Don't get me wrong. I am not saything that there are no Christians among the Catholic Church—past or present—just that I see no reason to argue that Catholicism has now or ever has had any merit in and of itself.
I know that most Catholic folk I know are "good people—"and quite frankly, I'm more than sure most of them will think me every bit as confused as I think them after reading this. And since I'm "going off the deep end" here, let me go all the way off. Why is it that people think any of the current and/or former religious sects purporting to be "the real thing" have any right to claim that position?
I'm not trying to flog a dead horse here, but it seems like people want to make some base assertions for which the facts are not in evidence. The first of these is that our little schism, was the first group—the original Christian Church—and therefor has the right to claim all the other schisms "split off of" our little group.
One of the things that keeps me from associating or affiliating myself with any of these groups in anything but a very loose way, is the realization that there is a "true Church" and that—as I understand it—none of them are "it." And by the way, yes that does include Catholicism.
I want to make something quite clear at this point. Though I consider it to be true that these various groups are attempting to lay claim to something that does not belong to them, and though I don't believe any of them practice true Christianity as a group, that does not mean I don't believe they have Christians in their "ranks." That's not to say that they have people amongst their numbers who "get it all right—"we know that in this flesh we're imperfect after all. Thank, God perfection is not a requirement for Christianity!
I wait for a day, though, when Christians come out of these various splinters and join fitly together as parts of one Whole—the Body of Christ—and I'm pretty sure when that happens, nobody involved will accept any name for the "congregation thereof" other than the name of Christ (and no, I'm not talking about the Churches of Christ of various forms or any other group that now is—unless of course, the group I am talking about already meets in various places and at various times around the World (a thing I assume is so—I would just like that to be "informally formalized—"for people to acknowledge that this is "where they are").
I know that many folks look at "reformation sects" and argue that these groups don't claim to be the "one and only original" but the truth is they do at least claim to be a "part of the original whole." My question for anyone who does not agree with this or believe it is, "Why did there need to be a reformation?"
You reform something when it is needed for some purpose, but the obvious intent is to cause it to be formed again more properly (in general).
Perhaps I am mistaken in what I believe, but it seems to me that what Jesus said in Matthew 20, verse 16
"So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."paints a picture that seems more than a little grim to me. That doesn't mean things are not as they ought to be, but one thing I feel compelled to point out is that many are called but few chosen. I could be wrong, but this seems to me to be saying that it's unlikely all out of even one sect will be "the chosen." Now one might make the argument that this is to be expected on the basis that there are "tares amongst the wheat," but I'm still pretty sure no "current or past formalized sect" can lay claim to the title "Christ's Church." Among other things, I'm just pretty convinced that God never had any desire to make it as complicated a matter as most churches do for one to be saved.
Do you enjoy being a part of a particular group that claims to have exclusive right to the title "the Body of Christ?" I wonder if maybe that isn't a sign that they're not all on its own? I'm not saying it is mind you, just wondering aloud.
