AAOTW: Ecclesiastics and the PC

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Anthropological Aspects of the West:
Ecclesiastics and the Private Contract

 
Consider that since the penning of the Greek manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate, the Bible has been part of Western History, but the language of the West has incorporated other languages than those two.

During the development of the West, the English language became part of Western history, having several major stages of development, beginning with Old English that ended mid-1000 AD/CE (11th century).

From about 1100 to 1500 (12th – 16th century) was the period for the Middle English Language. During that time the Wycliffe Bible was produced, which is considered one of the earliest English Language Bibles, and was translated from the text of the Latin Vulgate.

The 1500-1600s (16th – 17th century) was the period of Early Modern English. During the early 1500s, the first English Bible was translated directly from the Hebrew and the Greek texts. Two major translations of that time period where the Geneva Bible (after 1550) and the King James Bible (1611). It was during this time period that William Shakespeare (died 1616) wrote his plays.

Modern English became prevalent during the 1700s, and an explosion of many more English Bibles occurred during the 1800s. To the point that in the 20th and 21st centuries updated-English Bibles were/are published regularly.

Importantly, as much as the Bible has been side-by-side with Western history, the West has had a long history of disagreeing about the personal relationship and the Private Contract.

Perhaps, one of the more prominent moments in history to mark the West’s disagreement about the personal relationship involves Henry VIII (who died in the year 1547, which was before the King James Bible was published).

Historically, Henry VIII wanted the Roman Catholic Church to annul his personal relationship with Catherine of Aragon. The Roman Catholic Church refused. Their refusal ultimately led to the Church of England separating from the Roman Catholic Church.

Interestingly, from a religious perspective, much can be said about that event, whether positive or negative. However, suffice it to say though that which became part of Protestantism becoming a solidified religious force was from this momentous event of King Henry VIII.

Reflectively, it seems that from the view of Henry VIII, he considered his personal relationship private. As such, he did not and was not going to allow the Church to impose their definitions, developments, understandings, accountabilities, and responsibilities upon his private matter.

Importantly, it is that tension that causes such a stir amongst the faithful – arguing and debating about how much authority the Church, whether Protestant or Catholic, has over the personal relationship and Private Contract.

What I surmise is it seems that reality (the tension between the Church and the State and between the families and entities within ‘scecs’ and SCECS) led to the SCECS Accepted Marriage, where the families and entities within SCECS utilized their Electorate power to influence both the Church and State to establish the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

I also surmise that it was because families within the Church, who lived under the State that had become predominately Christian (whether Anglican or some other Protestant branch), wanted to have a working definition, development, and understanding of the personal relationship, and provide the personal relationship with assigned accountabilities and responsibilities.

However, the counter to that social situation that led to the SCECS Accepted Marriage is that since the 20th century the families and entities within SCECS have been scrutinizing the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

That situation has caused many to rethink the SCECS Accepted marriage which in some ways has been re-defined, re-developed, and re-understood, which is why I identified the SCECS Accepted Marriage as I did back in Terminologies: SCECS Accepted Marriage.

Reflectively, it becomes clear that families and entities within SCECS, along with the Church and State want working definitions, developments, and understandings of the personal relationship, and want accountabilities, and responsibilities for the personal relationship.

As I have studied the ecclesiastical aspect of the personal relationship, it simply became clear to me that the Church has to wrestle with two things. One, the Scriptures and what the Bible is or is not saying about the personal relationship. Two, the society and culture in which the Church and her families find themselves.

Personally, what I found is that the Church becomes so cloistered to its own perspective that it interprets the Scriptures from its own perspective, which is often influenced by the events going on in and around the Church, whether from within (being the families), or from without (being the entities within Society, Culture, Electorate, and/or State).

That is what has led the Church to predominately believe that the SCECS Accepted Marriage is the only viable definition, development, and understanding that can give accountabilities, and responsibilities to the personal relationship.

But that is not the case, not biblically, and not anthropologically.

Historically, it is not the Church (or the State for that matter) who had control over the definition, development, and understanding that gives accountabilities, and responsibilities to the personal relationship.

Biblically and anthropologically, it was the families which then handed the control over to the individuals within the Private Contract.

Share