In response to Loki/Paul:
If the spirit of the faith (plug in your own choice) is intact but the body changes because of environment, I can flow with that.
Hrmmmm.... personally, I don't feel this is really the "spirit of the faith" as opposed to the "spirit" of the likes of rationalism, humanism, and pluralism (the ecumenical movement is a good example of this). Not that any of that is a bad thing --- I think it is a positive change pretty much anyway you look at it.
However, I would also add that all these are changes in the
exoteric forms of the religion, and not in the
esoteric substance underlying it. I still feel that the esoteric core of most of Western religion is sorely lacking (most probably due to traditional historical attitudes regarding mysticism).
I think the shift that Vatican II is attempting is within the 'spirit' of the early century churchs as a whole.
I would disagree with this. I think the shift is toward modernization and pluralism.
A shift toward the "spirit" of the early churches as a whole would see the canonizing of, say, the Gospel of Thomas and see individuals like, say, Meister Eckhart, Valentinus, and Origen be made into saints. It would also see a more open attitude toward mysticism and contemplative practice as a whole (which, as it stands now, is generally relegated to monastic settings and traditions).
R.Catholic authorities are running into the same problems as the Constantinian church - voluntary followers.
I don't think so. The current Catholic church seems to be leaning toward pluralism --- the Constantinian church was the exact opposite. The major problem of the Constantinian church was that Christianity was not a set, monolithic tradition as they fervently wished to believe; the major threat to their perceived "monolism" was the pluralistic community of dissidents, heretics, gnostics, and so forth that made up "Christianity" at the time.
Also, with the shift away from Church/State combinations in general, R.Catholic Papal authorities are also adjusting from Canon LAWS to control the masses and are attempting to be more of a facilitator of and a promotor/nurturer of personal and spiritual relationships for the people with God. It is a large, clunky body politic, but I think R.C. Church is finally recognizing that they are a religious leadership body for the purpose of spiritual development and not a political body of leadership (except possibly on the same level as any other steering committee/special interest group).
Perhaps. But, I feel the major problem is that most leaders within the Catholic church (or any ecclesiastical organization, for that matter) don't really understand much of "spiritual development" to begin with (not outside the monastic settings, that is).
Real personal development, particularly of the spiritual flavor, is not simply a changing or adjusting of one's beliefs --- as has been traditionally thought. It is an actual
evolution of the substance of one's thinking. Not simply the form. You may believe in Jesus as Lord, the Golden Rule is a good idea, and God loves all his children. But if the basis, substance, and reasoning behind those beliefs are something along the lines of "cuz the Bible tells me so" or "Christianity is right, everyone else is wrong", then you aren't a particularly highly developed or "spiritual" person.
My point was not directed at any slight or implied prejudice. I was noticing that there was some generalization in general (groan;() that might create some misrepresentation/misunderstanding for any further discussion. Words and definitions/ideas need to be very clear in these types of discussions. It is really hard to understand someone when you are working from definition/idea X when the messenger is trying to communicate definition/idea Y.
Meh, nothing to worry about.
One point of constant dispute is celibacy and clergy. For Christianity at least, somewhere there was in history some guy who started rejecting the earthly aspects of his life in order to touch the spiritual and that included isolation (monistary life), silence, celibacy, simple foods, constance prayer..... and so on. After a while he got some groupies who wanted to join him (ruins the whole isolation idea doesn't it) BUT this was not implied, ordered or even hinted at in the Bible or by New Testament sentiments. It is, to the best of my knowledge, something I like to call a 'christian folkism' or something that after time people inject into christianity but isn't originally part of the roots.
Errrrr.... sorta, but not really.
One of the distinctive differences between many Christian sects and the typical Jewish ones was the position of family, home, material possessions, marriage, and so forth. Judaism is, typically, a very
ethnic and very
familial religion --- honor thy father and mother, trace your lineage to David, marriage is good, you're born a Jew, there's no real problem with divorce, and so forth. Christianity, on the other hand, began to embrace a more Pythagorean and Cynic approach --- give up all one's possessions and family to follow 'The Way'. And, that's in the New Testament, any way you slice it. I seem to recall Paul even saying something about how great cellibacy is.
This was most definately an influence from the Hellenistic philosophies of the time --- Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Cynicism, and Stoicism all contain sentiments like this. Judaism, outside of Pagan-influenced "solar cults" like the Essenes and Therapeutae, did not traditionally contain these sentiments. Paul, who is especially influenced by Plato, talks about this stuff all the time in his genuine epistles.
There were exceptions, of course --- such as Gnostic sects like the Ebonites and Nazarenes, who were extremely pro-Jewish and pro-Torah in orientation. Groups like the Simonians and Marcionites seemed to be on the opposite end of the spectrum (very much disliking the Law).
In actual practice, however, most Gnostics and Christians had families, of course. I believe most of this was generally limited to monastic communities, following the example of Pythagoras (yup, he had the first real "monastery" in the West).
I am pretty sure Heretic could expound upon the number of Gnostic practices and customs that the R.Catholic church as assimilated - like the stations of the cross for example - because they were things that the masses found popular and the Roman based powers had to "go along to get along" by including or risk losing followers or having to charge a huge number of the people with heracy for still observing these customs.
Well, Gnostic in the sense of Pagan Gnosticism and not necessarily Christian Gnosticism.
The truth is a lot of those "Pagan" ideas were part of Christianity long before Constantine ever showed up. I mean, c'mon --- virgin birth, eat and drink the God to become immortal, death and resurrection, water into wine?? Sheer Mystery school stuff, through and through. The typical Protestant accusation of Catholicism is that the Church "added" a lot of Pagan ideas to Christianity (such as All Hallow's Eve), but this is but a half-truth --- Christianity had a lot of Pagan ideas to begin with. The very essence of the faith are essentially Mystery School forumulations.
Of course, "Pagan" elements continued to be incorporated throughout the centuries --- particularly whenever Christianity was brought to a foreign land (as any "Celtic Christian" can readily explain to you).
There seems to be a small, but practical minded group, within the Catholic orders who are for allowing priests the right to be married. The alternative is to expand the powers and sacraments that Deacons can preside over within the rules of the Church.
Well.... what needs to be understood is that most of this "matter is bad, the flesh is sinful" comes from exaggerations or misunderstandings. A lot of early Christians, particularly Gnostics, definately believed this stuff --- but, it was essentially an extreme pronouncement of formless mysticism, common to many traditions of the time (such as Theravada Buddhism).
You know: the world is evil, all life is suffering, we're in samsara, Satan is the "god of this world", the flesh does not inherit the Kingdom, the phenomenal world is an illusion (maya), yadda yadda yadda --- of course, there
was a point to all that. If you focus
only on the "world of matter", then you can't possibly transcend suffering (so to speak). These traditions tended, of course, to just go in the opposite direction.
A few centuries later, a balance began to show up: Nondualism. Y'know --- "Form is not other than Emptiness, Emptiness is not other than Form". Plotinus' embracing of the Ascending and Descending currents of the Godhead. Valentianinism would probably be the best Christian example. Basically, with formless mysticism, the world of Form was rejected for the world of Spirit (thus the strict dualism, or monism at times) ---- with nondual mysticism, it was realized that the world of Form was an
expression of the world of Spirit, not just some illusory bupkis.
How does this translate to modern Catholic pratice?? Dunno, most priests aren't mystics and don't meditate --- so it really shouldn't matter to them much.
Historically, I have my suspicions that it was a way of putting a very "GREEK" stamp on the Constantinian Christianity because it elevated the status of male friendship/relationships over male/female relationships. Greeks have a very love/hate relationship with the marriage/sex aspect of mixed gender relationship. Remember who opened Pandora's box? Cupid's arrows originally were seen as poisonous and a curse and painful NOT the Valentine/Disney-fied version that we think is so cute now. "Romantic" love was a curse and a disease that deprived folks of sanity and reason.
Yeah, but this kind of stuff was in effect long before Constantine came on the scene. Just look at the bedrock layer of the "Gospel of Q" (Q1), or to the authentic letters of Paul. This kind of "anti-matter, anti-family" stuff is all over the place.
The simple truth is that Christianity of its various forms was
based on Hellenistic philosophy and religion (despite the rather silly pronouncements of Diabolical Mimicry and Mythical Prefigurement) --- both in ethics and in myths. Which, really, doesn't come as any surprise --- groups like the Therapeutae, or Alexandrian Jews as a whole (we really have to reject the idea that Christianity was "born" of Palestine in favor of places like Syria, Antioch, and Alexandria), were definately going towards integrating such ideas with Judaism. Just read some Philo Judaeus and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Laterz.
