...AND THE UNIVERSAL CRISIS OF THE CHURCH

XVI. Pope Benedict's departure and the advent of I. Francis Pope raises a lot of questions. Perhaps the biggest one is: why do we need a church? At least, why do we need it in this anachronistic way? I don’t mean only the Roman Catholic Church but the Church in general?The faith, religion and the Church don’t stand completely at the same side...

How did it start?

When the world went wrong the Lord sent a prophet to give people a way out of the crisis. In time and space the mankind faced different difficulties and abuses so obviously at time and space different prophets had the honor to give the guidance. Their mission was almost always misunderstood by the people because they thought that God sent the only genuine prophet to them. They considered the other messenger who visited the other group of people was representing not the same values. As if God would have had other truth from place to place!...Because there have not remained authentic written material about the holy missions somegroups of people who considered themselves as chosen ones created the scriptures about their chosenness on their own. These documents were titled later as Holy Scriptures. Over the time they increased the content which strengthened their affiliation to the unique group of the chosen one’s and elites. Simultaneously the phobia of enemy has been created automatically against those who received different prophets in other time and space as if those missionswould have had different content. In the age of the prophecies the mankind witnessed the classic era of faiths when the different religions have started to emerge. On the back of these religions had been established those organizations which were called later as Churches. Theystarted to privatize God for themselves and created enemies from those who don’t belong to them. These organizations have become self administered. In their decision taking process the interests of their own organization represented the priority on the expense of the basic ideology or religion which they were rooted in…The pure faith and the terms of religion survived in the heart of the simple believers. The Churches maintain the feeling of their superiority in representing the world of faith while their real intention is to get the universaland secular power. Nobody can dispute the positive impact of the simple priests as teachers but this is not my objective this time. Under the term of Church I put in focus the system of interest which maintain the whole structure and infrastructure and not the holy devotion of the priests.

In the ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Babylon and other civilizations the priesthood attributedfor themselves the privilege of the non questionable revelations and truth. The priesthood maintained the permanent relation with the goddesses and transferred their messages,represented the knowledge about the visible and invisible world. The knowledge is power. The mystery of that knowledge always has changed in the rate of the needs in order to keep the power.

The appearance of the religions with Holy Scriptures aimed the prevention of erosion which has taken place in the knowledge due to the human greediness. New type of knowledge appeared where the necessity of moral has got a function as well. Beside the vision of the world and theories on the creature the different contexts of relations between humans have been codified too where not the elements of ancient justice and rules of evolution but the moral and defense of oppressed and weak has got the significance. This new theory represented contradiction against the rules of evolution. This is a basic change in the concept because the dimension of faith and religion in this point has separated from the natural system of the world. So God didn’t consolidate the systems which were fixed in the juridical codices created by the power of man. Just in contrary, God codified the moral and defense of weak in the order of priorities. The moral and weakness are always victims in the selection process of the pure evolution, but both of them belong to the attributes and values of mankind so they have to be protected. We can ask the question: to which extent the Churches served their historic mission and met with the above expectation? Or they have slipped time to time into the universal dimension and worked just contrary?

If we go on analyzing only the Jew-Christian-Muslim so called Religions of Scriptures we can observe significant deviations between the basic principles and the practice of today.

 It is really schizophrenic that no authentic Old Testament is available. It can not even happen because the Jewish population went thru on severe vicissitudes and as a result all their written and material heritage has been destroyed. During the numerous generations what they spent in slavery in Babylon their religion survived on verbal form. When they went back to Palestine (Canaan) the Ptolemaist Greek was spoken so even the Jews spoke that language. Therefore Ezra based on his memory compiled the Torah in the today form in Greek. Later even other historians like Josephus Flavius and Maimonides also added their items and finally the word of man was pronounced as if it was from God. In this context it could not be configured that God was who created man. In fact, it was the word of man what appeared as if it was declared by God.

Anyone who has pure faith can ask questions about the genuineness of the Old Testament but not about the mission of Moses. Moses didn’t establish Church but he brought the universal truth from God. For who did he brought it? Did he bring it only for Jews? The truth can not be universal if it is the privilege of one nation! In that historical time the Jews represented the oppressed and weak who suffered from injustice. Without the interruption of God they would have been sorted out by the cruel filtration of the human made selection when they faced the universal power and tyranny of the pharaoh.  

The Jew who on the base of the enlightenment of Moses and the following examples figures out that the universal truth is the unique privilege of the Jewish community misunderstands the essence of the truth.

Moses didn’t establish Church and the Jews never said they have Church.  However the Jewish communities manifest themselves in the legitimate form of the Churches. I believe it is ridiculous if I assume whether asked Moses support from the state of pharaoh for the recovery of the Jewish community? I ask that question in regard the principles and not disputing about those social and educational activities what the Churches administering successfully.

In the case of Jesus we face the same schizophrenia. There is no authentic evidence from his age of in regard him too. The evangels of today are also man made creations. Jesus lived in Judea and performed his duty. Ha also didn’t establish a Church and didn’t hold negotiations with Caiaphas, the chief of Sanhedrin on the support of his mission. And he didn’t turn eitherto Herod, the King of Judea requesting subsidies. Herod could act on the convenience of Rome without hurting the sensitiveness of the Jews. Herod was a Roman citizen with Arabic (Nabataea) origin who followed the Jewish regulations.

 Jesus, the messenger of God according to the Christian Churches is the son of God too. He didn’t require the power in this world and so he declared in his interrogation. He supported the weak and sick and preached about the superiority of love. According to the Roman law he could not have been executed on account of the polytheism because the official religion of Rome was the polytheism. The official charge against him was blasphemy but that blasphemy has been based on polytheism in the eye of the Jews….Finally he was crucified because for Rome the political interests were superior over the justice. Whether the Church can afford to behave the same irresponsible way like that? I am going to make it clear where are those items when there is not enough to issue mere statements but it is unavoidable also to confront with the universal power. The faith can not descend on the level what the universal powers can afford for themselves. If the Church can see the oppressed it is not tolerable to serve the oppressor. Its duty is to defend the oppressed no matter the oppressed belongs to which religion or conviction.

The clergy did his best to transfer the apostolic truth after human deviation into the public.  

No material evidence remained about Jesus from his age. Alexandria impacted the region of that epoch with the greatest attraction. This was the economical and cultural center near to Judea therefore the teachings of Jesus could adhere first time here. People that time could take over and change each other’s cultures and goddesses. So the followers of Jesus could also find themselves together with all those goddesses bearing horns, wings and hoofs which were accumulated in the ancient Egypt. Alloying with these creatures some new varieties of angels could come out to make the mission perfect what was based strictly on monotheism. Severe debates on faith started on spiritual philosophy where two emblematic bishops represented two different approaches to the subject of belief. They were Arius and Athanasius who dispatched the theories of Unitarian and Trinitarian way of Christianity. Only in 325 A.C. the Synod of Nicaea announced the winner on account of the Trinitarian way and codified it. In the same Synod took place the schism between the Western and Oriental Christianity. The latter held its first Synod in Constantinople in 381 A.C.  

In the 4th century suddenly three Codexes have been published in Greek. The Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanicus have come as “Holy Scriptures”.These Codices have nothing to do with the Bibles today. Later the Codices have been translated into Latin which was called “Vulgates”. The Vulgates were interpreted into local national languages than time to time the meanings were changed with the needs of modernization to make the Bibles adequate to the request of ages. It has also become the word of man as if it was pronounced by God.

Anyone who has pure faith can ask questions about the genuineness of the New Testament but not about the mission of Jesus. Jesus didn’t establish Church but he brought the universal truth from God. For who did he brought it? Did he bring it only for Jews, the people of Judea?Of course, he didn’t. He brought it for those who went astray from the path of the original teachings and generated aspiration to become universal powers by their Church theories. Jesus was the first who confronted with the Church as the human made organized form of faith and religion! He called for recovery of the basic principle to defend the weak and oppressed…

The Christian who on the base of the enlightenment of Jesus and the following examples figures out that the universal truth is the unique privilege of the Christian Churchesmisunderstands the essence of the truth.

Mohamed was born in 570 A.C. in the Arabic Peninsula where the Arabic tribes transgressed all normative regulation what could have made people coexist peacefully.  Their way of life lacked moral and justice. The leading tribe was Koreish where Mohamed himself was born however he was able to confront them. Even he, Mohamed didn’t establish Church. Nor he asked finance annually from Koreish in order to bring up the formulating community of Muslims. Just the opposite happened. In spite of the advantageous offers of Koreish for giving up his mission, Mohamed rather went into war against the tyranny. He was forced to leave Mecca for Medina in 622 A.C. where he established the first Islamic State. Either he didn’t establish Church! In 632 A.C. even Mecca adopted Islam and the prophet died. The Islam also followed the way of integration like other Churches. “De jure” the Islamic communities have never become Churches but “de facto” they did. In the historical ages of the Caliphates the universal nature of the system strengthened at the expense of faith. I’m not going to follow the process during the centuries so let’s see the main streams today.

The disruption of the Ottoman Empire couldn’t have taken place in the beginning of the last century without the aggressive expansion of the Arabic tribes who belonged to the Wahabiya sect of Islam. This sect goes back to the teachings of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal (780-855 A.C.) who established a very dogmatic Islamic school after the death of the prophet. These teachings were developed further by another scholar, Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328 A.C). In the 18thcentury, the denominator of the sect, Mohamed Ibn Abdel Wahab went back to the referred Islamic sources and made a deal with the ruler, Mohamed Ibn Saud to unite the tribes under the umbrella of that teaching. This Jihad orientated Wahabiya Islam melted together the Arabic tribes and constitutes as the basic ideology of the Kingdom of Al-Saud. That deal is valid even today and represents part of the constitution of the kingdom.

In the Ottoman Empire mainly the Sufi way of Islam was practiced which was based on the “taqlid”. It means imitation…The followers had to do as the clergy recommended for them. The Turkish believers were not bigot in faith. Also they had no doubt about their clergy people. They did what was told to them so they were really “followers”. The Wahabiya on ideological side opposed the taqlid and on military side opposed the Turkish Rule. In the 19thcentury from the Wahabiya emerged the Selefi sect which is even more dogmatic then the resource what fed them. They prescribe to the followers the unquestionable obedience to the prophet and his companions in every aspect. Those movements which exist under the umbrella of Al-Kaida get their resupply mainly from the Selefi followers.

The other significant group which is under the universal power of the clergy in the today main streams is the Shiite Islam. There is an antagonistic disaccord between them and the Selefis which leads to violence time to time. The central power of the Shiite Islam is in Iran. The decree taken by the members of the high clergy is not questionable. At the moment the Shiiteshave no Imam who could represent the highest authority. Last time Ayatollah Khomeini was titled as Imam. The Imam is non-questionable and also “moattasim”: infallible.

The third important Muslim group which bears the marks of Churches is the Organization of Muslim Brotherhood. It was founded in Egypt in the 60’s of the last century by Hasan Al-Banna (1906-1949) who was originally a school teacher. He could manage to transfer theIslamic activities from the mosques to the streets. His Islamic thought originated from Sayyed Qutub but he also went back to the thinkers of the 19th century like Mohamed Abdou and Rashid Rida. The openly declared aim of the Muslim Brotherhood is to obtain the political power. They stand behind those politicians who have come to office due to the “Arabic spring” in the new governments of North Africa. Bin Laden who was rooted in the Selefi way considered the Muslim Brotherhood as concurrency. He often criticized them because they were not militant enough.

I didn’t spend so much time with the presentation of the sentences of prophet Mohamed and the Islam. I don’t want to do it because nobody does it today. Even if the Quran is genuine and there is no doubt about the originality of the basic documents regarding faith and historical evidences the main problem of these days is the performance and representation of Islam. This is not the same Islam what was performed by the prophet and what was practiced until the last century. In the case of Jews and Christians the lack of credibility of the Holy Scriptures can mislead us while in the case of Islam the Muslims themselves. There is a deep gap between the statements of the dominating and fugleman Muslim groups and the spirituality of Islam. Even this is schizophrenia.  

It is not credible to commit sinful and forbidden act under the umbrella of Islamic statements and slogans. Assassins, violent actions, drug trading and aggression are not verifiable with religious terminologies. The faith is there in the silent masses. But this faith can not get publicity as it is the case in the populations of other religious populations too. The word is authentic but not credible any more. 

The Muslim who on the base of the enlightenment of Mohamed and the following examples figures out that the universal truth is the unique privilege of the Islamic Umma misunderstands the essence of the truth.

Where does the disorientation of dimension of the Churches leads to? Yes, truly they’ve lost their dimensions. They’ve casted themselves down from the heights to the universal and secular dimensions and they’ve become vulnerable. It has become clear that even the Church leaders are humans who are loaded with the mistakes of humans. Their spiritual superiority and verbal terminologies and arguments are anachronistic if these serve the acquirement of universal positions.

The different Church organizations today don’t regard the struggle of Moses Jesus and Mohamed as examples. They don’t confront with the pharaoh, don’t expel the merchants from the temples and don’t enter into conflict with Koreish in order to enforce the word of God aselevated. Just the opposite happens. They expect the resources of their survival from the secular world. How can they face as outsiders the secular world their sins and fallibility in order to avoid poverty and oppression in this world while they depend on them in the terms of finance and legitimacy? I don’t mean the finance of those activities like education and health care. I mean those resources what serves the survival and maintenance of the Church as organization! How can the Church represent the Divine Tribunal and moral milestone in the eye of the public if it depends financially on the authorities? The Church in this case can not be the exclamation mark for all of us!

The Churches have forced on themselves norms and internal regulations as extra burdens which didn’t exist among the commands of God. The celibacy is one of these burdens. It was only a respected behavior in the 1st century. Later the Synod of Elvira offered as requiredstatus for the high rank clergy people in Hispania. Pope Siricius (384-399) obliged celibacy for bishops. Later the Synod of Lateran in 1059 prescribed as desirable. Finally the Synod of Trident (1543-63) declared a dogma on the benefits of virginity of priests. In the Holy Scriptures there is no reference about celibacy. Just in contrary in the 1st Book of Moses we can read: “be fruitful and multiply”. In the 1st letter of Apostle Paul to Timoteos in chapter No. 3 we can read offerings for priests to have one wife.

It is impossible to confront with the biology. In the ancient time Lord sent Apostles for those who were weak and were not able to defend themselves. Today those whose duty is the defense of the weak, biologically turned out of themselves due to their own specific regulations and they abuse sexually the weak and prevent the truth to come to public. This power is incredible, this clergy is incredible and this mission is incredible.

The image of God painted on the sky with flying angels is not compatible with the virtual clouds which accumulate the knowledge of mankind. The knowledge is not mystery any more. The knowledge of the Church is not representing power any more. There is no question about the existence of God but the way to Him is a question? In the crisis era of the Churches the way to God has to be constructed by the individual believer on his own. In this regard I consider the simple priest also as an individual believer...He is a teacher… There is no need for explanations and frame lines by those organizations that are not credible any more. If we construct our own Church inside ourselves we can come to the consequence that God has only one truth and there is no elite between us. The believers have to carry inside themselves the knowledge and tradition in which they find their peace. In a globalized world there is a need for the stream of colorful thoughts but not in the way how Churches determined the limits of thinking while making the mistakes of man survive during thousands of years.