tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post4418193716451205257..comments2024-03-29T03:57:26.974-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: Why is it?Grimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-70732266500721525982013-03-18T16:27:18.531-04:002013-03-18T16:27:18.531-04:00We do seem inclined to insist that He must be one ...We do seem inclined to insist that He must be one or the other, don't we? It's a real brain-twister for Him to be both, fully. In reading the Bible I always pay close attention to any claims He makes about Himself directly. He says very little, preferring to concentrate on God and our duty. But then there's "I am the Resurrection and the Life . . . ."Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-8425999140925055382013-03-18T10:51:36.383-04:002013-03-18T10:51:36.383-04:00One of the earliest schisms in the Church was not ...One of the earliest schisms in the Church was not the Reformation, but indeed the very controversy which led to the Nicene Creed. The debate was whether Jesus was fully God, or man and God. The Coptic Church held that he was fully divine and in no way tainted by human frailty. The Roman Church held that this trivialized his sacrifice and the whole meaning of Christianity in general. Thus the first Schism. Or at least, that's my understanding of the issue. So while the Arian Heresy is another problem with essence over existence, it was not the first.MikeDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08116809134355184859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-78906671134769648522013-03-17T09:17:20.612-04:002013-03-17T09:17:20.612-04:00What's the possible connection to Gnosticism?
...<i>What's the possible connection to Gnosticism?</i><br /><br />Depending on how one defines the terms.....<br /><br />"...is the dualistic belief that the material world should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced. ..." (Wiki)<br /><br />The Progressives, on the other hand, are typically atheists, or 'practical' atheists--that is, to them, the spiritual world is non-existent and the material world is all-in-all.<br /><br />Given that difference (yes, it's a major one), they share an important similarity: they are convinced that they, alone, are worthy of ruling b/c of their unique insights and 'wisdom.'Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-56302365647490819552013-03-16T21:59:01.780-04:002013-03-16T21:59:01.780-04:00Yes, a Hercules kind of hero -- a superhero in a l...Yes, a Hercules kind of hero -- a superhero in a long line of similar heroes, but with a somewhat better pedigree. Missing the point completely! The modern version is less romantic, but the same kind of mistake: looking for something precedented, less shattering.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-69953369968502600042013-03-16T19:28:58.592-04:002013-03-16T19:28:58.592-04:00The Arian heresy classically portrays Jesus as not...The Arian heresy classically portrays Jesus as not just a guy, but as a figure like Hercules. He's half god, and half man. You can see why that would be easy for many in the ancient world who were converts to Christianity from some pagan faith: they already had a ready mental category for characters of that type. As the 'son of the sky God' borne by a mortal woman, as Hercules was the son of Zeus and a mortal woman, of course Jesus would have some special powers and capacities. He would be especially heroic and worthy of emulation. He would fit right into the easy pagan model, a figure like Athena (or the unicorn).<br /><br />It's important that it's hard. It's not easy. It may, in fact, not be possible for humanity given our limited access to the order of reason. <br /><br />But that's good. If it were easy, it would probably not be true.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-74783936977422591462013-03-16T19:18:19.636-04:002013-03-16T19:18:19.636-04:00As a way of sorting out verbally the problem that ...As a way of sorting out verbally the problem that has been torturing religious apologists for two thousand years -- "How are the Father and Son different, and how the same" -- it just doesn't do anything for me. Plugging different words into that spot in the Nicene creed doesn't advance my understanding. I take it as one of the many things Christ didn't apparently think we needed to be able to be pin down at that level of detail or abstraction, since He tended to address it only metaphorically, and kept insisting on drawing our attention to other things.<br /><br />I reject the Arian heresy to the extent it portrays Christ as just a guy, though a really charismatic one who had a strong sense of the dramatic and a way with words. But I can be completely in tune with another believer who considers the Father and Son the same being, or substance, or essence, or inherentness, or incarnation, or Emanuel, or whatever. I never was into the details or definitions of Trinitarian mysteries. So the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, and the Son is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made. Works for me.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-75451632343217844122013-03-16T19:08:11.197-04:002013-03-16T19:08:11.197-04:00There's a good example of that in Herodotus, a...There's a good example of that in Herodotus, actually. It came about that one of the Greek cities was persuaded to surrender themselves to a foreign tyrant because he played a clever trick on them. He found an extremely tall and beautiful woman in another city, and had her dress up in armor and sit on a very high horse. Then they went together to the city, where he claimed that Athena herself had escorted him personally to take rulership of the town.<br /><br />Here, as with unicorns, <i>essence</i> is clear but <i>existence</i> is not. I take it as both interesting and important that Christianity has the opposite problem. There are good reasons to believe in God, including direct experience of the divine. But the question of essence has proven very hard for us. <br /><br />That suggests that, rather than being fooled by a vivid description, we are engaged with a real existent -- one that is hard to describe.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-88055301175183388382013-03-16T19:01:19.647-04:002013-03-16T19:01:19.647-04:00I'm afraid that kind of approach means nothing...<i>I'm afraid that kind of approach means nothing at all to me.</i><br /><br />It means more than you might think. Take a mundane example: let's say the President were to propose a restrictive law based on a catastrophic terrorist attack he claimed to fear. <br /><br />This is a good essence/existence question. We have in front of us a very clear description of what kind of thing we're trying to avoid, but that's a question of essence. Before we agree to a restrictive law, we need also to settle the question of <i>existence</i>. That is, just how possible is it that such an attack might really occur? <br /><br />If we fail to make the distinction between essence and existence, we might well be persuaded by a vivid description of a thing that can't really happen at all.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-10511939280793494552013-03-16T18:57:59.229-04:002013-03-16T18:57:59.229-04:00By the way:
Do we not think that everything that ...By the way:<br /><br /><i>Do we not think that everything that exists has its substance from God, as well?</i><br /><br />You're thinking of "substance" as something like "material." Here "substance" is not something you have, but something of which you are an example. Humanity is a substance; dog is a substance. The proof is that they naturally make more things of that kind.<br /><br />So, in answer to your question, all <i>substances</i> have their <i>being</i> from God. But not all beings share the divine substance: we can only make more men and women, not more Gods.<br /><br />Remember, you asked!Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-34955515884293943612013-03-16T18:54:57.472-04:002013-03-16T18:54:57.472-04:00I'm afraid that kind of approach means nothing...I'm afraid that kind of approach means nothing at all to me. You can see why there's no use my reading some sorts of philosophy.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-69411833078941361352013-03-16T18:50:58.415-04:002013-03-16T18:50:58.415-04:00Ah, but there's an important difference. "...Ah, but there's an important difference. "Being" is the question, "Is it?" Essence or substance is the question, "What is it?" Surprisingly, it turns out that you can answer the second question without being sure about the first, and vice versa. For example, we can say exactly what a unicorn is. It's not as easy to say that a unicorn exists. (It does, in a sense; and in another sense, it doesn't.)<br /><br />Nobody who was going to swear to the creed was questioning whether God is, or whether Jesus is. But just <i>what</i> they are has been the subject of much debate.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-88096838484608135322013-03-16T18:42:15.380-04:002013-03-16T18:42:15.380-04:00For the purpose of guiding my faith, I'm incap...For the purpose of guiding my faith, I'm incapable of distinguishing between "being," "substance," and "essence." I can be happy with any of them.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-36526135915460518332013-03-16T16:22:44.237-04:002013-03-16T16:22:44.237-04:00"...I don't really know that she puts muc...<i>"...I don't really know that she puts much thought into those statements of hers at all.<br /><br />After all, he point was that the Catholic Church faces irrelevancy if it doesn't change its stances on scripture to be more in line with her preferences."</i><br /><br />I'd suspect that there is a healthy does of the standard secular focus on self as center at work here. I suppose she might argue that it's in line with the American ideal of self-determination and individual freedom. I'd reckon the difference is in the fact that one is only regulated by ones own views and the other is rooted in a responsibility to society at the same time it demands of the social structure to allow independence of thought and action- well, that and the basis of the American ideology as rooted in the one true God, which they'd like to dispense with.douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261739259295914188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-82473738234341162432013-03-16T15:47:25.412-04:002013-03-16T15:47:25.412-04:00Well, they could have given you Aristotle's or...Well, they could have given you Aristotle's original Greek, "homoousious." That is more directly translated to English as "the same in essence."Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-82355083982189538402013-03-16T13:43:17.831-04:002013-03-16T13:43:17.831-04:00They still might have said "of one substance ...They still might have said "of one substance with the Father," if they were aiming at comprehensibility. Do we not think that everything that exists has its substance from God, as well?<br /><br />It's funny that we still struggle over wording to tamp down the Arian heresy, which will never die even though its name changes. Anyway, no matter what we do with the phrase "of one being with the Father," there's still the "true God from true God" language to give Arians pause.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-37286107946142714082013-03-16T13:26:23.188-04:002013-03-16T13:26:23.188-04:00The issue with the old language ("one in Bein...The issue with the old language ("one in Being with the Father") is that everything that exists has its being from God, according to Catholic theology: God is existence, i.e., his essence existence. (The argument for this is Aristotle's, via Aquinas: the good is what everything desires, and the one thing that all desire is to continue to exist. Likewise, insofar as you desire any other good, you desire it actually, that is, you desire for it to exist. Thus, existence is goodness. Since God is the Good, he must also be existence itself: and thus, everything that in any sense exists is created and sustained by God.)<br /><br />Thus, everything that exists is one in Being with the Father, because there is no other source of Being. The Second Vatican revision of the creed in English thus turned out to be vacuous. <br /><br />"Consubstantial" is from the Latin more or less directly, and makes a different claim. It claims that the Son is of the divine substance, which is not true of just everything you meet. Substances have this character in Aristotelian philosophy: they reproduce themselves. Thus, the word means something like 'kind of life.' <br /><br />Thus the new phrase specifies that Jesus really is divine, and not (as the Arians held) a kind of half-god, nor just a man (i.e., substantially human).Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-27053791021453007642013-03-16T13:00:05.048-04:002013-03-16T13:00:05.048-04:00By problems, I mean I am still so used to the old ...By problems, I mean I am still so used to the old wording, I make mistakes when the fiance & I go to Mass together.Miss Ladybughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05036711338399907180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-75307622700040884212013-03-16T12:58:00.196-04:002013-03-16T12:58:00.196-04:00The Catholic Church revised some of the language o...The Catholic Church revised some of the language of the Mass witin the last year to year and a half or so. That included changes to the Nicene Creed. I still have problems with them... Anyhow, it is now "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father". Finally looked it up: "of the same substance".Miss Ladybughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05036711338399907180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-51802999668284495292013-03-16T10:40:56.492-04:002013-03-16T10:40:56.492-04:00Right from the start, there were movements to morp...Right from the start, there were movements to morph the faith into a general mishmash of we're-all-one-Spirit pantheism or some other trendy thing. There's scarcely anything you've ever heard of as a core tenet of Christianity that wasn't attempted to be ditched by some splinter group or another, Arians, Gnostics, you name it. You can hear echoes of many of the old fights in the wording of the Nicene Creed, such as "begotten not made, of one being with the Father."Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-3081115244941473872013-03-16T09:13:07.118-04:002013-03-16T09:13:07.118-04:00Interesting. Sure, anti-Catholicism comes out of t...Interesting. Sure, anti-Catholicism comes out of the Reformation, but I haven't followed Progressivism back that far.<br /><br />What's the possible connection to Gnosticism?Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-13653994838134352013-03-16T08:28:16.219-04:002013-03-16T08:28:16.219-04:00since the 18th century
Actually, since the Luther...<i>since the 18th century</i><br /><br />Actually, since the Lutheran Revolution--although one could make the case that Gnosticism is father of Progressivism--in which case, the disease goes back to the 2nd Century or so.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-59850452693590920642013-03-15T21:18:11.418-04:002013-03-15T21:18:11.418-04:00Anti-Catholicism has been at the heart of Progress...Anti-Catholicism has been at the heart of Progressive belief since the 18th century, at least. Everything I've read about this says Grimm is right, including the bit about people not knowing the provenance of their own philosophy.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-15157588912445373002013-03-15T20:22:47.698-04:002013-03-15T20:22:47.698-04:00What Grim said: The problem is, these "journa...What Grim said: The problem is, these "journalists" have been stewing in some version of the 60's counter-culture/leftist orthodoxy/kulturkampf for so long that they can't see the forest for the trees any longer.Eric Blairnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-24340683445621624542013-03-15T16:35:41.798-04:002013-03-15T16:35:41.798-04:00I seriously wonder about individual reporters like...<i>I seriously wonder about individual reporters like Sally Quinn. Frankly, I fear it gives Ms. Quinn far too much credit...</i><br /><br />Oh, I don't know. Everyone has a philosophy. They just often don't know what it is, or where it came from, or what precisely it stands on. Thus they cannot question it, and can't quite even see that a philosophy of life is there: but you can't operate without one.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-87955948749158197282013-03-15T16:05:48.122-04:002013-03-15T16:05:48.122-04:00So here's a quote from a transcript of a discu...So here's a quote from a transcript of a discussion on CNN. One Chris Cuomo delivered himself of this question:<br /><br />"Where is Pope Francis on the issues that matter most, issues about contraception, women priests?"<br /><br />What universe does Mr. Cuomo inhabit that he would think that these issues are the ones that matter most to the Pope or the Catholic Church? RonFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17346484258194484053noreply@blogger.com