I don't think I'd be able to number on the fingers of 1 hand akin cases that happened to me erstwhile I was reasoning about ideas or the mentality of people who are present to me. erstwhile a thought started to germinate in my head, something was beginning to form, and I thought that I yet understood what “thing” in the substance I was reasoning about, I read a Chesterton article and discovered that he had already described it ninety or a 100 years earlier. It made me bow before him. This British writer and author utilized the pen highly skillfully, but he was just as good at utilizing grey cells and seeing the root of the problem. I think that on the most general level this indicates that the next ideas of successive generations are only evolving old mistakes, trying to improve what from the point of view of Catholic orthodoxy cannot be better. To improve the planet by not proposing improvements on circumstantial issues, but by questioning the grounds (dogmas), we are doomed to failure. This way we can put quite a few effort before we realize that our thought was missed in the assumptions themselves. Even worse, erstwhile the fresh dogma becomes the rejection of dogmas and it begins to build on it.
Mind Without Religion
A fewer months ago, I heard a question about cross-country expeditions. What was their goal? My interlocutor claimed he was able to realize the desire to conquer, plunder, but not take the land distant from the infidels, for it is holy land. And we could actually compose a protocol of divergence at this point, due to the fact that how else could I defend the thought of the crusade itself? The head of the medieval knight functioned in the Christian imaginarium. religion was obvious. Of course, it was frequently utilized for its own interests by feudal masters, church hierarchs or monarchs. However, they believed it all. Sins and manipulations of the teaching of the Church lay on their consciences. They did not usage religion to keep the people under the boot, and at angles they laughed at the “dark people.” From time to time, they had to lay low in front of the confessor and study on wrongdoing. The most hardened of course could lie even then and feel like they were gods themselves, but it's only pride, not the conspiracy of the elite.
Let me put it this way. Even if the pope or kings and knights saw in the crusades a good excuse for doing good interest, gaining power and prestige, these excuses (reflection from the hands of the infidels of the Holy Land, defending pilgrims, caring for holy places connected with the life of Jesus himself) were authentic. The Knights marched to Palestine to take these lands back to Muslims due to the fact that that was the right thing to do. They put their lives at hazard for the cause, and after all, there were more dangers than just in armed clashes. You had to scope Palestine by sea or land, but both options were dangerous and challenging. It was easier to get sick in a unusual climate. The goal was to justify the means of an armed expedition. In the optics of European knights since the late 11th century (when crusades began) it was not an offensive operation, but a reflection of these lands. Before they got into the hands of the Arabs, they were part of the Roman Empire (Byzantium), a Christian empire. The Muslims, who began their missionary work with large conquests, most likely besides felt that Palestine should be theirs. The most important, however, is that both religions (i.e. Christianity/Catholicism and Islam) are orthodox. They both consider themselves the only actual religion. Conflict is simply a natural thing. Catholics should strive to convert others for their sake (but without the usage of force, due to the fact that what kind of religion is this in fear of the sword?), Islam seeks to make the full earth Muslim. Only then can the holy war cease.
Both are rather common today. spiritual freedom is right, but its drift toward recognizing all religions as equal, or at least not recognising any as right (and so the only right) does not make much sense. Of course, 1 can have the view that all religions are equally incorrect or that this cannot be determined. However, it is simply a serious mistake to require spiritual people to share that belief. The Catholic cannot believe that the Protestant has his point (at most where he agrees with the orthodoxy of the KK); the Muslim cannot state that the Catholic or Protestant has his point. He can't due to the fact that Allah gave him the religion he needs to practice entirely. She's real to him. Confession of religion as a right and leading to any form of salvation, and at the same time reasoning that confessing another religions is just as effective (or sufficient) way to accomplish the same goal is absurd. The attachment to religion is then irrational and accidental. We cultivate religion due to its afflictions (it is around larger holidays) or as a tradition passed on by ancestors. But then the question is: why not go back so much as to discover the minute erstwhile our very ancient ancestors abandoned pagan cults for Christianity? And possibly we should return to this actual tradition? Rejecting the fact of religion as a criterion, it can be decided, after all, to cultivate actual Slavic traditions alternatively of those imported or to look at societies based on different religions and to choose the "most effective" religion as a political and social ideology?
Ridley Scott's movie "The Kingdom of Heaven" almost 20 years ago seems to have something to say about religion that suits contemporary tastes. On the 1 hand, Balian, the main character played by Orlando Bloom, genuinely believes that the expedition to the Holy Land and the fight against the Saracens will give him forgiveness of sins, on the another hand, the Catholic position is treated with a wink. The affirmative hero, the leper king of Jerusalem, wants peace, can deal with Sultan Saladin. But before he dies, he chooses what he should believe. He has no intention of confessing to the priest, claiming that he will confess himself to God. In another scene, Balian wants to burn the corpses of the dead during the siege, in order to avoid the plague, which the priest opposes, claiming to contradict the anticipation of resurrection of bodies after cremation. The 2 most affirmative heroes, however, choose rather easy what to believe. While Balian had in head the welfare of those who were inactive alive, there is no good reason for the King’s reluctance to confess.
In fact, the characters who invoke the teaching of the church are negative characters in the film, who usage religion for their own purposes, strive for war for their own fame and do not number with others. There is no knowing for the authentic belief in teaching the church on more circumstantial issues. A single free head is better than the teaching of an institution set up by the Savior and lasting for over a millennium. Philip Adamus wrote in National Politics (No. 26). It was besides posted on the fresh Deal portal.
True Heresies
Observing the occasional statements of celebrities about their consideration of the apostasy due to the fact that the Church cheats, and the faithful behave no better than those who renounce their faith, he asks himself the question that everyone has actually heard: “What has 1 thing to do with the other?” I realize that we can begin to uncertainty the intentions of the KK as a full due to the serious sins and abuse of its members – both secular and hierarchs. However, I do not realize how, after considering the substance calmly, it can be considered that, due to the crimes committed by Catholics, as well as the hypocrisy among practicing believers and priests, it does not arise from this fact that it is not an component of 1 large game and deception, which is the basis for a comfortable life of the clergy at the expense of his sheep. I remember that a fewer years ago I did not support the manifestation of the CODE, but due to the fact that I did not think that their demands were due to real problems, but are inspired to overthrow the "wrong" government. The facts related to the financial irregularities committed by the leader of the organization were irrelevant. I propose the same reasoning to those who consider apostasy. Can you tell that this is simply a large deal? Why not consider the serious issues first: What religion seems the most coherent? Do you know what religion you want to reject? Is she any more sensible or not convincing?
In general mentality, there is simply a image of Marcin Luther, who attacked the buying of indulgences and another abuses of the Church at the time. specified an unheard reformer who rebelled against a corrupt institution. And that was not the priest's rebellion. Marcin Luther had his concept of Christianity. He based himself on the rule of Sol Scriptura (only writing), but besides chose from Scripture different books than before the Church. It should be noted that Luther was, in the strict sense of the word, a heretic. He referred to any part of the Church's teaching, any changed, any rejected and introduced fresh faith. He did not establish a fresh Church free from corruption. And if so, distortions would evidently be in his optics, even the selection of scriptures considered inspired or doctrine of justification. Luther was a heretic, but that means he understood what he believed and rejected. The modern apostate is not a philosopher or a theologian (or at least specified apostates are a margin in a numerical sense) who dislikes any dogma after he learns it and finds it unbecoming to the full doctrine. In another words, a heretic is simply a profoundly believing individual who stated that he understood religion better than the Church itself, and for this he is not with him along the way. Apostate is more frequently individual who has not gone to specified problem as a heretic. He would like the Church to be a club of undefiled people. Only then would he be credible. In fact, the sins of the Church are a perfect excuse to leave him in conviction of a pure conscience, not having to worry about prohibitions of adultery or the request of testimony. specified an apostate is frequently right in his criticism of members of the Church, he makes a mistake by shifting it to the essence of this organization, questioning its meaning.
The Consequences of Heresy and Schism
Marcin Luther - this is praise - was a sincere heretic, and so in his conviction he had actual faith. His speech, however, would not be of much importance if not for the fact that utilizing the latest achievements of technology to conduct propaganda could convince himself of mass, but even more importantly, if not for the protection of the Saxon elector. The success of the Reformation is simply a consequence of the anticipation of secularizing church estates. Countries that became Protestant have rapidly moved on. The Monarchs became rich and corrupted a fresh or old noble with money taken over, among others, by monasteries. Henry VIII, in turn, was not a heretic. His separation from the Church resulted from his own request to break 1 principle. However, the English king did not question the principles of faith, and in his conviction he died as a Catholic. Englishism was invented fundamentally after his death as a religion through changes in doctrine and rite.
Rather, the modern apostate resembles Henry VIII, who breaks the unity for any peculiar benefit to get out of oppression. However, both Luther and Henry VIII made the rulers stand above the Papacy. The universal morality and dogmas of all have lost the right of existence. In England, the king officially headed the church. In the Reich countries, the princes, thanks to a fresh religion, did not gotta worry about an organization opponent who was financially independent. An opponent who restricted their power. In the explanation of kings and princes, spiritual principles were inactive limited, but the full structure was subjected to them.
We kind of get to the same place on the another side. By rejecting the rightness of Catholic doctrine and the truthfulness of Revelation, we are convinced that all religion can be true, then that each leads to God, and that may all be equal. Conversion and missionary activity become a “proselitism”. Therefore, different views should be allowed to debate. They're conflicting. More crucial than the truth, it becomes to accomplish a common position. Therefore, views arguing with the dogma that all religions and views are equal cannot be tolerated. It turns out that it is essential to enforce that "exclusible" opinions disappear, at least from public space. And it is up to the state authorities to guarantee that. Rejecting dogmas, we come to a situation where new, seemingly anti-dogmatic—about universal freedom and tolerance. Catholic dogmas are besides restrictive, so they are replaced with those that let in explanation almost everything. Where do they come from? From “wise heads”, authorities, artists, scientists, politicians. They know better what Jesus meant, what Christianity is acceptable. alternatively of entrusting the institution that keeps the Revelation and transmits it for 2 1000 years, it entrusts itself to anyone who rejects the most hard requirements of religion, leaving its facade. You believe in what is convenient, possibly unconsciously, trusting yourself more in the questionable single rule either to the seer of “distortion” or to the grasp of the thought that fits us or our times. At the same time, we do not realize that it is actually a manifestation of pride - to think that we know better and that we will come up with a better Church or "realer" Christianity. And we will only make a state that will invent religion again, and then there will be no Church that would balance the state power.
Both heretical occurrences leading consequently to schism and schism (or individual apostasy) due to “distortion” can lead to the construction of state organisms without a circumstantial fuse of spiritual power. Individually, too, they can lead to an erosion of conscience erstwhile the truthfulness of the dogmas of faith, but besides the resulting practices, is assessed by man himself. Without studying how church teaching was created in continuity with Revelation, we are able in our own opinion to stay truthful, but to deprive our “worldview” of philosophical cohesion. Hence, a simple way to accept conflicting views on individual matters and spiritual confusion. Starting with the fact that you have your own head and will not perceive to a priest, you take your head for infallible. It doesn't substance what you believe, but just not what the clergy say. It begins to build a view with a dogma about the fallacy of KK, specified an anti-belief. Reason itself is very important. It is worth following, but without a large and frequently and deep cognition of past or theology, it is easy to choose incorrect intermediaries and it may turn out that the priest was the least bad advisor. In the end, however, we cannot know everything and individual must be trusted and aware that intermediaries exist, and we are not so wise.
In the social area, for a fuse, erstwhile the law derived from Revelation disappears, there remains a natural law, but this is besides with time of debate. Human rights are established, but they evolve until any of them are denied. Everything becomes any kind of deal that in the future turns out to be renegotiable or reinterpreted. Then the wisdom of subsequent times claims the right to infallibility due to human progress. And as Chesterton mentioned at the beginning, Catholics have far greater freedom to argue about things little distant (such as Lincoln's presidency, as he wrote in 1 of his essays in the collection “For the Cause”). And without a fixed foundation, our arguments on another subjects can be completely abstract. Consent on basic subjects (like what a man is) would save us energy to fight for things that would then be apparent to everyone.
