Originally Posted by ptownrob

(No offense Maryann!)

Steve, I think that's why liberals & conservatives see two different worlds. Same in politics or religion. The Roman Catholic Church is not a constant at all. How do I come to that conclusion?

Well, First of all, in it's first 300 years, the Church evolved dramatically from an underground band of dreamers and schemers who were hated by both Jews and Rome, into a world dominating force that co-opted the Roman Empire, and was co-opted by Rome.

The Church moved from a radical affirmation of the power of the individual to achieve salvation through a DIRECT contact with the Holy Spirit to a multi-leveled system of both clergy and saints interceding- therefore blocking- a direct and personal relationship with God. That was all about power- which is what Rome, and all earthly powers are ultimately all about.

The priesthood did not even exist for the first 300 years. Christians were teachers, prophets, healers and elders. There was no evidence that "ordination" was necessary to celebrate a valid Eucharist. There was no requirement for a celibate priesthood until the 12th century, where it was instituted not for holiness sake, but to stop priests from passing on their land grants to their heirs. No wife, no legitimate heirs, and the Church kept the property.

Even more disturbing is to read the arguments against marriage and ANY intercourse as being filthy and an abomination when near the Eucharist.

The history of the Church is action-reaction, action-reaction, and I believe that you can no more say that Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism doesn't represent "arms" of an ever-changing Church than I could cut off my own arm and say, "That's not my arm any longer."

I'd say arguments to this would come rather easily from a conservative mindset, and they'd be valid. Rome is always Rome, the Pope is the Pope.

But I really support the more radical "view." The church is about change, about bringing people to a personal relationship- a transformative relationship-that empowers the individual. It's Liberation Theology v. traditional theology. It's working towards justice for the poor and disenfranchised rather than focusing on upholding the moral structure of a historically fallible institution.

Fallible? Well, we've had married popes (and priests and bishops), we've had sexually promiscuous popes, two sets of popes at the same time, murderous popes, armies of slaughter under popes, and even most recently, a pope who was seemingly silent about Nazi atrocities. Compare all of these behaviors to that of the early martyrs and founders**, who willingly gave their lives to uphold their faith in Jesus.

So, as a "liberal," the Church represents the open possibilities of working out my Christhood through the grace of God, not pounding my chest about the sinfulness of my human state. The Church holds great mysteries and lessons for transcending our human condition- but those lessons require leaps of faith. The Church exists not to keep us in a state of separation from God, but rather to encourage us to risk it all to become one with the Father. If we see the Church only as some solid, unchanging "rock" we tend not to take the risk of "Dieing to oneself" to be reborn again.

Two very different visions and, I believe irreconcilable ways of seeing our relationship to God, and of OUR relationship to the Church. "Unless a man dies unto himself, he cannot see the kingdom of Heaven." John 3-3. the Cross and sin mean nothing if we don't die on the Cross ourselves. Jesus shows us how to "Cross over." In fact the word "Cross" as in cross the line or criss cross comes from "crux"!

Well, I've taken this thread on a total tangent!