If once a person becomes convinced that a church (i.e. his church) is ultimately not an institution but also a divine entity; then there is a faith in the church which, in principle, cannot be refuted by any possible experience or action.
With faith; the divine nature of a church is irrefutable.
And if such a faith is lacking, then there can be nothing that could happen that would ever prove a church to be divine.
In other words; the judgment is contained in the assumptions.
Yet the above two faith-focused alternatives do not exhaust the possibilities; because a church may instead be, or become, the object of superstition.
Superstition is an interesting and seldom remarked phenomenon, because it does not make sense either to real spirituality or to materialism - yet it is almost universal.
A person can be, and innumerable people actually are, highly superstitious, yet in their theoretical understanding of the nature of the world, they reject any possible explanation for having their superstitions.
Superstition survives and thrives in this "age of science", just as it did in the preceding "age of faith" - but although powerful superstition is also... uncomfortable.
So we can be confident that superstition is not the same phenomenon as religion, nor necessarily a part of religion; also that it is a spontaneous and innate aspect of being human. These by the fact that superstition as a phenomenon has been nigh-universally rejected: it was (sometimes) rejected as evil by religion -- and currently is (usually) now rejected as non-valid by mainstream leftist-materialism.
Superstition is therefore disreputable, furtive, and we sense that it probably "does us no good" even as we feel it personally necessary to yield to its insistent claims.
The sceptical materialist explains superstition as a phenomenon of psychology; indeed psychopathology - an irrational symptom of some dysfunctional mental condition.
Yet this does not coherently explain why this aspect of psychology survives (and thrives) without the oxygen of societal approval, and in face of ridicule; when so much of human instinct (eg in the sexual realm) has been inverted.
Superstition is instead perhaps best understood by a follower of Jesus Christ as part of a constellation of extremely durable ideas to do with luck and propitiation.
Luck and propitiation are, in turn, bound up with implicit assumptions concerning the incomprehensibility and hostility of supernatural and divine entities.
There ideas have seemingly been integral to past religions - for instance, Roman religion and superstition were so integrated as to be inextricable.
Superstition is still very much a part of religion as-is in 2025 and The West - in particular, I would say, in terms of people's attitudes to their church.
There is no strong faith in churches, as was evident by church behaviour in 2020 and the birdemic; but as is evident in almost everything almost all of the time.
Instead we have superstition about churches.
The difference between faith and superstition is the difference between positive and negative.
Faith is positive, superstition negative.
Faith is expressed by a trust analogous to the young child's trust in his loving parents in a good family. This trust is something like the opposite of superstition.
The faith of a Christian is an analogous trust in God; because God loves us personally.
Conversely, superstition is rooted in mistrust; and the need for propitiation.
The implicit assumptions of superstition is that the world is alive and purposive - which is why materialists cannot explain it - and the world is partly incomprehensible in its motives (hence the attention to "luck"), and partly hostile.
Superstition focuses on the negative harm that may be done to us, if we anger or offend those entities who have power over us.
We can't really understand these entities, therefore we sometimes must do things that make no sense to us - yet we fear not to do them, lest this cause offence...
Why must we grovel, kneel, prostrate, avoid eye contact? Who knows? But best to do it, to be on the safe, side, to avoid offence.
Why must we perform superstitious rituals? Same reason. We don't believe in the validity of these rituals, but we do fear not-to-do them.
Why must we make ritual obeisance to church authority, why refrain from acknowledging personal discernment, why refuse publicly to acknowledge that we have taken ultimate responsibility for our fundamental convictions?
Therefore superstition is a double-negation; it seeks to avoid the harm that may result from antagonizing the world, and its entities.
People neither believe-in nor act-upon positive faith in a church and the goodness of God the creator - yet we double-negatively fear to deny the claims of the church, and its ultimate and eternal authority over us.
(After all; somebody might notice, might be listening - and then who knows what may happen?...)
It seems to me that the continuing power of churches over Men's minds, especially among Christians, is of this superstitious nature - which is why churches have survived the extreme loss of faith occurring both in church-rulers (priesthoods, ministers leadership) and among church laity/ members.
Church Christians do not positively and faithfully trust their churches in any strong and durable or primarily-motivating way.
And churches have almost ceased to be a force for good in the spiritual realm; but instead net-support the agenda of totalitarian evil.
Yet Church Christians fear to antagonize their churches (even mentally); in a way closely analogous to that by which people fear to go against irrational and meaningless superstitions.
Church adherence by superstition is thus, like other superstitions, not a product of theory or understanding; but something people do despite their theories, and because of their lack of understanding.
One who faithfully believed and trusted in a creator God who loved us each as His individual children; such an one would have no truck with his own felt-needs to propitiate the divine.
However motivationally or psychologically powerful, such a desire would be recognized as a sin - because it misrepresents the nature of God and divine creation.
Superstition is strong and superstition is wrong - but this is no paradox, and quite normal in our lives and this world
A Christian should know and acknowledge that superstition is an evil; even though he cannot stop feeling it, and even when cannot stop yielding to it.
And even when it applies to his church.
Superstition should lead to repentance, not to the attempt to justify its necessity.
Such is the nature of sin and of human beings in this world: we just-are "sinners", and cannot cease from sinning - but we can always repent.
Therefore, like other superstitions; Church Christianity as-is in 2025, is primarily a consequence of lack of faith in the personal and loving goodness of God the creator.
And the spiritual harm of church superstition is sustained by the refusal to repent.
Note: The above is a harsh teaching, but I believe that it is true. The only way out and up from where we now are, is first to return to unexamined or denied root assumptions; then to acknowledge and evaluate these assumptions - and that is what I am trying to stimulate here. In other words; far too many Christians actually are assuming that God is incomprehensible and unloving - when the reality is very simply that God the Creator is our Father who loves us as His children, and God's motives are understandable as those of ideal parents are confidently known by their offspring. A child ought not to regard genuinely loving parents in a superstitious manner, and to assume that fear is appropriate and propitiation is necessary is a sad and self-harming misunderstanding - that actually denigrates love. All I am suggesting is that Christians take seriously, and put first, the teachings and example of Jesus concerning his Father - especially as it is revealed in the IV Gospel. This teaching on God as an actual and loving parent of us as His children is what is literal, sure and certain about Christianity, above all else. And all else, all other claims of church, theology, philosophy, doctrine, church history etc.; needs to be judged by this.
1 comment:
I became involved, for about nine months, with a traditional sedevecantist Catholic church in the rural United States. Sedevecantist sects maintain that no legitimate pope has held the seat since Vatican II. The bulk of the congregation's small body was composed of families headed by men in their late twenties to late thirties. The men of the congregation were merry, vital, highly informed by the red-pilliest of information, and enjoyable company. Young families rolling up with van-loads of kids. I'm told the church never shut down during the birdemic. In other words, the church checked every box and aced every metric by which one could measure goodness in this world. Undeniable good fruits.
However, my draw to attend mass became what you described in this post as "superstitious". I imagined fearful consequences of non-participation in the ritual, and witnessing my fellow congregants' absolute devotion, I feared becoming unfavorably perceived by the group. I do not understand what role the Roman ritual has in the kingdom of heaven or the Truth of Jesus Christ. Whenever time came to interact with the priest, I could not bring myself to address him as father. One young priest even implied in a conversation that the world would not continue to exist should true Latin sacraments no longer be practiced. Ultimately I stepped away.
Do you have any hangups or reservations addressing priests as "father" in your own personal interactions with them? The gospel's admonitions to "call no man father" and "call no man rabbi" conflict so blatantly with this age-old practice. How is someone supposed to square the gospel with the religion?
Post a Comment