[nyokodo]

> Because evidence (schisms, actual errors from the Church institution throughout time, not the least sex scandals we are not done with yet) shows that if God was actively directing the Church in the past and today, oh boy…

Except all the scandals and anti-Popes are empirical evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. Despite all that the teachings of the Church are fundamentally unchanged. I can read St Justin Martyr and recognize the teaching of the Eucharist from the second century that itself is in continuity with John 6. Go through all Catholic teachings and you’ll find continuity from the beginning despite all the forces that wanted to change it for thousands of years.

The religion founded by the man betrayed by His own Apostle and then disowned or abandoned by the rest, executed brutally and sadistically by the Romans, that religion went on to conquer the Roman world within a few centuries and then make its way through the whole world for thousands of years. Why? Because Jesus rose from the dead and against His Church the gates of hell won’t prevail.

[grahamj]

> Except all the scandals and anti-Popes are empirical evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.

> Jesus rose from the dead and against His Church the gates of hell won’t prevail.

I'll never understand how anyone can believe these things.

[Juliate]

I don’t buy this so much as this is the perfect excuse for evil in humanity to continue to govern, wherever it is (“yeah it’s bad, but there’s a Plan behind all this” - very similar to how Qanon tried to operate).

You see continuity and consistence while others see that it’s not only the religion that conquered the Roman world, but the Roman Empire that also conquered the religion to secure its existence.

So much of the Church extension starting from the XIth century, comes, shouts even, more from its Roman heritage than from its Christian’s (one thread being that it mixed temporal and spiritual concerns instead of making them obviously distinct).

But “we” take it for some divine inspiration and spiritual guidance while it’s merely equivalent to humans laws: contextual, biased and open to critique and upgrades down the line.

What’s remarkable is the totally opposed, considerations we can have on the Church (and it seems, the concepts of hell & heaven), while having the same fidelity to the Christ’s teaching (which, in the end, matters most), and both seeing how the institution both sabotages and helps its mission.

[shakna]

> one thread being that it mixed temporal and spiritual concerns instead of making them obviously distinct

That's really, really, not something Christianity gained from Rome. Judaism is, and always has been, a religion of the practical world. It prescripts how to live, from the very beginning. The Torah is very concerned with the answering of how to live, as well as the why to live that way.

[Juliate]

Good point, yes, Christianity came with its own judaic heritage.

But without the centralised, territorial organization, administrative structures, cultural tools (especially Latin) and normative legal framework from Rome, the Church wouldn't have had the means to influence consistently so much the society of its time and the ability to support and control a spread that extensive through Europe and further.

By choosing Christianity, Constantin found a way for the Empire to survive into something different. And Christianity gained a tremendous powerhouse to use and adapt for its own growth.

And my point is that this hybrid huge "thing" is more driven today by its institutional heritage than spiritual's (otherwise, it would act vehemently more about its power abuses, sexual abuses, and terrible understanding of marital life, if only for pastoral care). And that's because it's much more a man-made (and male-made) organisation rather than one guided by God.

[nyokodo]

> this is the perfect excuse for evil in humanity to continue to govern

Historical facts, like the Church and her teaching being invincible to the attacks against her over the millennia, has no relation to what ought to happen. Facts are facts not excuses and attempting to bring in that into the issue is a non-sequitur.

[Juliate]

Don't get your point.

EDIT: especially because

1/ I don't see how the Church's teachings have been "invincible" over millennia. It evolved, if only by synods, that debated and settled dogmas (and what was true at one point, became not at some later one... so go figure). And outside of its sphere of influence, it's been shown (not always, but enough to question its whole authority) to be wrong or irrelevant - sexual and power abuse scandals are the most prominent and recent fruits of evil I can quote.

2/ claiming that God's is behind you, without any relevant and factual proof of it (and any verifiable claim from God saying that you indeed are acting in His Name), is the perfect excuse to do whatever you want, as no one would think of critiquing you. "Tradition" is of no help either here. That's the Achille's heel of hierarchical religions.