ISIDRO JUAN PALACIOS - MADRID (España)
Does some institution that possesses the legitimate representation of the exclusively exist «legacy of Christ»?
The debate among the believers on this point continues open. Do numerous cults claim a line of authority that would distinguish them as receivers of «the truth» revealed by the Teacher and as missionaries of its «good new». Which is the real foundation of this pretense?
Among the first Christian nobody questioned that the primitive Church had been founded by Jesus. In the immediately later years to their death, the community of its followers acted as such in Jerusalem, he suffered hard persecutions and it participated in debates publics with saduceos and pharisee in the face of the Temple. This suggests that, while Jesus lived, an organized community that constituted the stable nucleus of the wrought movement of masses around its charismatic figure should already exist.
Given this teaching's itinerant character, a differentiation took place in a natural way among the multitudes that surrounded it with occasion of its step for a region and this permanent group that the tradition identifies with its twelve apostles and the 72 pupils. This was the auditory of their reserved teachings.
According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus would have endowed it of a rule of internal coexistence. Among them it named to responsible for certain tasks, as the treasury, and it specified how to administer their funds. Later it communicated them the basic guidelines that should guide their missionary activity to diffuse «the good one new» in their absence (Mt., 10).
In fact, at least until the century IV D.C. the authority of the apostles was not questioned to be founded «Christian churches» neither he questioned that, when making it, they fulfilled the Teacher's will. It is only D.C. after the year 325, when the Council of Nicea put the bases of the Catholicism that he will think about the question of the genuineness of the Church of Rome like the only one authorized by Jesus to interpret its teaching and to act on its behalf.
The debate was hard and bloody. In Nicea the pluralism was buried and you reformuló the Christian tradition to transform to the Church into the official religion of the Roman Empire. The original Christianity began to desdibujarse and, progressively, the Christendom occupied its place. Before it ended up D.C. the century IV, Prisciliano of Ávila and other leaders Gnostics were executed.
The new Church was an apparatus of state power and, as such, it imposed an orthodoxy and it mounted a strongly centralized hierarchy that he decided in what it should be believed and how to celebrate the cult. To be an effective power it was him indispensable the unit in the action and this required a strong discipline, as much in the ideological thing as in the political thing.
In function of this objective, the emergent Church leaned on in the four Gospels selected in Nicea to integrate «the canon»-until then nonexistent-and, mainly, in the passage in the one which presumably Jesus had conferred Pedro the primacy, identifying it prophetically with the «stone» angular on which would build «his Church» (Mt., 16).
This theological argument produced a strong opposition in many Christian communities. The exegesis on that it was based attributed Christ the foundation of a monarchic order on the mundane principle of dynastic genuineness, since it would be in quality of «successors in Pedro's throne» that the maximum leaders of the Church born in Nicea would claim its condition of king-priests. He started this way a long historical process of growing invigoration of the central power that would culminate attributing to the Pope-that was initially only the Bishop from Rome-the infallibility, in quality of «vicar of Christ» and regular of Pedro's throne: when this was pronounced «former-class» on a topic, their statements became dogma automatically and they should be accepted as «revealed truth» and object of faith.
This represented a radical rupture with the original concept of «church», expert as «assembly of faithful», it disqualified to dozens of Gospels that had been adopted by the different Christian communities during the first centuries and, mainly, it snatched them their right to decide for themselves how to understand the tradition and what sacred texts to worship.
It is not casual that, in the century IV D.C., Prisciliano had commended its pupil Egeia to travel to Egypt in search of «the original sources» against which Rome had already thrown an operation of systematic destruction, aided in Constantino's imperial bans and Teodosio. The will of normalizing the low cult an only authority was expressed in a repressive and very not very evangelical totalitarian zeal. Documents that show exist how the bishop of a single diocese boasted of having only burned up to 200 non canonical Gospels in his administrative demarcation.
However, the resistance to the pretense of Rome persisted along the time. Not only for the schism that separated to the Church of West of that of East (Orthodox), or for the consolidation of the Coptic tradition in Egypt like an independent Christian community, but also in the territories controlled by Rome.
Among the century IV D.C. and the great schism that supposed the Reformation of Lutero in the dawn of the Modern Age, the rejection to the authority of the Catholic Church was expressed in the emergency of several heretical movements-to taste you, etc.-, as well as in internal polemic buds in the breast of the own Church (as the Italian Fraticelli) or, in the XIV and XV centuries, with the appearance in illuminated and charismatic leaders' that rebelled against the Pope Europe and they ended up identifying it with the Antichrist.
Starting from the Reformation, it was not questioned that the canonical Gospels had been inspired for heaven's sake, but the right was claimed to the free interpretation of the sacred text and, on this base, he refused the statement that Jesus has founded his Church on the dynastic principle of «the succession in Pedro's throne» that converted that of Rome in the only one «true» through the papacy.
One of the main arguments against this pretense was that of the apostasy: the Catholicism could not seek to be «the true church», to be had remote of the spirit Christian original to defend incompatible privileges with Jesus' teaching. The diffusion of the principle of «free interpretation of the Bible» he opened a debate on the evangelical passage that served from theological base to the doctrine of Rome.
It was questioned that, in this episode, Jesus has trusted Pedro the foundation of his Church. Mainly because, few verses later on, it disqualified this pupil with a very hard expression: «Move away from me, Satan, because your thoughts are the thoughts of the world» (Mt., 16; 23).
Also, the presumed one «primacy of Pedro» he only appeared in Mateo, but not in Marcos' Gospels and Lucas that however they narrated the same episode and they also picked up this apostle's five pesetas rejection on the part of Jesus (Mc., 8, 27-31; Lc., 8, 18).
Since, in the controversial passage of Mateo, Jesus blessed Pedro because, as he said, «he has not revealed it to you neither meat neither bleed, but my Father that is in the Skies», it could understand each other that this had only been distinguished in quality of receiver of that concrete revelation that identified Jesus with the «Son of God», but he didn't expand to his person consecrating his primacy, as finally it was in evidence when, soon after, Jesus rejected him identifying it with «the world».
This reading came to affirm that «the true church» he was founded on «the stone» of the revelation and not in the apostle's person, coherent interpretation with Jesus' manifestations that it had never attributed the ability to reveal the truth of God to any official authority, but to the man's illumination for its grace, like leave in several passages.
In identical thought line their statement is located that, in its absence, it would be «the Sacred Spirit» or «the Spirit of the Truth» (and non Pedro) who illuminated its pupils, as well as the decisive fact that it was in fact the coming of the Sacred Spirit in the day of Pentecost the miracle that had given origin to the first apostolic church. It had also been the revelation the decisive thing in Pablo's conversion, as well as the source of their doctrine on the Christ, adopted later by the Council of Nicea.
Does some institution that possesses the legitimate representation of the exclusively exist «legacy of Christ»? does The debate among the believers on this point continue open. Do numerous cults claim a line of authority that would distinguish them as receivers of «the truth» revealed by the Teacher and as missionaries of its «good new». Which is the real foundation of this pretense?
The great problem of the Catholic exegesis in this point is that it postulated a strange reading to Jesus' own teaching. In the canonical Gospels there is not anything-apart from the controversial passage of Mateo that you don't pick up the other evangelists when narrating the same episode-that allows us to suggest that Jesus wanted to give to the community of his pupils a centralized organization, governed by a king-priest that, in successor's of Pedro quality, it was distinguished for heaven's sake as the exclusive or privileged receiver of the revelation in the future.
Everything indicates that this idea, inspired by the institutions of the Jewish theocracy and in the tradition of a messianic king, he had a political objective: to make of the Christendom, under the guide of the new Church associated to the state power, the heiress of the Jewish theocracy based on the «Antigua Alliance» between God and Israel and, therefore, the legitimate representative of the «town of God» arisen of «the New Alliance» between this and the whole Humanity through Christ.
However, there is not in Jesus any evidence that he wanted to found a new religion neither that he preached non Jews. The sacred texts are ambiguous in this respect and as well as there are episodes in those that a next attitude is transmitted to the religious universalism, others also exist in which it is expressed that the teaching goes exclusively to an auditory national Jew.
On the other hand, Jesus didn't follow the pattern of the big founders of religious systems, as Moses or Mohammed: it didn't dictate any legislation, neither a normative one detailed, neither neither it postulated a differentiating doctrinal body. In what sense should we understand then that it founded a church?
Some traditional authors, as René Guénon, believes that that that in fact creó was a school iniciática. The reserved character of the teachings that imparted to the nucleus of its personal pupils would be explained well in this case, since the initiation always supposes teacher's oral and personal transmission to pupil.
Jesus would have founded this way the original occult Christianity whose existence supports the writings of the big Parents previous to the century D.C. IV, as Origins, Justino and Clemente. In the century IV D.C., San Agustín still recognized the secret character of sacraments like the baptism and the sacrament among the first Christian.
This tradition occult original would have entered in crisis in the century III D.C. In Clemente's writings we observe that then it was in progress already the process that culminated in Nicea and on whose risks him same he noticed with prophetic words: «The Church seeks to Christianize to the world, but this will end up for mundanizar to the Church».
Starting from Nicea this reconversión became systematic and it finished reducing the Church to an exclusively public cult. If in origin this had been a community of «few and chosen» to who was also demanded a long preparation like applicants and a severe admission exam that it included strong spiritual disciplines and a total commitment, starting from their transformation in official Church he would open their wide open doors and it would be erected in an organization of masses.
It is not to judge if this decision was a success and it supposed the best historical scenario-opinion that qualified historians like Mircea maintain Eliade-or if, on the contrary, it constituted a desnaturalización of Jesus' legacy, like they believe many others. The documented historical fact and established it is that the Church arisen in Nicea a strange institution was to the tradition of the first Christian, until the point that, when lacking own legislation in this tradition-something indispensable to formalize a cult of masses-, should the Church appeal to the Roman right as source of inspiration of its right canónico.era «Church» been founded by Jesus?
If we read with attention the canonical Gospels it is easy to detect that the institution that founded this was of spiritual nature. Their teaching always mentions to a human relationship: «There where there are two on my behalf, I will be amid them». This association is conceived as an expression of love among same, with will of service to the neighbor. He/she doesn't need any organization.
Jesus doesn't outline another requirement, apart from this communion, so that this association is its «true church», while it remains faithful to that purpose and that spirit. It could understand each other, even that every time that the situation that we have described reality the same refundación takes place is made of «its church», conceived as eternal institution that same God upgrades, entering in the history and revealing the truth to who you/they look for it sincerely.
Also, like he can it turns in the canonical Gospels, Jesus previó the malentendido on this point and it left to their step, putting in guard to their pupils against any doctrinal or ideological pretense that, in the future, he could make a concrete community on their figure and also against the pretense of creating a hierarchical and centralist organization, since he insists in that «the last ones will be the first ones» and in that «the minor will be called bigger in the Kingdom» (Lc., 9, 46).
Finally, it is not easy to find a teacher that carried out a more severe trial on those who their legitimate followers would be proclaimed. It defines them as «dressed wolves of lambs» and it also assures that they will be rejected: «I never met you, makers of wickedness» (Mt., 7, 21–23).
As culmination, he doesn't only affirm that many of those that preach, baptize, they cure and they exorcize on their behalf, they won't enter in «the Kingdom of the Skies», but rather it finishes off their speech distinguishing as personal companies his to the banquet of the eternal life, and I eat their friends, to people that not even know who he is.
Only the love and the service to the neighbor, since Jesus sustains this way it in unequivocal terms, being identified with the poor person, the nude, the hungry one, the foreigner, the sick person and the prisoner to who they aided: «Because all made for one smaller, for me you made it».
In this mark, it doesn't only fit the biggest simultaneous plurality of «true churches»-as long as human associations that assume the original meaning of «community of faithful», to the margin of the doctrine that you sustain-, but rather Jesus' teaching is located in the spiritual domain that corresponds him, without associating it to human institutions neither mundane apparatuses of being able to
After all, he didn't tell another thing Esteban, the first Christian martyr, when he affirmed before the priests of the Temple: «God doesn't inhabit any class of buildings created by the men». from then on, mystics' infinity gave the same testimony and, following its example and that of the own Jesus, they sealed it with its blood, many times spilled by those who were proclaimed as the only representatives authorized to act on behalf of Christ.
es tu BUSCADOR favorito, úsalo aquí
