Catholicism, Ecumenism and Salvation

Thomas · 01-10-2006, 10:10 PM

As I have been engaged on discussions that often involve ecumenism rather more than the actual topic at hand, I thought I might start another thread.

The aim of ecumenism:
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
John 17:21

PLEASE NOTE: This is the Catholic position - so rather than my own words, I hope the moderators will accept a series of quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I post these to indicate her ecumenism and pluralism, without departing from that which she holds to be true.

All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God ... And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation.
CCC836

Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ ... by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ ... Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart'.
CCC837

The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."
CCCC839

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.
CCC841

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .
CCC842

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.
CCC843

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
CCC846

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
CCC847

Thomas

Quahom1 · 01-11-2006, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

As I have been engaged on discussions that often involve ecumenism rather more than the actual topic at hand, I thought I might start another thread.

The aim of ecumenism:

PLEASE NOTE: This is the Catholic position - so rather than my own words, I hope the moderators will accept a series of quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I post these to indicate her ecumenism and pluralism, without departing from that which she holds to be true.

Thomas

Thomas,

I'm afraid my response (no matter how delicately I put it) is going to be more like a bull in a china shop, so bear with me.

Quote:

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
John 17:21

No argument there.

Quote:

All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God ... And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation.
CCC836

If the church is referring to the universal body of Christ, I suspect the Catholic church would have the whole of Christianity strongly agreeing, however, I am of the opinion that is not what the Catholic fathers had in mind, when this was written. Immediately the Catholic authors identify themselves (the Catholic faithful) first and foremost, then include "other Christ believers", followed by mankind (the rest). A pecking order, or a caste system could be implied, with someone always second best, and someone else always on the losing end. In short, it seems to have a 'holier than thou' timber to it.

Quote:

Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ ... by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ ... Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart'.
CCC837

Persevere in charity...as in loving one's fellow man, or giving of time, self and posessions on a regular basis? If it is referring to love, no argument there. If it is an expectation of physically providing something as a way of gauranteeing redemption...well, there is a story that Peter tells, wherein even after giving (charity), salvation for two appears to have been lost anyway (at least their lives were). One then can only presume that the "charity" the Church is speaking of is that of love, behind what ever one does. Unfortunately it is obscure, and to an outsider looking in, does appear to be selfcenteredness by the church fathers.

Quote:

The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."
CCCC839

The problem with this (and correct me if I am mistaken), is that the promises were made by God to the whole of Israel, not just a single tribe. And when Jesus walked the earth, there were the remnants of three tribes still living in Israel (nevermind the scattered 9 or 10 out and about).

Quote:

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.
CCC841

There are many "Christians" who disagree with the Catholic Church on Allah, and God (The Father I presume), being one and the same. Some would argue that the very name Allah, is the name of the head god, or the pre-muslim polytheistic practices of the Middle East. This "clause" also conflicts with the mainline Christian view that Jesus is God (or the Trinity concept). In short, it puts The Father at odds with the Son over who are the chosen people...though some Muslims I've spoken with at home, point out that Jesus is the Messiah...just not God, nor an equal part of God.

Quote:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .
CCC842

Amen.

Quote:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.
CCC843

Well that's a switch...It isn't what I was taught in Catholic school (of course that was in the 60s, by nuns with rough dispositions at times).

Quote:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

Quote:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
CCC846

I flat out disagree. Salvation is a personal issue between man and Christ. No mediator is required between man and The "Mediator". The result of a saved man, is the development of a strong church, not the other way around. It also goes directly against what Jesus taught, about salvation. An institute of holy nature may assist a fledging believer, and nuture, and offer guidance, but that is where the church's authority ends. Jesus never asserted Baptism. He just did it (which is not a Christian invention). Baptism, is a personal expression of a commitment to a particular way of life (and faith), and an outward expression or witness to others of one's intent to "begin" in that faith and way of life. In the case of parents baptising a child, it is their outward expression or witness to others that they intend to raise that child in a particular faith and way of life.

In short, I don't need the church, or baptism to be saved, but I do need to accept Christ's offer of salvation. Everything else is just gravy, including the fellowship of the church parish.

Quote:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
CCC847

No argument there.

Heh, and to think I nearly went into the priesthood... That would have gone over real well...

I think the man who ferverently seeks God (for the right reasons as you stated), will be found by Him. And it wouldn't matter if he was on a desert island, on the battle field, or in the middle of a bustling city.

The church in my opinion is not the the batteries that charge men. Men are the batteries that charge the church, and men are the church.

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

lunamoth · 01-11-2006, 03:52 PM

Thank you for that, Thomas. Very interesting and informative. I am struck at how it emphasizes that which we have in common, rather than our differences. With respect to the part which might be considered the most objectionable:

Quote:

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

It seems that this refers only to those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary, thus, any who do not have that understanding are exempt from this clause. Perhaps I am grasping at straws or splitting hairs too fine, but I would say the someone who has lost their faith that the Catholic Church (meaning the organization) is God's instrument would not necessarily lose their salvation (if they are still seeking it elsewhere). However, someone who recognizes the Church as Christ on earth and still rejects It would have a problem...much like blasphemy of the Spirit.

We all struggle with our understanding, and there are people who have been terribly hurt (and worse) by the church (but not the Church, I would say)...

Not trying to debate or antagonize here, I hope you understand.

peace,
lunamoth

taijasi · 01-11-2006, 11:17 PM

There's very little I feel I could add (he says, before another mammoth post), because - after reading your post, Thomas ... I found that Quahom expressed quite clearly, and from a more Catholic/catholic point of view than mine, I should think ... everything that I might have said.

I certainly don't call myself a Catholic (as in Roman Catholic). Under the circumstances (personal, more or less), I think it would be outright blasphemy to say that I am a catholic Christian (which is all that really matters to me anyway), and as becomes obvious when I state my eschatology and soteriology ... I am not even close to being a conventional Christian.

With all that in mind, all I might hope to offer is a different viewpoint, or another interpretation ... though I don't mind saying that there are many who do tend to agree with me on various points. Still, this isn't what really matters ...

And what does matter, imo, is that we are able to successfully dialogue about what spiritual concerns are important to each of us, and perhaps see ways in which our varying perspectives fit together - from time to time, while also appreciating & respecting the obvious & meaningful differences (likely, and thankfully, to persist ... since they help, in & of themselves to define our individual faith).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The rest of this, is but a lengthy footnote ...

It's interesting to me, almost as an aside, that the Catholic Church uses this word to describe itself (and I mean this only as an observation) ... `catholic,' meaning universal, general, or by the whole. Not surprisingly, Catholics often regard their own faith/tradition as best representing what Christ intended in the founding of his Earthly Church. Also not surprisingly, Protestants, though they certainly admit of the later chronology of the Reformation (and in upbringing I was a Lutheran, once upon a time) ... also generally regard their own faith (whichever variety, or denomination it may be) - as the most authentic (or valid, as Thomas put it in another thread).

Then, of course, there are my own favorite of the "Big Three," the (Eastern) Orthodox Christians, who - if I understand the notion correctly - regard their own practice(s) as pre-dating those of the Roman Catholic Church ... or somehow as being, again, more authentic than those of other faiths (this time, definitely relying on the idea of "what Jesus of Nazareth and his followers would have done, themselves, in their worship, liturgy, etc.").

And me, well ... I suppose I'm a bit of a lone wolf, in all that. Admittedly (and almost certainly, in my current lack of practice), I stand fairly well outside of all three of these traditions/faiths. I definitely have no fondness for the Catholic Church, although I do believe that much Good in the world comes from such a body (both the priesthood and the laity). I regard Protestantism in almost exactly the same light, although the diamond soul seems to scintillate a little differently, being composed of literally thousands of varying (and often contrasting) facets ... as compared to the Catholic Faith's more direct Ray of sunlight.

The Christian Orthodoxy seems interesting to me, and perhaps in my own life has been the most meaningful and influential, but again - I can't say I have any deep inclination to rush out and join a congregation. I know of several wonderful Orthodox churches, mostly in other cities, but still - I would not likely attend even if I lived there.

This is somewhat personal, I think, and almost just an expression of my own opinions, so I feel a little bit like, "who asked you?" Hope I'm not too out of line posting thus, and I'll try to also say something a little more engaging. Still, I did say it's a footnote.

I have no hesistation (only a concern that I try to say this diplomatically, and sensibly) ... in clarifying that my own position, my own beliefs, and the body of knowledge that informs my own practice (when I do practice, that is ... thereby transforming this knowledge into Wisdom) ... is largely Eastern, but is syncretistic only from the worldly point of view.

Admittedly, when one regards Esoteric Christianity from the lens of more exoteric practices and traditions, it may seem that both the accumulated teaching (the Doctrine) as well as the customary practices (the Liturgical aspects) ... are but sytheses of practices and traditions already extant, whether Eastern, Western, mystical, or unknown. Yes, I understand and can also see things from that perspective.

Where I don't have any difficulty whatsoever, is with the notion that this is perfectly acceptable, and in no way renders my approach to God as invalid. I do take issue with anyone who says to me, point blank, "What you believe and/or are practicing as the expression of those beliefs, is not a valid path of approach to Deity (Unity, Love, Spiritual Progress, etc.)."

And that's about it. I figure, no, I don't really buy into (and that may be indication enough, as Lunamoth pointed out) the Catholic Doctrine, nor the Catholic Liturgy, and way of life. Perhaps I would have done so in part (and much more so), 900 years ago as a French Knight Templar - were that my present circumstances. But I ain't no knight. And this ain't the Middle Ages.

As an esotericist, I maintain that the Reappearance of the Christ is imminent. I believe that Christ is a Universal Savior, or World Teacher, as most esotericists phrase it. And therefore I do not believe that he comes to one small portion (whatever its actual numbers) of Humanity alone. I simply believe that the Christ is a Universal presence within us all, as well as a distinct individual - but the latter only because it is the office he holds in a Heavenly Hierarchy ... which has always existed on this planet - though it is certainly a flexible, changing, and growing Entity (literally, the expression of the Heart, or 2nd Aspect of Deity). And the source of the Hierarchy? God Himself, which is always the answer we give, when we want to cut inquiry short, and suggest that a more complicated answer might exist ... but is really superfluous, or perhaps not helpful.

I also believe that Christ's return is not simply the outer Reappearance of one individual, but that alongside Him there are literally dozens of what are esoterically called `His Elect,' which in Christian Scriptures have been called Christ and His Church. The symbolism, and exact meaning, are to me unquestionable. But that others may have differing interpretations - seems only natural. I may not agree, but I think the point is (and I can't see how this in any way diminishes the person, the purpose, or the methodology of the Christ .... rather, it can only enhance!) - that Christ comes to us with His own Ashram!

In Eastern Teachings, an ashram is sometimes regarded as the physical location in which a Master demonstrates his holiness, maintains his following, and conducts his teaching. But esoterically, an Ashram is a magnetic rapport (formed at spiritual levels, and primarily within the Heart, not the mind) between all his disciples. Ultimately, this magnetism of the Heart reaches all people ... but more directly, there are those who esotericsts call the `Great Ones,' and each of these has hundreds, if not thousands of disciples in the outer world (and this accounts for every country, every spiritual tradition, every lifestyle, and even folks who are not the least bit religious - so long as Love is what moves them into action, and so long as their primary mission in life is to Serve & uplift others).

My firsthand experience throughout 33 years bears witness to the things that I have increasingly believed for 15+ years, and though I feel I am utterly ignorant, as a worm, before the Great Ones in their Wisdom, I do know that the Love which knits Cosmos itself together, is the same Love as expressed from God to Humanity (and all Kingdoms of Life), from Christ to Humanity (and to the Angels, and to all creatures), and also from Human to Human - when we do, as we sometimes do, reflect this great Cosmic capacity even in our own, tiny lives.

No doubt we each, whatever our faith, beliefs, and practices, have ample confirmation that we are on the right road ... and I think that is something worthy of discussion (among the many other things we talk about). Those who are searching (which ultimately includes us all), are often those with the greatest need for guidance & direction ... but ultimately that must come from within, and not from someone (or something) external, seeking to point the way. In fact, we can do much harm by imposing our will, or our way, upon others. The karma that goes with such presumptuousness is familiar to me, and distasteful - whether it's your arm that's doing the shoving, or your throat that seems to have something being stuffed into it. Neither is a pretty picture.

So that is why a forum such as this is ideal, in my finding, for sharing ideas, and for coming to find ideas, and best of all ... for knitting, or weaving, ideas together. The experiences shared may be quite personal, or they be in the form of links, opinions, knowledge gained. It's all valuable, but it depends upon our willingness to dialogue ... if we are to either gain anything, or be of service to others.

I think I've said things out of line from time to time, or punched keys and clicked buttons long before the steam had even dissipated. Bad idea. No one likes a hothead. But even a well-thought-out diatribe isn't too appealing, so although I mention something of my own views on Christ in this post, I hope I've also added value ... with editorializing such as this. I think I could say, my hope is that it makes crazy notions of soteriology & eschatology as I've again posted ... a little more palatable. But if not, spit them out!

I would love to know why they're difficult to digest, but for that, I think it's helpful to try and provide constructive criticism ... and to try as best one can, to give internal criticism, or contextual advice. Inconsistences with what I seem to believe, or regard as "truth," might be helpful.

In addition to all that, I still think there is one issue remaining which Thomas asked about, or expressed disagreement with ... and that's the notion of syncretism. Another post ... might address that with brevity, and perhaps even some inspiration ...

Cheerio,

andrew

Saltmeister · 01-16-2006, 01:48 PM

I just thought I might point out some of the statements you quoted from the Catechism/guide-book that Catholics read that could be made a little more accurate . . .

Before I begin, perhaps I should say that Christian spirituality is a notion that I think us, as human beings in the 21st century, are only just starting to understand properly. The statements I'd like to comment on concern what we consider to be "spirituality." As the Christian notions of "spirituality" continue to evolve, I think maybe those statements from the Catechism may be a bit out-dated. They may not even reflect the beliefs of today's Catholic believers. They may not illustrate the concepts that Catholics and non-Catholics have explored until now.

My point -- this Catechism you quote from may be a bit behind today's Catholic beliefs. If you're Catholic, you know best, but as Christians we do have common ground. That's what I'd like to comment on.

Question: When was the Catechism last updated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ ... by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ ... Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart'.
CCC837

Here's where I might disagree with the Catechism.

I think the notion of "a visible structure" of the Church is actually quite misleading. The Catholic Church is an organisation governed by rules, protocols and institutions. It is a formalised entity with a structural framework. It would imply that there is also an "invisible structure" (the spiriual component) to the Church as well.

I thought this passage might put things in context.

Quote:

In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit. Ephesians 2:21-22

You, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:5

These passages refer to a spiritual temple. The passages say that as believers we are being formed into a "spiritual temple." The New Testament says a lot about "spiritual things," things we can discern but not see clearly. The apostles did not seem particularly concerned about a "visible structure." They were more concerned about us seeing the spiritual (invisible) things than things that were visible.

"Visible structure" refers to things that anyone, including non-Christians can see. These things would include anything physical, political and any formalised concepts that come from legal documents or things expressed in "biblical terminology." Doctrine may even be considered to be "visible" because this can be read by anyone.

People go to church to experience something beyond this world. They want to know how to discern spiritual things. Once believers know how to discern spiritual things the "visible structure" won't be necessary anymore. The "visible structure" is only for outsiders or recent converts as they transition into the "spiritual dwelling place."

I think the statement is a bit misleading when it says that the Church has a "visible structure." I would agree that the Church can be "made visible" by seeing what it does in the life of a believer, but the actual structure cannot be seen. Christ and His Church are not concrete entities. Because we're all different, we each see something different in the Church. The Church can be explained to individuals, but not defined or formalised.

While not being a Catholic myself, I think there is a lot of truth in the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church isn't a magic bullet of Christian Truth. Catholicism, with all its formalisations and definitions is not a "one size fits all" model for Christianity.

My view: No Church or denomination can ever be the 100% true church because by doing so, you "bring Christ/God down."

Quote:

But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down) or 'Who will descend into the deep?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead) Romans 10:6-7

There's been so many debates/arguments on who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. Most of the time it's been tearing the Church apart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
CCC846

In light of Ephesians 2:21-22 and 1 Peter 2:5, I think there might be another way of understanding the notion of "being saved." I think it has something to do with the idea of "Sanctuary." The Sanctuary, whether it's in Jewish or Christian theology, has always meant "a safe place."

Adonijah and Joab ran into the tent of the Lord to escape King Solomon after conspiring to take the throne. Adonijah and Joab were "seeking Sanctuary." In the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, churches were sometimes regarded as places that were too holy for violence and bloodshed. People could "seek Sanctuary" from oppression. Even soldiers were not supposed to enter. Jewish and Christian holy places have often been regarded as "sanctuaries."

The "spiritual temple" in Ephesians 2:21-22 would be much like a "safe spiritual place." In that sense, this "spiritual dwelling place" could be seen as a "Sanctuary" for the heart. A person who finds this Sanctuary is "saved" because he is protected from the evil that lurks outside -- the way of thinking of a person that is "not safe."

I think that maybe, there is more to "salvation" than just Jesus sacrificing himself. This ritual sacrifice could also be seen as Jesus dedicating himself as the foundation (cornerstone/capstone) of this spiritual Sanctuary. Therefore, we are saved not because we understand the idea of Jesus dying on the cross, but because we seek this Sanctuary and are "saved" because we become part of it and place ourselves on top of this foundation/cornerstone/capstone.

Nowhere in scripture does it talk about a "Catholic" or "universal" Church, and the Catholic Church is a non-spiritually-discerned entity. In other words, non-Christians can "discern" the Catholic Church. Something non-spiritually discerned and "discerned" by non-Christians can easily be "man-made." Yet, as Christians we're not supposed to give glory to something man-made.

Again, I think the above statement is a little misleading in that people have to be part of the Catholic Church, a "visible," "non-spiritually discerned" entity, to be saved. I think it would be more correct to say that you are "saved" because you are part of a spiritually-discerned entity, a "safe spiritual place," a Sanctuary.

Spirituality is a hard-to-discern issue. Perhaps what we will discover in the 21st century as Christians probe deeper into spirituality that it doesn't matter anymore whether you're Catholic or Protestant. What really matters is whether we're part of the Sanctuary that we can't see.

lunamoth · 01-16-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

These passages refer to a spiritual temple. The passages say that as believers we are being formed into a "spiritual temple." The New Testament says a lot about "spiritual things," things we can discern but not see clearly. The apostles did not seem particularly concerned about a "visible structure." They were more concerned about us seeing the spiritual (invisible) things than things that were visible
....

I think the statement is a bit misleading when it says that the Church has a "visible structure." I would agree that the Church can be "made visible" by seeing what it does in the life of a believer, but the actual structure cannot be seen. Christ and His Church are not concrete entities. Because we're all different, we each see something different in the Church. The Church can be explained to individuals, but not defined or formalised.
...
Spirituality is a hard-to-discern issue. Perhaps what we will discover in the 21st century as Christians probe deeper into spirituality that it doesn't matter anymore whether you're Catholic or Protestant. What really matters is whether we're part of the Sanctuary that we can't see.

Hi Saltmeister,

I like your take on salvation as sanctuary very much.

One quibble I have with the above is your distinction between the 'spiritual' and 'physical' (visible/material) Church. It seems to me that Christianity, moreso than other religions I'm familiar with, blurs the distinction between spiritual and material, body and soul. So while it is true that it is the spiritual Church the writers of the NT emphasized, I think it is equally true that the spirtual Church is manifested in the physical world very much in a 'what you see is what you get' way. Not sure if that is clear, perhaps it is my thinking that is not clear.

Also, just because words like 'universal Church' (and Trinity etc.) are not verbatim from the Bible does not mean that is somehow more 'man-made' than the Bible. To me the idea of the universal church encompasses far more than the Catholic Church and orthodox denominations. In fact, I would say its boundaries are very much blurred to human discernment, if there are boundaries at all.

peace,
lunamoth

Quahom1 · 01-17-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Saltmeister,

I like your take on salvation as sanctuary very much.

One quibble I have with the above is your distinction between the 'spiritual' and 'physical' (visible/material) Church. It seems to me that Christianity, moreso than other religions I'm familiar with, blurs the distinction between spiritual and material, body and soul. So while it is true that it is the spiritual Church the writers of the NT emphasized, I think it is equally true that the spirtual Church is manifested in the physical world very much in a 'what you see is what you get' way. Not sure if that is clear, perhaps it is my thinking that is not clear.

Also, just because words like 'universal Church' (and Trinity etc.) are not verbatim from the Bible does not mean that is somehow more 'man-made' than the Bible. To me the idea of the universal church encompasses far more than the Catholic Church and orthodox denominations. In fact, I would say its boundaries are very much blurred to human discernment, if there are boundaries at all.

peace,
lunamoth

It is the opinion of some Salt, and Luna, that the more the seeker seeks, the closer he/she will come to the original roots of the faith in Christ. That which began and that which identified the belief in Christ is the Catholic/Coptic/Ethiopian church. No other variations truly survived in any numbers. This is from the times of old, not the modern day versions. Even the modern Catholic church is a far cry from the origins (too political, and too materialistic). But the original church...was fine.

Every variation of Christianity has sprung from this basic set of roots noted above. Even Gnostics, were simply an offshoot, that never took, and Orthodoxy is a latter variation of the original.

That doesn't mean varients are not true, just that they did not start the "game"...the catholic church did.

If I may be so bold as to point out the obvious? Go to any church that "breaks bread" and "blesses wine", then "feeds" the flock with the same, in the name of the Lord. And I can show you their roots are from the Catholic/Coptic/Ethiopian church.

Confess your sins, to the preacher or the congregation?, same old church. Baptise children and adults?, same old church. Look to Jesus as savior?, same old church.

Credit where credit is due...I should think, regardless if one considers their faith as an improvement on the foundation...the foundation is what put them where they are at.

Praise the Lord Jesus, and thank the catholic fathers for setting the stones of the faith. We are who and what we are, because they did what they did. To say they were mistaken, is to imply that God erred...

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

Thomas · 01-20-2006, 01:13 PM

Hi Quahom - Been tied up with other stuff for a while, but wanted to answer some comments here, so I shall start from the top.

Immediately the Catholic authors identify themselves (the Catholic faithful) first and foremost, then include "other Christ believers", followed by mankind (the rest). A pecking order...
I think we have to allow that the Catholic/Orthodox church was the first in receipt of Revelation, and the first in transmission. Any subsequent denomination is a 'deviation' from the original message, right through to today, when other denominations insist that Catholicism or Orthodoxy is wrong on this or that issue - be it a central or a peripheral doctrine.

Hierarchy is in the natural (and supernatural) order of things - a world without hirarchy is anarchy/chaos. This will probably become a topic in its own right, but 'modernism' makes two fundamental metaphysical errors, one is the notion of 'progress' as being linear, therefore we are better now than we were then, and the other is the application of egalitarianism in every sphere, which renders all hierarchies as 'bad'. The problem lies not with authority, but the abuse of it.

Persevere in charity...as in loving one's fellow man, or giving of time, self and posessions on a regular basis?
The former, absolutely... but then if so, then surely the latter follows naturally?

Faith and Works - Believing in God = Faith; Believing in my neighbour = work.

The problem with this (and correct me if I am mistaken), is that the promises were made by God to the whole of Israel, not just a single tribe.
I think the promise of God is made to anyone who will listen.

There are many "Christians" who disagree with the Catholic Church on Allah,
I think the point is monotheism in the Abrahamic Tradition.

Salvation is a personal issue between man and Christ. No mediator is required between man and The "Mediator".
Salvation is in the gift of God, and God alone, but without the Church there would be no knowledge of Christ. She is not the mediator in the sense you mean – although she has the authority both to forgive and to condemn in His name - rather she is the transmitter of the whole and authentic truth, and of the means of grace, establu=ished by Christ, for all, in the Sacraments.

Jesus never asserted Baptism. He just did it
I am inclined to disagree. He instituted it as a requirement upon those who follow Him.

In short, I don't need the church, or baptism to be saved, but I do need to accept Christ's offer of salvation.
That's what the church embodies.

I think the man who ferverently seeks God (for the right reasons as you stated), will be found by Him. And it wouldn't matter if he was on a desert island, on the battle field, or in the middle of a bustling city.
Indeed, but such a God will always be 'anonymous'.

I read an account of a Japanese Jesuit who went to visit the Buddhist master of the school where he was educated. During their discussions (the Buddhist was largely ignorant of Scripture and doctrine) his ex-student recited the beatitudes. "That is what I have been trying to achieve all my life. Whoever said that was an enlightened man." Both master and student 'knew' Christ, but only the student knew him 'personally' - and for volative man - the large majority of humanity - intellectual and metaphysical abstractions are not enough.

Thomas

Thomas · 01-20-2006, 01:59 PM

Hi Andrew -

Then, of course, there are my own favorite of the "Big Three," the (Eastern) Orthodox Christians, who - if I understand the notion correctly - regard their own practice(s) as pre-dating those of the Roman Catholic Church
Not quite. The Catholic and Orthodox faiths share a common root - they split at some point, but even the date is negotiable, ranging from the fourth to the eleventh century. Notably now theologians accept there is no doctrinal reason why the churches cannot join in union.

Admittedly, when one regards Esoteric Christianity from the lens of more exoteric practices and traditions,
'Esoteric Christianity' is itself an exterior view, as there is much evidence and argument, from esoterists themselves, that point to the fact that Christianity is 'an esoterism in plain sight'. A viable interpretation of the rending of the Veil of the Temple is a 'stumbling block' in the path of any argument for an 'Esoteric Christianity' as opposed to Christian esoterism, which as I have said before,m and often, is quite different.

it may seem that both the accumulated teaching (the Doctrine) as well as the customary practices (the Liturgical aspects) ... are but sytheses of practices and traditions already extant, whether Eastern, Western, mystical, or unknown.
Two points - one is that doctrine always follows dispute - therefore Doctrine always seeks to clarify, rather than introduce a new rule, as it were. The Carechism, for example, is founded on the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. That it now runs to some 3000plus paragraphs does not alter the fact that it clarifies the meaning of the seven supplications and the twelve propositions, which it held from the very beginning.

The second point, with regard to synthesis - the definition of the term "the result of building up separate elements into a connected whole" - is valid in the sense that all man's spiritual endeavour finds its rest in Christ, but examination will show that those extant practices are transcended within the Christian context. The common meal, for example, has its place in many traditions, but none confer upon it a sacramental quality. I would also add that your caveat 'or unknown' seems like a get-out, you cannot recourse to what is unknown to argue your case.

I believe that Christ is a Universal Savior, or World Teacher, as most esotericists phrase it.
I would say that's a poor definition. The latter is not the former, although the former is the latter. 'Teachers' are only able to say 'this is the way to save yourself', a universal saviour alone can say 'have faith in me and I will save you'. Scripture (John 1:12, and the robber on the cross, point to this).

I simply believe that the Christ is a Universal presence within us all,
Esoterists (in my experience) and metaphysicians (ditto) view it rather that we are in Christ, not the other way round - and the distinction is small, but everything. If Christ is 'in' us, then we possess him, and it is this notion that allows a doctrine of self-justification and self-determination. This error can be traced back to the Garden.

St Catherine of Siena was told "I am he who is, you are she who is not"

We exist for God, God does not exist for us.

The metaphysical argument:
A Universal cannot be determined by a particular, if it is, it ceases to be universal.
Thus species or genus is universal, but an instance of a man, dog, flower, etc. does not determine the species, and in each there is what is in common, and what is in particular.

[i]as well as a distinct individual[/]
The Universal can, if it so chooses, manifest itself as individual ... but only once ... to suggest multiple manifestations of the Universal is to suggest a circle with multiple centres. This is not to say, and nor does Christianity deny, that the Universal cannot manifest 'in part' or 'an aspect' of itself in multiplicity - Christ is the light that is the life of men - but this only shows that the multiple derives from the universal, but there can only ever be one manifestation of the One.

though it is certainly a flexible, changing, and growing Entity (literally, the expression of the Heart, or 2nd Aspect of Deity).
Deity, being universal (at the Christian level) cannot in itself be subject to change, else it is not universal, it is conditional. Cosmological deity, however, can change.

[i]but I think the point is (and I can't see how this in any way diminishes the person, the purpose, or the methodology of the Christ .... rather, it can only enhance!) - that Christ comes to us with His own Ashram![/]
A seductive argument, but one I am obliged to refute ... 'your' Christ is one amongst multiple manifestations of a universal, 'my' Christ is the manifestation of the universal as such, from the Christian viewpoint your argument does diminish the person, the purpose, and the the method.

In Eastern Teachings, an ashram is sometimes regarded as the physical location...
The Church is first and foremost a communion of the faithful, living and dead, in the Mystical Body.

In addition to all that, I still think there is one issue remaining which Thomas asked about, or expressed disagreement with ... and that's the notion of syncretism.
I do not see how anyone can offer any useful synthesis to that which is in itself already 'simple' and 'universal' without confounding the issue.

In my experience I have been made aware of the difference between synthesis and syncretism, between diversity and difference.

Thomas

Thomas · 01-20-2006, 02:12 PM

Hi Saltmeister -

As the Christian notions of "spirituality" continue to evolve, I think maybe those statements from the Catechism may be a bit out-dated.
Truth is eternal, it can never out-date. Man can grow more ignorant, however ... The Catechism was revised in 1997 in light of Vatican II to make the teachings more accessible.

People go to church to experience something beyond this world. They want to know how to discern spiritual things. Once believers know how to discern spiritual things the "visible structure" won't be necessary anymore. The "visible structure" is only for outsiders or recent converts as they transition into the "spiritual dwelling place."
The Church is "the spiritual dwelling place" else one could not experience it there - and to suggest that it won't be necessary is to suggest that man can outgrow his need for God. If you were in the place 'where God is' - why would you want to go elsewhere?

This idea denies the integrity, validity and reality of the visible world. The visible has its place, and it is sacred. To suggest leaving the church suggests leaving the world - to discard it as no longer necessary. It is a fundamental Christian belief that the world is inherently 'good'.

Catholicism, with all its formalisations and definitions is not a "one size fits all" model for Christianity.
I disagree. The Church holds the idea of the person - a theomorphic being - in trust until the time when s/he grows up and grows into the full stature of what God created s/he to be.
(BTW - look at the saints ... no two are the same ... they never complained about outgrowing the church)

I think there might be another way of understanding the notion of "being saved." I think it has something to do with the idea of "Sanctuary." The Sanctuary, whether it's in Jewish or Christian theology, has always meant "a safe place."
The Church is precisely that, it is the ONLY place that holds to the idea that god created man 'in his own image'. The world would have you believe that man was created either by chance, or for the benefit of his apetites.

I have written an extended essay on the esoterism and metaphysics of 'sanctuary' which you can read here:
http://www.theveil.net/veil/ren/veil_1_1.html

Thomas

Thomas · 01-20-2006, 02:16 PM

Hi Lunamoth

Having replied to the others, I am honour bound to reply to you also ... but I found nothing to argue with in your posts ... so before this turns into a mutual appreciation society, I shall say bye bye.

Thomas

Quahom1 · 01-20-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Hi Quahom - Been tied up with other stuff for a while, but wanted to answer some comments here, so I shall start from the top.

Immediately the Catholic authors identify themselves (the Catholic faithful) first and foremost, then include "other Christ believers", followed by mankind (the rest). A pecking order...
I think we have to allow that the Catholic/Orthodox church was the first in receipt of Revelation, and the first in transmission. Any subsequent denomination is a 'deviation' from the original message, right through to today, when other denominations insist that Catholicism or Orthodoxy is wrong on this or that issue - be it a central or a peripheral doctrine.

perhaps, but then that continues the insistance on a pecking order. This is unacceptable to most people.

Quote:

Hierarchy is in the natural (and supernatural) order of things - a world without hirarchy is anarchy/chaos. This will probably become a topic in its own right, but 'modernism' makes two fundamental metaphysical errors, one is the notion of 'progress' as being linear, therefore we are better now than we were then, and the other is the application of egalitarianism in every sphere, which renders all hierarchies as 'bad'. The problem lies not with authority, but the abuse of it.

I believe I pointed out that the Catholic church was much cleaner and purer then than it is now, so obviously I do not follow linear thinking, as far as progress. I also opine that hierarchy is not the same as ogliarchy. The church has a rank and file that is definitive of ogliarchy. It calls itself a heirarchy, but actions of those in athority prove quite the contrary...on a daily basis. This also causes issues in that the church considers itself a political athority, of some rank and stature, when it is supposed to be a spiritual guide...

Quote:

Persevere in charity...as in loving one's fellow man, or giving of time, self and posessions on a regular basis?
The former, absolutely... but then if so, then surely the latter follows naturally?

Not when the church all but demands the latter, and only pays lip service to the former.

Quote:

Faith and Works - Believing in God = Faith; Believing in my neighbour = work.

Believing in one's neighbor is an act of faith that God will provide, while we love. Work is when our neighbor is in trouble, and we help out of faith and love, and hope for the best. Work is a by-product of these three...

Quote:

The problem with this (and correct me if I am mistaken), is that the promises were made by God to the whole of Israel, not just a single tribe.
I think the promise of God is made to anyone who will listen.

That isn't what that particular ccc was stating...

Quote:

There are many "Christians" who disagree with the Catholic Church on Allah,
I think the point is monotheism in the Abrahamic Tradition.

Perhaps, but again it is not explained, only presumed that all should know.

Quote:

Salvation is a personal issue between man and Christ. No mediator is required between man and The "Mediator".
Salvation is in the gift of God, and God alone, but without the Church there would be no knowledge of Christ. She is not the mediator in the sense you mean – although she has the authority both to forgive and to condemn in His name - rather she is the transmitter of the whole and authentic truth, and of the means of grace, establu=ished by Christ, for all, in the Sacraments.

That is extremely presumptious of the Church, don't you think? On both parts...I will point out that without the people, my friend, there is no church. And Christs needs nothing to notify man that He is around and looking after us. He certainly does not need a Catholic "hierarchy" to keep in touch with the souls of men.

Quote:

Jesus never asserted Baptism. He just did it
I am inclined to disagree. He instituted it as a requirement upon those who follow Him.

Please present your evidence to such a claim.

Quote:

In short, I don't need the church, or baptism to be saved, but I do need to accept Christ's offer of salvation.
That's what the church embodies.

Granted, but the conditions placed upon the saved one by the church, causes a bit of confusion.

Quote:

I think the man who ferverently seeks God (for the right reasons as you stated), will be found by Him. And it wouldn't matter if he was on a desert island, on the battle field, or in the middle of a bustling city.
Indeed, but such a God will always be 'anonymous'.

Again, that is a presumptious statement. God can do whatever God wants, with or without the church's permission.

Quote:

I read an account of a Japanese Jesuit who went to visit the Buddhist master of the school where he was educated. During their discussions (the Buddhist was largely ignorant of Scripture and doctrine) his ex-student recited the beatitudes. "That is what I have been trying to achieve all my life. Whoever said that was an enlightened man." Both master and student 'knew' Christ, but only the student knew him 'personally' - and for volative man - the large majority of humanity - intellectual and metaphysical abstractions are not enough.

No arguement there.

v/r

Q

taijasi · 01-20-2006, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

'Esoteric Christianity' ... A viable interpretation of the rending of the Veil of the Temple is a 'stumbling block' in the path of any argument for an 'Esoteric Christianity' ...

The rending of the veil (of Isis) ... refers to something that takes place for each individual, in his or her own time. It has many levels of meaning, but importantly it refers to the removing of the barriers between the outward consciousness (mortal, lesser man) and the Indwelling, Greater Self (the Christ, or Christ consciousness). As for Christ assisting in this process (serving in the role as Mediator for our planet, by helping to rend the planetary veil, so to speak) ... this is true, but does not abdicate us from the necessity of doing this individually. Yet, it helps us, and immensely!

The fact that I must do for myself what is required to remove maya, glamour & illusion from my personality life (as opposed to foisting this responsibility upon another - Christ or otherwise) ... is why I think Christian Esotericism, if you prefer that term, is inevitable - for anyone who follows long enough, & persistently enough, in Christ's footsteps. What He did, we shall do (and greater). But it don't come easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

(syntheses of practices and traditions already extant, whether Eastern, Western, mystical, or unknown)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

... with regard to synthesis - ... I would also add that your caveat 'or unknown' seems like a get-out, you cannot recourse to what is unknown to argue your case.

My recourse to the unkno

01-10-2006, 10:10 PM	#1 (permalink)
Thomas Will you also go away? Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,203	Catholicism, Ecumenism and Salvation As I have been engaged on discussions that often involve ecumenism rather more than the actual topic at hand, I thought I might start another thread. The aim of ecumenism: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 17:21 PLEASE NOTE: This is the Catholic position - so rather than my own words, I hope the moderators will accept a series of quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I post these to indicate her ecumenism and pluralism, without departing from that which she holds to be true. All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God ... And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation. CCC836 Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ ... by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ ... Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart'. CCC837 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." CCCC839 The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. CCC841 All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . . CCC842 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life. CCC843 "Outside the Church there is no salvation" Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. CCC846 Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. CCC847 Thomas

01-11-2006, 11:17 PM	#4 (permalink)
taijasi andreas bar Abba Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: New Atlantis Posts: 880	Re: Catholicism, Ecumenism and Salvation There's very little I feel I could add (he says, before another mammoth post), because - after reading your post, Thomas ... I found that Quahom expressed quite clearly, and from a more Catholic/catholic point of view than mine, I should think ... everything that I might have said. I certainly don't call myself a Catholic (as in Roman Catholic). Under the circumstances (personal, more or less), I think it would be outright blasphemy to say that I am a catholic Christian (which is all that really matters to me anyway), and as becomes obvious when I state my eschatology and soteriology ... I am not even close to being a conventional Christian. With all that in mind, all I might hope to offer is a different viewpoint, or another interpretation ... though I don't mind saying that there are many who do tend to agree with me on various points. Still, this isn't what really matters ... And what does matter, imo, is that we are able to successfully dialogue about what spiritual concerns are important to each of us, and perhaps see ways in which our varying perspectives fit together - from time to time, while also appreciating & respecting the obvious & meaningful differences (likely, and thankfully, to persist ... since they help, in & of themselves to define our individual faith). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The rest of this, is but a lengthy footnote ... It's interesting to me, almost as an aside, that the Catholic Church uses this word to describe itself (and I mean this only as an observation) ... `catholic,' meaning universal, general, or by the whole. Not surprisingly, Catholics often regard their own faith/tradition as best representing what Christ intended in the founding of his Earthly Church. Also not surprisingly, Protestants, though they certainly admit of the later chronology of the Reformation (and in upbringing I was a Lutheran, once upon a time) ... also generally regard their own faith (whichever variety, or denomination it may be) - as the most authentic (or valid, as Thomas put it in another thread). Then, of course, there are my own favorite of the "Big Three," the (Eastern) Orthodox Christians, who - if I understand the notion correctly - regard their own practice(s) as pre-dating those of the Roman Catholic Church ... or somehow as being, again, more authentic than those of other faiths (this time, definitely relying on the idea of "what Jesus of Nazareth and his followers would have done, themselves, in their worship, liturgy, etc."). And me, well ... I suppose I'm a bit of a lone wolf, in all that. Admittedly (and almost certainly, in my current lack of practice), I stand fairly well outside of all three of these traditions/faiths. I definitely have no fondness for the Catholic Church, although I do believe that much Good in the world comes from such a body (both the priesthood and the laity). I regard Protestantism in almost exactly the same light, although the diamond soul seems to scintillate a little differently, being composed of literally thousands of varying (and often contrasting) facets ... as compared to the Catholic Faith's more direct Ray of sunlight. The Christian Orthodoxy seems interesting to me, and perhaps in my own life has been the most meaningful and influential, but again - I can't say I have any deep inclination to rush out and join a congregation. I know of several wonderful Orthodox churches, mostly in other cities, but still - I would not likely attend even if I lived there. This is somewhat personal, I think, and almost just an expression of my own opinions, so I feel a little bit like, "who asked you?" Hope I'm not too out of line posting thus, and I'll try to also say something a little more engaging. Still, I did say it's a footnote. I have no hesistation (only a concern that I try to say this diplomatically, and sensibly) ... in clarifying that my own position, my own beliefs, and the body of knowledge that informs my own practice (when I do practice, that is ... thereby transforming this knowledge into Wisdom) ... is largely Eastern, but is syncretistic only from the worldly point of view. Admittedly, when one regards Esoteric Christianity from the lens of more exoteric practices and traditions, it may seem that both the accumulated teaching (the Doctrine) as well as the customary practices (the Liturgical aspects) ... are but sytheses of practices and traditions already extant, whether Eastern, Western, mystical, or unknown. Yes, I understand and can also see things from that perspective. Where I don't have any difficulty whatsoever, is with the notion that this is perfectly acceptable, and in no way renders my approach to God as invalid. I do take issue with anyone who says to me, point blank, "What you believe and/or are practicing as the expression of those beliefs, is not a valid path of approach to Deity (Unity, Love, Spiritual Progress, etc.)." And that's about it. I figure, no, I don't really buy into (and that may be indication enough, as Lunamoth pointed out) the Catholic Doctrine, nor the Catholic Liturgy, and way of life. Perhaps I would have done so in part (and much more so), 900 years ago as a French Knight Templar - were that my present circumstances. But I ain't no knight. And this ain't the Middle Ages. As an esotericist, I maintain that the Reappearance of the Christ is imminent. I believe that Christ is a Universal Savior, or World Teacher, as most esotericists phrase it. And therefore I do not believe that he comes to one small portion (whatever its actual numbers) of Humanity alone. I simply believe that the Christ is a Universal presence within us all, as well as a distinct individual - but the latter only because it is the office he holds in a Heavenly Hierarchy ... which has always existed on this planet - though it is certainly a flexible, changing, and growing Entity (literally, the expression of the Heart, or 2nd Aspect of Deity). And the source of the Hierarchy? God Himself, which is always the answer we give, when we want to cut inquiry short, and suggest that a more complicated answer might exist ... but is really superfluous, or perhaps not helpful. I also believe that Christ's return is not simply the outer Reappearance of one individual, but that alongside Him there are literally dozens of what are esoterically called `His Elect,' which in Christian Scriptures have been called Christ and His Church. The symbolism, and exact meaning, are to me unquestionable. But that others may have differing interpretations - seems only natural. I may not agree, but I think the point is (and I can't see how this in any way diminishes the person, the purpose, or the methodology of the Christ .... rather, it can only enhance!) - that Christ comes to us with His own Ashram! In Eastern Teachings, an ashram is sometimes regarded as the physical location in which a Master demonstrates his holiness, maintains his following, and conducts his teaching. But esoterically, an Ashram is a magnetic rapport (formed at spiritual levels, and primarily within the Heart, not the mind) between all his disciples. Ultimately, this magnetism of the Heart reaches all people ... but more directly, there are those who esotericsts call the `Great Ones,' and each of these has hundreds, if not thousands of disciples in the outer world (and this accounts for every country, every spiritual tradition, every lifestyle, and even folks who are not the least bit religious - so long as Love is what moves them into action, and so long as their primary mission in life is to Serve & uplift others). My firsthand experience throughout 33 years bears witness to the things that I have increasingly believed for 15+ years, and though I feel I am utterly ignorant, as a worm, before the Great Ones in their Wisdom, I do know that the Love which knits Cosmos itself together, is the same Love as expressed from God to Humanity (and all Kingdoms of Life), from Christ to Humanity (and to the Angels, and to all creatures), and also from Human to Human - when we do, as we sometimes do, reflect this great Cosmic capacity even in our own, tiny lives. No doubt we each, whatever our faith, beliefs, and practices, have ample confirmation that we are on the right road ... and I think that is something worthy of discussion (among the many other things we talk about). Those who are searching (which ultimately includes us all), are often those with the greatest need for guidance & direction ... but ultimately that must come from within, and not from someone (or something) external, seeking to point the way. In fact, we can do much harm by imposing our will, or our way, upon others. The karma that goes with such presumptuousness is familiar to me, and distasteful - whether it's your arm that's doing the shoving, or your throat that seems to have something being stuffed into it. Neither is a pretty picture. So that is why a forum such as this is ideal, in my finding, for sharing ideas, and for coming to find ideas, and best of all ... for knitting, or weaving, ideas together. The experiences shared may be quite personal, or they be in the form of links, opinions, knowledge gained. It's all valuable, but it depends upon our willingness to dialogue ... if we are to either gain anything, or be of service to others. I think I've said things out of line from time to time, or punched keys and clicked buttons long before the steam had even dissipated. Bad idea. No one likes a hothead. But even a well-thought-out diatribe isn't too appealing, so although I mention something of my own views on Christ in this post, I hope I've also added value ... with editorializing such as this. I think I could say, my hope is that it makes crazy notions of soteriology & eschatology as I've again posted ... a little more palatable. But if not, spit them out! I would love to know why they're difficult to digest, but for that, I think it's helpful to try and provide constructive criticism ... and to try as best one can, to give internal criticism, or contextual advice. Inconsistences with what I seem to believe, or regard as "truth," might be helpful. In addition to all that, I still think there is one issue remaining which Thomas asked about, or expressed disagreement with ... and that's the notion of syncretism. Another post ... might address that with brevity, and perhaps even some inspiration ... Cheerio, andrew

01-20-2006, 01:13 PM	#8 (permalink)
Thomas Will you also go away? Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,203	Re: Catholicism, Ecumenism and Salvation Hi Quahom - Been tied up with other stuff for a while, but wanted to answer some comments here, so I shall start from the top. Immediately the Catholic authors identify themselves (the Catholic faithful) first and foremost, then include "other Christ believers", followed by mankind (the rest). A pecking order... I think we have to allow that the Catholic/Orthodox church was the first in receipt of Revelation, and the first in transmission. Any subsequent denomination is a 'deviation' from the original message, right through to today, when other denominations insist that Catholicism or Orthodoxy is wrong on this or that issue - be it a central or a peripheral doctrine. Hierarchy is in the natural (and supernatural) order of things - a world without hirarchy is anarchy/chaos. This will probably become a topic in its own right, but 'modernism' makes two fundamental metaphysical errors, one is the notion of 'progress' as being linear, therefore we are better now than we were then, and the other is the application of egalitarianism in every sphere, which renders all hierarchies as 'bad'. The problem lies not with authority, but the abuse of it. Persevere in charity...as in loving one's fellow man, or giving of time, self and posessions on a regular basis? The former, absolutely... but then if so, then surely the latter follows naturally? Faith and Works - Believing in God = Faith; Believing in my neighbour = work. The problem with this (and correct me if I am mistaken), is that the promises were made by God to the whole of Israel, not just a single tribe. I think the promise of God is made to anyone who will listen. There are many "Christians" who disagree with the Catholic Church on Allah, I think the point is monotheism in the Abrahamic Tradition. Salvation is a personal issue between man and Christ. No mediator is required between man and The "Mediator". Salvation is in the gift of God, and God alone, but without the Church there would be no knowledge of Christ. She is not the mediator in the sense you mean – although she has the authority both to forgive and to condemn in His name - rather she is the transmitter of the whole and authentic truth, and of the means of grace, establu=ished by Christ, for all, in the Sacraments. Jesus never asserted Baptism. He just did it I am inclined to disagree. He instituted it as a requirement upon those who follow Him. In short, I don't need the church, or baptism to be saved, but I do need to accept Christ's offer of salvation. That's what the church embodies. I think the man who ferverently seeks God (for the right reasons as you stated), will be found by Him. And it wouldn't matter if he was on a desert island, on the battle field, or in the middle of a bustling city. Indeed, but such a God will always be 'anonymous'. I read an account of a Japanese Jesuit who went to visit the Buddhist master of the school where he was educated. During their discussions (the Buddhist was largely ignorant of Scripture and doctrine) his ex-student recited the beatitudes. "That is what I have been trying to achieve all my life. Whoever said that was an enlightened man." Both master and student 'knew' Christ, but only the student knew him 'personally' - and for volative man - the large majority of humanity - intellectual and metaphysical abstractions are not enough. Thomas

01-20-2006, 01:59 PM	#9 (permalink)
Thomas Will you also go away? Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,203	Re: Catholicism, Ecumenism and Salvation Hi Andrew - Then, of course, there are my own favorite of the "Big Three," the (Eastern) Orthodox Christians, who - if I understand the notion correctly - regard their own practice(s) as pre-dating those of the Roman Catholic Church Not quite. The Catholic and Orthodox faiths share a common root - they split at some point, but even the date is negotiable, ranging from the fourth to the eleventh century. Notably now theologians accept there is no doctrinal reason why the churches cannot join in union. Admittedly, when one regards Esoteric Christianity from the lens of more exoteric practices and traditions, 'Esoteric Christianity' is itself an exterior view, as there is much evidence and argument, from esoterists themselves, that point to the fact that Christianity is 'an esoterism in plain sight'. A viable interpretation of the rending of the Veil of the Temple is a 'stumbling block' in the path of any argument for an 'Esoteric Christianity' as opposed to Christian esoterism, which as I have said before,m and often, is quite different. it may seem that both the accumulated teaching (the Doctrine) as well as the customary practices (the Liturgical aspects) ... are but sytheses of practices and traditions already extant, whether Eastern, Western, mystical, or unknown. Two points - one is that doctrine always follows dispute - therefore Doctrine always seeks to clarify, rather than introduce a new rule, as it were. The Carechism, for example, is founded on the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. That it now runs to some 3000plus paragraphs does not alter the fact that it clarifies the meaning of the seven supplications and the twelve propositions, which it held from the very beginning. The second point, with regard to synthesis - the definition of the term "the result of building up separate elements into a connected whole" - is valid in the sense that all man's spiritual endeavour finds its rest in Christ, but examination will show that those extant practices are transcended within the Christian context. The common meal, for example, has its place in many traditions, but none confer upon it a sacramental quality. I would also add that your caveat 'or unknown' seems like a get-out, you cannot recourse to what is unknown to argue your case. I believe that Christ is a Universal Savior, or World Teacher, as most esotericists phrase it. I would say that's a poor definition. The latter is not the former, although the former is the latter. 'Teachers' are only able to say 'this is the way to save yourself', a universal saviour alone can say 'have faith in me and I will save you'. Scripture (John 1:12, and the robber on the cross, point to this). I simply believe that the Christ is a Universal presence within us all, Esoterists (in my experience) and metaphysicians (ditto) view it rather that we are in Christ, not the other way round - and the distinction is small, but everything. If Christ is 'in' us, then we possess him, and it is this notion that allows a doctrine of self-justification and self-determination. This error can be traced back to the Garden. St Catherine of Siena was told "I am he who is, you are she who is not" We exist for God, God does not exist for us. The metaphysical argument: A Universal cannot be determined by a particular, if it is, it ceases to be universal. Thus species or genus is universal, but an instance of a man, dog, flower, etc. does not determine the species, and in each there is what is in common, and what is in particular. [i]as well as a distinct individual[/] The Universal can, if it so chooses, manifest itself as individual ... but only once ... to suggest multiple manifestations of the Universal is to suggest a circle with multiple centres. This is not to say, and nor does Christianity deny, that the Universal cannot manifest 'in part' or 'an aspect' of itself in multiplicity - Christ is the light that is the life of men - but this only shows that the multiple derives from the universal, but there can only ever be one manifestation of the One. though it is certainly a flexible, changing, and growing Entity (literally, the expression of the Heart, or 2nd Aspect of Deity). Deity, being universal (at the Christian level) cannot in itself be subject to change, else it is not universal, it is conditional. Cosmological deity, however, can change. [i]but I think the point is (and I can't see how this in any way diminishes the person, the purpose, or the methodology of the Christ .... rather, it can only enhance!) - that Christ comes to us with His own Ashram![/] A seductive argument, but one I am obliged to refute ... 'your' Christ is one amongst multiple manifestations of a universal, 'my' Christ is the manifestation of the universal as such, from the Christian viewpoint your argument does diminish the person, the purpose, and the the method. In Eastern Teachings, an ashram is sometimes regarded as the physical location... The Church is first and foremost a communion of the faithful, living and dead, in the Mystical Body. In addition to all that, I still think there is one issue remaining which Thomas asked about, or expressed disagreement with ... and that's the notion of syncretism. I do not see how anyone can offer any useful synthesis to that which is in itself already 'simple' and 'universal' without confounding the issue. In my experience I have been made aware of the difference between synthesis and syncretism, between diversity and difference. Thomas

01-20-2006, 02:12 PM	#10 (permalink)
Thomas Will you also go away? Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,203	Re: Catholicism, Ecumenism and Salvation Hi Saltmeister - As the Christian notions of "spirituality" continue to evolve, I think maybe those statements from the Catechism may be a bit out-dated. Truth is eternal, it can never out-date. Man can grow more ignorant, however ... The Catechism was revised in 1997 in light of Vatican II to make the teachings more accessible. People go to church to experience something beyond this world. They want to know how to discern spiritual things. Once believers know how to discern spiritual things the "visible structure" won't be necessary anymore. The "visible structure" is only for outsiders or recent converts as they transition into the "spiritual dwelling place." The Church is "the spiritual dwelling place" else one could not experience it there - and to suggest that it won't be necessary is to suggest that man can outgrow his need for God. If you were in the place 'where God is' - why would you want to go elsewhere? This idea denies the integrity, validity and reality of the visible world. The visible has its place, and it is sacred. To suggest leaving the church suggests leaving the world - to discard it as no longer necessary. It is a fundamental Christian belief that the world is inherently 'good'. Catholicism, with all its formalisations and definitions is not a "one size fits all" model for Christianity. I disagree. The Church holds the idea of the person - a theomorphic being - in trust until the time when s/he grows up and grows into the full stature of what God created s/he to be. (BTW - look at the saints ... no two are the same ... they never complained about outgrowing the church) I think there might be another way of understanding the notion of "being saved." I think it has something to do with the idea of "Sanctuary." The Sanctuary, whether it's in Jewish or Christian theology, has always meant "a safe place." The Church is precisely that, it is the ONLY place that holds to the idea that god created man 'in his own image'. The world would have you believe that man was created either by chance, or for the benefit of his apetites. I have written an extended essay on the esoterism and metaphysics of 'sanctuary' which you can read here: http://www.theveil.net/veil/ren/veil_1_1.html Thomas

01-20-2006, 02:16 PM	#11 (permalink)
Thomas Will you also go away? Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,203	Re: Catholicism, Ecumenism and Salvation Hi Lunamoth Having replied to the others, I am honour bound to reply to you also ... but I found nothing to argue with in your posts ... so before this turns into a mutual appreciation society, I shall say bye bye. Thomas