quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
... I checked out that link with an interview of Pannikar that you posted above and can see how you'd have misgivings about him from his comments about a "new Master" possibly coming one day and giving us a new revelation of God. I don't think he means another like Jesus, as he has certainly made it clear in his writings that, for him, Jesus is the decisive revelation of God. Still, we do say in Christianity that no new revelation of God will come as Jesus, being the Word incarnate, reveals all we need to know.
....

Here's that last paragraph:

----------------
RP: Yes. If there have been divine manifestations before, we cannot assume that they will never again occur. Moreover, the present situation of the world, new in the history of mankind, could be the right time for a new revelation — I don’t know if through Masters who came before or new ones, I don’t think that’s very important. But it might well be that this revelation has not much to do with, or it does not resemble, the ones we have known until now. Reality is always new.

---------------------------

My gut is: this guy just doesn't get it...

Adding my prayers... May grace & peace flow... Mother is calling... (Nothing new here) Been hectic, much love to y'all, I am thankful for each voice here at S.P.

quote:

My gut is: this guy just doesn't get it...

Yes, that quote would need to be clarified, for sure. As it stands, it resonates more with a Hindu or theosophist perspective than a Christian one.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil,

quote:

You are loved by us, Christine.

this is really good to know.. i feel like i have come across like a real horses behind the past little bit..

i have a deep connection to all of you on this forum .. even though at times it does not seem like it.. i am so thankful for the posts and pms that have been sent to me.. i am so thankful.. no words really.

please continue to pray for me.. i am finding if i pray a lot it makes the energy in the body stronger and i become overwhelmed easily.. so all prayers appreciated.

love to all and thank you for this lovely note shasha...

love too all. christine

I haven't read the whole topic yet, I'm around December 7th, so I'll only comment on some questions from the beginning of your discussion.

Kenosis, I enjoy very much your precise and clear thinking!
I'm not sure, though, if I understand your interpretation of the Trinity, in terms of distinction between of being a hypostasis and being the nature of God. Every hypostasis is fully God, and there is no God's essence as a "fourth element" besides the Three. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, there's one God and the Three are Him. Also the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit... - this if fairly obvious to you, I think.
"Jesus is God". If "Jesus" is the same hypostasis as the Son (Logos) - and he is, according to Chalcedon: two natures, one hypostasis - then Jesus is God in the same way as the Son (Logos) is God. I'm just going through Greek orthodox Creed once again, to be sure we agree on the basics.
I suppose that some people can say that Jesus is not exactly the same as God, and we can easily judge them as arians. But what do they mean by saying that? Perhaps, that the body of 33 year old Jew wasn't the same as the eternal Divine Nature? That's correct. I think it's a misunderstanding - mixing up human nature of Jesus with "Jesus himself" (hypostasis). Theologians - perhaps Panikkar is one of them - who try to emphasize the difference between human pre-resurrected nature of Jesus and the Word of God, may sound arianistic, saying "historical Jesus" is not God. But do they mean "the person who lived inside history"? This person was God. The human dimension of that Person? This wasn't God. On the other hand, pop-pop and other Christians who emphasize the divinity of Jesus may sound occasionally monophysitic, if we take them to mean that all about historical Jesus was divine and God, which isn't true. So perhaps it's important to delineate if we talk about the hypostasis of Jesus=the Word, or if we talk about the two natures of this Being, human nature calling "Jesus", and divine nature calling "Christ, Logos etc".
Does it make sense to you?

Phil and Kenosis - concept/experience

I think that in philosophy many key concepts derive from experience, intuitio mystica.
I agree with you, K, that advaita is a philosophical concept, but it is also a mystical experience, different than many Christian experiences. The same is in case of Greek Logos. For Heraclitus it was certainly an experience, but he thought that most people don't have this experience, they "don't hear Logos", though it speaks all the time. Also in Stoic or Platonic versions divine Logos is a philosophical experience, differently interpreted, because Stoicism regarded Logos as material fire, and Platonists - immaterial, eternal, timeless etc.
Logos is for me an experience of the fact that reality can be understood and known, that there is an order in material universe, and that the universe is permeated and governed by divine, eternal Mind/Reason who is somehow intimately present in human soul.
There are many people who don't have the advaitic experience, but believe in non-dualism and consent to this philosophy. Many people in Antiquity didn't have the full experience of Logos in the world, but nevertheless, they believed in the rationality of the world.

I suppose we can assimilate advaitic understanding into Christianity, but there are also risks that Phil points out. As you know, K, the Fathers of Church didn't assimilate Greek philosophy uncritically. Origen perhaps was one of the most influenced by Platonic concepts and experience, and now we see serious errors in his theological thinking. Cappadocians, however, took the concept of "hypostasis" from Plotinus, where it didn't meand "a person", but hierarchical layers of being, and turned it into trinitarian theology. But when you compare Gregory of Nyssa with Plotinus, they differ much. Plotinus describes the process in which divine Mind comes out of the transcendent One as "light from light" - perhaps he heard it in the John's Gospel. But for Plotinus "light from light" means sth different than for Christians. The Mind is ontologically different than the One, it is a lesser "light", more dualistic than the Highest Principle. They don't share nature etc. Gregory of Nyssa says the Father and the Son share the same nature, they are light from light, but in a very different sense, the Son is not lesser in being, knowledge or life than the Father. Christian experience required a profound change in the concepts.
It doesn't mean that Christians couldn't be fascinated with Greek thought. St. Augustine in the 7th book of Confessions says that the teaching of Plotinus on the One and the Mind are THE SAME as the Gospel of John. He was mistaken, but clearly he gave much credit to Plotinus, saying that! He says that the difference is that Plotinus doesn't say that the Mind became human and saved the world through his death. It seems that Greek Fathers were much subtle in seeing difference between neoplatonism and the Gospel.

So I think Christians can take what is true and good from advaita or other traditions, but we have to modify both experience, and concepts. And we do it, like here in shalomplace, for example. But the process of assimilation is open to errors. And many Christian non-dualists have erroneous beliefs about the Truth, when they try to combine Eastern wisdom with Christian revelation and thought.
What the Fathers did was to change the meanings of Greek concepts. Why aren't we do this? Non-dual - OK, but non-dual for Christians must mean something different than for Hindus. I think Phil did that in his book about Kundalini and God, Self and Ego. Christians need to qualify Eastern concepts and to say openly, we don't mean exactly the same as other religions, when we use terms like oneness, non-dual, enlightenment.
Yet the experience might be similar or the same. It's ok, but also - assimilation must be modification. And perhaps that's what Phil means when he says that purely advaitic practices would lead us to purely advaitic experience of reality. There would be no assimilatino, modification, Christianisation. And we need that.

I want to write also about Panikkar and similar Christologies, but I'll do that later, since there's already plenty of ideas here.
(Btw, it's glad to be back to the SP).

pop-pop,

I agree with your zeal in defending the truth and I agree that in Panikkars writings (I don't know them first-hand, but I get the general idea) there's much of pluralistic tendencies, which are erroneous. It's good we can observe those tendencies and be clear about what's wrong. The danger is for me not so apocalyptic as for you, but someone who doesn't have a solid formation and doesn't know Catholic theology might take for granted what Panikkar says as Catholic teaching throughout the book.

Yet I wouldn't agree with the amount of emphasis you put on those aspects of the world that are separated from Christ.
You refer to Ratzinger.
I remember that in one of his sermons, 4 years ago, he said that not only Christians are friends of Jesus (a notion from Gospel of John), but EVERY ONE WHO LIVES A GOOD, DECENT, TRUTHFUL LIFE. That about the Vine and friendship with Christ.
The other thing is that in his "Spe Salvi" Ratzinger wrote that only few people probably will be damned, because in order to get to hell you have to completely destroy love in yourself, and that's a tough thing to do. There are very few people like that, and very few so pure as to go straight to heaven. For the rest of humanity - purgatory, they somehow love and want God (even unconsciously), but are weak and sinful. But according to Spe Salvi - most people are generally connected to Christ through fundamental desire of the Good. That's my understanding, at least.

Welcome to the discussion, Mt. Your posts help to clarify some of the stickier points we were discussing. E.g.,

quote:

"Jesus is God". If "Jesus" is the same hypostasis as the Son (Logos) - and he is, according to Chalcedon: two natures, one hypostasis - then Jesus is God in the same way as the Son (Logos) is God. I'm just going through Greek orthodox Creed once again, to be sure we agree on the basics.

Yes, very good, and that's one of the areas where I see a lot of confusion these days. It's fine with me if people want to think of Jesus as something of a Jewish avatar or a God-realized man, but let's not confuse those notions with what the Church came to affirm about him early on.

I'm attaching below one of the slides I use in a class I teach on the Trinity. Perhaps it can help to illustrate how, even as we acknowledge that Jesus was fully human, the doctrine of the Incarnation asserts that his humanity subsisted in his divinity. So Jesus is the incarnate Second Person Who has taken a human nature to Himself. To see Jesus is to see the Word in human form, and so a Christian (especially a theologian) cannot and ought not minimize the importance of the historical life of Jesus. The Cosmic Christ is none other than the Ascended Jesus, the One who manifested himself to Paul on the road to Damascus, and about whose cosmic reach Paul reflected on in Col. 1.

OK, the slide image:

Yes, Phil, I think sound Christology is essential for considering relationships between religions and Christianity. I've been rereading Jacques Dupuis' account of differences between Rahner and Panikkar (in his "Christianity and the Religions"). He emphasizes the difference between Rahner's "anonymous Christianity" that is incomplete and needs completion in full conscious recognition of Jesus via Catholic Church on the other hand, and Panikkars idea of Christ hidden in Hinduism - for Panikkar there's no essential need for such completion.
Dupuis writes that the essential idea of Panikkar is the Christ Mystery as a universal Mystery (perhaps he equals simply it with the Logos, perhaps not, don't know that) which is revealed in every religion, but most fully in Christianity through "historical Jesus". For Christians - Panikkar believes - historical Jesus is a way to get to the Christ Mystery, but for Hindus the way can be different, maybe harder, longer, but finally they get to the same place as Christians.

Anyway, Dupuis says that in the late 80s Panikkar was accused by theologians of separating "the historical Jesus from the universal Christ", and he defended himself in Theology Digest, 1992, saying that he doesn't think those two are distinct. I have no access to that article. But - what's his stance in the book pop-pop is referring to here? How he deals with this? Dupuis wrote that he wasn't convinced and that "difficulties remain" in Panikkar's thought.
That's probably the main problem here: there is no way to say in the orthodox Christian framework that "historical Jesus" is different than "Christ", if by the first we mean THE PERSON, HYPOSTASIS, WHO JESUS WAS. Than we are back in Arianism. Yet I still have impression that some people saying "historical Jesus" mean by that - human nature, pre-Paschal, of the Word, and that can and must be distinguished from the infinite God.

Jacques Dupuis also had long time discussions with the Magisterium and Ratzinger about his own theology. He proposed something between (erroneous) pluralism "many ways leading to the same end" and Rahner's inclusivism, which for him wasn't fully explaining the possibility of salvation of people devoted to other religions. His own "pluralistic inclusivism/inclusivist pluralism", as he called it, emphasizes that God is the absolute Saviour, not humanity of Jesus. Controversial as he may be, Dupuis is subtle enough to say that he means humanity of Jesus not some Jesus different from the Word, which is absurd. The resurrected humanity of Jesus is a full and perfect means of salvation, and we have access to it through the Church, sacraments, the Bible etc. But, according to Catholic theology, Protestant communities have not full access either. Dupuis calls sacred humanity of Jesus "human face of God" and says that other religions don't see that face, for them God remains the source of salvation, but is not that close, since is not perceived in human form, as brother, the Son of Man.

I know that Ratzinger didn't fully agree with some aspect of this theology (perhaps I demonstrated it here in a wrong way, so don't take my words to express perfectly what Dupuis meant ), but Dupuis changed or at least was willing to change what the Magisterium had problems with. But even Dupuis, who attempted to push forward theological reflection on other religions, seemed to have problem with Panikkar's Christology. So I suppose he is a "false teacher" in that he tends towards some form of Arianism or nestiorianism rather. (Btw, I was wrong to call it monophysitism: it means that all about Jesus was divine, nestorianism is a belief that in Jesus of Nazareth were two separate entities - Jesus the man, and the Word of God).

But I don't know if Panikkar is a heretic. As far as I remember, heresy is an act of will, while error is in intellect. That was Meister Eckhart line of defence. He said he couldn't be heretic, because he was willing to change anything that was erroneous in his teaching. We tend to call "heretic" people who think or preach something unorthodox, but it's not right. Many Christians - if we asked them about the nature of Jesus of Nazareth - would probably present some sort of error in understanding. I recall a question that Phil asked in the Lent - "Could Jesus sin while tempted by the devil?" We weren't all unanimous. I was wrong, anyway. I was convinced that Jesus could have sinned, because of his humanity. Then I understood that if the Person of Jesus was the source of what he did, he couldn't sin, because the Word can't sin. I was wrong, but I wasn't (OBVIOUSLY ) a heretic! I was interested in understanding the truth that the Church teaches. So Panikkar seems to be wrong, and he seems to be strongly convinced. But is he in a dialogue with theologians? Was there any reaction from the Magisterium? (btw, the Magisterium is not infallible...) Is he aware that there is a strong disagreement about his theology? (he must be - he defended himself in early 90s).

So perhaps we discuss how we envisage the difference between resurrected human nature of Jesus and the hypostasis of the Word that manifests through that nature? What does it mean for our spiritual life? Enlightenment or advaitic experience can be seen as a sort of union with the Word, the Logos, but is there humanity of Jesus in it? Is Cosmic Christ a reality that can be known only through supernatural grace or is it accessible to all human beings by virtue of human nature? Of course, there are plenty of discussion about that on SP, but perhaps a bit in the context of Panikkar's theology and "Christophany" idea?

Mt et al, one reason I'm guessing the Magisterium hasn't made much of a fuss about Pannikar is that he's not that well known and his books haven't exactly been best-sellers. Of course, it may well be, too, that he didn't stray so far off the reservation as we think he might have -- that, as my spiritual director put it, he operates on the "edges" of orthodoxy, but without pushing the envelope too far. Some of his wording seems careless and sometimes there seems a "cavalier" spirit at work, however, but that's just my own observation, of course.

Of course we can say that God/Word/Spirit are at work in all the world religions; that's hardly controversial unless one is a hard-core exclusivist a la biblical fundamentalism. It's never been a question of whether people have had contact with God outside of Christianity--not even to the old-timey classical theologians. What Christianity proposes about the Incarnation is an entirely new relationship between God and humanity, however, not simply another instance of the "perennial philosophy." The subsistence of the human nature of Jesus in the Word opens the possibility for all other humans to subsist in the Word as well -- through union with HIM via faith, Baptism, other Sacraments, prayer, community, etc. Hindus, Buddhist, Moslems, etc. aren't promoting such a theotic message. That's the uniqueness of Christianity, and it hinges completely on the Incarnation and the ongoing ministry of Jesus in the Church. I have no problem with inclusivist theology that acknowledges his saving reach beyond Christianity in the spirit of something akin to "baptism of desire," but it seems to me that Pannikar is overly distancing himself from the saving work of Christ in the Church.

Mt,

I see by your posts that you too are a gifted intellect as is Kenosis, and that you too kind of align yourself with Pannikar -- seemingly more so than less. That’s the impression I get, anyway. Though perhaps I am mistaken. At any rate you don’t seem concerned by his theology. In your last post, for example you introduced the word heretic into the discussion and stated in its next-to-last paragraph:

****************************************************************************************
Quote: “We tend to call ‘heretic ‘people who think or preach something unorthodox, but it’s not right.”
****************************************************************************************
And
****************************************************************************************
Quote: “ But I don’t know if Pannikar is a heretic.”
****************************************************************************************
Also, you stated :
****************************************************************************************
Quote: “ As far as I remember, heresy is an act of the will, while error is in the intellect.”
****************************************************************************************

Those statements in effect excuse Pannikar, if I read you correctly, if not completely enable Pannikar to retain credibility in your mind and possibly in that of our guests. So I thought I might discuss them a bit.
(since I don’t think Pannikar’s book should have credibility).

To me, the above thoughts appear to be in error and misguided somewhat. The dictionary (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary ) states the following as the definition for heretic:
HERETIC: 1. One who holds beliefs or opinions contrary to the established doctrines of his religion. 2. One who maintains unorthodox opinions on any subject.

Per that definition and standard English usage, your statement (that is first quoted above) is incorrect. It IS RIGHT after all.

Regarding ‘heresy being an act of the will while error is in the intellect‘: I don’t quite understand your thinking or remembering, but it seems a bit off. CHRISTOPHANY, 214 pages of theological treatise is surely an act of Pannikar’s will as well as his intellect. One’s actions are the product of one’s will. One cannot write a book without exercising one’s will.

You exercised your will in writing your posts -- and of course, your intellect. I am exercising mine here
as well, too.

Christ said that it is what comes out of a man that makes him impure. Our actions are a testament to our wills. This is why Christ said, he who does the will of my Father is brother and sister to me (versus those who merely say Lord, Lord). So what has come out of Raimon Pannikar as evidenced by this book?

I have endeavored in my posts to show his book calumniates the motives and teaching authority of the church and its doctrines; it undermines the understanding of the historical Jesus; it propounds that RP’s understanding of Christology is more correct, because of his third eye mystical / experiential insights, than the church’s after 2000 years of the work of the Holy Spirit; it undermines the evangelical mission of the church in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and sets forth other errors.

Pannikar (p15): “For almost half a century I have maintained the proposition that every being is a Christophany. It is a question not of converting the whole world to Christianity but of recognizing that the very nature of reality shows the nondualist polarity between the transcendent and the immanent in its every manifestation”. If man was capable on his own, of recognizing the very nature of reality, then God needn’t have intervened in man’s history to bring man His Revelation -- a Revelation from God and based on historical events not man’s experiences nor his intellectual cognition. Events like Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection, Pentecost etc. Revelation that indeed calls for conversion and repentance.

For how many years does Pannikar get a bye? When will we ever say someone’s teaching is heresy and he heretic? Not politically correct, eh? What does all this anti-Christ stuff mean? (Apocalyptic naivete).

Now, you might want to say that Pannikar, indeed you have said: “But is he in dialog with theologians?” as if that might excuse any unorthodoxy -- well, his book is on the street. Is it not? How else did I and others get our copies? So an anti-Christ spirit is being promulgated. This entire thread of posts would not exist had this not been the case.

I find it interesting as well that you had decided in the writing of your post to point out that ‘(btw the Magisterium is not infallible … )’. What motivates the insertion of that statement? You don’t indicate caveats, but rather broad brush your words. The net effect of which is … ? You have an excellent intellect, yet you made no caveats. So why ?

Is that parenthetical statement a detraction from the valid authority of the church and perhaps an indication of disdain for its doctrine of infallibility? I hope not. But, think about where you are at and why.

There is a statement in the arena of psychology / psychotherapy that I have heard or read that goes: “How can I know how I feel until I hear what I say?”

In this instance, perhaps that statement might be altered to read: “How can I know what I think until I read what I wrote?”

Anyway, Christophany provides a heady meringue of theological fluff, but beneath all that intellectual prettiness one finds the lemon -- and not the lemon of tasty pie, but rather the lemon you would not want to drive away from the dealer in.

And it’s on the street and doing its thing -- and all in the name of theology. Theology for the third millennium. Hissss.

Pop-pop

p.s. BTW, How many reincarnations are Hindus allowed before they get to the same place as Christians? Since there is no need for a converting to Christianity I was wondering. No urgency on our part and no urgency on theirs. It’s a good thing the devil doesn’t exist because he might be having a field day. Anyway, there is no hell so all is well. There was no need for Jesus’ obedient surrender to crucifixion -- that historical Jesus who is the symbol of Christ .. for Christians anyway. Sap. If only He had known. Oh, well. We know better. We’re third millennialists with third eyes. And Pannikar is so divinizing.

Christophany (p.189): “Once again: Christ as pure God, even though the only Son of God, does not convince. He neither descended from the cross nor is he the God of history.” I say WOW!

And yet, priests on the jacket of the book say: OOEY, OOEY!

…to save the world from Satan’s power, for we had gone astray… God rest ye merry, gentlemen.

quote:

Christophany (p.189): “Once again: Christ as pure God, even though the only Son of God, does not convince. He neither descended from the cross nor is he the God of history.” I say WOW!

This is out of context. It's actually an argument against a kind of docetism, or the forgetting of Christ's humanity.

That is, the argument is: If Christ is ONLY God, and not also fully Human, then the gospel is unconvincing.

To quote from earlier in that epilogue

"The Son of Man is the Son of God. It is not the case that God is here, Man is there, and the Earth somewhere underneath. The spiritual and the celestial are not on one side, and the material and the political on the other; time is not now and eternity later; the isolated individual is not in opposition to the undifferentiated collectivity. Jesus was neither a political liberator nor an ascetic who denied the world, much less a member of the clergy, but simply a being (we do not have any other word) who lived the fullness of the human."

So the point isn't that Christ isn't convincing. It's that a conception of Christ that forgets his humanity (The Son of Man) is unconvincing

pop-pop,

1.heresy
from Catholic Encyclopedia; "The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material."
I guess we are both right Anyone who holds beliefs that are contrary to the Church's teaching is a heretic in a material or objective way, but if there's no an act of free will to reject the truth, there is no formal or subjective heresy, and only the latter is a sin. That's why I wrote, and I think that was pretty clear, that Panikkar's theology is sometimes erroneous and in that he is a "false teacher", to use your expression, but it doesn't make him a formal heretic, and a sinner. I agree with you, pop-pop, that the approval of priests on the cover of his book is not a good thing, because people forget sometimes that priests are fallible...

2. I noted that the Magisterium is fallible, not because I wanted to diminish the Church's authority. If you read any of my other posts on this forum, you'll notice that I accept fully and humbly the whole of the Church's teaching. But theology is not a set of dogmas. It's a dialogue, we use our reason, we are wrong sometimes, sometimes right, and out of this great activity of human mind comes understanding of God's life and truth. Origen held many erroneous beliefs, but Ratzinger as a Pope can quote him during his sermons. Gregory of Nyssa believed that there is no eternal damnation and that Satan will be finally saved. Do you think they were heretics? And Augustine, whose concept of original sin isn't held anymore by the Church?

These are important questions, it's good to look into them.

Kenosis,

You are indeed correct and on the money in pointing out and explaining the proper context of my extracted quote from p189. That was an out-of-context extraction on my part. My apologies to all. (And of course I will have to apologize to myself as well -- lol-- for messing up).

I still dislike the book for the reasons stated in my posts.

Pop-pop

Mt,

I know priests are fallible; and I know also that people project so much on them and what a cross it is to have to deal with everyone’s projections. It’s the pits! I don’t wish that on anybody. My anguish was in regard to priests endorsing anyone who attacks the church -- which I believe Pannikar did in this book.

I take it then that your comment concerning the fallibility of the Magisterium was directed towards the reality that individual members of the Magisterium are fallible, but that the doctrine of infallibility regarding when the Pope in consort with the Magisterium speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals you have no issues with.

As for heretic-- you had introduced that term into discussion. I had used false teacher because that is the terminology used in scripture. My focus was on RP’s teaching not his culpability sin-wise.

Gregory of Nyssa’s thought on absence of eternal damnation and of Satan being forgiven is new to me. I was not aware of his thought, nor that Augustine’s concept of original sin is no longer held by the church. So thanks for the info. I will have to see what the catechism now says about the fall and its consequences. Is there no longer any concept at all about original sin then? This is news to me, I must admit. Not what I had been taught in my youth.

Pop-pop

Writing about the Magisterium I was thinking that the "ordinary" teachings of bishops of Rome (not under the special conditions of infallibility - I think encyclicals are basically fallible, but I'm not sure, so correct me if I'm wrong) - their sermons, books, speeches, as well as documents such as "Dominus Jesus" - they aren't dogmas in a strict sense, they can change, they can be interpreted, discussed etc. It seems to me that the Church is not so eager to issue infallible statements - only on rare occasions. The great bulk of thought inside the Church is open to discussion. My personal surprise was that Karl Rahner in his Foundations of Faith said that it's not obligatory to believe that Jesus' miracles actually happened the way described in the Gospels. It's a part of tradition to accept that, but he thinks it's optional. I haven't heard anything in his "Foundations" was condemned, so this might be as he writes.

About Gregory of Nyssa - it was Origen idea, influenced by Plato, that there's no eternal damnation. Because Jesus uses a term "aionios" in the Gospels, where He talks about the fire of damnation, early theologians discussed the meaning of it. "Aionios" might be as well "forever" as "for a very long time - aion". The same with "aionios bios" - "eternal life". Origen, and Gregory after him, believed in a Stoic idea that after a long, long time the whole universe will burn up in a powerful fire which purifies everything. So the damned souls and demons will be purified too and everyone will be saved in the end. Gregory quoted Paul "God will be all in all", saying that "all" means literally "all". Gregory, however, was wrong about that, because the Tradition agreed on a different interpretation of "aionios". The whole Origenism was condemned in the 6th century, but not specifically Gregory, who is one of the greatest saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There are still ideas like that in Christianity today, but now we know they are erroneous . So - according to the definition of the Cath. Encyclopedia - Gregory was a material heretic. But, of course, we say that by his time the problem wasn't clearly solved by the Church, so he, as well as Origen, weren't thinking against the orthodoxy, they were co-creating orthodoxy through active dialogue and thinking. Antiquity was very harsh on Origen, but he's been rehabilitated now - von Balthasar wrote a monography on him, Popes quote him sometimes, because he was a great philosopher and theologian, the greatest in the 3rd century.

About Augustine - he believed that all people are guilty of original sin as an act of will. We committed sin along with Adam and Eve, because we were somehow "in Adam" in the beginning. Augustine took this from Latin version of Paul - instead of "death came because everyone sinned", Augustine's Bible said something like "death came for everyone sinned in him (Adam)". Based on an error in translation, Augustine developped an idea that we all potentially were present in the Garden with Adam and we are as guilty as him and Eve. The East didn't know much of Augustine and of course, they had the Greek version, so they never developped an idea of "peccatum originalis" in the way Augustine did. For them the sin is just a reality that occurs since Adam and Eve, but there's no basic flaw that is transmitted or inflicted upon humanity. As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, the Church now believes we are not guilty of the sin of Adam, because of course we weren't there, and original sin is really not a sin (act of will, free choice), but a fallen state in which we are due to our "solidarity" with Adam as a father of human beings. It's come back in a form of a discussion about the newborn children that are unbaptized and die. Augustine thought they go to hell. Theologians today think rather that those infants and also unborn children are free of any guilt, and perhaps, also by their death they may be purified from their fallennes, because they partake in Christ's death - they may go straight to heaven. So the Church corrected Augustine. Also his approach to grace.

Guys, check out the section from the new catechism of the Catholic Church on the fall and original sin. The doctrine is very much alive and well.
- http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm

Re. infallibility -- it's true that the term is now used in reference to a very narrow set of circumstances, as when the Pope speaks "Ex Cathedra" in union with all the world bishops. But there's a wider understanding of the term -- a kind of "de facto" infallibility -- that would include other authoritative teachings that have been affirmed with "anathemas" attached. Same goes for other doctrines that have been reaffirmed again and again, especially regarding matters of faith. E.g., the bodily resurrection of Jesus hasn't been promulgated in a formal ex cathedra manner like the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, but there can be no doubt that this is a core doctrine of the Church. See 890-92 at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm for the new Catechism's teaching on infallibility. Also, http://www.americancatholic.or.../aug2004/Wiseman.asp notes that there are different levels of teaching exercised by the Magisterium, and even those that are not formally defined as infallible also carry significant weight. This article explains some of these different levels and the duties of Catholic to each.

quote:

419 "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not by imitation" and that it is. . . 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG § 16).

So it is a sin propagated rather than committed.

The Council of Trent was a while back now, so it's scarcely something new!

Yes, the way I've understood it is that Original Sin is a wounding of the human nature that was passed on from Adam and Eve to this generation. The way I understand this to work is that the developmental environment in which we grow from conception onward is permeated by an atmosphere of "conditional love," fear, shame, etc., which are consequences of the loss of union that our first parents enjoyed. So, from the get-go, we are conditioned, even at a cellular level, to experience ourselves as conditionally loveable and acceptable, and these are the foundational convictions out of which the entire false self system develops.

Phil, Derek,

THANKS!! You saved me some time in searching for the catechism link. I had been unable to access it via a Faith Database CD I had installed finally tonight after having received it for Christmas last year.

I had a need to check what Mt had said since it was foreign to my understanding based on what I had been taught.

393 clearly states that the sin of the fallen angels is irrevocable per Catholic doctrine.

The text regarding original sin is clear, and I like the clarity that 'we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ'.

Pop-pop

Thanks, Phil!

I didn't think that the Church abandon the idea of original sin altogether, just that the Augustine's account of its nature was corrected. Augustine believed that we not only "contract" but "commit" original sin. In the Cathechism there's a distinction which is crucial, of course - we suffer the consequences of Adam's sin due to our sharing in one human nature, and one of the consequences is our own, personal sin which we're responsible for. But we're not in any way responsible for Adam's sin. I don't know what is the belief of the Eastern Orthodox, but must not be so much different from that, since we know there are no dogmatic differences between the Two Churches that would prevent them from being in union.

"404 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice... (...), but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence"."

The idea of salvation of the devil seems strange to me, too. I think it was a Greek influence. But it's common now to think that God mercy means the eradication of all consequences of sin.

Fascinating discussion on original sin (OS)! I vote to cut and paste it into another thread dedicated to this topic since it's so rich and important a topic. Maybe there's already a thread started on this subject...?

It's very unfortunate that OS is such a huge stumbling block for so many people. Christians and seculars are repelled by the superficial, but common, misunderstanding of the definition of OS--merely being guilty of transgressions or being a 'bad person.' It goes against the modern (post-modern) idea that we can build ourselves up, overcome all our weaknesses, everybody can be rehabilitated, etc. To be born "bad" is an affront to our self-esteem-oriented culture. The superficial equating of OS with being "bad" goes against the teaching that we are all worthy of unconditional love and basically good. But this notion as OS being equated with 'badness' is, as you know, wrong. The definition of sin as "missing the mark" makes a lot more sense to people and clears up a lot of undue defensiveness.

And then there are the deeper revelations of our OS. I've experienced a few times, by sheer grace, the inexplicable depravity of myself. With an almost unbearable clarity, I could see that compared to the God of Glory before me, I truly am wretched and depraved, beyond comprehension really. It's a gift which can keep you humble for a lifetime, except for our inability to hold on to that depth of reality.

In this deep revelation of OS, one can see that it is a 'state' of being and not a merely a consequence of one's will--though that is a distinct kind of brokenness as well. One can see why the Incarnation was absolutely necessary…

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
I've experienced a few times, by sheer grace, the inexplicable depravity of myself. With an almost unbearable clarity, I could see that compared to the God of Glory before me, I truly am wretched and depraved, beyond comprehension really.

Yes. That occurred to me when I was on retreat earlier this year. Virtually every desire I have is driven by selfishness. This is what I understand by "ego" now (in the psychospiritual sense, not the Freudian). And the ego-desires are utterly depraved.

I like Phil's description of the mechanism by which this is transmitted from generation to generation. Where Latin Christianity uses peccatum originale, "original sin," Greek Christianity uses propatorike amartia, "ancestral sin."

We've had a few discussions on Original Sin, including one thread:
- https://shalomplace.org/eve/for.../17110765/m/49310575

As Shasha noted, there are common misperceptions about it, many related to poor catechetics, and some to what seem to be deliberate misrepresentations of church teaching. I've found it more helpful to understand it as a woundedness of our human nature that biases us toward selfishness, with personal sin referring more to specific acts of selfish behavior. There's quite a difference between thinking of oneself as wounded versus bad, isn't there?

quote:

The idea of salvation of the devil seems strange to me, too. I think it was a Greek influence. But it's common now to think that God mercy means the eradication of all consequences of sin.

Mt, I don't think the problem here is with God's mercy. St. Thomas' teaching on angels stresses the totality of their acts -- that their acts entail full engagement of intelligence and freedom. So Satan's rejection of God might very well be irreversible and beyond any possibility of repentance. Pope John Paul II gave a teaching on this years ago that reaffirms the traditional view that Satan's damnation is permanent.
- http://www.raphael.net/Church/JohnPaul2e.htm

quote:

5. These texts help us to understand the nature and the dimension of the sin of Satan, which consists in the denial of the truth about God, as he is known by the light of the intellect and revelation as infinite Good, subsistent Love and Holiness. The sin was all the greater, in that the spiritual perfection and the epistemological acuteness of the angelic intellect, with his freedom and closeness to God, were greater. When, by an act of his own free will, he rejected the truth that he knew about God, Satan became the cosmic "liar and the father of lies" (Jn 8:44). For this reason, he lives in radical and irreversible denial of God, and seeks to impose on creation - on the other beings created in the image of God, and in particular on people - his own tragic "lie about the good" that is God.

There's some teaching relevant to the discussion on Original Sin in this document as well.

Yes, I was aware about the nature of angels as the reason for the ultimate nature of their choices. At the same time, it's popular in some "spiritual" circles to think that God would be bad if He "send" someone to hell. I believed that too some time ago! I wondered if the saints, Mary and Jesus can be happy in heaven, being acutely aware of the people and angels which suffer agony of hell? That's a paradox and a problem for me, I didn't solve it, and don't think I will ever intellectually deal with it.

But I realized the importance of justice, too. I don't know if there's anyone in hell, but the idea that all the people who freely made monsters of themselves will be "rewarded" seems just wrong. Of course, God doesn't "send" anyone to hell - human beings choose hell on their own, becoming something utterly contrary to God's very nature - God cannot be something other than He is, and His fire would make those people suffer for ever. That's, as far as I remember, C.S. Lewis argument.

I was watching recently a TV show "True Blood" created by Alan Ball (I liked also his "6 feet under"). In the last season there was a very good image of the problem. There was this evil and powerful vampire Russell, and they managed to overpower him in the end, and wanted to kill him. A vampire Eric had a vision of his dead friend, Godric (who was a sort of "converted" vampire, fascinated by the figure of Jesus), and Godric appeared to him from "the other side", saying that Eric should forgive Russell, because on the other side "there's peace for everyone". Hearing that Eric changed his mind and didn't kill Russell, but put him inside concrete. He did it because he said the last thing he wanted was "peace" for Russell.
This made me think of a fallacy of some sort of compassion. A natural human reaction to evil is a need of some sort of justice. Of course, God has an entirely different perspective, but we should honour both sides - justice and mercy. Knowing that mercy is infinite and perhaps more fundamental to the Trinity than what we call "justice".

Remember also this passage from Plato's "Phaedo" where human souls in hell cyclically come out and beg the people they hurt in life to forgive them. If they are forgiven, they may come out of the hell, if they're not they must stay and wait for another chance to obtain that. Kind of sensible image to me.

I wonder how God will deal with this paradox of love and justice. I guess we will see...