The Heavens Are Silent

[Era Might]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='05 March 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1267825656' post='2067234']
that stuff about the institutionalization of good, and lack of courage, and lack of true personal decisions. it's actually a good philosophical foundation for more protestant ideas, particularly vis a vis the 'the church needs to be one, physically and otherwise' that catholics often pound.
see, after the factual and biblical debates boil down about whether the catholic church is true, catholisc often resort to philosophical arguemnts abo0ut 'one church' and 'that has to be what God wants'. i see the connection better now, between teh 'have you accepted jesus as your personal lord and savoir' etc rhetoric, and the way to philosophically oppose 'the church must be one in all ways' stuff.
it all boils down to 'if i were God, what would I do'?
before id jsut say 'one church in all ways isn't what god wants necessarily', but now i'd say, instutionalizatio isn't necesarily want God wants, philosophycall speaking.

i do know ive always found it cheap, that ya go to church cause ya have to etc. it's like, what about goig to commune with other christians, in a less 'have to' sort of way? not that the random bible church or methodist church is any better but. it's not grass roots, arguably what God wants. i do know though, that i sometimes find 'family' obligatios as cheap, or 'friends with your roomate cause he's your roomate' etc etc, anything institutioal, as cheap. God did create us as a family though, so i can't complain too much, maybe i cant for an insitutioalized church either- it might be the same idea.
[/quote]
The problem with Protestantism is that it lacks the anchor of Tradition. Without Tradition, then the freedom of the Gospel loses its roots. The freedom of the Gospel is not an individualism.

I find Protestantism erroneous, for a number of reasons. I could never be Protestant. But I think you're right that Protestantism originally did have a sense of breaking the shackles of institutionalization. But the Church cannot be the Church without hierarchical authority (and Protestantism largely rejects hierarchical authority). I do not deny the authority of the Bishops as successors of the Apostles. But I do have a problem with how this authority has been institutionalized over the centuries. I think that the Church has strayed far from the model of authority that we see among the Apostles.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"This is the experience of sinfulness. It is an experience of confusion in front of the infinitely good, but it always holds the possibility of sweet tears, which express sorrow and trust in forgiveness. This dimension of very personal, very intimate failure is changed through criminalization, and through the way in which forgiveness becomes a matter of legal remission. Once the sinner is obligated to seek legal remission of a crime, his sorrow and his hope in God’s mercy becomes a secondary issue. The legalization of love opens the individual to new fears. Darkness takes new shapes: the fear of demons, the fear of witches, the fear of magic. And the depth of these fears is also expressed in a new hope in science as the way of banishing this darkness. In my index cards I give this subject matter the heading “UFOs, Unidentified Flying Objects,” an anachronism obviously, and I think the phenomena that I group under this heading are almost an inevitable result of the criminalization of sin. These fears are easily exploited by politicians, and Delumeau contends that this is one of the main ways in which the power of the state is consolidated. I will return to this subject later."

i have similar ideas, regarding my apprehensiveness of 'legal atonement' by western and modern christianity, as opposed to the orthodox and early church understanding. legalism pollute the good stuff, arguably.
plus, i've been reading about how 'superficial egos' and 'false religions' can crop up even to the point of fake apparitions etc. like the bible passage that says miracles can happen to deceive people etc. i do know that some say 'how are the marian apparitions different than the UFO sitings etc?' in terms of evidence etc. miracles often produced though with apparitions.
miracles etc i admit are my biggest drawer to the catholic church, or at least the orthodox, not that the protestant churches dont have them etc etc, insert various disclaimers.

[Winchester]

Era,
Thanks. I want to take time with my rebuttal. Will think about this but have one central and quick response, and that it that human organizations of any sort act in some way as an individual human life and so must go through constant renewal. This is one of the evident patterns in the Bible, with the people of God continually (as a group and as individuals) falling away and losing their purpose.

And another thing... Jesus never advocated the destruction of the religious authority of his time, in spite of their corruption. Perhaps by removing the institutionalization of the Church, you would feel a renewal instead of the destruction.

[Era Might]

I'll just respond briefly and await your longer rebuttal.

[quote name='Winchester' date='05 March 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1267842895' post='2067314']human organizations of any sort act in some way as an individual human life and so must go through constant renewal. This is one of the evident patterns in the Bible, with the people of God continually (as a group and as individuals) falling away and losing their purpose.[/quote]
Yes, I agree that human organizations are precarious. Which is precisely why I do not believe that Christ gave us a "human organization." He gave us the Church to be the New Covenant family. Faith, hope, and love must hold this family together, not laws and "human organization." If Christ wanted to found a "human organization," he certainly could have done so. There's nothing extraordinary about a "human organization." Anyone can found one. It just takes a little common sense and creativity. I am not against all human organizations. But the one thing I cannot accept is the idea that the Church is a "human organization," because the Church is something transcendent. The Church is a family rooted in radical love and radical freedom. Institutions cannot be radical, because institutions are all about maintaining the status quo. And we have seen this inertia of institutions exemplified in the Church over the centuries; the Church has gradually lost its role as a prophetic witness to Christ, and has instead become a sociocultural and sociopolitical institution.


[quote name='Winchester' date='05 March 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1267842895' post='2067314']And another thing... Jesus never advocated the destruction of the religious authority of his time, in spite of their corruption. Perhaps by removing the institutionalization of the Church, you would feel a renewal instead of the destruction.[/quote]
I would say that rather than destroying religious authority, Christ turned it on its head. The Apostles were thinking in terms of the religious authority of their time when they asked Christ who was the greatest among them. What did Christ say? He did not tell them that there was no greatest among them. Rather, he told them that "He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:11-12).

A major problem with institutionalization is that it does not depend on personal corruption, because institutionalization establishes structural corruption. I have no doubt that there are Bishops in the Church who are personally holy and courageous men. But as Bishops, they work within an ecclesial structure that is buried under centuries of institutionalization. You can't just make surface changes to the Church. You have to knock down the entire institution. The Church is afraid to do that, because it means that the Church would lose its institutional control. But by giving up its institutional control, the Church will find the freedom of being utterly helpless and nailed to a Cross, and the Church will then be able to rebuild as a family rooted in radical love and radical freedom.

[cmotherofpirl]

It says in Timothy that " the church is the pillar and foundation", and if you read St Clements Epistle to the Corinthians the church structure was ordained by Christ.

[Era Might]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='05 March 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1267849206' post='2067364']
It says in Timothy that " the church is the pillar and foundation", and if you read St Clements Epistle to the Corinthians the church structure was ordained by Christ.
[/quote]
Define "church structure." If you mean the fact that the Church is hierarchical, then I agree that this hierarchy is essential to the Church. But a hierarchy does not necessitate an institution.

I would say that the early Church was hierarchical, but over the centuries the Church turned this hierarchy into institutional clericalism.

[Gregorius]

I'm sorry, but I'm still not sure what is meant by "institution". Are you suggesting that institution is separated from the people who comprise it? For that matter, if the Church is indeed "institutionalized", what is the problem with ingraining the Gospel into society at large? Are you suggesting that if the hierarchy act like an institution then they don't really believe in their own message? Please forgive me, I'm not trying to probe so much as to attempt to understand what you are going through. Prayers are being offered.

[Luigi]

In response to the original question, I think I understand your feeling, although I've usually framed it differently to myself.

I've wondered why God requires us to have faith. Clearly, God COULD manifest Himself to us(individually, in small groups, worldwide phenomenon - I'd let Him take His choice), yet He doesn't. We wants us BELIEVE in Him. Okay. Then He COULD give us faith (rather than a manifestation). But He doesn't do that either. Some people - even within the same family - have very strong faith, and others don't, and Paul indicates (I forget where) that God gives faith to whomever he pleases, much to the disappointment of many faith-filled mothers.

It would be so much easier if God would just show Himself - and, during the manifestation, dictate which version of the Mass he prefers, and which language he prefers it in, how long nuns' habits should be, whether the guimpe actually makes a woman holier, whether Luther was right about justification through grace alone, and all of the other questions that have ever plagues the religious-minded. Then we'd know.

But as you say, The Heavens Are Silent. I don't get it, but that seems to be the way He wants it. Maybe faith is the price of original sin or something.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' date='05 March 2010 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1267849404' post='2067365']
Define "church structure." If you mean the fact that the Church is hierarchical, then I agree that that this hierarchy essential to the Church. But a hierarchy does not necessitate an institution.

I would say that the early Church was hierarchical, but over the centuries the Church turned this hierarchy into institutional clericalism.
[/quote]
It's impossible to have a hierarchy (in any meaningful sense) without an institution.
That would be like a bunch of people holding the titles of different military rank (colonel, captain, lieutenant, sergeant, etc.), but with no army, and no actual authority of command. It becomes nothing but meaningless niceties.
A hierarchy is meaningless without actual structure and power of authority.
Do you think Jesus was just joking around with that "binding and loosing" stuff?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' date='06 March 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1267895972' post='2067537']
It's impossible to have a hierarchy (in any meaningful sense) without an institution.
That would be like a bunch of people holding the titles of different military rank (colonel, captain, lieutenant, sergeant, etc.), but with no army, and no actual authority of command. It becomes nothing but meaningless niceties.
A hierarchy is meaningless without actual structure and power of authority.
Do you think Jesus was just joking around with that "binding and loosing" stuff?
[/quote]
I disagree that the Church cannot have a hierarchy without an institution. The early Church had just that.

The authority of the Church is not a social power. Christians are united by love, not by social institutions. Unfortunately, excommunication became over the centuries a form of social power. Institutions need social power, because institutions are held together by the institution, not by love.

Here is an example of how authority in the Church can be exercised without an institution.

[quote]I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber -- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you."

--1Corinthians 5:9-13[/quote]
When Christians cast a brother out of the family, they are exercising authority and discipline. But this is not a form of social/institutional power. This kind of authority that St. Paul writes about makes no sense for institutions. The military, for example, has institutional power to force its members to comply with its orders (e.g., by imprisoning a soldier who goes AWOL). When the Church begins to function as an institution, then the Church also resorts to institutional power (e.g., by having the state execute heretics). The Church's true authority is about witness to Christ. Once the [i]casting out[/i] that St. Paul refers to becomes a form of institutional power, then its spiritual and moral character is corrupted, because it ceases to be about love and becomes about power and control.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"I do not want to be understood here as speaking against confession. I practice it. I am only trying to indicate a crucial moment in the transformation of the impiety which I commit by betraying love, which is the meaning of sin, into a crime which can be judged in a juridical fashion within an institution. Anyone who understands what I’m saying as taking sides in current discussion about the practice of confession in the several churches which have retained it has missed the import of my argument. In fact, I consider the wise use of the confessional over the last 500 years as, by far, the most benign model of soul counseling, pastoral care, and the creation of an inner space for deep conversation, centring on my feeling of sinfulness. It is incomparably better than anything else which I’ve seen so far in my service, and I include my experience with modern psychology."

if the catholic church is true.
look at many a church, and see people half assing it in the pews etc etc, then going home soon after etc, to again point to what institutionalism has done to the catholi church. it boils down to objectively what should be done, if it's true. as soc said, you have to defer to what is being done, even if it's become too depersonalized and too institutionalized. but i'd say that doesn't mean you can't try to change the excessive institutionalization, though that's a formidable battle. despair is understandable. i think a lot of people if it's more than despair, are not getting what Era's issue is exactly, crisis of faith even more generally? apparently not a draw to orthodoxy or def not protestantism?

or with confession. there's two sides here too. what is done, and how one is ojectively to respond to it. it could be more informal like in teh early church, or it could be what it is now, criminalized and formalized etc. whatever it is, that's to be deferred to. doesn't mean it's not open to ya trying to change it, though. i know some catholics like to put down the 'confession, church etc isn't feeding me' or to confession 'it's not psychologically regarding enough' stuff. they say confession is an objective siuation, psychology isn't what one is striving for, per se. course, it is in some sense given the structure of it, and it isn't in other senses, but whatever psychoogical rewards one gets is secondary to the deference to how the church does it, and realizing the objective act itself.

[Apotheoun]

I am not interested in the individualism of disorganized religion, and that is why I got out of the Methodist Church once I realized that there was no method to Methodism.

I feel quite at home in the Melkite Catholic Church, which is organized but without being too legalistic.

[Norseman82]

I think Socrates is getting to the heart of the matter regarding "institutions". I will offer only the following additional thoughts:

[quote name='Era Might' date='06 March 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1267897256' post='2067542']
When Christians cast a brother out of the family, they are exercising authority and discipline. But this is not a form of social/institutional power. [/quote]

Actually, when you think about it, the family is indeed a basic rudimentary institution.

[quote name='Era Might' date='06 March 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1267897256' post='2067542']
This kind of authority that St. Paul writes about makes no sense for institutions. The military, for example, has institutional power to force its members to comply with its orders (e.g., by imprisoning a soldier who goes AWOL). When the Church begins to function as an institution, then the Church also resorts to institutional power (e.g., by having the state execute heretics). The Church's true authority is about witness to Christ. Once the [i]casting out[/i] that St. Paul refers to becomes a form of institutional power, then its spiritual and moral character is corrupted, because it ceases to be about love and becomes about power and control.
[/quote]

I think what you are getting at is when the Church has temporal political power, correct? If so, I can see your point; "ceasaropapism" has problems that cut in both directions.

And I don't see a problem with the "institutionalization of good", since it is better to have institutions on the side of good rather than evil.

However, two things you should ponder outside of the "institution" issues you are dealing with:

1) Is it possible you are going through a "dark night of the soul/senses"? Perhaps reading St. John of the Cross' "Dark Night of the Soul" might be good Lenten reading; however, this can be heavy or dry reading - I know I made an attempt to read it but didn't get far.

2) I remember from your earlier postings (I'm talking about many years ago) that you were planning to become a hermit (which considering your postings regarding "institutions", may be where your heart lies). Is this still where your discernment is leading you? I also recall you posting a question about a girl. Is it possible that you are undergoing internal struggles in your discernment process?

Edited March 6, 2010 by Norseman82

[Era Might]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='06 March 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1267900503' post='2067559']Actually, when you think about it, the family is indeed a basic rudimentary institution.[/quote]
In a broad sense of the word, yes, the family can be seen as an "institution." But the family is not an institution in the more common sense of the word, because family is inherently personal. Once the people in a family die, then that family no longer exists in society. Institutions do not die, because institutions are not personal. Institutions are impersonal and are about insuring the institution's purpose/goals/etc., whereas families are about relationships between specific persons.

[quote name='Norseman82' date='06 March 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1267900503' post='2067559']I think what you are getting at is when the Church has temporal political power, correct? If so, I can see your point; "ceasaropapism" has problems that cut in both directions.[/quote]
Institutional power is not primarily political, although it has taken political forms for the Church over the centuries. Institutional power is essentially about wanting to insure the institution's purpose/goals/etc. As I said before, I do not believe that the Gospel is something that can be insured through an institution, because the Gospel is a free gift that can only be witnessed to and invited to by persons and communities.

[quote name='Norseman82' date='06 March 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1267900503' post='2067559']And I don't see a problem with the "institutionalization of good", since it is better to have institutions on the side of good rather than evil.[/quote]
Institutions inevitably corrupt the good, because institutions turn the good into an object. So, for example, institutionalized charity becomes an object to be preserved in its institutional form, rather than a relationship to be lived between persons. We begin to live through institutions. In other words, "the good" becomes separated from its context as something that persons live, and instead "the good" becomes an object that institutions attempt to insure.

[quote name='Norseman82' date='06 March 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1267900503' post='2067559']However, two things you should ponder outside of the "institution" issues you are dealing with:

1) Is it possible you are going through a "dark night of the soul/senses"? Perhaps reading St. John of the Cross' "Dark Night of the Soul" might be good Lenten reading; however, this can be heavy or dry reading - I know I made an attempt to read it but didn't get far.

2) I remember from your earlier postings (I'm talking about many years ago) that you were planning to become a hermit (which considering your postings regarding "institutions", may be where your heart lies). Is this still where your discernment is leading you? I also recall you posting a question about a girl. Is it possible that you are undergoing internal struggles in your discernment process?[/quote]
I appreciate the concern, but as I said before, I would prefer that this thread not be about me, but rather about the issues that I'm raising. That is why I chose to post in the debate phorum. But thanks for the concern.

[KnightofChrist]

The reason clearly you cannot shake the feeling that there is no God. Is because you lack faith in Mother Church and attack her as a 'institution', and yes it is an attack. While others have tried to knock some sense into you on this matter I will not bother, because it appears to be in vain. You seem dead set on believing the Church is 'institution' and what not. I will only warn you that if you continue to drink and spew this poison you will lose your faith, and/or go down a very dark and lonely road that could end in hell.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='06 March 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1267900503' post='2067559']Actually, when you think about it, the family is indeed a basic rudimentary institution.[/quote]
[quote name='Era Might' date='06 March 2010 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1267901729' post='2067566']
In a broad sense of the word, yes, the family can be seen as an "institution." But the family is not an institution in the more common sense of the word, because family is inherently personal. Once the people in a family die, then that family no longer exists in society. Institutions do not die, because institutions are not personal. Institutions are impersonal and are about insuring the institution's purpose/goals/etc., whereas families are about relationships between specific persons.[/quote]
Just to add to my previous post, it occurred to me that when families do become "institutions" in the usual sense of the word, the result is probably not going to be good. This can be seen, for example, in Latin America in the 19th century, when certain countries were basically controlled by a few rich families. These rich families had all the economic and social power, and so the poor families (who made up most of the country) were oppressed by the institutional system kept in place by the few rich families. Eventually, the people who are affected by an oppressive institution are not going to be able to take it anymore; so, for example, Nicaragua went through a revolution in 1979 after being so long under the oppressive control of the rich family-institutions.

One could say that the Church experienced its own revolution around the 1960s. One interpretation of this revolution is that people rebelled against the Church because those people were sinners or because they had gone astray, etc. But another way to look at this revolution in the Church is that centuries of institutionalization finally caught up with the Church, and people could not take it anymore. Some of those revolutionaries lost their faith. Some of them became heretics. Some of them tried to stay and figure out how they can be Catholic after realizing that the institutional facade of the Church has come crumbling down. Whatever it was that motivated people, the image that the Church had built of itself for centuries came crumbling down, and once people see the institutional facade for what it is, you can't put humpty dumpty back together again. The Church is trying to cling to the institutional facade, because the Church is afraid to truly recover the radical freedom and radical love of the early Church.

When I first became Catholic, I believed in the facade. I thought "Catholic Answers" and similar groups were the greatest thing in the world. I read the "This Rock" magazine and various authors who defend the facade that the Church has built over the centuries. But that facade has come crumbling down for me. I've realized that history and life are not as black and white as I once thought. What does this mean for me as a believer in Christ? I do not know what it means for me. All I know is that I can no longer believe in the phony facade that the institutional Church represents.

[mortify]

God demands an act of faith on our part.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='06 March 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1267909249' post='2067596']
Just to add to my previous post, it occurred to me that when families do become "institutions" in the usual sense, the result is never good. This can be seen, for example, in Latin America in the 19th century, when certain countries were basically controlled by a few rich families. These families had all the economic and social power, and so the poor families (who made up most of the country) were oppressed by the institutional system kept in place by the few rich families. Eventually, the people who are affected by an institution are not going to be able to take it anymore; so, for example, poor Nicaraguans erupted in revolution in 1979 after being so long under that oppressive control of the rich family-institutions.

One could say that the Church experienced its own revolution around the 1960s. One interpretation of this revolution is that people rebelled against the Church because those people were sinners or because they had gone astray, etc. But another way to look at the revolution in the Church is that centuries of institutionalization finally caught up with the Church, and people could not take it anymore. Some of those revolutionaries lost their faith. Some of them became heretics. Some of them tried to stay and figure out how they can be Catholic after realizing that the institutionalized facade of the Church has come crumbling down. Whatever it was that motivated people, the image that the Church had built of itself for centuries came crumbling down, and once people see the institutional facade for what it was, you can't put humpty dumpty back together again. The Church is trying to cling to the institutionalized facade, because the Church is afraid to truly recover the radical freedom and radical love of the early Church.

When I first became Catholic, I believed in the facade. I thought Catholic Answers and similar groups were the greatest thing in the world. I read the "This Rock" magazine and Scott Hahn and the other authors who defend the facade that the Church has built over the centuries. But that facade has come crumbling down for me. I've seen that history and life are not as black and white as I once thought. What does this mean for me as a believer in Christ? I do not know what it means for me. All I know is that I can no longer believe in the phony facade that the institutional Church represents.
[/quote]

What a shame that the devil now has your ear. You did not believe in a facade you believed in truth. It is now that you believe in a facade.

Edited March 6, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[kafka]

Era I recommend reading 'Models of the Church' by Avery Dulles. It is excellent. He criticizes the institutional model of the Church and shows how it has been overemphasized for centuries, since the Protestant revolution. It truly is the weakest model of the Church, but necessary in some sense. Maybe less necessary than we like to think.

I would avoid Scott Hahn and catholic answers, the Rock, and begin reading some real theology by Avery Dulles, Henri de Lubac, Ratzinger and others. You can handle all these intellectually.

Edited March 6, 2010 by kafka

[Era Might]

[quote name='kafka' date='06 March 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1267910581' post='2067607']
Era I recommend reading 'Models of the Church' by Avery Dulles. It is excellent. He criticizes the institutional model of the Church and shows how it has been overemphasized for centuries, since the Protestant revolution. It truly is the weakest model of the Church, but necessary in some sense. Maybe less necessary than we like to think.

I would avoid Scott Hahn and catholic answers, the Rock, and begin reading some real theology by Avery Dulles, Henri de Lubac, Ratzinger and others. You can handle all these intellectually.
[/quote]
Thanks for the Dulles reference, I will definitely check it out.