by **not *posting the entire text of the Other Poster’s contribution.
**
Jabulani!

 

[Carol_Coombe]

You keep saying this, and I have tried to address it before, but I remain confused as to what you are arguing. I have pointed out that God foresaw all sorts of evils and this does not make them his will. You seemed to agree.

So I simply don’t get your point. As you said, God clearly chooses not to intervene to prevent everything that is contrary to His will. But surely it is our business to find out what His will is, and to be instruments to bring that about. Scripture and Christian Tradition are both crystal clear that the unity of Christians is His will. Perhaps God is calling us to be His instruments to overcome the evil of schism, just as He has called you (for instance) to fight the evil of AIDS (which God also foresaw).

Thanks Edwin, I agree with you. God does not intervene in the workings of the world as a material entity (at least that is my point of view, and of others (Rees). He does however, intervene randomly and occasionally (forget about miracles for now, which only happen in religious situations I think), and it *is *our responsibility as human beings to respond to our understanding of His will. I have said this several times before: he gave us brains (perhaps not evolved enough right now) to perceive and work to alleviate the social ills, infamous oppression, governmental corruption and greed, HIV/AIDS and terminal TB, etc etc., that we have one way or another brought on ourselves. That is our job. We are called to do that job on behalf of God, who expects us to sort ourselves out.

So for members of the Catholic Church, their perception is that it is imperative to bring all Christians back under the wing of the Church. Other Christians resist and believe that it is their duty, according to God’s commandments, to search more freely outside the conservative scriptural paradigm of the Catholic Church, for ways of attacking global ills like environmental abuse and global warming, HIV/AIDS and terminal TB.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Yes, God’s will is generally carried out by his servants here on earth eg us!!!
So we must try and find out what material tasks we have to perform for him - which is why it has been said “work is prayer”, which is a saying I love. I despair that people think that containing the spread of a deadly virus can somehow be against God’s will.

 

[guanophore]

What exactly does this mean if not acceptance of each individuals beliefs regarding the issues mentioned?

Further I reject your implication that if someone believes in something, then it’s OK with God. It may not be OK with anyone, not just God. And yes, it is possible to reject the doctrines of the RCC, and still be saved, still be beloved of God, still be one of His divine children. It is possible to be a moral non-Christian and be saved.

Above you state that everyone has the right to their own beliefs in accordance with their needs. Whether you realize it or not the implication is that if everyone is so entitled then God will accept whatever they do. I totally disagree with this, we are on earth to know, to love and to serve God.
Iowa Mike

I think you are getting a little ahead of God here, Iowa. God created man with free will. He created man to have fellowship with Himself, but He created man with free will, so that he could freely choose that fellowship. Of course everyone has the right to their own beliefs in accordance with their needs! That does not have to imply that God approves of their choice, but He will accept it, if they choose it. Otherwise, we don’t have free will! God has created us with that ability to choose a way other than the one He wishes for us. “Behold, I set before you today life and death. Choose Life!” He wants us to choose Himself, but He will accept either choice. He has prepared a place for those that choose life, and a place for those that choose not to have fellowship with Him.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, God’s will is generally carried out by his servants here on earth eg us!!!
So we must try and find out what material tasks we have to perform for him - which is why it has been said “work is prayer”, which is a saying I love. I despair that people think that containing the spread of a deadly virus can somehow be against God’s will.

We will not succeed in doing God’s will if we disobey His commandments in one area, while trying to solve problems in another area.

It will be completely beyond our abilities to do anything at all, if we don’t even have any idea what God has commanded, or what it is we are supposed to be trying to do, which is why we need God’s Church to let us know (through the Magesterium) what God has revealed to us in public revelation - Holy Tradition and the Scriptures.

The difference between Noah (builder of the Ark) and Thomas Andrews (builder of the Titanic) was not that one was an amateur and one was a professional - the difference was that one was listening to God (“And thus did Noah, all that the Lord had commanded him to do,” Genesis 6:22) and the other was defying Him (“Not even God can sink this ship,” Belfast, 1911).

The point being, it is impossible to be both under and above God - we can’t cure diseases in obedience to God’s command, if at the same time, we think we have a better idea of how the human body works than God does, and defy His commandments in the areas of sexuality and reproduction on the basis that we are “more enlightened” than He is.

 

[jmcrae]

I think you are getting a little ahead of God here, Iowa. God created man with free will. He created man to have fellowship with Himself, but He created man with free will, so that he could freely choose that fellowship. Of course everyone has the right to their own beliefs in accordance with their needs! That does not have to imply that God approves of their choice, but He will accept it, if they choose it. Otherwise, we don’t have free will! God has created us with that ability to choose a way other than the one He wishes for us. “Behold, I set before you today life and death. Choose Life!” He wants us to choose Himself, but He will accept either choice. He has prepared a place for those that choose life, and a place for those that choose not to have fellowship with Him.

Good point. In our RCIA group last night, it came up that God does not send anyone to Hell. People choose freely to go there, by choosing to reject Him, and by choosing to disobey His commandments.

 

[jack_hawkins]

we think we have a better idea of how the human body works than God does

no the problem comes when religious zealots think that Biblical knowledge substitutes for scientific and biomedical knowledge
I don’t claim to know more about medicine than God, just you and your like
if the builder of the Titanic had been a Catholic/Zen Buddhist/whatever, it would have made no difference to whether or not the Titanic sank
your views show exactly why religion and science don’t mix, and I find them very scary - it’s like the Dark Ages have returned to be honest
Gallileo will be turning in his grave don’t you think?

 

[guanophore]

no the problem comes when religious zealots think that Biblical knowledge substitutes for scientific and biomedical knowledge
I don’t claim to know more about medicine than God, just you and your like
if the builder of the Titanic had been a Catholic/Zen Buddhist/whatever, it would have made no difference to whether or not the Titanic sank
your views show exactly why religion and science don’t mix, and I find them very scary - it’s like the Dark Ages have returned to be honest
Gallileo will be turning in his grave don’t you think?

Gosh, jack! I thought you came into the Church at Easter? Did you just join for reasons of convenience? Or did I misunderstand your intentions to partake of the sacraments of initiation? It is interesting that Catholics here are “you and your like”, as if we are not your brethren! I am curious why you say that the builders attitude had no bearing on whether the Titanic sank, but that does not belong on this thread. What might belong better on another thread is also your assertion that “religion and science don’t mix.” It is very dangerous for religion and science to fail to inform one another.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Gosh, jack! I thought you came into the Church at Easter? Did you just join for reasons of convenience? Or did I misunderstand your intentions to partake of the sacraments of initiation? It is interesting that Catholics here are “you and your like”, as if we are not your brethren! I am curious why you say that the builders attitude had no bearing on whether the Titanic sank, but that does not belong on this thread. What might belong better on another thread is also your assertion that “religion and science don’t mix.” It is very dangerous for religion and science to fail to inform one another.

oh dear guanophore, I had heard good things about you too
it would be better if you had checked out what I meant by “you and your like”, and it would be nice if you didn’t accuse me of bad faith

 

[jmcrae]

no the problem comes when religious zealots think that Biblical knowledge substitutes for scientific and biomedical knowledge.

Not only Biblical - the Church has been studying these issues for 2,000 years, all over the world. Do you have any idea how many couples get married in the Church every year? And yet, you think the Church has no experience in this area?

Gallileo will be turning in his grave don’t you think?

Even Galileo knew that sex is for married people, and that it is ordered towards unity and procreation. I’m sure it would never even have occurred to him to suggest to anyone to have a surrogate mother for his child if his wife was unable to conceive, or to wear a condom if she was having “too many” children. (In those days, “too many children” was a bit like “too much money” - children were considered very valuable.) He certainly would not have considered such attitudes to be “scientific” or “enlightened.”

 

[Nevim]

Is there only one true Christian church?

I would like your answer to this question.

In other words: Did Jesus intend for there to be so many different churches? Why / why not??

I think you need to define the word “church”; however know this the word “church” was never uttered by Jesus, it wasn’t a word until the 13th century. So in order to give an answer to your question define what you mean by the word church.

 

[jmcrae]

I think you need to define the word “church”; however know this the word “church” was never uttered by Jesus, it wasn’t a word until the 13th century.

Where do you get that? Jesus speaks of His Church many times, most notably in Matthew 16:18-19.

So in order to give an answer to your question define what you mean by the word church.

We are referring to the organizational entity established by Christ when He ordained the Apostles to its ministry, with Peter as its chief shepherd (John 21:15-19).

 

[Contarini]

I think you need to define the word “church”; however know this the word “church” was never uttered by Jesus, it wasn’t a word until the 13th century.

Well, Jesus didn’t speak English, so sure He didn’t use the word “church.” But your statement about the 13th century is nonsense. Old English (spoken before the Norman Conquest of 1066) had the word “cirice.”

And of course, Latin and Greek and many other languages had words which we normally translate by the word “church.” So I’m not even sure what you are claiming here.

Edwin

 

[Publisher]

Well, Jesus didn’t speak English, so sure He didn’t use the word “church.” But your statement about the 13th century is nonsense. Old English (spoken before the Norman Conquest of 1066) had the word “cirice.”

And of course, Latin and Greek and many other languages had words which we normally translate by the word “church.” So I’m not even sure what you are claiming here.

Edwin

Taking a “shot in the dark” here, but he may be suggesting that Jesus never uttered the word “church” in any language other than if he said “assembly” or “congregation”. The gospels were written decades after his death, the gospels are not “word for word” diaries of his sayings…much tradition is bound up in them. He may be refering to the “authentic” sayings of Jesus never containing the word “church”.

While I realize labels tend to polarize people into camps, I’ll use a label for clarity sake…more…“liberal” scholars would agree with him…Jesus never said the word…“church”…some of the “words” attributed to him are statements of faith from the growing Christian community of the first century “put into the mouth” of Jesus at “interpretation” of what they were coming to believe he meant.

 

[jmcrae]

Taking a “shot in the dark” here, but he may be suggesting that Jesus never uttered the word “church” in any language other than if he said “assembly” or “congregation”. The gospels were written decades after his death, the gospels are not “word for word” diaries of his sayings…much tradition is bound up in them. He may be refering to the “authentic” sayings of Jesus never containing the word “church”.

If the Gospels don’t contain Christ’s authentic sayings, then I have no idea what would. Where do people get the idea that they know more about what Jesus said than the writers of the Gospels?

While I realize labels tend to polarize people into camps, I’ll use a label for clarity sake…more…“liberal” scholars would agree with him…Jesus never said the word…“church”…some of the “words” attributed to him are statements of faith from the growing Christian community of the first century “put into the mouth” of Jesus at “interpretation” of what they were coming to believe he meant.

This reminds me of a joke I read one time about liberal scholars interpreting a “stop” sign.

Apart from sheer speculation, how would anyone actually know what Jesus “really” said, and what later writers “added” (if anything)?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

We will not succeed in doing God’s will if we disobey His commandments in one area, while trying to solve problems in another area.

It will be completely beyond our abilities to do anything at all, if we don’t even have any idea what God has commanded, or what it is we are supposed to be trying to do, which is why we need God’s Church to let us know (through the Magesterium) what God has revealed to us in public revelation - Holy Tradition and the Scriptures.

The difference between Noah (builder of the Ark) and Thomas Andrews (builder of the Titanic) was not that one was an amateur and one was a professional - the difference was that one was listening to God (“And thus did Noah, all that the Lord had commanded him to do,” Genesis 6:22) and the other was defying Him (“Not even God can sink this ship,” Belfast, 1911).

The point being, it is impossible to be both under and above God - we can’t cure diseases in obedience to God’s command, if at the same time, we think we have a better idea of how the human body works than God does, and defy His commandments in the areas of sexuality and reproduction on the basis that we are “more enlightened” than He is.

While I am glad you posted ideas for thinking about the Church yesterday, this posting is not as classy. Did we ever define codswallops?