dogma

[anon5216]

Thanks for the clarification.
It might help if you sort of mentioned this in your profile, maybe under “interests” since you are not a part of any specific “organization”. Of course you con’t have to but It just helps others to know where you are coming from.
I took the journey you seem to be on. Actually I never rejected the Bible outright, nor accepted any other text as being perfect. Rather I took the road of trying to determine what was both true and cammon to the various great Religions. What I found is that they all seem to revolve around, as Jesus said, the two Great Commandments. Love of God and Love of fellow man. They also all share some similar practices and techniques, by which I mean that they place high regard on prayer, and contemplation. A seeking after a better and truer relationship with God and with the world. So I found that I didn’t need to toss aside one for another. Instead I found a measure by which to judge the great faith systems and better understand the truly core ideals seen in each. Ultimately I came back to The Church because I see the Truest and Highest ideals expressed through Christ, plus the fulfillment of the Resurection is something I could not deny or ignore.
Please excuse me for rambling and getting off the Topic.

As to the Bible books, I understand your position on the OT, particularly as regards the “History” of the Genesis stories. Newer books, occurring and written after the establishment in the Promised Land would seem more trustworthy. While I do understand your take on the NT books, I give them fair wieght - spiritually - because they were written relaively soon after the events and during the lives of “eyewitnesses”. I don’t say that they are not “stylized”, but, for what they contain, they are remarkably consistant and of very high ideal.

In actual fact, the reasons you state for not accepting the Bible as “inerrant” is precisely why I see Our Lord Founding a Church upon Spirit and not on written word. It is why he entrusted the “Structure” of His Church to “Men” rather than to “text”. He knew that words and books would have to be translated, that literary styles would change from culture to culture and from generation to generation.
He also knew that we would all have different capacities for the inflowing and understanding of the Holy Spirit and thus we would need help in discernment of teaching. Questions have arisen in every generation that needed clarification. It is The Church, and not the Book that have provided the necessary clarity.

Enough rambling. May God guide you on your journey

Pece
James

Thanks for your suggestion - I updated my profile accordingly.

Regarding your reference to Jesus founding a church upon spirit and not on written word:

I would add:
And not on fallible humans that could take the errant liberty to define fallible dogmas, thus confusing and misleading the rank and file.
Once a word is spoken, it obviously can be written - and is subject to misinterpretation.

My take on the continuity of spiritual truth is that throughout time and throughout the world, individuals such as Padre Pio, Ramana Maharshi, etc., realize some measure of the total truth and live it. Rather than seeing these people as proof that the religious structure they may have participated in was true, I see these individuals themselves as maintaining truth. Their ‘teaching’ is not really for their admirers to cling to their verbal and/or written words, but to do as they did and realize truth directly.

In this manner,
- Truth can never be distorted by unqualified hierarchical leaders
- It can’t be held hostage by a specific group
- It can’t decay into a symbolic shell of Itself, becoming nothing more than an intellectual idol
- It can’t be mistaken for the external cultural colorations of the individuals It expresses through
- It can’t be sold (literally or figuratively) as a commodity by a class of professional ‘holders of the truth’

No human structure of any organized religion can deliver the above - in spite of many claiming to.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for your suggestion - I updated my profile accordingly.

Your welcome.
It’s obvious that you have put some thought into your positions and I appreciate our conversations.

Regarding your reference to Jesus founding a church upon spirit and not on written word:

I would add:
And not on fallible humans that could take the errant liberty to define fallible dogmas, thus confusing and misleading the rank and file.
Once a word is spoken, it obviously can be written - and is subject to misinterpretation.

This is correct in the sense that Jesus Promised that The Spirit would guide the Church. However, Jesus did define His physical Church in several places in the Bible. In Matthew 16:18-19 he clearly founds the Chuch upon “a fallible man” named Peter and upon Peter’s faith and gives that church authority to bind and loose.(Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18) Then in Matthew 18:15-18 he tells the errant faithful to "Tell it to The Church. Later, in Matthew 28:18-20 He tells the disciples to spread the word and that He would be with them always. He also admonishes the disciples to be careful in their teaching for if they lead others astray they themselves are liable for judgement.(Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:14, Luke 17:2,)

This is why it is necessary to look, not at the various sins of the people that make up the Church, but rather at the teachings of the Church.

My take on the continuity of spiritual truth is that throughout time and throughout the world, individuals such as Padre Pio, Ramana Maharshi, etc., realize some measure of the total truth and live it. Rather than seeing these people as proof that the religious structure they may have participated in was true, I see these individuals themselves as maintaining truth. Their ‘teaching’ is not really for their admirers to cling to their verbal and/or written words, but to do as they did and realize truth directly.

While I agree that there have been many highly enlightened individuals both Christian and non-Christian, I do not agree that we can seperate their individual spirituality from the “religious structure they may have participated in”, for this shapes much of their early spirituality.
I would also agree that we need to recognize, particularly in Jesus, not just what He said, but what He did and How He lived. With His entire Humanity turned toward God.
Now all of this being said, there is much good that has come out of the “Structure”. First of all is the continuity of teaching. Second is the very rich liturgies and Sacraments. Third is the trememdous volume of writings by the Saints. All of these things are of great importance and benefit to those who are called to “lesser degrees” of “enlightenment”.
I do agree that many people can become either complacent with “just following the requirements” or too confused by all the “rules”, but would the majority of God’s Children be better off with no structure at all?

In this manner,

• Truth can never be distorted by unqualified hierarchical leaders
• It can’t be held hostage by a specific group
• It can’t decay into a symbolic shell of Itself, becoming nothing more than an intellectual idol
• It can’t be mistaken for the external cultural colorations of the individuals It expresses through
• It can’t be sold (literally or figuratively) as a commodity by a class of professional ‘holders of the truth’
  No human structure of any organized religion can deliver the above - in spite of many claiming to.

So then it would appear that you reject the Gospel passage where Jesus promised that He would send the Spirit to Guide The Apostles and the Church into “All Truth”. That Jesus, after founding His Church upon Spirit did not Protect it with the Spirit as He promised.
Understand that I do not entirely disagree with what you say above, and it is very well expressed, but if Jesus promised and delivered a Spirit Guided Church, then much of what you say above cannot happen to that Church. However, that does not mean that individuals inside and outside of the Church can’t make the mistake of thinking this. Thus the difference between infallible (magisterial) teaching and fallible (individual) human understanding.

Sorry to get so carried away and off topic of the OP, but felt the need to make comment.

Peace
James

 

[anon5216]

James,
Thank you for your conversation as well.
I greatly appreciate the fact that you can discuss some of the controversial positions of mine both without compromising your own views and without being emotionally defensive or aggressive.

…
Later, in Matthew 28:18-20 He tells the disciples to spread the word and that He would be with them always. He also admonishes the disciples to be careful in their teaching for if they lead others astray they themselves are liable for judgement.(Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:14, Luke 17:2,)
…

I have to say this does sound like a non-guarantee of infallibility of the disciples, and by extension a non-guarantee of infallible dogmas coming from their hierarchical successors.

Quote:

While I agree that there have been many highly enlightened individuals both Christian and non-Christian, I do not agree that we can seperate their individual spirituality from the “religious structure they may have participated in”, for this shapes much of their early spirituality.
I would also agree that we need to recognize, particularly in Jesus, not just what He said, but what He did and How He lived. With His entire Humanity turned toward God.
Now all of this being said, there is much good that has come out of the “Structure”. First of all is the continuity of teaching. Second is the very rich liturgies and Sacraments. Third is the trememdous volume of writings by the Saints. All of these things are of great importance and benefit to those who are called to “lesser degrees” of “enlightenment”.
I do agree that many people can become either complacent with “just following the requirements” or too confused by all the “rules”, but would the majority of God’s Children be better off with no structure at all?

I agree with you that some structure is good for the majority, especially in the beginning stages of the spiritual life. The problem is in making kindergarden and elementary school spiritual structures defined as absolute infallible Truth.

Ramakrishna had a relevant story something along the lines that “a young tree needs to have a fence around it to protect it from being knocked down, but when fully grown there need be no fence and an elephant could scratch itself against the tree without harming it”.

Quote"

So then it would appear that you reject the Gospel passage where Jesus promised that He would send the Spirit to Guide The Apostles and the Church into “All Truth”. That Jesus, after founding His Church upon Spirit did not Protect it with the Spirit as He promised.
Understand that I do not entirely disagree with what you say above, and it is very well expressed, but if Jesus promised and delivered a Spirit Guided Church, then much of what you say above cannot happen to that Church. However, that does not mean that individuals inside and outside of the Church can’t make the mistake of thinking this. Thus the difference between infallible (magisterial) teaching and fallible (individual) human understanding.

Sorry to get so carried away and off topic of the OP, but felt the need to make comment.

Peace
James

I do believe that when Jesus promised guidance from the Spirit, that he wasn’t making any guarantees that the Apostles and their successors would execute that guidance either flawlessly, inerrantly or infallibly. It is still up to the individual’s free will and their level of spiritual development to perceive that guidance and then act on it appropriately.

To tie back into the OP, I believe the family referred to has very similar concerns as I’ve expressed, but perhaps not expressed exactly as I have.

 

[JRKH]

James,
Thank you for your conversation as well.
I greatly appreciate the fact that you can discuss some of the controversial positions of mine both without compromising your own views and without being emotionally defensive or aggressive.

The more we understand each other the better we will be spiritually. God will lead us both where he needs us in his own time.

Originally Posted by JRKH
…
Later, in Matthew 28:18-20 He tells the disciples to spread the word and that He would be with them always. He also admonishes the disciples to be careful in their teaching for if they lead others astray they themselves are liable for judgement.(Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:14, Luke 17:2,)

I have to say this does sound like a non-guarantee of infallibility of the disciples, and by extension a non-guarantee of infallible dogmas coming from their hierarchical successors.

In this case I would agree. This instance was a teaching and admonishment to the Disciples in general. However in the other two passages Jesus Clearly gives Authority, first to Peter and Later to all the Apostles to “Bind and Loose”, and He promises to remain with the Apostles, and The Church - His Church - Forever. So the conclusion I draw from this is:

1. If Christ is ever present in His Church and the Holy Spirit came to lead Her into all Truth, then The Church must be infallible in Her teachings.
2. As followers of Christ we have an obligation to submit to His Church because Jesus told the Apostles that Whatever they Bound on Earth would be bound in heaven and whatever they loosed on Earth would be loosed in heaven.
3. Even if someone in the Church taught error, we would be obliged to obey because by submitting to the authority of the Church we submit to the authority of Christ. This is re-enforced in Matthew 23:2-3.
   “all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”.
   He then goes on to say “Do not do as they Do”.
   Now these were the men at the time with the Authority of God under the Old covenent. The faithful were expected to obey them. If they taught wrong they would be punished by God, but those who trusted and obeyed the bad teaching would not be punished by God for their obedience.
   Not unlike the military where you are expected to obey orders without question.

I agree with you that some structure is good for the majority, especially in the beginning stages of the spiritual life. The problem is in making kindergarden and elementary school spiritual structures defined as absolute infallible Truth.

And yet Kindergarden and Elementary School ARE infallible truths. the Fact that there are also High Schools Colleges and Graduate programs does not make the basic stuff any less valid.
In religion and spirituality as in education, there are those with greater gifts and desires than others. Each graduates to the Level he is willing to work for and pay the cost.

Ramakrishna had a relevant story something along the lines that “a young tree needs to have a fence around it to protect it from being knocked down, but when fully grown there need be no fence and an elephant could scratch itself against the tree without harming it”.

Nice story. I quite agree with it. Yet the tree, whether little or big, fenced or not, must remain firmly rooted in good soil. this is what the structure of The Church provides. Good soil upon which to build ones spirituality. Of course if all one looks at is the “Rules” it can seem odious and overwhelming, but if one looks at the tremedous possibilities within those rules “teh sky’s the limit”.
To use another military analogy, would you say that the further one advances in military training do they need more or less discipline?
Does the Discipline need to be applied from outside (DI) or does one internalize the Discipline and become freer for it?

I do believe that when Jesus promised guidance from the Spirit, that he wasn’t making any guarantees that the Apostles and their successors would execute that guidance either flawlessly, inerrantly or infallibly. It is still up to the individual’s free will and their level of spiritual development to perceive that guidance and then act on it appropriately.

Well in John 16:13 Jesus says this:
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

Notice Jesus says the HS will “Guide”, to me that doesn’t sound like the Holy Spirit is going to “Tell the Church something” and then it’s up to them to act as they wish. He will Guide the Church.
That guidance is slow and sometimes difficult. The Church has no “Guru” sitting about and making pronouncements. Questions and issues are considered discussed and prayed over by many people before official statements are made. In addition you’ll note that the Pope’s chosen are highly intelligant, well educated men of great character. These men, with the great and terrible responsibility of correctly teaching a billion souls, do not take their job lightly.

To tie back into the OP, I believe the family referred to has very similar concerns as I’ve expressed, but perhaps not expressed exactly as I have.

They may well have. We’ll have to see what injo has to say when he gets back.

Peace
James