Order is Heaven's first law. As the law of the physical universe is mathematical, the law of the spiritual universe is logical. That which has no place in system, is not of God, is not truth. All his works reflect his unity and self-consistency. -- C. P. Krauth, *Conservative Reformation* p. 176
And right there is the difference between Western and Eastern Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI think I'll put a brief comment about it on my own blog...
I suspect that East and West pretty well agree that God is orderly, and even logical, in the sense of being consistent. After all, He was not satisfied with the chaos at the beginning of creation, and He spent the entire time until Adam had been made, bringing order into His creation. Your lace blankets are a wonderful example, even a pattern of the orderliness of the universe. On the other hand, when the instincts of a spider are destroyed by psychotropic drugs, his web becomes totally chaotic and without form. Where I suspect we differ is in our approaches to learning about God. In the East there is almost no Systematic Theology; in fact, the concept is held in very low esteem. I recall Fr. Schmemann’s frustration with Roman Catholics and Protestants, when He wrote in his diary, “How I hate their ‘justitia’”. In the West, there is very little emphasis on the mystic experience of God and the wisdom of the Fathers. Now, reading Fr. Schmemann’s “conversations” about religion he read on Radio Free Europe, I am amazed that he can proclaim that faith is a gift, without ever mentioning the concepts of Law and Gospel. The fact that we often reach the same conclusions is, I think, a tribute to God’s ability to work all things for the good of those who love Him.
ReplyDeletePeace and Joy,
George A. Marquart
Well, I agree with the quotation, but if I did not agree already with the quotation, it might strike me as a simple assertion offering no evidence of its validity, from which I might go into an epistemological questioning of the ontological situation of the author, otherwise known downrange a bit as "Now how in the hell do you know that?".
ReplyDeleteI meant to add the words "stunningly beautiful" before "lace blankets."
ReplyDeleteGeorge A. Marquart
We do agree that God is orderly, even logical; the Second Person is the LOGOS, after all. Where we differ is on whether this is "Heaven's first law." Or whether the "first law" is something else.
ReplyDeleteTerry, I think your question is relevant even if you DO agree with the quote. How do you know that?
The only answer I can think of is flippant (sorry): because Plato infallibly taught it.
George, thanks for the compliment re blankets. None of those pictures is of anything I've knitted, however. Just of things I'm contemplating knitting, or ideas I may incorporate into my next project.
My own blog post on the Krauth quote, bearing the same title as this post, is up now at:
http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-lutheran-quote-of-day.html
Well, Anastasia, the fact is, we don't know that at all. We rather simply assert our explanation for what we see.
ReplyDeleteThe emergence of order out of chaos is the basis of all creation myths, and seems to be a universal (in the sense of happening across many times and cultures, not in the sense of universally held) explanation.
Personally, I am more impressed, looking at the flow of events, with the idea of convergence than order, and would assert that what is taken as order is rather a state of convergence.
I also like the Zurich Axioms, #5 of which is, Chaos is not dangerous until it begins to look orderly.
Although in our present religious climate, #8 may be more needed -- It is unlikely that God's plan for the universe includes making you rich.
Being Greek, I gotta mention that Chaos is a Greek, not a Biblical concept, whose opposite is Cosmos. Chaos is not our modern sense, but rather simply the initial state of things, out of which an order has emerged, Hesoid, Ovid, Genesis, the Vedas etc providing an account of the details.
Mathematical chaos is fascinating. Chaotic systems may look chaotic is the usual sense, but they are not. The same initial conditions will always present the same later results. Nothing "chaotic" or random about it. The problem is, or rather the problems are, complete knowledge of the initial conditions is never available, plus measurement always includes some inaccuracy, which to-gether mean that predicted results will vary, sometimes wildly, from actual results. Weather forecasts are the usual example given for this. The problem is not in the chaos, the intital conditions, but in the ability to know them, and then, to the extent that one isolates and knows one property of those conditions one knows other properties less precisely, giving rise to uncertainty in the observer.
Hence the Zurich Axiom, which is actually about risk management in investing, but expresses in that context the underlying deterministic state of chaotic systems as well as the uncertainty principle.
Which means Krauth is right, but unfortunately uses unsupported mythology about order, the universe, and mathematics to state it.
Lito, you out there reading this, I know you get it.
The very first “law” or principle of everything, physical and spiritual, is Love. “God is love.” The at-best second principle is Truth, otherwise known as the Logos of God, “of the Father’s Love begotten, ere the worlds began to be” and begotten in time and space because “God so loved the world” that He willed it. Love begets Truth, and nothing unloving is true. Truth is the second principle at best, I said, because the Holy Spirit also comes eternally from the Father’s Love, the principle of Life and all other power. Perhaps we need to count that as a tie with Truth for second place.
ReplyDeleteGod the Father wills to create. Then He "speaks" His will: “Let there be.” Words, language, thought, logic, meaning, sense, knowledge, wisdom, reason, cognition, order, coherence, all that sort of thing flows from the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Logos so to speak designs, puts in order, does the logistics, of the creation - according to the principle of Love. (That’s a too-human way of putting what language cannot adequately express.) And the Holy Spirit, hovering over the face of the deep, puts it all into effect by His life-giving and existence-bestowing power.
That’s the biblical view. You do not need the references from me; you know them all. The law came by Moses, but Truth and Grace by Jesus Christ. I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. I do not do My own will, but the will of Him who sent me. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and strength and soul; this is the first and great commandment. I did not come to you with eloquent words, but in power and demonstration of the Holy Spirit. Etc., etc., etc.
Lutherans are supposed to believe in Sola Scriptura. So what’s with embracing this stuff from Plato? It is incompatible with Scripture; don’t you, therefore, want to agree to toss it out? Seriously. Come on!
Logic is not the first law of the spiritual universe; Love is, which begets Truth (and "spirates" Power, by which the world is made and animated. Logic then flows from Truth. Logic is no more than a third-level "law of heaven."
And as for mathematics, that’s just an invention of the human mind to enable us to understand and manipulate the physical world. It’s strictly because we have bodies that we have mathematics. Without physical bodies limited to place and time, we would not, for instance, build houses or roads or weigh produce or count money or heat our dwellings. And all the things we now need to measure would not need to be measured, might even be meaningless to us. What would velocity mean to us, if we were pure spirit, and therefore could be, like God, everywhere all the time? What would heat or cold be to us? Light and dark would be all like to us.
We would not need mathematics and God certainly doesn’t! He knows how many hairs are on my head without literally counting (without even counting super-fast).
LOL...counting "super fast"....
ReplyDeleteWell, as Ronald Reagan said, there you go again.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know Love is the first principle of everything? You don't. It's a belief. Likewise that Truth or the Holy Spirit proceed from Love.
Who's embracing Plato? Judas H Priest at the Academy! It must be my poor English.
Logos, speaking of extrabiblical, is an extrabiblical concept used in the NT to explain some things, but the explanation is not to be confused with the thing itself.
Logos as a concept originates with Heraclitus, was taken up by the Sophists and Aristotle, and from there the Stoics, from which it was imported into late Jewish thinking by Philo, and then you have Jesus as logos in John.
Logos as a human concept that may be helpful, or not, in understanding who Jesus is, fine, but logos as something that actually exists and then we know it as Jesus -- well, no wonder Aquinas, the only theologian worth reading, (even if he was a damn Dominican, he was supposed to be a Benedictine, had abbot at Monte Cassino all properly bought as these things are done!) said that theology is for the such edification as those who are believers already may gain from it, but not for spreading belief or the faith lest unbelievers think we believe on the basis of such flimsy arguments.
Well Dixie, better super fast than half fast.
ReplyDeleteI posted this on Anastasia Theodoridis' blog:
ReplyDeleteThe flood of misrepresentations is so vast that I really did not want to even begin a response. “Ours is a God of Love, and yours is a God of Order.” That’s just too simplistic, and it is wrong. First, about Krauth. I do not know much more about him than the posts on Rev. Weedon’s blog and a few other bits and pieces. I know that he is (was – rest eternal grant him, O Lord) highly respected as a teacher and theologian by many Lutherans. As such, I am certain that he would not try to arrange the laws or qualities of God in an order of importance. I suspect he simply meant that God’s desire for order is the first thing we learn about Him after He created heaven and earth. If we assume that he was a Christian, we have to assume that he was thoroughly convinced of the fact that God is Love. I think I can safely assert that Krauth was not a major shaper of the Western Church. Further, it is extremely rare that “Order” is even mentioned in our churches outside of the context of congregational practice urged by St. Paul.
Secondly, I did listen to Matthew Gallatin and I think he misrepresents both St. Augustine’s theology and its influence on the Western Church. Space does not permit more than the following quotation from “On the Trinity”: “Wherefore, if Holy Scripture proclaims that God is love, and that love is of God, and works this in us that we abide in God and He in us, and that hereby we know this, because He has given us of His Spirit, then the Spirit Himself is God, who is love.” If we try to analyze someone’s writings, be they by Krauth or St. Augustine, without knowing the context, we are often misled, because we attribute opinions on one topic to an entirely different one.
I cannot speak for the entire Western Church, but as far as the Lutheran part of it is concerned, I know that the chief doctrine is the Gospel (some would say it is Justification, but that is actually a part of the Gospel). It is impossible to understand, proclaim, or believe the Gospel without being convinced that God is Love. So let us not get into the argument about “our God is Love,” and your God is Order.
But St. Augustine, Luther and I take issue with Matthew Gallatin on the matter of coming to faith. According to Gallatin, it is a choice made by people on the basis of their free will. This ancient error of Pelagius was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431 under the leadership of St. Augustine. As you see from the dates, the council was held before the split between the churches. Luther and Erasmus had a lengthy polemic on this topic. The Lutheran view is that Scripture teaches the complete depravity of fallen humanity that makes it impossible for anyone to make a conscious effort to accept salvation. Why this matters is another chapter in the book of Salvation.
Finally, it is an axiom of the Christian faith that the Holy Spirit is active in guiding the Church until the end of time. The Spirit knows of no East or West, and He is the same Spirit Who hovered over the chaos at Creation and He who guided the Apostolic Church and guides the Church today. Unfortunately, whenever people are involved, things do not work our perfectly. Therefore, many people have influenced the Church for good, and many for evil. But if we are to “test the spirits,” we should not do it on the basis of “who” said “what”, but on “what” was said and how that compares with what Scripture teaches.
εἰρήνη καὶ χαρὰ
George A. Marquart
Finally, it is an axiom of the Christian faith that the Holy Spirit is active in guiding the Church until the end of time. The Spirit knows of no East or West, and He is the same Spirit Who hovered over the chaos at Creation and He who guided the Apostolic Church and guides the Church today. Unfortunately, whenever people are involved, things do not work our perfectly. Therefore, many people have influenced the Church for good, and many for evil. But if we are to “test the spirits,” we should not do it on the basis of “who” said “what”, but on “what” was said and how that compares with what Scripture teaches.
ReplyDeleteAxios! Axios!
Christine
Well now we're getting somewhere.
ReplyDeleteAxios and axiom have the same root.
An axiom being a statement that is worthy, hence the name, of acceptance on the face of the statement alone without need for evidence or proof.
Now all we need to do is get to whether they are logical or non logical (the latter not to be confused with illogical).
Now, a logical axiom is axios of being accepted universally, whereas a non logical axiom defines properties within a particular theory, and is sometimes called a postulate (not to be confused with postulant, which since Vatican II are pretty rare anyway).
Both, however, are distinct from a theorem, being neither deduced nor proven, and thus not provable either.
Thank you, George, for your thoughtful and detailed reply.
ReplyDeleteI do know Krauth is very respected and respectable, although not infallible, and I simply think he has made a mistake here. No, I don't think he just meant that's the first thing we learn from the story of creation; that would reduce his words to something so unimportant as hardly to be worth saying - or quoting. He just goofed. He misstepped. it can happen to anyone, no big deal. (IS it?)
And I think it would be a distortion if we were to think the "God of Love" were not orderly, or that the "God of Order" had no love (but see below).
But the question remains: what is "Heaven's first law"? And it does make a vast difference whether that first law is Order or Love, because whichever it is, the other will be subordinate to it.
And if Love is subordinate to Order (or anything else) then it is not the infinite, unconditional love revealed in Jesus Christ, which Christians know and live in Him. It is conditional upon the requirements of good order, and bounded by them. And then all the things I've described snd more will follow.
So which is it?
(I've cross-posted this on my blog.)
Terry, we do know that Love is the first principle of everything because God is, and "God is Love."
ReplyDeleteLogos, a metaphor? For what? Is there any basis for thinking it may be a metaphor? Does the BOC consider it such?
Oh, well, never mind. Consider those rhetorical questions, because it doesn't matter to me, for purposes of this particular discussion. Use another word instead, then. Let us use a word Jesus used to describe Himself: Truth.
Logic (as logic itself will tell you) cannot exist or have any meaning unless there is such a thing as Truth. Logic is only made possible by truth. So right there we know that as "Heaven's first law," Truth trumps logic.
But we also know that the Son, Who is Truth, is eternally begotten of the Father. (Don't we?) Only the Father is unoriginate. Truth is the mirror, the express image, of God, Who is Love, and where there is no Love, there can be no image of it, no Truth.
That makes logic not the highest principle of anything, but at most the third.
Really, don't you agree, Krauth notwithstanding? This is the biblical view of it. God Himself has the highest place and God is love.
The question does not remain of What is Heaven's first law.
ReplyDeleteThe answer doesn't matter, because all any "answer" does is prove, so to speak, that under certain conditions certain philosophical language functions in a certain way.
Whether that way corresponds with anything about heaven or its laws, or even what is first, or whether there even are such things, is not demonstrated.
Maybe that's why the angels spoke to shepherds and Jesus called fishermen.
Great Judas Agronomer, I must have been writing mine while you were posting yours, and missed it.
ReplyDeleteHell no I don't agree, Krauth withstanding or notwithstanding.
I agree with the point Krauth is making, I just would not use the philosophical terms he uses to make it.
What do we say in the Creeds, I believe in God, the highest principle, who is love and therefore first?
What did the angels say to the shepherds, Behold I bring you tidings of great joy, this day in the city of David is born unto you a logos, and you will find him wrapped in Greek philosophical terms and lying in a manger?
I think I'm too ignorant of your way of thinking to be able to discuss this further. I thought that for Lutherans the Bible had to be the source of all doctrine.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is St. John the Fisherman, the Evangelist, the Theologian, who repeatedly wraps the Manger Child in the Greek philosophical terms. In his Gospel, which is Scripture, as in Sola Scriptura.
ReplyDeleteAlso as in logic, allegedly the law of the spiritual universe.
Great Judas at yeshiva! Sola scriptura?
ReplyDeleteWhat did God say to Moses at Sinai, which remains the confession of faith in Judaism (the Shema) and retained by Christ specifically as the first of the two great commandments -- Hey Moe, it's the Prime Mover here, the First Principle. No, he simply said I am, and the first commandment (if you number them the way God does) isn't a commandment at all but a simple statement of his existence with no elaboration whatsoever or even a name.
How did he identity himself to the Patriarchs (the real ones in the Bible, not guys in funny hats) and later prophets -- hey guys, it's me, logos, cosmos, agape and the whole shebang? No, he said he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who led you out of Egypt.
How did the Christian Church formulate a statement of its beliefs contra the versions going around -- I believe God the First Principle Almighty, Unmoved Mover of everything else, and in Jesus Christ his logos etc. Hell no.
Any more than it reads like a more modern version, L believe in world peace and the brotherhood of Man, being a good person, etc.
Yes both OT and NT use concepts from philosophy to help explain things, but when push comes to shove, never ever does God reveal himself in Scripture in terms of principles, laws, axioms, or any terms of philosophical or theological systems.
It is always in terms of a person in action and the results of those actions, who is known thereby -- the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who led you out of Israel, a Father whose creative force is the source of everything, a son born of a particular woman, who suffered, was executed, died and was buried, who rose from the dead and will judge the living in the dead, a spirit sent who gathers his entire church, the communion of saint, brings faith for the forgiveness of sins, empowering the resurrection of the dead and everlasting life.
Not a shred of philosophy or theology in there, but always a person revealed and known in actions taken toward us, faith in which, rather than a system of terms, is our salvation.
Full agreement.
ReplyDeleteIt's just, that's not what Krauth has said here.
Krauth was a firm supporter of the Book of Concord and Confessional Lutheran doctrine.
ReplyDeleteHe also supported the Lutheran Reformation as a return to authentic medieval and patristic thought as opposed to Enlightenment sources.
One cannot get the full grasp of his thinking by focusing on one quote."
Christine
And too, he wasn't really about settling the niceties of Greek philosophy re Christian revelation.
ReplyDeleteHe was trying to establish and authentic American Lutheranism in the face of what was fast becoming just another American Protestantism -- just like now.
What he writes should be seen in that context, in which case, he has valuable points and sets a valuable example for the same struggle that still goes on now.
What valuable point(s)? You just ripped his whole statement to shreds. Or did you only mean to rip apart his use of philosophical terms? So put it in your own terms. What does he mean that you agree with?
ReplyDeleteAnd if you really do hold to Sola Scriptura, how can you a accept his doctrine here if there no biblical support it? You already wondered, in your first comment, "How in the hell do you know that?"
Christine, I accept what you say about Krauth, although that doesn't make him infallible. What I want to know is, why support this particular quotation from him? On what basis?
In calling the law of the universe logical, is he fighting against illogic? That would interest me very greatly as I frequently try to do the same.
There's this part in Rabelais where the guy sends his page out by the horse to curse for him for a half hour because he doesn't have time to do it himself.
ReplyDeleteI did not rip his whole argument to shreds. What I said was, I would not make the point using the terms he did.
There's a pretty good article on Krauth in Wiki. The main point is, at the time American Lutheranism had drifted into a loose at best sense of adherence to the Confessions, as well as an attraction to "new measures", things that seemed to draw numbers to American Protestant denoms, for which traditional Lutheran worship and practice was tossed aside. This led to a split, and the book from which the quotation comes was written not to be theology per se but to demonstrate that traditional Lutheran theology and practice was not a break with the past but in fact a conserving of it insofar as it does not contradict the Gospel.
The situation in our time is different only in that it is the same problem but worse. The work of Krauth, Walther, Loehe and others in their time is our work to-day, and their works and example have much to teach us as, change the names and dates, they could have written what they wrote this morning.
What is worth supporting in this quotation is that God is not a god of whims, fits, starts and start-overs, but the unfolding in a consistent and continuous progression of the totality of himself, and the march of his church through time will be like that too.
I myself would more describe this in terms of development through convergence in ever more complex stages, driven not by impersonal "laws" etc but pulled from a created Alpha point of origin to its creator the Omega point of end, which the universe and we in it cannot do of ourselves, and has revealed itself to us and come among us as Christ who draws all men unto himself.
But that is only a description, not the reality it describes.
Infallible? Who said Krauth is infallible? No mortal being is infallible (including the pope).
ReplyDeleteLet's go to the wider context of what Krauth says on "Order."
The faith of the Church, drawn from the rule by the just exercise of private judgment, illumined by the Holy Ghost, has been tested and developed in three ways: First, by science; next, by history; and thirdly, in the practical life of the Church. Science has shown, in the glorious edifice of our doctrinal theology, that our faith has the grand criterion of truth, the capacity of arrangement in a self-harmonizing system. Order is Heaven's first law. As the law of the physical universe is mathematical, the law of the spiritual universe is logical. That which has no place in system, is not of God, is not truth. All his works reflect his unity and self-consistency.
A further explanation of what Krauth means by private judgment: Those who imagine that the right of private judgment is the right of men, within the Lutheran Church, and bearing her hallowed name, to teach what they please in the fact of her testimony, know not the nature of the right they claim, nor of the Church, whose very life involves her refusal to have fellowship with them in their error. . . . Rights, in themselves, give nothing, and cannot change the nature of things. The right to gather gathers nothing; and if, under this right, the man gathers wood, hay, stubble, neither the right nor its exercise makes them into gold, silver and precious stones. The Church will not put any violence upon him who chooses to gather what will not endure the fire; but she will not accept them as jewels, not permit her children to be cheated with them. The right of private judgment and the right of Church discipline are co-ordinate and harmonious rights, essential to the prevention, each of the abuse of the other.
Also seems to me that the Orthodox judge Lutherans by the evangelical Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura, which is emphatically not what we embrace. Nor do you appear to understand why the theology of the cross is so central to Lutheran teaching.
Christine
to teach what they please in the fact of her testimony,
ReplyDeleteShould be "in the face of her testimony"
Christine
Terry,
ReplyDeleteYes, God is orderly, as I said at the beginning of this discussion. The Church is to be orderly, too, as St. Paul writes.
Had Krauth just said that much, there would be no issue. But for what he did say, about order as heaven's first principle, about mathematics and about logic - that has no basis at all in Scripture and in fact is contradicted therein.
Christine,
Thanks for providing the context, in which the quote, although still unfortunate, is more understandable.
As I understand it, no matter which form of Sola Scriptura one embraces, if it contradicts Scripture, a thing has to be thrown out. Yes? I even I, being no Sola Scripturist at all, hold to that.
This quote by Krauth needs to be rejected. You can find support for orderliness, both in God and Church, stated correctly in plenty of other places.
As I understand it, no matter which form of Sola Scriptura one embraces, if it contradicts Scripture, a thing has to be thrown out. Yes? I even I, being no Sola Scripturist at all, hold to that.
ReplyDeleteNo. Evangelicals say that if something is not PERMITTED in Scripture it must be rejected.
Lutherans hold that if something is not FORBIDDEN by Scripture it can, in Christian freedom, be embrace.
For example. The fundamentalist Churches of Christ (not to be confused with the United Church of Christ) find no use of musical instruments in the New Testament so many of their congregations forbid their use in worship.
Lutherans have always used the historic, catholic symbols of the Western church, crucifixes, stained glass, altars, and our glorious music is our greatest treasure.
We embrace the ancient ecumenical Creeds because we see them rooted in Scripture.
There's quite a difference in the lens through which we and evangelical Protestants view the Bible.
This quote by Krauth needs to be rejected. You can find support for orderliness, both in God and Church, stated correctly in plenty of other places.
"Needs to be rejected?" According to your analysis? I don't think so. Perhaps when you've read the entire corpus of Krauth's work you might be entitled to say that.
I don't live my faith through Orthodox paradigms.
It also seems to me, for honesty's sake, you might come clean and let us know just which Christian body you belonged to, if any, before your Orthodox conversion, since it is pretty obvious what those of us posting here were or are.
Christine
Christine,
ReplyDeleteI've ready many beautiful, glorious, wonderful Krauth quotes on this blog, but just not this one.
Re Sola Scriptura, I understand the difference. But what if something conflicts with Scripture? Doesn't that limit one's Christian freedom to embrace it?
In Scripture, first place is always given to love. "This is the first and great commandment..." "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you..." "Now abide faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love." "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect" - that perfection consisting of His love, even for His enemies. Etc., etc., etc.
There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that order or mathematics or logic is anywhere near as great as love.
Before I was Orthodox, I was Episcopalian, officially. Unofficially (and there was no conflict here), Hindibuddhapalian. I've never had the privilege of being Lutheran.
There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that order or mathematics or logic is anywhere near as great as love.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Krauth is implying that they are.
But what if something conflicts with Scripture? Doesn't that limit one's Christian freedom to embrace it?
A concrete example would be welcome here.
I'll say this. The irony of the theology of the cross is that for Lutherans it is a concrete sign that both the love and grace of God is not "cheap" (as Bonhoeffer put it). The cross is the highest symbol of love the world has ever known. We don't view God as a gloomy deity ready to thump us every time we make a mistake.
Lutherans are blessed with a Christ-centered faith that enables us to live with a joyful hope of what is yet to come in the fulfillment of the eschatalogical vision whereby we will live in the light of that Love forever.
I would suggest, again, that reading "quotes" from Krauth will never give you the full picture of what he is saying, anymore than a couple of posts about the concept of Deisis will give an non-Orthodox Christian a full view of what that means.
The "privilege of being a Lutheran," when all is said and done, is the privilege of being a child of God, reborn in the waters of Holy Baptism as are all whom Christ has claimed as His own.
Thank you for relating that you were Episcopalian. I had guessed that might be the case.
By the way, I have seen the animal rescue posts on your blog, you are doing a wonderful job of caring for God's creatures. Dostoevski had it right.
Christine
Oh, one more thing and I am passing no judgment here, merely an observation.
ReplyDeleteI've known several Episcopalians whose spirituality was also informed by Hindu and Buddhist practices, so I don't find that surprising at all.
Also not surprising that the ECUSA has lost so many members to Rome or Constantinople.
Christine
Well Great Zeus Cloudgatherer, I hadn't guessed it at all.
ReplyDeleteIf PW will allow a detour, I would be interested in your view of the recent move by the Bishop of Rome toward inclusion of Anglican Communion types within the RCC, Anastasia.
Christine, I'm very sure I don't have the full picture of what Krauth is saying. Nor am I criticizing that full picture, just this one, tiny quote. As for the full picture, I may (or may not?) agree with most of it.
ReplyDeleteTerry, Rome has always been willing to let you believe and practice almost anything, so long as you acknowledge the pope as Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff, infallible, with full, immediate, personal authority over every creature. The Orthodox found that out at the so-called Council of Florence (which among Orthodox since is called a "robber council"). The Uniates are another example, and this overture to Anglicans seems to me yet another example of the same. Syncretism is the name of their game. If I can find them again, I'll share some eye-popping pictures of it with you.
Anastasia,
ReplyDeleteI think we are in agreement at this point :)
As long as you acknowledge the pope as Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff, infallible, with full, immediate, personal authority over every creature.
That's the idea in theory, anyway, that the Supreme Pontiff has "full, immediate, personal authority over every creature."
Except for the fact that so many Catholics routinely "ignore" that authority. The Church of Rome ain't what she used to be!
Christine
Well, you're quite right about that Big A.
ReplyDeleteThese days, many think this has changed, as language from former times such as "to whom every knee must bend" (wrt to the Pope, not Jesus) has given way to "in which the fullness of the church subsists".
Which is no different than it ever was, the idea that in the end everybody belongs in the Catholic Church, just more palatably expressed for the current age.
Fact is, the Roman Church behaves no different in this matter than the Roman Empire whose state religion it was: you can believe and do pretty much whatever in the hell you want, so long as you do not officially deny the official religion. That's the one thing you must not do and otherwise pretty much everything is allowed.
It's a religion about nothing but itself, which, from the inside where I formerly was, you don't see as such because "itself" is taken to be Christ in his body the church anyway.
That is why what Christine noted happens -- as long as you don't formally it and stay inside it, you'll be just fine whatever you actually believe or do.
I was thinking more in terms of the mechanics and legalities that will allow it formally wrt to the Anglican Communion.
It's called syncretism. Or "inculturation". Basically, do whatever it takes to - to what? Gain more subjects. Even subjects only on paper add to one's prestige, if we are thinking in carnal terms.
ReplyDeleteAs to what the Anglicans think or how they should react, I have no opinion. (Their martyrs, like Lutheran martyrs, would turn over in their graves except that there's nothing left of most of them but ashes.)
I found and posted the eye-popping pictures on my blog.
Oh yes, clown masses, polka masses, coke and potato chip masses -- the "Spirit of Vatican II" went amok in the immediate years after the council. In many places it still runs rampant.
ReplyDelete"Inculturation" has become the sacred cow in the RC, especially in the U.S.
Meanwhile, mass attendance continues to plummet and plummet.
The RC is in the process of revising the texts of the mass in the hopes of restoring some sense of "reverence". By asking the "assembly" (eeek, how I despise that word) to reply "and with your spirit" instead of "and also with you" I guess it's supposed to help Catholics feel more Catholic again.
From what I've read so far some of the new texts, in attempting to woodenly adhere to the original Latin, are precious beyond belief.
Thanks for the photos, Anastasia, they were quite a trip down memory lane.
Christine
I checked out the photos.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have no patience with the clown mass, polka mass etc sort of thing, the multicultural ones only remind me that if you were to show such a picture to one of the Apostles none of them would be recognisably Christian from their apparel.
You guys have been having too much fun while I've been away...
ReplyDeleteYou guys have been having too much fun while I've been away...
ReplyDeleteThis is most certainly true!
Christine