Friday, June 03, 2005
NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
Prior to VII we saw the Church as those in communion with the Pope, period. At VII this definition was expanded to include Orthodox and Protestants, and it was cautiously considered that others in nonchristian faiths might belong as well somewhere on the fringes.
The problem then became where does the Church stop? And the answer was that we don't know. That has its own consequences.
The Church is often called the Bride of Christ, so let's look at a marriage.
We know who is in the marriage--the bride and groom--the husband and wife. We assume that no other human is part of that marriage, that the bride and groom have an exclusive love relationship. Now let's consider what would happen if we opened that love relationship up to the possibility that others were part of the marriage. How about the sister of the bride. Well sure, she has a love relationship to the marriage, as do the other relatives of both spouses. And of course everyone who impacts those relatives of the bride and groom has a secondary love relationship to the bride and groom arising out of their influence on those who have a primary relationship to the bride and groom.
The problem now becomes who does not belong to the marriage, and the boundary becomes difficult to define. "Love" extends to the whole human race. The "love" of Christ which is the essential ingredient to a successful marriage belongs to every other person who has any claim on the marriage as well. Love must not stop at the boundaries of the marriage, assuming we could define those boundaries, which of course we can't now that we are extending the marital love to all and sundry.
What comes next when we have extended the love that belongs to the marriage? I would suggest that the sexual relationship of the bride and groom become compromised when the boundaries are blurred. True to the analogy, sexual boundary issues plague contemporary marriages. They also plague the Church. The Body of Christ has become promiscuous, and in specific instances it has done so because boundaries have been obscured.
Cases in point are the very instances of priestly sexual abuse. In addition Catholic marriages are breaking up at the same rate that noncatholic marriages break up. If we are confused about boundaries, we make bad decisions.
There are other cases of boundary confusion to point to. Chapter 6 of Lee's book False Dawn is titled "A Divided Verdict: The Churches and the URI." A subsection of that chapter is "The Catholic Church" in which he lists the Vatican's staunch opposition to URI and then goes on to a section on "Catholic Dissent--Standing With the United Religions." The Archdiocese of San Francisco gets special mention--that same source of the new man in charge of the Doctrine of the Faith. Lee also lists numerous other Catholics who stand with the URI. Boundary issues here, too, are clouding our perception of what is acceptable interreligious practice and what is not. And I would suggest that our redefinition of "outside the Church there is no salvation" is the precise reason that we are confused about what to do about the URI.
But look at what these Catholics are embracing! The love and goodwill of the Church is embracing H. P. Blavatsky's Lucifer god, a god who intends as soon as possible to annihliate the Church. This is an extension of the boundaries of the faith into an absurdity. Lucifer is getting what he has wanted since the war in heaven when he declared he would not serve, and he is getting it with the help of those who claim to be serving Christ. Efforts to call a halt fall on deaf ears because we have no boundaries--no walls that tell us Lucifer is outside of the Church. The walls have been thrown down, and everything in creation has been invited in; even the enemies of Christ are being welcomed.
Imagine yourself standing atop a 20 story building gazing at the view on all sides. Imagine that this observation deck has no walls. It is quite possible to walk to the edge of the deck and step off. How close to that edge are you willing to come? There is danger in having no walls. We perceive that real danger exists and we cling to the elevator shaft, or if we do not, we may meet our Maker sooner than expected. But erect walls around the perimeter of the deck. Now we walk over to the wall which stands at the very edge of the building that we had been afraid to approach. We can do this with confidence because we know that we will go this far and no farther. We will remain safely within the boundaries that keep us safe. The walls give us freedom. The lack of walls brings danger too close, taking away our freedom.
I would suggest that throwing down the walls at Vatican II has made a reality the very real danger of worshipping a false god and losing our immortal soul to the antichrist, all done with the best intentions of drawing the world into the Church.
There is evidence to support this theory. Look at the nuns who have embraced goddess worship, all in the name of extending Christ's love. Look at the priests who, like Fr. Richard Rohr, seem to be embracing homosexual activity as a good. And look at the evidence Lee presents in his book of numerous Catholics who see nothing wrong with the syncretistic organization that Bishop Swing has proposed.
Boundaries. We need them in a marriage. We need them in the Church. There must be limits within which lies our freedom. There must be limits within which lies our faith.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
