Mother's day, but not about mothers...
I’ve been thinking about the “One True Church” lately. For a season, during which I wrote quite a bit, I was considering going back to the Roman Catholic Church. Recently, PBS did an extensive report on Mormonism, and NO, I am not for a second considering going that route. Just pointing out here, that the RC is not the only church out there laying claim to the title “One True Church”. Need I even mention Islam?
The protestant branches of Christianity usually don’t make such exclusive claims, yet each seems to think they are more right, more true to Scripture than the other. And whereas, any serious study of Mormon theology reveals some very serious flaws and all other Christian churches, including of course the RC, agree that although Mormons are usually very nice people, they do not believe that Jesus is what Christians generally believe He is, so are not actually Christian, the Roman Catholics do not teach a false Christ, yet most protestant churches seem to feel that the RC is the great harlot, anti-christ, spawn of the devil, or something like that. Did you follow that sentence? St. Paul would be proud. I got a bit wordy there.
I do not reject the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, I much rather listen to the teachings on EWTN (the Catholic Network) than TBN. I find less heresy there, and more intellectual, less emotional instruction. Less tickling of the ears. More in depth study of the Scriptures, Church Fathers, and early church.
I still find the Rosary a little hard to take. But then, it’s not that much different than repeating the same chorus or single line of a song over and over and over again, or speaking in tongues. Ok, so some of you might want to argue that there is a big difference. Go ahead. I’m just saying….
I don’t reject the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, except that I don’t think it should claim to be the only “One True Church”. Yet, in looking for a church in which, or should I say “with which” to worship God, the Father Almighty - YHWH - Three in One, I couldn’t pick one that believed devote Roman Catholics will burn in hell, or that a protestant who decides to become a Roman Catholic has rejected the truth and is lost.
If I am lost, it is not because I decided to go back to the RC or not to go back. If I am saved it is only through the grace, mercy, sacrifice and truth of my LORD Jesus Christ.
I’ve decided I need a sacramental church. Holy Communion is important to me. God expects us to love Him with our hearts, minds, souls, our whole beings. He created us in His image and likeness. And He set forth rites, rituals, celebrations and festivals for us to follow. I don’t think we need to go back to the Old Testament style of worship, but I don’t think we need to reject all those traditions either. Rather then being an audience that gets to sing along at a worship service, a sacramental, liturgical sort of worship service makes us participates, mind - soul -body. That’s one of the reasons going to the Episcopal Church in town was right for me. Except for the liberal, anti-biblical teachings and mandates coming from the higher up. So serious was it, that the Bible honoring priest of the church stepped down. That’s why I was looking toward the RC. At least there, sin is sin, and the leadership is admonished for any liberal, or immoral tendencies. Life is still and absolutely protected. And there is more of “pick up your cross and follow ME” and less of “name it, claim it” being preached. Honestly, I rather say the rosary, meditate on the mysteries of faith and repeat verses from the Bible, than be told that if I were really saved I’d speak in tongues and that all true Christians believe in the pre-trib rapture.
But I have not decided to return to the CHURCH. Right now, I am worshiping with a congregation that split off from the Episcopalian church in town after the priest left. It meets Saturday evenings in a borrowed sanctuary. My Saturdays now consist of spending time with my dear grandchildren, God bless their little souls, eating out, except that isn’t so much fun now that I am on my life with one kidney diet, doing the laundry and going to church. Sundays have truly become a day of rest. Sleep in, watch a TV teaching or two, correct papers (but I only have 8 more days of school), and enjoy spring on the Rez.
Back to the topic, One True Church, nope. I don’t believe there is such a thing. A perfect Church? Surely not. Only one way to salvation? Yep. Jesus is the way. Only one way to Jesus? Probably not. Our creator God is a God of variety, diversity, and fortunately for us, full of patience and mercy. Slow to anger and quick to forgive.
I have this “saying”. A little quote I jokingly attribute to God. “Look what they’ve done to my dog!” You know. When we see all the different sizes and breeds, especially the little silly ones (my apologies to dog lovers everywhere). I think, God made one beautiful dog. And through genetics and selective breeding…just look at what we did to His dog. Maybe Our Father, who dwells in heaven (Hallowed be His Name - YHWH), looks down on all the people who claim the name of His son - who call themselves Christians - and bemoans, “Look what they’ve done to My Church!" LORD have mercy on us all.
10 comments:
I fellowship RC's. I love the church. I deeply respect and admire the Catholic Church. One of my prof's in school shocked the class one day saying that if he were not CoC (which is my heritage (and another of those which traditionally has claimed to be the One True Church)) he would be Catholic. Amazingly enough, his reason was that CoC and RC both hold "The Church" in such high regard. You cannot be Christian outside the church.
I am deeply ecumenical. I see the one true church in many manifestations -including RC, Baptist, Methodist, Episccpl, CoC, and others. Mormons give me cause for pause, but I would never entertain the idea of joining them.
And in all of these groups, not least the one I both come from and currently church with, hold views I find repulsive and cling to various idolatries. And I don't know the idolatries of each, but I know them in my heritage well. I often make a big deal of calling them to account within my heritage. But I still fellowship these groups and insist that others do to.
I find some RC practices and teachings repulsive, and would find more of them repulsive if I studied RC's closer - I am sure. But I find much of the practice and teaching there to be both wonderful and fascinating. I read after some Catholic scholars from time to time too -Luke Timothy Johnson and Raymond Brown and others... And I even found the priest that lives a couple blocks down from me one night at asked for his blessing, which he gave this protestant most generously.
Well, I am rambling, but I basically just want to say, I love the RC church too. Not uncritically, but thoroughly all the same. And I thank God for the church too.
Jesus is Lord!
A couple of semi-random, barely connected thoughts.
Only one way to Jesus? From a Christian perspective, (as I understand it) is absurd. All routes lead to him by the Christian teachings. What he has to say when we get there is quite a different story.
One true Church? It seems if there was such a thing, it would be the church that worshipped the one true God. (If there is such a thing.) If you are correct that Jesus is the one true God, then all of those who worship him are part of the one true Church. Misguided parts, perhaps, but parts none the less. Here is where the infighting boggles my mind. If I am a math student, and I get 9 out of 10 problems wrong in my studies, this does not preclude my status as a math student. I just am not doing so great on the comprehension.
In conjunction with this, an accolyte of any god would be a student of that god and its desires and rules. Getting 9 out of 10 instances wrong wouldn't remove their status as the student. They just aren't doing too great as an accolyte.
I am looking this over and thinking that if I ever screw my head back on, I will flesh this thought process out more for my own purposes, but the point I am getting at is that a true Christian is a student of Jesus Christ. If they are in fact wrong about some or all of his actual precepts, that would be a failure in their quest, but would not remove student status. If one studies Christ's desires, that one is a student, is a Christian. Just a flawed one to a greater or lesser extent than you.
Thus comes the question in regards to this status? Expulsion or tutoring? The former isn't your choice, as your god would be the true teacher, not you. The latter is your option, to the best of your ability and their willingness.
I guess in this regard the True Church concept baffles me. To take it a step further, this whole planetary experiment is your god's church, isn't it? Isn't it just a matter of whether we genuflect while we are in it?
Finally incongruent comment. I recently went to a funeral in a Catholic Church. I was mostly distracted by the moment, but on the rare break from my own emotionally chaotic reactions I must admit that the RC church the service was in was very creepy.
Wanderer, you have my sympathy and my prayers. As usual, even when your head is crooked and your thoughts are disjointed, your comments are interesting and welcome. You and I are basically making the same point, there can not be, on this Earth, one TRUE Church. Truth is not a style or method. Truth is not a concept or idea. Truth is a person, THE person, Jesus Christ. But I'm not sure about the making the grade analogy. Like, if you get a 60% you make it in by the skin of your teeth, but if you only get a 59% you burn in hell. It's more of a pass or fail. And it's more relational. A matter of the heart. Believe - faith, and you get in. Reject the truth and say NO, and you get what you ask for. Ultimately, everyone will come face to face with their Creator. Ultimately, it will be Jesus who decides their eternal fate. And it won't be decided on by what Church they worshiped in. It will be decided upon who and how they loved, and what HE sees in their heart. Maryellen
Our fate is decided upon this; did we receive the salvation of God given by grace through faith in Jesus Christ? Even the pharisees and unregenerate sinners "love" in their own way.
The roman catholic religion is a Jesus plus works religion. It is a semi-pelagian culture.
There is one true church. It is the body of Christ and all who are in Christ are the church. It has always existed since the day of pentecost.
To hell with denominations and sects.
God is not crying over what we've done to his church because we cannot do anything to it.
I was also wondering what doctrines of the roman church you find biblical;
The ones that say Mary was born without sin, or assumed bodily into heaven?
How about the push to make her co-redemptrix?
The one that says Jesus is in the host? Of course only when an ordained priest whose hands are consecrated,standing in the place of Christ, can change the cookie into the real flesh and the wine into the real blood.
The one that says there is a separate clergy?
The one that says Peter was the first pope?
The one that says the pope is infallible when speaking from the throne?
The roman church teaches all authority is in the church, that is, in the church leadership.
One observation,
This blog reflects arminian and holiness teachings on steroids.
Hi Maryellen,
I like to know what you're up to so I come to your blog. Now I know you're almost done with school and also enjoying your grandbabies!!! Wonderful.
Am I suppose to comment on your blog here too? I guess I better.
The other thief on the cross said Remember me.....and Jesus did.
It just all seems so simple to me.
Talk to you soon.
P.S. Email me your diet. I need it!!!lol.
Wander
The class issue is valid. A student does not become a non - student because of grades studies ect. However a student is not a student in a class unless the person desiring to be a student enrolls in the class, students have to stick out the duration of the class and not drop out or they return to a non - student status. With out enrollment and completion the benefits of the instructor can not be received. A person who learns math uninstructed is able to do math, basically. However the nuances of the discipline can only be passed along through one who teaches from a master’s status. Applying this to ’church’ issues enrolling into the Church through Her administrator - Jesus gives you access to the instructor - the Holy Spirit so the true Christian disciplines and advanced concepts can be made evident. That is why god/ goddess generic or off brands can be something like the real thing but not quite… enrollment takes place in the Fall and after the Garden we are always in the Fall.
Pastor Art
Anti-Pope: With a tag like that, I am shocked that you take issue with the RC. :) Decent enough points you make, in regards to definition of your issues with said church. I would point out that you are pushing some issues beyond the actual stance of the church (artistic license I presume) or are simply slightly off on the complication said church implies.
The body and blood don't become true flesh and blood by the priest waving a magic wand. The trans-substantiation, mythical or real happens in corporation with the one who partakes in the practice. (Spiritually necessary issue, since the alternative requires an anti-biblical perspective that one can, in theory, recreate their god out of spare parts and hand it out. Practically necessary because it eliminates scientific testability.)
Mary is never claimed to be co-redemptrix. I think in this you might be thinking more of my religion. Of course there is no "co" there either. Logically speaking, mother and child share blood streams. An infection in the mother therefore goes to the child. Deformities in the child can occasionally inflict the mother. Following these lines, wouldn't deity in a child affect the mother? Making her a god? No. Making her blessed above all others? Reasonable. Giving her the best understanding of communal relation between god and man? Undoubtedly. You carry a deity, become infected by it, and spend some thirty years with it (much longer than any of the disciples, let alone the other that all of these churches worship) you are bound to have the best perspective at bridging the gap between the two for the best effect. "Please talk to him for me" seems a reasonable process, one that doesn't require a belief in a godly power to sway his decision.
Finally, as Chumbawumba lyrically asks, whatever happened to Mary anyway?
MaryEllen - They would be valid points with your 60% vs 59% if I included them in my example. Reality? You can study a subject for many years despite how many times you fail. Choose or don't was my point. That and the fact that you don't get to give the failing marks. Only your teacher, your god, does. In short, guide or don't, but don't get caught up trying to expel. That isn't your authority.
Art - Good points. I would clarify that I didn't offer up my Goddess as a suitable substitute within your structure. I would obviously feel no more need than you would in return. I would look at the flip side of the coin from you in regards to the instructor who has the Masters in the field of this education, but I think you and I can both agree that the classroom involves us all, and we are all the students, not the instructor. We can guide, but it is not our call to definitively declare the failure of our fellow man. The tests aren't all done, and the report card not issued.
I just wanted to put out there that focusing on declaring to your fellow student that they are a failure is less likely to impede their graduation than it is to impede your own. We all start at the same point, so regardless of whether your fellow is on the wrong path, if you push against them, you are yourself pointed toward the starting gate. Knowing the right path doesn't change the way you are facing. Standing in opposition does, just as such, harm you as much or more than the one you aim for. Guidance is the key. Say "come with me" and see if they follow, but at least you stand then on the path you chose headed for its conclusion. You might not be headed for the prized finish line, but you at least know you aren't going to be back at the starting gate.
Anti-Pope, add open theist to your discription of me and you have me pegged. I have resigned myself to the fact that some Christians will label me a heretic, upon hearing my opinion of certain theological doctrines.
As far as Roman Catholic doctrine, there are many good Catholic apologists out there who effectively defend their doctrines from a Biblical basis. I can not recall their names right now, you can find them on the EWTN website if you are really interested. Wanderer, there is a Catholic writing somewhere, rather obscure, I had never heard it myself, but I think it was some pope, or some vision of mary where the term co-redemptrix is used.But I find your explaination of the Maryology pretty good as well as the part about the host, even though you don't believe either doctrine.
As far as the bread debate goes...
Didn't Bill Clintin once ask a question like "that depends on what "is" "is". Jesus said in John 6 and in every account of the "Last Supper", This IS my body...my flesh IS true food and my blood IS true drink...
It really isn't an "is" debate. There is more than enough room for metaphor.
Didn't Jesus say he way the way, the truth, etc... That none might enter the kingdom of heaven but through him?
Obviously you can't take this literally. None can tread on him to get there, or walk through him as if he were a literal portal. There is an understanding of what he meant, but also an understanding that the literal interpretation was impossible.
Most of his teachings were in parable format, not in straight forward instruction. As such, how does flesh as true food and blood as true drink measure up in the literal sense?
Honestly, at face value, how does the claim that your ritual allowed you to actually gnaw upon your own deity truly stand up anyway? "You may speak to your god, but I actually swallow mine."
If not to be taken as metaphorical, how can you possibly take it seriously? Or at the least, equally take that seriously yet be appalled by immolation rituals, human sacrifice and the like?
Don't some believe that the full glory of your god is so impressive that a human couldn't survive actually seeing his face? Yet ingesting him is ok?
No, while I think symbolism is highly valid, actually believing that your god offers his divine self up for consumption is just too destructive to your own belief system, let alone absurd to anyone else's.
Post a Comment