P
PbloPicasso
Guest
This is very rough draft of my thoughts today, as well as infant in it’s sketching.
In my brief existence and study of salvation history I’ve come to an interesting point of observation I’d like to share. The problem is that I can think about it, but the thought patterns are not quite yet ready to be shared. I’m working on nailing down an impasse that reflects the perceptions of a visible hierarchy over time.
First, deep in history, pre-dating Christ, Kings were the norm. This remained true for nearly 1800 years since Christ. Even today, there are non-ruling and ruling crowns. The people of such government structures understood that loyalty to the crown was important, probably even lethal if they rejected it. The cruel and unusual punishment administered upon criminals, both political and real, were very harsh to say the least. They tortured people to get information out of them and to purify them, and sometimes just because they could.
Over time, people like Cromwell, Luther, and particularly Calvin and evangelicals sought to change the tide of control over the people and their freedom to become self-destructive by breaking away from the Church. Crudely put, they tried to drag everyone to hell with them in a hand basket. More precisely put, there seems to be a fading understanding of the crown and loyalty to it. Even Jesus said that he came not to destroy but to fullfill. He also warned the disciples not to act as the teachers of the law do but to do as they teach. There is no telling of a tear down of ideas. God is still royalty, described in such terms and nothing other than rebellious men and women throughout history has challenged it. There have been less impressive arguments pivoting on what would seem like utter non-sense to the average lay person. Fore example, the filioque clause.
It was understood that someone had always had authority. The early church fathers made that perfectly clear. The only people I know of that seemed to off doing their own thing were Gnostic, because they rejected the teachings of Christ as laid down before them. They took truth and twisted it to mean what they felt comfortable with I presume. Ever since the beginning of the Church, many have tried to take control of her. In fact, if memory serves me at one point Arianism was adopted by a majority of the bishops. This was faught throughout history by men, bishops, that had been exiled, excommunicated and reconciled with the Church many times. Political entities in the form of local governments played an enormous part in the cruelty that is perceived to have been implemented by the Church authorities in the dark ages and after. When you compare the way governments work today and the near helplessness religious communities have under their jurisdiction it baffles me how, anti-Christian, particularly anti-Catholics, portray or perceive the Catholic Church with respect to the historical context of those events.
Protestants will have a tremendous time trying to overcome the poverty of knowledge and understanding with respect to historical context. Basically, Catholics and Protestants fail to see salvation history in the context of a Kingship. Christ the King, not our brother, though it is true, He is more importantly our savior and because of his immense sacrifice for us, he is also named King. We have a brother that is King. And even in such families, the King is always bowed to and venerated as special. Now we do not have the proper experiences to fathom God in that context.
Part of this was being discussed on Catholic Answers radio today. It made me wonder.
In my brief existence and study of salvation history I’ve come to an interesting point of observation I’d like to share. The problem is that I can think about it, but the thought patterns are not quite yet ready to be shared. I’m working on nailing down an impasse that reflects the perceptions of a visible hierarchy over time.
First, deep in history, pre-dating Christ, Kings were the norm. This remained true for nearly 1800 years since Christ. Even today, there are non-ruling and ruling crowns. The people of such government structures understood that loyalty to the crown was important, probably even lethal if they rejected it. The cruel and unusual punishment administered upon criminals, both political and real, were very harsh to say the least. They tortured people to get information out of them and to purify them, and sometimes just because they could.
Over time, people like Cromwell, Luther, and particularly Calvin and evangelicals sought to change the tide of control over the people and their freedom to become self-destructive by breaking away from the Church. Crudely put, they tried to drag everyone to hell with them in a hand basket. More precisely put, there seems to be a fading understanding of the crown and loyalty to it. Even Jesus said that he came not to destroy but to fullfill. He also warned the disciples not to act as the teachers of the law do but to do as they teach. There is no telling of a tear down of ideas. God is still royalty, described in such terms and nothing other than rebellious men and women throughout history has challenged it. There have been less impressive arguments pivoting on what would seem like utter non-sense to the average lay person. Fore example, the filioque clause.
It was understood that someone had always had authority. The early church fathers made that perfectly clear. The only people I know of that seemed to off doing their own thing were Gnostic, because they rejected the teachings of Christ as laid down before them. They took truth and twisted it to mean what they felt comfortable with I presume. Ever since the beginning of the Church, many have tried to take control of her. In fact, if memory serves me at one point Arianism was adopted by a majority of the bishops. This was faught throughout history by men, bishops, that had been exiled, excommunicated and reconciled with the Church many times. Political entities in the form of local governments played an enormous part in the cruelty that is perceived to have been implemented by the Church authorities in the dark ages and after. When you compare the way governments work today and the near helplessness religious communities have under their jurisdiction it baffles me how, anti-Christian, particularly anti-Catholics, portray or perceive the Catholic Church with respect to the historical context of those events.
Protestants will have a tremendous time trying to overcome the poverty of knowledge and understanding with respect to historical context. Basically, Catholics and Protestants fail to see salvation history in the context of a Kingship. Christ the King, not our brother, though it is true, He is more importantly our savior and because of his immense sacrifice for us, he is also named King. We have a brother that is King. And even in such families, the King is always bowed to and venerated as special. Now we do not have the proper experiences to fathom God in that context.
Part of this was being discussed on Catholic Answers radio today. It made me wonder.