What place? I'd argue, in the words of Robert Maynard Hutchins, as a principal participant in “the Great Conversation,” which Wiki defines as “a characterization of references and allusions made by authors in the Western canon to the works of their predecessors.”
If we imagine the Great Conversation as a family dinner conversation, the mainline churches (including the RCC) now play the role of grandpa, who talks at length and with great fondness about how things used to be, but who the kids (and even their middle aged parents) are beginning to suspect has gone a bit around the bend, or in the case of the evangelicals as the mad maiden aunt who never lived her life, but now wants to live everyone else's. The older principal participants (the arts and science) give a bit of indulgent deference to grandpa, and smile a bit wistfully when he repeats himself, but the teens (entertainment) are starting to interrupt the old guy, and it's hard to miss their eye rolls when the mad aunt demands her share of the conversation.
I could write dissertations on the hows and whys of why we got here, but I'm more interested in the practical question of how to get religion back into a productive role as a principal participant in the Great Conversation. In large part, I think this involves injecting questions into the conversation where religion has something that the other participants will see as unique and valuable, and part involves breaking out of the limiting roles of grandpa and the mad aunt.
pope benedict has taken pains to make conversation the basis of his papacy and he seems to get nowhere with it...is it because we live in a western world where youth gets glorified and age gets warehoused
he held out a hand to the muslim world saying hey let's talk anger nothing else came of it he's tried to be receptive to the anglicans some are building hasty bridges to the safety on the other side while in britain he withstood a barrage of insults but was exonerated beautifully in the house of parliament...one MP stood and said the rhetoric of criticism was an insult to the enlightenment...and she wasn't catholic...i thought hmnh...there's hope in this world yet
the RCC along with our jewish cousins and the orthodox folks seem to hold up the idea that wisdom of the elders is necessary...maybe this is where we should start. let's listen to the elders and tell the youth to shut up for awhile
shut up and listen
i have no easy answers for getting god back into the conversation...yet i do believe with mircea eliade and william james and ts eliot and many others that humans are essentially ritualistic creatures (o one could argue mating dances of animals are rituals) we devise symbolic methods by which we sustain our intuitions for vital meaning
these are syncretistic times and much like the israelites' struggles with getting god all wrong so now we just lump the idea and invest our energies in distraction and fall asleep each night exhausted from the emptiness of our days
maybe some people have to stand up and say to young people hey that's empty and stupid and don't watch that
i've turned my mind against professional sports completely i rail against it any chance i get and i will not relent
huizinga makes a very important insight -- we should think about that
i watched people line up for blocks one day at the musee' d'orsay and wondered what are these people doing what are they waiting for then i went to the louvre and noted that nobody looks at the pictures i would stop and try to take in a picture and a hundred people would walk in front of me
i think someone informed people in france that aesthetics is the salvation of mankind even if it's only a passing glance at things it's very culturally important to be near paintings
it is important to listen to the young..i've been impressed with the world youth days this last one in madrid young people travelled miles and they stood and they listened to the holy father i could see their faces they were invested in what was being said
i've been presently critical of the music festival phenomenon in this country these expensive and i would suppose lucrative staged gatherings,,,here again i've decided this is a complete derangement of the art of music this is putting it on stage for consumption alone and it is being staged either deliberately or unconsciously (you tell me) as a substitute for religion...i'm abhorring it all about as much as i abhor professional sports
how to induce young minds to seek the truth faith and reason in a constant tension of mutual necessity
i'm presently reading Charles Taylor A secular age - quite fascinating
it will be for us to combat the forces of distraction rather than merely accept it all as important and necessary
with all due respect we need to represent the priority of books over the computer
i'm planning on spending a whole year away from computers funny i have to plan it i'm stuck in it now like everyone else
i like your metaphor of the table conversation if we can get the mad aunt to listen to grandpa and the kids to recognize how very stupid they are maybe we can have a conversation
pope benedict has taken pains to make conversation the basis of his papacy and he seems to get nowhere with it...is it because we live in a western world where youth gets glorified and age gets warehoused
This is an oversimplification. Pope Benedict, as Pope, has denied that the word "Church" can be applied to the Protestants. His "hand to the Muslims" included a 14th century critique of Islam, saying the only new things it has brought are evil and inhuman. If you slap a man across the face, he's not going view your open palm as a sign of peace.
Pope Benedict has a long record as Defender of the Faith of doing so by attacking other groups. He might have been able to get past his history by striking a conciliary tone early in his papacy, but he did not. This is not to deny his subsequent efforts at conversation, just to point out that he does not enter into these conversations with a clean slate, and his initial statements often frame them in a way that continuation requires his counterparty to accept prejudicial stipulations.
It is possible and more productive to maintain a position that holds onto RCC distinctiveness without insisting that other confessions are inauthentic wantabees, or evil and inhumane.
the RCC along with our jewish cousins and the orthodox folks seem to hold up the idea that wisdom of the elders is necessary...maybe this is where we should start. let's listen to the elders and tell the youth to shut up for awhile
shut up and listen
I'm skeptical. Demanding the floor is not the same thing as entering the conversation. I'm not coming at this with the idea that I know what will work. But I'm pretty sure that this won't.
i have no easy answers for getting god back into the conversation...yet i do believe with mircea eliade and william james and ts eliot and many others that humans are essentially ritualistic creatures (o one could argue mating dances of animals are rituals) we devise symbolic methods by which we sustain our intuitions for vital meaning
The idea that ritual is imbued with deeper meaning which we can access more completely through faith seems like one starting point. We've (and by here I'm using 'we' to mean the Christian Church in an inclusive way) have had some success with Taize and similar movements, which use repetition together with music to create an altered state of consciousness. The effect, as you know, is a kind of drug-free high, which can be explained as communion, not in the sense of Eucharist, but in the sense of entering into a spiritual harmony with our creator. Of course, other communities do this too (I'm thinking specifically of Yoga and related Vedic systems), and there are alternative explanations. So this feels like a tool we can use, very helpful, but not sufficient because it is not particular.
huizinga makes a very important insight -- we should think about that
I agree. I'm taking him very seriously. But my point is that thinking that we can return to the status quo of the middle ages is not realistic. There are new voices in the conversation (e.g., science), and it does not seem possible or desireable to exclude them. Our problem isn't that they're in the conversation, it is that we are not.
with all due respect we need to represent the priority of books over the computer
I see this differently :-). Computers are tools which we can use to augment our listening or our speaking. These days, when I'm reading a book, it's often on a computer. But I agree the ratio of speaking to listening has gone up, that computers have facilitated this, and this has had the effect that the knowledge and wisdom of the past are often excluded. We're becoming trapped in the ignorance of now, and the structure of society is less and less the great conversation, and more and more just chatter. The 4096 character limit doesn't help :-/.
yet i do believe with mircea eliade and william james and ts eliot and many others that humans are essentially ritualistic creatures (o one could argue mating dances of animals are rituals) we devise symbolic methods by which we sustain our intuitions for vital meaning
me gusta!
In general I'm somewhat opposed to naive luddite-ism---western medicine is important, as is..the wise use of technology-- yet at times I...understand an anti-technological,anti-reductionist perspective--something like what Feyerabend discussed--though I don't think he was bona fide RCC (and other-s-Heidegger..RCC starting out (MH ..took mass at his death,Ive read) but Heid. has some political baggage)--what we might call Techie-ism (as opposed to real science)--the idea that techno-quick fixes will solve everything, and that DrSciences have all the answers. Along with that comes reductionism--ie all literature and philosophy are suspect,etc . Foreign languages as well. An RN or programmer or chemist thus are the local Einsteins--Ezra Pound or Joyce or Feyerabend are ....negligible--if that. I run into that quite often--a programmer doesn't know ser from estar, nor could write a coherent paragraph, or tell the French Revolution from its bitwise function etc . but he's making 100 grand a year+
Not exactly what Huizinga was discussing but related--the onset of reductionism in a sense. That said, humanities types usually got their own issues. Charles Taylor? I read some of his book on Hegel-another anti-reductionist ( before Taylor converted to RCC. alright. A bit...British, alas ).
pope benedict has merely held the line for unity in the way that the tradition has always held the line he voiced for the 21st century the sentiments the patristic writers voiced for unity in the 3rd century
he alluded to a conversation in the 14th century which he felt needed some changing he stated he had no desire to continue the dynamic of suspicion and fear and hate -that part of the address went unheard
i hold out with the holy father for a greater awareness of the treasures held and revealed in liturgy a liturgy which resists compromise a liturgy that does not need to bend to the whims of each generation rather there is the need for each generation to witness the ancient wisdom held forth there and see it anew and live it anew how we dress it up is one thing but the form and content do not alter much with capricious time
i'm not saying anyone should demand the floor stu no i'm saying let us give respect where respect is due we've allowed a secular vulgar devotion to glitzy images tear down the formal respect we must allow those who have wisdom we drag wisdom in the mud and hold up lady gaga in its place
ut unum sint
that they may be one i think the formula is available to everyone and to argue for distinctiveness of various traditions is to uphold the very dynamic that militates against the unity our lord intends
there's great hope in the ecumencial dialogue i see it in the faces and hear it in the words of the average run of the mill christian these days
rome is there so that we might engage in our daily imperative of metanoia
some say rome must change i say we must change
a good beginning from my point of view would be to replace the hierarchy of knowing the degrees of knowledge (a la jacques maritain)with wisdom and metaphysical discussion at the very top with poetry so that all institutes of higher learning could be understood to be places where philosophical inquiry is the goal of all learning
we've bowed ourselves at the altar of pragmatism for far too long believeng science and technology are the highest achievement
the enlightenment is a benighted monster calling us to the abyss
the tragedy of USA is a tragedy of misplaced values
What of say ...the great catholic scientists/rationalists such as Leibniz, jh? Or the aforementioned George Coyne,or Dr Behe for that matter.
Leibniz would, I wager, have students, including catholic ones, study maths and sciences (as well as languages, history and a smattering of metaphysics, etc.). The integral itself (and thus modern physics ) --largely a product of a...papist mind (tho' trig. from the wacky mooslims) .
there have been some great catholic scientists pierre tielhard de chardin not the least among them but they were schooled in the pattern of philosophy leibniz was trained as a philosopher mathematics was his specialty but he excelled in metaphysics and continued a long discourse on the nature of god throughout his life all scientists should follow his pattern science without recourse to god is epistemological tyranny and it poses itself as innocuous (of all things)
in it's place we have to listen to the disciples of darwin who do not read philosphy while claiming to make it
I think we see this whole question of unity through very different lenses.
I refer to "the Christian Church" in a way that is intentionally inclusive of the RCC. In the words of the Sunday School song, "I am the Church, you are the Church, we are the Church together." I understand the unity of "one faith" in terms of what all Christians share: a belief in God, and in Jesus Christ as a person of God, our Lord, fully human, fully divine, whose suffering and death was redemptive for us.
And I see the RCC saying that the unity of the church means us, and not you.
I doubt that the 3rd century ante-nicene fathers shared anything like the contemporary exclusionary RCC concept of unity. I'd like cites, if possible, just so that I know what you're thinking. Because in the 3rd century, there had been no ecumenical councils, and the question of orthodoxy was very much open, with profound regional differences in doctrine and practice. The distinction between 3rd century Christianity as practiced in Rome vs. Asia Minor was of a kind and degree as the that between the contemporary RCC and the Pentacostals. If the ante-nicene fathers saw Christian unity as functioning in their time, they'd see it as functioning in ours.
i hold out with the holy father for a greater awareness of the treasures held and revealed in liturgy a liturgy which resists compromise a liturgy that does not need to bend to the whims of each generation rather there is the need for each generation to witness the ancient wisdom held forth there and see it anew and live it anew how we dress it up is one thing but the form and content do not alter much with capricious time
I'm very much of a liturgical traditionalist. Lutheran, remember? But that said, we need to think clearly about essentials vs. the accidentals of our liturgies. The early Christians sang, but there were no organs in the catacombs. If contemporary Christian music neglects the Psalms, the problem isn't with the guitars, it's with the lyricists, and the liturgical problem isn't to kvetch about the amplifiers, it's to adapt the hymns of Israel to the contemporary idiom.
i think the formula is available to everyone and to argue for distinctiveness of various traditions is to uphold the very dynamic that militates against the unity our lord intends
I think it depends on how we understand those distinctions. Do we see them as creating separate communities? That's a problem. You did better in the service of unity in taking Presbyterian communion than you do in this argument.
I see the distinctions differently. The RCC has a distinctive governance model, whose strengths and weaknesses have been fully revealed by history. I'm not glossing over the fact that this distinction rests on a doctrinal difference in interpreting the apostolic nature of the Church. But I would argue that our salvation does not depend on this doctrinal question, and therefore, as important as this question is, doctrinal disagreement should not be a barrier to unity. I am saying that Protestants have something to learn from this model.
And I see the traditional Lutheran theologies of justification and sanctification as great strengthes, and indeed, the contemporary RCC theologies on these questions borrow liberally from us, although we all know of course that the RCC has never changed its position on any material question ;-).
These distinctions can co-exist, we can learn from one another, and indeed, perhaps find full unity. A decade ago, I was hopeful that the RCC and Lutheran churches would merge within my lifetime. I still believe that merger will take place, but I no longer believe that I will live to see that day.
Let all mortal flesh keep silence, And with fear and trembling stand; Ponder nothing earthly minded, For with blessing in His hand, Christ our God to earth descending, Comes our homage to demand.
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. (Adv. Haer. Book 1, ch. X.2) - Ireneaus of Lyons
so while i am more than willing to accept the historical flaws and faux pas of roman leadership i must insist that this intuition for unity as cultivated in the earliest pastoral teachings remained integral to roman catholic practice - even if not always in rome itself then most certainly in the religious orders of benedictines and the mendicant reforms of preaching and teaching under the wide umbrella of "catholic" katolikos - universal
i've noted recently that people who worship in the ecclesial communions are not aware of the implicit protest and disunity of their worship - perhaps the leaders are and they see this as imperative to preserve some sort of tradition or continuity with the past reformers - but in general most people are being led by a spirit of ignorance to which they do not feel one way or another
but for those who do face up tot he roman catholic witness with some honesty and humility they see the unsevered connection to the previous ages and the all important witness of people "saints" who have led the way and who now enjoy a sort of innocent pious heroism who are given the benefit of candles lit for added intercessions and recognition throughout the year so that thus the liturgy is not merely a substantiating of doctrine and dogma but an honest recognition of the positive involvement of persons in the course of time
in catholic practice we "people" our history and worship with constant reminders of our debt to those who led the way
and today we ackowledge the cross we exalt the cross a symbolic festive reminder of what has taken place for us
are the non-roman communions willing to go along with this pious absurdity to which catholics the world round so readily extend themselves
as long as the "lutheran" title is held out there i think it will prove to be an irritant and not a useful one - it served as a necessary (perhaps) critique 500 yrs ago but now it is just there like a sore tooth and the person refuses to go to the dentist
recently i became aware of te "lutheran" catholic moment of shared worship where the liturgy of the word was shared in common and the liturgy of the eucharsit was prayed in common but the reception was honored in mutual recognition of difference and separation - the lutherans went forth to receive a blessing from the catholic celebrant and the catholics then turned and received a blessing from the lutheran celebrant while the lutheran faithful recieved from their proclaimed witness
not unity for sure but at least and effort at making a bad situation better of being present to one another in the heart held hope of possible resolution
here again i think it foolish to continue to see rome itself as the problem we are the problem it obliges us behooves us to humbly give out assent despte the human failings of the hierarchy
While Im aware of the problems of secularism, the traditional catholics and protestants tend to magnify those problems. Darwinist-reductionists may be ..irritating or philistinish, but usually not trying to rob me or my neighbors. A decent respect for the US-Constitution is still needed--something sorely needed in many catholics, and evangelicals.
Personally Ill hang with science people--even skeptics--over the run of the mill evangelical or biblethumper, jh. Catholics are a different matter, but the idea that only a return to RCC tradition will save us won't fly with many Americans--maybe at the seminary or monastery. Not on Main St. Unfortunately, I have...within the last decade or so come to the sad realization that RCC tradition--one might say Latin itself-- does serve as a bulwark against various social evils--white trash conservatives, mormon-masons, and romantic leftists, thugs, even slutdom if you will. Joseph Conrad's writing or maybe Walker Percy or Miss O'C may have helped there--smashed in the Humean so to speak. But it's not enough. I find that many catholics are deeply cynical: the turn to the RCC is ..something like resignation. Hegel understood knew that as well--he made some interesting remarks on the RCC. Not altogether negative, but ...IMHE he thought it something like a ...death cult in a sense (one of its beauties, perhaps)
i think we should abandon the constitution and see if people will live by the ideals stated there without recourse to any document
as it is it stands or sits as a secularist (if somewhat theistically inspired) lockean alternative to a commited belief in the good of humanity
the american experiment is over the republicans are giving ample testimony to that it's becoem sturm and drang and little else the rhetoric of inanity taken seriously by the benighted
the constitution is a wasp document at best and it snubs its nose at a greater and deeper awareness for which it grants only grudging acceptance
how would jesus interpret the values inherent in the constitution
it was probably not intended but it has in fact set up the foundation for a secular form of religion posing as govt. and the fols who bow to it seem to get to be the high priests of intesifying madness
A technical quibble: Iraneaus was 2nd century, not 3rd. This is a somewhat different historical context. Nevertheless, he was very well placed to have been fully aware of the considerable diversity of Christian doctrine and practice that existed at his time.
He was born in Smyrna, which is to say, Asia Minor, sometime around 120AD, a member of Polycarp's congregation, whom he knew, and the home church of Ignatius of Antioch. This is the congregation of which John of Patmos wrote, "I know your affliction and your poverty, even though you are rich. I know the slander on the part of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Beware, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison so that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have affliction. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life." Not a bad epitaph for a congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ.
So we see Iraneaus in the more Pauline church at Smyrna, which has deep connections to the Church in Antioch through Ignatius, which was arguably the most Jewish-oriented and scripturally literate of the major Churches of its time. And he served at Lyons, in Gaul, which like all of the western Mediterranean was dominated by Rome. And he speaks, as one writing against the Gnostics of this diversity as representing a "perfect harmony," while making clear what this unity is in Book I, Ch X.1. His language seems reminiscent of mine: "The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God..." It is a summary of the core beliefs of the Christian church, as practiced and confessed by Catholics, Lutherans, and even Anabaptists.
I have no problem with the "little c" catholic church, and mine like most Lutheran churches use the word "catholic" in the Nicene Creed. We understand catholic == universal, but distinguish this from catholic == Catholic, which is to say RCC. It is a stumbling block in our conversation.
i've noted recently that people who worship in the ecclesial communions are not aware of the implicit protest and disunity of their worship
Grumble. My "ecclesial communion" practices open communion, which is to say, if you believe that Christ is Lord, and that he is truly present in the elements of wine and bread, you are welcome at our table. This is our understanding of Christian unity. It is the RCC which has bound communion, so that it is no longer just a symbol of the unity we share in Christ, but it is also a symbol of submission to Rome.
and today we ackowledge the cross we exalt the cross a symbolic festive reminder of what has taken place for us
are the non-roman communions willing to go along with this pious absurdity to which catholics the world round so readily extend themselves
I had to look this one up :-). We have enough pious absurdities of our own that's what's one more? That said, Lutherans are allergic to the Catholic veneration of relics, so we'd approach this a bit differently, but no less piously. E.g., my congregation now does a Veneration of the Cross on Holy Friday, rather than a classic Tenebrae, so we're closer than you think.
as long as the "lutheran" title is held out there i think it will prove to be an irritant and not a useful one
"Lutheran" is a name given by our enemies, and is dispensible. In theologically nuanced internal conversations, we refer to ourselves as "Evangelical Catholics." This isn't done in public contexts, because it lends to confusion.
the american experiment is over the republicans are giving ample testimony to that it's becoem sturm and drang and little else the rhetoric of inanity taken seriously by the benighted
the constitution is a wasp document at best
You got a point--I don't care for flag waving BS that much...or even.. pinches blancos. The Lockean rights and legalese may be sort of fugly--but Ive been in situations where say the 4th Amendment mattered,and due Process,etc and all that hokey stuff. What are the alternatives?? Marxism... maoism, sharia? Or Bachmannocracy. Michele-witz. The bus may soon be arriving. Get on board, marian!
Maybe ...it's no exit. at least for those of us not invited to the Techie-capitalist-evangelical party.
Feast days in southern german small towns --the catholics have some great party, tons of food, beer, oom pah pah music. The evangelische are not usually out there ---up north perhaps, but a far different vibe--cold,stoical, reserved . The towns with a relic at some old kirche--a part of the skull or rib-bone of St. Bartholomew,etc--also rather charming. And good tourista bidness,as are the cathedrals.
Catholics have healthy appetites, and a certain....je ne sais quoi--ancient pagan sensibility. Perhaps evangelicals are not all puritans---working class lutherans party for the holy futbol games --yet on the whole they are uptight. Squares--(tho' nothing like Merican biblethumpers). They might make good infantry (ie prussians). But officer-hipsters and german intellectuals are catholic--usually bavarian and austrian.
Hey! Evangelische make damn good mechanics ;-). Farmers, too.
Oddly enough, my family traces back to Königsreich Württemberg, and more specifically, to the Stuttgart area, swarzen deutsch, aber ich bin grau :-(. Farmers and engineers, if not actual mechanics, on both sides. One side drinks, the other doesn't. I tell my son that if he ever gets back to the old family reunion at White Deer, they won't know who he is, but they'll know that he belongs. Ah, and bring a couple of dollars for the lemonade. That's the non-drinking side.
We are thoughtful, reliable, and sober even when we drink. It's not that we don't know how to have a good time, it's just that we're sure that we don't deserve it, and we don't like to call attention to ourselves anyway.
You don't note the difference between cats. and prot. in the US as much--perhaps between the WASPs and hispanics --but bavarians seemed a bit ..irish in a sense. More gaul-celtic than teutonic (ie the north). Allemaigne--that is still the french name for Bavaria, real germany. North of like Frankfurt--was saxon- prussian, norsemen, barbarians (ie, catholics/christians did not conquer many areas of prussia/scandanavia until 12-13th century--later probably in some areas). Teutons are good when organized into platoons,or maybe driving panzers--dangerous creatures when free.
I realize the generalizations may be a bit...trite or not-so funny but it's stilll like that in US --scotsmen-evangelicals --or mormons- are Gawds army--and they hate the RCC as much as like Cromwell did (or Luther for that matter)
Spare me. It doesn't matter how clever the guy at the periscope is if the diesels don't run.
and they hate the RCC as much as like Cromwell did (or Luther for that matter)
Luther's a different case. He was, after all, an Augustinian monk. He had considerable public invective for various figures in the Catholic church (especially Dominicans), but he was on better terms with most of them privately (Dominicans excepted). His argument wasn't with the RCC per se, but with what he saw as abuses that had arisen within it. Abuses he'd have preferred to correct within the RCC, had that been possible.
didn't Luther have an artist crony draw pics of whores pumping a pope-anti-christ-- out of their ahem ...unmentionables? And then printed and distributed --not too good of terms.
I don't know this, so I can't confirm or deny. It goes beyond what I've seen, but not so far as to be implausible.
That said, I'd offer two ameliorating observations. The first is a matter of context. This is the way it was done then: you're Satan during the afternoon debates, but, let's grab a beer in the evening. The second is in how it was received. Surviving personal correspondence (even between Luther and the Pope) is cordial, and I've read claims that Luther was offered a cardinalship well after Augsburg, the "Savonarola option."
That said,Im not entirely sure what side to root for on the Reformation world cup.
I root for ultimate unity, in a church that draws one the best that each of us has to offer.
Luther was not a peaceful man. Recall his treatment of Munzer and the anabaptists. When needed, he was just as much a toady as the old catholic nobles.
Luther was dependent, arguably too dependent, on the protection of the German Electors. This is a core defect, and one that played out in an even more damaging way during WWII. Protestant Churches are invariably organized as national churches, and this can and has lead to an overidentification with the interests of the nation within the churches. It's not always easy to criticize something of which you perceive yourself to be a part. It is curious how the RCC, which at times has attempted the antitrust violation of trying to leverage a monopoly on religious authority into a monopoly on temporal authority has proven more resiliant than the Protestant churches against having monopolies in temporal authority used as leverage the other way.
And no, he was not peaceful. He loved to argue, and he had a crude sense of humor. Still, he was loved by his wife, his children, and his students. He wasn't warlike, although he allowed himself to be used by people who were.
Don't think I come at this viewing Luther as prophet, let alone as the 1.5th coming of Christ. Luther had real strengths and weaknesses; and tremendous insights in juxtaposition with terrible blindnesses. Not unlike his opponents.
There's another not very-well known episode that shows Luther's character--was it seige of vienna? Or one of them. Luther told the saxon prince not to assist the TeutonicKnights, or catholics fighting the Turk! Nearly treason, IMHE.
This I do not believe. It is entirely inconsistent with Luther's writings regarding the Turk/Islam, and entirely inconsistent with his understanding of religion and culture. This sounds to me like a willful attempt to twist the events of the Diet of Augsburg to fit an anti-Lutheran narrative, but one that has little respect for the facts.
Yes, Emporer Charles V called the Diet at Augsburg out of concern that the religious conflict between the RCC and the Lutherans would be come a distraction in the fight against the Ottomans, in the year after the Siege of Vienna. No doubt he believed that those Landsknechts had been essential to the defense of Vienna, and he wanted to make sure that their loyalty wasn't in doubt. In this he was clearly confused, because they'd fight so long as they were paid. But anyway, the Schmalkaldic League (i.e., the Lutheran Princes) came to Augsburg having stipulated in advance that their loyalty in the Ottoman war was entirely with the Emperor. And indeed, the very first sentence of the Preface to the Confession acknowledges the Emperor's concern, and make their loyalty clear.
--the artist who did the pope anti-christ (with whores) is the same one who did Luther on yr pal Kirby's site IMHE. Merely historical interest but that was part of the pamphletting that got the evang. going.
--it was the siege ofVienna I believe. In effect Luther told the Saxon duke/baron--a convert to Lut.-- to let the papists fend for themselves--and it was a massive force--50,000 men or so. Didnt ML also say something like the Turks are the son of the devil, but so are the papists? Some type of equalizing. It was a french duke---Burgundy? Luxembourg?--not Charles V, who had rallied a small calvary and then marched off to help the beleagured austrians hungarians,etc .--and turk blood ran for a few weeks. No thanks to saxons/lutherans.
I'd like to suggest that we draw this discussion to a close, at least for here and now. I would be happy to take this up at another time or place, but for now, our host has dropped out of the conversation, and I am growing concerned that he is no longer pleased with the direction it has taken. I should like to see his gusto for this venue continue unimpeded.
26 comments:
jh,
What place? I'd argue, in the words of Robert Maynard Hutchins, as a principal participant in “the Great Conversation,” which Wiki defines as “a characterization of references and allusions made by authors in the Western canon to the works of their predecessors.”
If we imagine the Great Conversation as a family dinner conversation, the mainline churches (including the RCC) now play the role of grandpa, who talks at length and with great fondness about how things used to be, but who the kids (and even their middle aged parents) are beginning to suspect has gone a bit around the bend, or in the case of the evangelicals as the mad maiden aunt who never lived her life, but now wants to live everyone else's. The older principal participants (the arts and science) give a bit of indulgent deference to grandpa, and smile a bit wistfully when he repeats himself, but the teens (entertainment) are starting to interrupt the old guy, and it's hard to miss their eye rolls when the mad aunt demands her share of the conversation.
I could write dissertations on the hows and whys of why we got here, but I'm more interested in the practical question of how to get religion back into a productive role as a principal participant in the Great Conversation. In large part, I think this involves injecting questions into the conversation where religion has something that the other participants will see as unique and valuable, and part involves breaking out of the limiting roles of grandpa and the mad aunt.
the great conversation
pope benedict has taken pains to make conversation the basis of his papacy and he seems to get nowhere with it...is it because we live in a western world where youth gets glorified and age gets warehoused
he held out a hand to the muslim world saying
hey let's talk
anger nothing else came of it
he's tried to be receptive to the anglicans some are building hasty bridges to the safety on the other side
while in britain he withstood a barrage of insults but was exonerated beautifully in the house of parliament...one MP stood and said the rhetoric of criticism was an insult to the enlightenment...and she wasn't catholic...i thought hmnh...there's hope in this world yet
the RCC along with our jewish cousins and the orthodox folks seem to hold up the idea that wisdom of the elders is necessary...maybe this is where we should start. let's listen to the elders and tell the youth to shut up for awhile
shut up and listen
i have no easy answers for getting god back into the conversation...yet i do believe with mircea eliade and william james and ts eliot and many others that humans are essentially ritualistic creatures (o one could argue mating dances of animals are rituals) we devise symbolic methods by which we sustain our intuitions for vital meaning
these are syncretistic times
and much like the israelites' struggles with getting god all wrong so now we just lump the idea and invest our energies in distraction and fall asleep each night exhausted from the emptiness of our days
maybe some people have to stand up and say to young people
hey that's empty and stupid
and don't watch that
i've turned my mind against professional sports completely i rail against it any chance i get
and i will not relent
huizinga makes a very important insight -- we should think about that
i watched people line up for blocks one day at the musee' d'orsay and wondered what are these people doing what are they waiting for
then i went to the louvre and noted that nobody looks at the pictures i would stop and try to take in a picture and a hundred people would walk in front of me
i think someone informed people in france that aesthetics is the salvation of mankind even if it's only a passing glance at things it's very culturally important to be near paintings
it is important to listen to the young..i've been impressed with the world youth days this last one in madrid young people travelled miles and they stood and they listened to the holy father i could see their faces they were invested in what was being said
i've been presently critical of the music festival phenomenon in this country these expensive and i would suppose lucrative staged gatherings,,,here again i've decided this is a complete derangement of the art of music this is putting it on stage for consumption alone and it is being staged either deliberately or unconsciously (you tell me) as a substitute for religion...i'm abhorring it all about as much as i abhor professional sports
how to induce young minds to seek the truth
faith and reason in a constant tension of mutual necessity
i'm presently reading Charles Taylor A secular age - quite fascinating
it will be for us to combat the forces of distraction rather than merely accept it all as important and necessary
with all due respect
we need to represent the priority of books over the computer
i'm planning on spending a whole year away from computers
funny
i have to plan it
i'm stuck in it now like everyone else
i like your metaphor of the table conversation
if we can get the mad aunt to listen to grandpa and the kids to recognize how very stupid they are maybe we can have a conversation
how to teach the art of deep listening
thanks stu
jh
jh,
pope benedict has taken pains to make conversation the basis of his papacy and he seems to get nowhere with it...is it because we live in a western world where youth gets glorified and age gets warehoused
This is an oversimplification. Pope Benedict, as Pope, has denied that the word "Church" can be applied to the Protestants. His "hand to the Muslims" included a 14th century critique of Islam, saying the only new things it has brought are evil and inhuman. If you slap a man across the face, he's not going view your open palm as a sign of peace.
Pope Benedict has a long record as Defender of the Faith of doing so by attacking other groups. He might have been able to get past his history by striking a conciliary tone early in his papacy, but he did not. This is not to deny his subsequent efforts at conversation, just to point out that he does not enter into these conversations with a clean slate, and his initial statements often frame them in a way that continuation requires his counterparty to accept prejudicial stipulations.
It is possible and more productive to maintain a position that holds onto RCC distinctiveness without insisting that other confessions are inauthentic wantabees, or evil and inhumane.
the RCC along with our jewish cousins and the orthodox folks seem to hold up the idea that wisdom of the elders is necessary...maybe this is where we should start. let's listen to the elders and tell the youth to shut up for awhile
shut up and listen
I'm skeptical. Demanding the floor is not the same thing as entering the conversation. I'm not coming at this with the idea that I know what will work. But I'm pretty sure that this won't.
i have no easy answers for getting god back into the conversation...yet i do believe with mircea eliade and william james and ts eliot and many others that humans are essentially ritualistic creatures (o one could argue mating dances of animals are rituals) we devise symbolic methods by which we sustain our intuitions for vital meaning
The idea that ritual is imbued with deeper meaning which we can access more completely through faith seems like one starting point. We've (and by here I'm using 'we' to mean the Christian Church in an inclusive way) have had some success with Taize and similar movements, which use repetition together with music to create an altered state of consciousness. The effect, as you know, is a kind of drug-free high, which can be explained as communion, not in the sense of Eucharist, but in the sense of entering into a spiritual harmony with our creator. Of course, other communities do this too (I'm thinking specifically of Yoga and related Vedic systems), and there are alternative explanations. So this feels like a tool we can use, very helpful, but not sufficient because it is not particular.
huizinga makes a very important insight -- we should think about that
I agree. I'm taking him very seriously. But my point is that thinking that we can return to the status quo of the middle ages is not realistic. There are new voices in the conversation (e.g., science), and it does not seem possible or desireable to exclude them. Our problem isn't that they're in the conversation, it is that we are not.
with all due respect
we need to represent the priority of books over the computer
I see this differently :-). Computers are tools which we can use to augment our listening or our speaking. These days, when I'm reading a book, it's often on a computer. But I agree the ratio of speaking to listening has gone up, that computers have facilitated this, and this has had the effect that the knowledge and wisdom of the past are often excluded. We're becoming trapped in the ignorance of now, and the structure of society is less and less the great conversation, and more and more just chatter. The 4096 character limit doesn't help :-/.
Peace.
yet i do believe with mircea eliade and william james and ts eliot and many others that humans are essentially ritualistic creatures (o one could argue mating dances of animals are rituals) we devise symbolic methods by which we sustain our intuitions for vital meaning
me gusta!
In general I'm somewhat opposed to naive luddite-ism---western medicine is important, as is..the wise use of technology-- yet at times I...understand an anti-technological,anti-reductionist perspective--something like what
Feyerabend discussed--though I don't think he was bona fide RCC (and other-s-Heidegger..RCC starting out (MH ..took mass at his death,Ive read) but Heid. has some political baggage)--what we might call Techie-ism (as opposed to real science)--the idea that techno-quick fixes will solve everything, and that DrSciences have all the answers. Along with that comes reductionism--ie all literature and philosophy are suspect,etc . Foreign languages as well. An RN or programmer or chemist thus are the local Einsteins--Ezra Pound or Joyce or Feyerabend are ....negligible--if that. I run into that quite often--a programmer doesn't know ser from estar, nor could write a coherent paragraph, or tell the French Revolution from its bitwise function etc . but he's making 100 grand a year+
Not exactly what Huizinga was discussing but related--the onset of reductionism in a sense. That said, humanities types usually got their own issues. Charles Taylor? I read some of his book on Hegel-another anti-reductionist ( before Taylor converted to RCC. alright. A bit...British, alas ).
pope benedict has merely held the line for unity in the way that the tradition has always held the line he voiced for the 21st century the sentiments the patristic writers voiced for unity in the 3rd century
he alluded to a conversation in the 14th century which he felt needed some changing he stated he had no desire to continue the dynamic of suspicion and fear and hate -that part of the address went unheard
i hold out with the holy father for a greater awareness of the treasures held and revealed in liturgy a liturgy which resists compromise a liturgy that does not need to bend to the whims of each generation rather there is the need for each generation to witness the ancient wisdom held forth there and see it anew and live it anew how we dress it up is one thing but the form and content do not alter much with capricious time
i'm not saying anyone should demand the floor stu
no
i'm saying let us give respect where respect is due we've allowed a secular vulgar devotion to glitzy images tear down the formal respect we must allow those who have wisdom
we drag wisdom in the mud and hold up lady gaga in its place
ut unum sint
that they may be one
i think the formula is available to everyone and to argue for distinctiveness of various traditions is to uphold the very dynamic that militates against the unity our lord intends
there's great hope in the ecumencial dialogue i see it in the faces and hear it in the words of the average run of the mill christian these days
rome is there so that we might engage in our daily imperative of metanoia
some say rome must change
i say we must change
a good beginning from my point of view would be to replace the hierarchy of knowing the degrees of knowledge (a la jacques maritain)with wisdom and metaphysical discussion at the very top with poetry
so that all institutes of higher learning could be understood to be places where philosophical inquiry is the goal of all learning
we've bowed ourselves at the altar of pragmatism for far too long believeng science and technology are the highest achievement
the enlightenment is a benighted monster calling us to the abyss
the tragedy of USA is a tragedy of misplaced values
mt athos here i come
jh
What of say ...the great catholic scientists/rationalists such as Leibniz, jh? Or the aforementioned George Coyne,or Dr Behe for that matter.
Leibniz would, I wager, have students, including catholic ones, study maths and sciences (as well as languages, history and a smattering of metaphysics, etc.). The integral itself (and thus modern physics ) --largely a product of a...papist mind (tho' trig. from the wacky mooslims) .
there have been some great catholic scientists
pierre tielhard de chardin not the least among them
but they were schooled in the pattern of philosophy
leibniz was trained as a philosopher mathematics was his specialty but he excelled in metaphysics and continued a long discourse on the nature of god throughout his life
all scientists should follow his pattern
science without recourse to god is epistemological tyranny
and it poses itself as innocuous (of all things)
in it's place we have to listen to the disciples of darwin who do not read philosphy while claiming to make it
i am disgusted
jh
jh,
I think we see this whole question of unity through very different lenses.
I refer to "the Christian Church" in a way that is intentionally inclusive of the RCC. In the words of the Sunday School song, "I am the Church, you are the Church, we are the Church together." I understand the unity of "one faith" in terms of what all Christians share: a belief in God, and in Jesus Christ as a person of God, our Lord, fully human, fully divine, whose suffering and death was redemptive for us.
And I see the RCC saying that the unity of the church means us, and not you.
I doubt that the 3rd century ante-nicene fathers shared anything like the contemporary exclusionary RCC concept of unity. I'd like cites, if possible, just so that I know what you're thinking. Because in the 3rd century, there had been no ecumenical councils, and the question of orthodoxy was very much open, with profound regional differences in doctrine and practice. The distinction between 3rd century Christianity as practiced in Rome vs. Asia Minor was of a kind and degree as the that between the contemporary RCC and the Pentacostals. If the ante-nicene fathers saw Christian unity as functioning in their time, they'd see it as functioning in ours.
i hold out with the holy father for a greater awareness of the treasures held and revealed in liturgy a liturgy which resists compromise a liturgy that does not need to bend to the whims of each generation rather there is the need for each generation to witness the ancient wisdom held forth there and see it anew and live it anew how we dress it up is one thing but the form and content do not alter much with capricious time
I'm very much of a liturgical traditionalist. Lutheran, remember? But that said, we need to think clearly about essentials vs. the accidentals of our liturgies. The early Christians sang, but there were no organs in the catacombs. If contemporary Christian music neglects the Psalms, the problem isn't with the guitars, it's with the lyricists, and the liturgical problem isn't to kvetch about the amplifiers, it's to adapt the hymns of Israel to the contemporary idiom.
i think the formula is available to everyone and to argue for distinctiveness of various traditions is to uphold the very dynamic that militates against the unity our lord intends
I think it depends on how we understand those distinctions. Do we see them as creating separate communities? That's a problem. You did better in the service of unity in taking Presbyterian communion than you do in this argument.
I see the distinctions differently. The RCC has a distinctive governance model, whose strengths and weaknesses have been fully revealed by history. I'm not glossing over the fact that this distinction rests on a doctrinal difference in interpreting the apostolic nature of the Church. But I would argue that our salvation does not depend on this doctrinal question, and therefore, as important as this question is, doctrinal disagreement should not be a barrier to unity. I am saying that Protestants have something to learn from this model.
And I see the traditional Lutheran theologies of justification and sanctification as great strengthes, and indeed, the contemporary RCC theologies on these questions borrow liberally from us, although we all know of course that the RCC has never changed its position on any material question ;-).
These distinctions can co-exist, we can learn from one another, and indeed, perhaps find full unity. A decade ago, I was hopeful that the RCC and Lutheran churches would merge within my lifetime. I still believe that merger will take place, but I no longer believe that I will live to see that day.
Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly minded,
For with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descending,
Comes our homage to demand.
Peace
perhaps stu we're stumped on the term catholic
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. (Adv. Haer. Book 1, ch. X.2) - Ireneaus of Lyons
so while i am more than willing to accept the historical flaws and faux pas of roman leadership i must insist that this intuition for unity as cultivated in the earliest pastoral teachings remained integral to roman catholic practice - even if not always in rome itself then most certainly in the religious orders of benedictines and the mendicant reforms of preaching and teaching under the wide umbrella of "catholic" katolikos - universal
i've noted recently that people who worship in the ecclesial communions are not aware of the implicit protest and disunity of their worship - perhaps the leaders are and they see this as imperative to preserve some sort of tradition or continuity with the past reformers - but in general most people are being led by a spirit of ignorance to which they do not feel one way or another
but for those who do face up tot he roman catholic witness with some honesty and humility they see
the unsevered connection to the previous ages and the all important witness of people "saints" who have led the way and who now enjoy a sort of innocent pious heroism who are given the benefit of candles lit for added intercessions and recognition throughout the year
so that thus the liturgy is not merely a substantiating of doctrine and dogma but an honest recognition of the positive involvement of persons in the course of time
in catholic practice we "people" our history and worship with constant reminders of our debt to those who led the way
and today we ackowledge the cross
we exalt the cross
a symbolic festive reminder of what has taken place for us
are the non-roman communions willing to go along with this pious absurdity
to which catholics the world round so readily extend themselves
as long as the "lutheran" title is held out there i think it will prove to be an irritant and not a useful one - it served as a necessary (perhaps) critique 500 yrs ago but now it is just there like a sore tooth and the person refuses to go to the dentist
recently i became aware of te "lutheran" catholic moment of shared worship where the liturgy of the word was shared in common and the liturgy of the eucharsit was prayed in common but the reception was honored in mutual recognition of difference and separation - the lutherans went forth to receive a blessing from the catholic celebrant and the catholics then turned and received a blessing from the lutheran celebrant while the lutheran faithful recieved from their proclaimed witness
not unity for sure but at least and effort at making a bad situation better of being present to one another in the heart held hope of possible resolution
here again i think it foolish to continue to see rome itself as the problem
we are the problem
it obliges us behooves us to
humbly give out assent
despte the human failings of the hierarchy
i gotta go pray
jh
give "our" assent
mea culpa
en graphicus derelictus
While Im aware of the problems of secularism, the traditional catholics and protestants tend to magnify those problems. Darwinist-reductionists may be ..irritating or philistinish, but usually not trying to rob me or my neighbors. A decent respect for the US-Constitution is still needed--something sorely needed in many catholics, and evangelicals.
Personally Ill hang with science people--even skeptics--over the run of the mill evangelical or biblethumper, jh. Catholics are a different matter, but the idea that only a return to RCC tradition will save us won't fly with many Americans--maybe at the seminary or monastery. Not on Main St. Unfortunately, I have...within the last decade or so come to the sad realization that RCC tradition--one might say Latin itself-- does serve as a bulwark against various social evils--white trash conservatives, mormon-masons, and romantic leftists, thugs, even slutdom if you will. Joseph Conrad's writing or maybe Walker Percy or Miss O'C may have helped there--smashed in the Humean so to speak. But it's not enough. I find that many catholics are deeply cynical: the turn to the RCC is ..something like resignation. Hegel understood knew that as well--he made some interesting remarks on the RCC. Not altogether negative, but ...IMHE he thought it something like a ...death cult in a sense (one of its beauties, perhaps)
i think we should abandon the constitution
and see if people will live by the ideals stated there
without recourse to any document
as it is it stands or sits as a secularist (if somewhat theistically inspired) lockean alternative to a commited belief in the good of humanity
the american experiment is over
the republicans are giving ample testimony to that
it's becoem sturm and drang and little else
the rhetoric of inanity taken seriously by the benighted
the constitution is a wasp document at best
and it snubs its nose at a greater and deeper awareness for which it grants only grudging acceptance
how would jesus interpret the values inherent in the constitution
it was probably not intended but it has in fact set up the foundation for a secular form of religion posing as govt.
and the fols who bow to it seem to get to be the high priests of intesifying madness
ah well
it was fun while it lasted
jh
jh,
A technical quibble: Iraneaus was 2nd century, not 3rd. This is a somewhat different historical context. Nevertheless, he was very well placed to have been fully aware of the considerable diversity of Christian doctrine and practice that existed at his time.
He was born in Smyrna, which is to say, Asia Minor, sometime around 120AD, a member of Polycarp's congregation, whom he knew, and the home church of Ignatius of Antioch. This is the congregation of which John of Patmos wrote, "I know your affliction and your poverty, even though you are rich. I know the slander on the part of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Beware, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison so that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have affliction. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life." Not a bad epitaph for a congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ.
So we see Iraneaus in the more Pauline church at Smyrna, which has deep connections to the Church in Antioch through Ignatius, which was arguably the most Jewish-oriented and scripturally literate of the major Churches of its time. And he served at Lyons, in Gaul, which like all of the western Mediterranean was dominated by Rome. And he speaks, as one writing against the Gnostics of this diversity as representing a "perfect harmony," while making clear what this unity is in Book I, Ch X.1. His language seems reminiscent of mine: "The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God..." It is a summary of the core beliefs of the Christian church, as practiced and confessed by Catholics, Lutherans, and even Anabaptists.
I have no problem with the "little c" catholic church, and mine like most Lutheran churches use the word "catholic" in the Nicene Creed. We understand catholic == universal, but distinguish this from catholic == Catholic, which is to say RCC. It is a stumbling block in our conversation.
i've noted recently that people who worship in the ecclesial communions are not aware of the implicit protest and disunity of their worship
Grumble. My "ecclesial communion" practices open communion, which is to say, if you believe that Christ is Lord, and that he is truly present in the elements of wine and bread, you are welcome at our table. This is our understanding of Christian unity. It is the RCC which has bound communion, so that it is no longer just a symbol of the unity we share in Christ, but it is also a symbol of submission to Rome.
and today we ackowledge the cross
we exalt the cross
a symbolic festive reminder of what has taken place for us
are the non-roman communions willing to go along with this pious absurdity
to which catholics the world round so readily extend themselves
I had to look this one up :-). We have enough pious absurdities of our own that's what's one more? That said, Lutherans are allergic to the Catholic veneration of relics, so we'd approach this a bit differently, but no less piously. E.g., my congregation now does a Veneration of the Cross on Holy Friday, rather than a classic Tenebrae, so we're closer than you think.
as long as the "lutheran" title is held out there i think it will prove to be an irritant and not a useful one
"Lutheran" is a name given by our enemies, and is dispensible. In theologically nuanced internal conversations, we refer to ourselves as "Evangelical Catholics." This isn't done in public contexts, because it lends to confusion.
the american experiment is over
the republicans are giving ample testimony to that
it's becoem sturm and drang and little else
the rhetoric of inanity taken seriously by the benighted
the constitution is a wasp document at best
You got a point--I don't care for flag waving BS that much...or even.. pinches blancos. The Lockean rights and legalese may be sort of fugly--but Ive been in situations where say the 4th Amendment mattered,and due Process,etc and all that hokey stuff. What are the alternatives?? Marxism... maoism, sharia? Or Bachmannocracy. Michele-witz. The bus may soon be arriving. Get on board, marian!
Maybe ...it's no exit. at least for those of us not invited to the Techie-capitalist-evangelical party.
Feast days in southern german small towns --the catholics have some great party, tons of food, beer, oom pah pah music. The evangelische are not usually out there ---up north perhaps, but a far different vibe--cold,stoical, reserved . The towns with a relic at some old kirche--a part of the skull or rib-bone of St. Bartholomew,etc--also rather charming. And good tourista bidness,as are the cathedrals.
Catholics have healthy appetites, and a certain....je ne sais quoi--ancient pagan sensibility. Perhaps evangelicals are not all puritans---working class lutherans party for the holy futbol games --yet on the whole they are uptight. Squares--(tho' nothing like Merican biblethumpers). They might make good infantry (ie prussians). But officer-hipsters and german intellectuals are catholic--usually bavarian and austrian.
Hey! Evangelische make damn good mechanics ;-). Farmers, too.
Oddly enough, my family traces back to Königsreich Württemberg, and more specifically, to the Stuttgart area, swarzen deutsch, aber ich bin grau :-(. Farmers and engineers, if not actual mechanics, on both sides. One side drinks, the other doesn't. I tell my son that if he ever gets back to the old family reunion at White Deer, they won't know who he is, but they'll know that he belongs. Ah, and bring a couple of dollars for the lemonade. That's the non-drinking side.
We are thoughtful, reliable, and sober even when we drink. It's not that we don't know how to have a good time, it's just that we're sure that we don't deserve it, and we don't like to call attention to ourselves anyway.
Bauernlumpen. :]
You don't note the difference between cats. and prot. in the US as much--perhaps between the WASPs and hispanics --but bavarians seemed a bit ..irish in a sense. More gaul-celtic than teutonic (ie the north). Allemaigne--that is still the french name for Bavaria, real germany. North of like Frankfurt--was saxon- prussian, norsemen, barbarians (ie, catholics/christians did not conquer many areas of prussia/scandanavia until 12-13th century--later probably in some areas). Teutons are good when organized into platoons,or maybe driving panzers--dangerous creatures when free.
I realize the generalizations may be a bit...trite or not-so funny but it's stilll like that in US --scotsmen-evangelicals --or mormons- are Gawds army--and they hate the RCC as much as like Cromwell did (or Luther for that matter)
J,
Bauernlumpen. :]
Spare me. It doesn't matter how clever the guy at the periscope is if the diesels don't run.
and they hate the RCC as much as like Cromwell did (or Luther for that matter)
Luther's a different case. He was, after all, an Augustinian monk. He had considerable public invective for various figures in the Catholic church (especially Dominicans), but he was on better terms with most of them privately (Dominicans excepted). His argument wasn't with the RCC per se, but with what he saw as abuses that had arisen within it. Abuses he'd have preferred to correct within the RCC, had that been possible.
J,
didn't Luther have an artist crony draw pics of whores pumping a pope-anti-christ-- out of their ahem ...unmentionables? And then printed and distributed --not too good of terms.
I don't know this, so I can't confirm or deny. It goes beyond what I've seen, but not so far as to be implausible.
That said, I'd offer two ameliorating observations. The first is a matter of context. This is the way it was done then: you're Satan during the afternoon debates, but, let's grab a beer in the evening. The second is in how it was received. Surviving personal correspondence (even between Luther and the Pope) is cordial, and I've read claims that Luther was offered a cardinalship well after Augsburg, the "Savonarola option."
That said,Im not entirely sure what side to root for on the Reformation world cup.
I root for ultimate unity, in a church that draws one the best that each of us has to offer.
Luther was not a peaceful man. Recall his treatment of Munzer and the anabaptists. When needed, he was just as much a toady as the old catholic nobles.
Luther was dependent, arguably too dependent, on the protection of the German Electors. This is a core defect, and one that played out in an even more damaging way during WWII. Protestant Churches are invariably organized as national churches, and this can and has lead to an overidentification with the interests of the nation within the churches. It's not always easy to criticize something of which you perceive yourself to be a part. It is curious how the RCC, which at times has attempted the antitrust violation of trying to leverage a monopoly on religious authority into a monopoly on temporal authority has proven more resiliant than the Protestant churches against having monopolies in temporal authority used as leverage the other way.
And no, he was not peaceful. He loved to argue, and he had a crude sense of humor. Still, he was loved by his wife, his children, and his students. He wasn't warlike, although he allowed himself to be used by people who were.
Don't think I come at this viewing Luther as prophet, let alone as the 1.5th coming of Christ. Luther had real strengths and weaknesses; and tremendous insights in juxtaposition with terrible blindnesses. Not unlike his opponents.
There's another not very-well known episode that shows Luther's character--was it seige of vienna? Or one of them. Luther told the saxon prince not to assist the TeutonicKnights, or catholics fighting the Turk! Nearly treason, IMHE.
This I do not believe. It is entirely inconsistent with Luther's writings regarding the Turk/Islam, and entirely inconsistent with his understanding of religion and culture. This sounds to me like a willful attempt to twist the events of the Diet of Augsburg to fit an anti-Lutheran narrative, but one that has little respect for the facts.
Yes, Emporer Charles V called the Diet at Augsburg out of concern that the religious conflict between the RCC and the Lutherans would be come a distraction in the fight against the Ottomans, in the year after the Siege of Vienna. No doubt he believed that those Landsknechts had been essential to the defense of Vienna, and he wanted to make sure that their loyalty wasn't in doubt. In this he was clearly confused, because they'd fight so long as they were paid. But anyway, the Schmalkaldic League (i.e., the Lutheran Princes) came to Augsburg having stipulated in advance that their loyalty in the Ottoman war was entirely with the Emperor. And indeed, the very first sentence of the Preface to the Confession acknowledges the Emperor's concern, and make their loyalty clear.
sry I deleted--wanted to factcheck the battle.
--the artist who did the pope anti-christ (with whores) is the same one who did Luther on yr pal Kirby's site IMHE. Merely historical interest but that was part of the pamphletting that got the evang. going.
--it was the siege ofVienna I believe. In effect Luther told the Saxon duke/baron--a convert to Lut.-- to let the papists fend for themselves--and it was a massive force--50,000 men or so. Didnt ML also say something like the Turks are the son of the devil, but so are the papists? Some type of equalizing. It was a french duke---Burgundy? Luxembourg?--not
Charles V, who had rallied a small calvary and then marched off to help the beleagured austrians hungarians,etc .--and turk blood ran for a few weeks. No thanks to saxons/lutherans.
--
J,
I'd like to suggest that we draw this discussion to a close, at least for here and now. I would be happy to take this up at another time or place, but for now, our host has dropped out of the conversation, and I am growing concerned that he is no longer pleased with the direction it has taken. I should like to see his gusto for this venue continue unimpeded.
Peace
i don't have the breadth
or depth of historical knowledge
to enter into this converstation
but i've learned a lot
from listening in
thanks!
Post a Comment