|
David Mitchell
Been thinking about Mike and Mary Margaret's post last week about the Pope's conversation with the press about the French bishop's change in the wording of the Lord's Prayer. I really thought MM's addition of the Catholic Register article was terriffic, and helpful in understanding that whole matter.
But it came within a day of another disccussion I was in about another use of words and their effect on Catholic/Christian history. It was about the replacement of the old Greek word for Church - Ekklesia (english spelling of a greek word) in the early scripture translations. In the middle ages Christian leaders replaced that word with a germanic term which was close to Kirche. This has enormous and history altering effect on the phrase, "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock, I will build my Church".
The original Greek word for church was Ekklesia, which means (my) following, (my) gathering, those (I have) called out. But when Church fathers in the middle ages changed it, it was a turning back to the ancient Hebrew concept, or even before them - the notion of a specific special place - what is sometimes called "Temple Mentality" - the idea that there had to be a specail place (building), and special people (high priests - later priests and bishops, etc.). This came about to continue the sort of (my words) stronghold the clergy had on the population. That gets back to my earlier point about what my (devout Catholic ) father's expression meant - "Vatican Control Syndrome" (that Rome was more concerend about rules and control, than about the "promises"). This grew more prevalent over time as Rome needed to consolidate it's power in the face of the threat from the onrushing hoards of Goths, Visgoths, Huns, etc. It eventually became the normal M.O. in order to insure control over the masses. For example, the period of Tetzel, "selling" indulgences to the poor, frightened, (and uneducated) Germanic population to "buy" their ancestors way out of Purgatory (the collected funds were I beleive used to build St. Petr's Basilica in Rome).
The idea became such a sticking point that when Tyndale dared publish his first English language (mass distribution) Bible in early 1500's, he was strangled to death and burned at the stake for his "crime" (against the "state" so to speak). Even Thomas More was critical of him. For the church to allow the common man to read the Scriptures himself - and find out that he himself had direct access to God, was a serious threat to the hierarchy.
I could developed this further but for the sake of brevity (Dave - brevity? You're kidding). It means that Christ never intended for the Popes to be of such singular power and that there was no intention of great "sacred basilicas", nor all the gaudy timmings and trappings that have grown around it. This kind of worldly temporal power I believe is one of the great mistakes of all Christianity - that our faith is not rooted in earthly power and diplayed granduer, but in the hearts and minds and souls of those who wish to follow "the One who came not to be served, but to serve". In the words of one well-known pastor, WE ARE SCARING THE KIDS (away)!
So I am arguing that all the concern over Rome and the Popes and their contol is NOT how Christ intended it to be.
Please don't any of my loyal Catholic friends take offense. I am NOT trying to criticise you. I just disagree with much of what is "Romanized", "Institutionalized", etc. I thought this point might be interesting at this time after that article about the Lord's prayer.
And I might as well confess - I do not beleive in Purgatory. Don't think I have since about 5th grade. And I might also admit, I can't spell. (sorry Nina)
|
