I think my response to yours would be embodied in the following (rather lengthy) posting to the SANE Network. Substantially I agree with the Pope statement, but I do not see the philosophy is embodied in the organisation he heads. The Pope and Cardinals, Bishops, etc is a political entity (hierarchy) in the same way that President Bush and the high-ups head the Republican Party. Further, the 'church-party' headed by the Vatican is no more 'the Church' than is the party in the Whitehouse the American people. I consider both to be an imposition upon the people they claim to serve.
I go along with this statement by Douglas:- > It must be insisted that Christianity is either something inherent in the > very warp and woof of the Universe, or it is just a set of interesting > opinions, largely discredited, and thus doubtfully on a par with many other > sets of opinions, and having neither more nor less claim to consideration. Jessop. ----------------------- Let me come clean! I approach all things spiritual, political and social from my personal Christian understanding. Not long after I was converted to God and Christ from practical atheistic communism (not that I was deep in the philosophy), I began to see that the Church cannot be 'owned' by an hierarchy with head quarters in Rome, nor an hierarchy with head office in Pretoria, Canterbury, or in the Southern states of America. The Church is owned by no-one but God because he owns each individual that is part of the Church. Therefore each one of us is responsible only to God, but we are placed in 'support groups' while we are on earth, and those consist of, first, parents, then family, then neighbourhood, then clan, then tribe, then nation, then state. The support group exists for the individual, but without individuals making their natural contribution to the whole, there can be no support group. So the individual is responsible only to God, but conducts himself/herself in such a way that strengthens the group, enabling it to function. The authority over the group rests only in God, but is expressed through the common voice of all the people of God. But, because God keeps himself invisible, men take control and start to dictate. They do this firstly as an individual, and then the leadership ability in the individual attracts lackeys and fellow-travellers who see in it an advantage for themselves. So a party (or king and council) is formed which quickly moves away from a role of 'protector' to that of dictator --- sometimes under the pretense of 'democracy.' But we know from Plato that 'democracy' doesn't actually work because it soon gives rise to anarchy, which again soon sees a battle between leaders -- and emerges once more (under the guise of democracy) as a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy) because the party with the greatest resources in money will win. So the Church, when visible, is a local meeting of believers, and is ruled by God -- the Spirit of God. When men take prominent positions -- firstly in the guise of 'guardians' (of doctrine and of people) -- they soon taste the benefits to themselves of status, prestige, reverence, and financial reward, and become an hierarchy of control interposing themselves between mankind and God. And the people blandly accept it because responsibility passes from themselves -- but does it? Plato's solution to this -- which he admits will not actually work -- is that 'guardianship' of the nation or state should be in the hands of those born to the task, who do it not for gain or recognition, but because they are naturally equipped to do it and their inner nature compels them to give themselves to a task which they actually do not want! They own no personal wealth, but are maintained by the people (they share in the National Dividend!) Plato (Socrates) terms them guardians because they are not 'rulers' but are there to adjudicate between individuals involved in internal conflicts, and to provide security from outside aggression. The 'ideal guardian' in Plato's analysis ends up with the full attributes of a benevolent God. He sees that, in the absence of such a person (or persons, for he lived in an era when there were multiple gods), a 'captain' would be appointed but whose captaincy would immediately be challenged by others who want the position for themselves. Therefore, in the absence of that 'true ruler', his Republic would not work. But this is the primary concept in Christianity. Christ is the head of the Church and no one else can exercise authority over it. While some will teach and and encourage, no one is to be boss over the rest, and all group actions are undertaken after discussion in open forum of all members present. Membership does not describe a name on a list; all believers assembling together are members of Christ and of each other. In society and government today, in the absence of that sense of belonging to God inherent in the Christian fellowship, the responsibility of the individual is still to the 'assembling citizens', or to the will of the people, perhaps as enshrined in a constitution and subject to mediation by the courts (equivalent to the 'elders of the tribe' or community. The concept, then, of either Church, Nation or State -- and government within each entity -- is the same and corresponds to the normal, natural, needs of the individual in his or her society. To persevere with what is becoming a lengthy document, the truth of this started hitting home to me in a dream I had in 1979 at a time when I was awakening to the situation that whatever someone started, there was always someone else who wanted to take it over, consolidate it, and rule it. In the dream I was running down a steep mountain side together with a man I know and another whose identity was hidden from me. At the bottom of the slope the land levelled off and continued to the edge of a vast lake whose farther shore I could not see. The ground was rugged and dotted here and there with Karoo bushes - small, hardy shrubs of various types. The man I know had wandered off a little distance when I bent down and picked up a little creature (an iguana - an ancient species of large lizard) which had come to my feet, presumably from the water's edge. As 'Faans' returned to me I said: "This little iguana is a very sad little beast because that big beast over there has eaten all the other little ones and this one is the only one left". I said this as I pointed to a karoo bush on the level plain from behind which a very much larger iguana leered at me and then quickly hid away. I put the little iguana back on the ground and the dream ended. The principle then became clear and clearer -- the individual in his/her local division is always prey to the forces in man which drives men to consolidate and rule (the opposite of divide and rule, strangely enough, which has its own application when the consolidator or absolute ruler wishes to prevent rebellion against his rule. Biblically, that is what God did at the Tower of Babel when mankind wanted to unite against his rule over them and he said 'If they do this, there is no stopping them in anything they want to do', which ultimately would be complete democracy leading to anarchy, thence (eventually) to the autocracy of a self-appointed 'god' over mankind. All the evidence from an examination of the structures of our society, is that the forces driving man are still leading to that end -- that one day there will emerge a ruler powerful enough to think that he can unseat God. I am not trying to preach my faith to you, but I need to express my conviction that things in the scriptures of the Church are not made to be true because of their presence in the book, but they are preserved there simply because they are true, speaking plainly of the very created -- and corrupted -- nature of mankind. They would be true for us even if they were not contained in scripture. I think that the 'ethics' of all other major religions also have that universal application because they are the distilled wisdom of mankind over thousands of years -- very little has been added to them in recent times. The religions all have the ethics, but seem to lack the one essential ingredient, which is free, unconditional forgiveness on the part of the only power that (who) can forgive -- God. In the absense of that sense of having been forgiven for our very inability to do what is right, the only other way lies in creating our own 'righteousness' --- by 'works of righteousness' -- which we are inherently unable to do to the full because of the same failures in our human nature which Plato encountered in formulating the concept of the suitable ruler over his Republic. We cannot pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. The solutions for government and state-finance enshrined in that ancient wisdom are simple and natural -- we ourselves have made it complicated to suit the aspirations of kings and rulers, traders and builders of empires. I do not advocate a union between Church and State -- the Lord of the Church said expressly that His Kingdom is not of this world (yet). There is no such thing as, nor has there ever been, a 'Christian Country' except in the minds and aspirations of some men. You cannot 'make' individuals Christian, let alone a whole nation. Having explained that, I am ready once more to apply my mind to the job at hand, which is how to propose a meaningful system for state-economics which will be good for all the people. After that, how do we go about getting ourselves heard in a world filled with so many voices clammering for audience? Regards to all, Jessop. -------------------------- On Monday 24 February 2003 07:19, you wrote: > The topic of Social Credit being the policy of a Christian philosophy has > been mentioned in this discussion group. Comments were made regarding the > position of the Roman Catholic Church. I thought Id add a few quotes to put > more of perspective on the whole discussion. > > "It is an injustice, a grave evil, and a disturbance of right order, for a > larger and higher organisation to arrogate to itself functions which can be > performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies. That is a fundamental > principle of social philosophy, unshaken and unchangeable and it retains > its full truth today. Of its very nature the true aim of all social > activity should be to help individual members of the social body, but never > to destroy or absorb them." > > One could be mistaken for thinking the above comment was from C.H. Douglas. > However, it was Pope Pius XI. > > It comes as no surprise then that Douglas made the following statement in > The Development of World Dominion, > > We have from time to time expressed the opinion that the Roman Catholic > outlook on economics and sociology is the essentially Christian outlook; > and that no other Christian body of opinion is so consistent in its > official attitude. It is beyond question that the anti-Christian venom of > the Communists is focused on Roman Catholicism, and that Protestant bodies, > when not used as tools (and even then), merely excite contempt. > > Douglas also states in The Realistic Position of the Church of England, > > It must be insisted that Christianity is either something inherent in the > very warp and woof of the Universe, or it is just a set of interesting > opinions, largely discredited, and thus doubtfully on a par with many other > sets of opinions, and having neither more nor less claim to consideration. > The Roman Catholic Church has always recognised this, and has never wavered > in its claims. > > I hope this will ignite some interesting discussion. --------------------------------------- ==^^=============================================================== This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^===============================================================
