|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: 27% - the Virgin Birth
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It's true Merseymike not because someone tells me it is so but because I feel the Incarnation as described (that is with the Virgin Birth and the Theotokos) deep deep down in the core of my being.
Uh, right. I feel the incarnation deep in the core of my being, but not the virgin birth.
Don't think we'll get very far on the basis of what we feel, no matter how deep those feelings.
quote:
I believe in a God who takes FLESH to save me ... not merely one who inspires me but one who reaches down with wounded hands and grabs me out of the shit I both create and find myself in. Ultimately it's a measure of his Infinite Love ... not an interesting debate here.
I too believe in this, and believe in it just fine without believing in the virgin birth.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
As you rightly say Ruth ... we won't get very far with feelings. My aim was PARTLY tangential really ... all those folks who think I'm Borg just because I'm Orthodox. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
Let's face it.
It's a stalemate.
An impasse.
A dead parrot in fact.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Not at all mrgrumble_au ... don't give up so easily. This doctrine has a long and venerable history of disputation. As far as I am concerned I'll just carry on believing it ... as I always have. [That will be 7 impossible things before breakfast please, (until cloning that is ... darn, Jesus would have to be a girlie).] ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
And there was I taking you for a lumberjack.
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Why is a literal resurrection ie in a physical sense any more important than a literal virginal conception? Even the most hard nosed atheist would admit that something happened to Paul on the road to Damascas. Even if they concluded that he was a deranged crackpot, the total transformation of his life is evidence of something. The same goes for the disciples. That Jesus presence was still available to them after His death on the cross, is an uncontestable piece of history.
Paul's description of the resurrection in 1Cor 15.3-8 is the only canonical reference to His appearence to James, His brother, though this is expanded into Jesus serveing the bread and wine to James in the apocryphal gospel of the Hebrews. But Paul, whose experiences of the Risen Christ were undoubtedly mystical, mentions all the apearences in one breath. So we can't be sure that all the resurrection appearences weren't mystical. It is inconsistent in John, in the same chapter where Jesus says," Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father." (20.17), but says"Put your finger here. Reach out your hand and put it into my side."(20.28)
Either He was physical or not. Either He could be touched or not. For these reasons I tend to go for a mystical resurrection in which Jesus assured His followers that He was still with them. Nothing else can account for the miracle of Pentecost.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
Thanks, Chesterbelloc, for your reply. I will study it carefully. No time for a response tonight, alas.
Glenn
--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrgrumble_au:
The history of the church's dealings with the revelations of scientific revelation is a sorry one indeed.
[TANGENT]A pity that we seem to have deleted my thread on Galileo and the science-christianity conflict myth.[/TANGENT]
Anyway, back to the point (sort of). I've just lost who was making a comment regarding the Gospels and mythology with a link to the Christian think-tank site. I have already said here that I consider the Gospels to be different from modern historical or biographical works - that doesn't mean that I'm saying they're mythological.
As an example, the Gospels are biographical in terms of ancient understanding of biography but not a modern understanding. We tend to think of biographies as describing the important events in someones life that explains why they became the famous person they were or are - as such they tend to focus on events in formative years (which is how you can get biographies of people who are barely more than children themselves). In the ancient near east and Mediterranean world biographies were far more likely to emphasise the events that made someone famous, to describe the man through his actions as an adult - thus a biography of a Roman general could quite reasonably consist of an account of his actions in a single battle (and I'm sure such a biography does exist, I just don't have a reference to hand).
Thus biographies known to the Evangelists wouldn't have contained many details of childhood, nor be particularly concerned for historical accuracy so long as the narrative showed the character of the man.
Alan
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Paul
quote:
So we can't be sure that all the resurrection appearences weren't mystical. It is inconsistent in John, in the same chapter where Jesus says," Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father." (20.17), but says"Put your finger here. Reach out your hand and put it into my side."(20.28)
These truths are complimentary not alternative. That's why they are BOTH in there, side by side, sitting quite happily. Why? ...
Mary is disposed to approach Christ through his humanity ... "Rabboni!" The response: "Don't hold on to me ..." Context: Ascension. Meaning: I am our Lord and God, not just your friend.
Thomas is disposed to approach Christ through his divinity and yet doubts for is this really the same MAN? The response: "Touch (the wounds)...." Context: against docetism Meaning: I the Risen Lord am still the Crucified Man.
In other words both Mary and Thomas approach Christ from different sides. Christ's response is particular to each. BOTH end up with the same confession ... true God and true Man. It is this synthesis which later emerges at Chalcedon.
At no point does the material / human/ vulnerable component get subsumed into the mystical / divine / spiritual component (or, of courtse, vice versa).
The same harmonious tension is maintained in the divine / human sides of the Incarnation / conception.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Anyway, back to the point (sort of)...We tend to think of biographies as describing the important events in someones life that explains why they became the famous person they were or are - as such they tend to focus on events in formative years (which is how you can get biographies of people who are barely more than children themselves). In the ancient near east and Mediterranean world biographies were far more likely to emphasise the events that made someone famous, to describe the man through his actions as an adult - thus a biography of a Roman general could quite reasonably consist of an account of his actions in a single battle (and I'm sure such a biography does exist, I just don't have a reference to hand).
Thus biographies known to the Evangelists wouldn't have contained many details of childhood, nor be particularly concerned for historical accuracy so long as the narrative showed the character of the man.
Alan
That's good, Alan, but there's a bit of detail missing, I think. The reason that childhood details/events were usually omitted in ancient biopgraphy (bios) is that ancients did not view character as something that was developed; rather, the character of a person was progressively revealed throughout their life.
This is the main difference between an ancient biography and a modern one. A modern biography will usually attempt to show causality (ie. attempt to explain why the person was like they were), whereas an ancient one will simply attempt to show the character of the person being written about. None of this means that ancient biographers routinely (or as a matter of practice) made things up to put into the mouths of their subjects. The idea that they did, in fact, do this is being rapidly overturned as baseless.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
(This posting is another one about whether it can be shown that the orthodox view of the incarnation necessitates the virginal conception.) It looks long but is full of repetition for the sake of clarity. It should be possible to get the gist.
Dear Chesterbelloc,
Thank you for your restatement of your argument for the incompatibility of a non-virginal conception with an orthodox understanding of the incarnation. On inspection I find it to be incomplete – it still begs the question, (i.e. it still assumes the very fact that is in question.) It is also unclear to me how a virginal conception would escape the charge of adoptionism either.
Your argument quoted
To first quote your argument with some added numbering:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
(1) The problem with a normal human conception for the Son, as I see it is that, if there are two human gametes, Mary's and Joseph's, then there is nothing lacking from story to bring into being a person, but that person would be entirely human.
(2) Now, if God chose to make such an entity His Son at any stage whatsoever , this would either be by
(2a) adopting them as such and adding special "stuff" of His own (which I reject as adoptionism).
(2b) The only alternative left, it seems is that God somehow converted such a pre-existent being into His Son "proper", but in this case it would be the obliteration of the existing entity as such, not really its transformation into God at all. The Son did pre-exist His incarnation, and so no other entity could have been converted into the Son without it's utter destruction. It would just make no sense.
(3) This is why I say that however it happened, it must have been uniquely Mary's and the Holy Spirit's child, because anyone else's "oar in" (as it were) would either have been a direct obstacle to the child's being God "proper", or an utterly superfluous and removed extra.
Your argument against a non-virginal conception ((1) and 2(a)) with implied detail spelled out
Your argument, written in haste as you say, leaves various steps and assumptions unspoken. I have therefore tried to reconstruct a more complete version of it. Please let me know where I have gone wrong. I give it below and then explain why it is still incomplete. I leave out 2(b) as a dead end option as you say.
(a) A non virginal conception took place when Mary’s egg and Josephs sperm fused and a cell was produced that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
Therefore:
(b) a cell then existed in Mary’s womb (or fallopian tube) that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
(c) a cell that has all the necessary components to become a human being [and is in the womb] is a person;
Therefore:
(d) that cell was a person
(e) God chose this cell to be the incarnation of the Son;
But
(f) in order to do this he must adopt it and add special stuff to it since it is as yet only human;
And
(g) no matter at what stage God chooses to do (e) it will be necessary for him to do (f);
However:
(h) the process (f) is a version of adoptionism;
(i) adoptionism is incompatible with an orthodox view of the incarnation;
Therefore:
(j) The incarnation cannot have involved a non-virginal conception.
Therefore;
(k) The incarnation must have involved a virginal conception.
Problems with the conclusion
The first problem we face is that the conclusion
(k) The incarnation must have involved a virginal conception
simply assumes that a non-virginal conception avoids adoptionism. It does not say why.
In your own argument para (3) you say that “, it must have been uniquely Mary's and the Holy Spirit's child, because anyone else's "oar in" (as it were) would … have been a direct obstacle to the child's being God "proper",” but your argument actually makes no use of that ‘oar’ at all. You ignore the fact what makes the use of a cell by God adoptionism is, in your argument, NOT its origin but its composition its ability to give rise to a person. As a result your argument works just as well against a non-virginal conception, thus:
Chesterbelloc’s argument used against a virginal conception
(av) A virginal conception took place by the unique action of the Holy Spirit on/with Mary to produce a cell that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
Then:
(b) a cell then existed in Mary’s womb (or fallopian tube) that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
(c) a cell that has all the necessary components to become a human being [and is in the womb] is a person;
Therefore:
(d) that cell was a person
(e) God chose this cell to be the incarnation of the Son;
But
(f) in order to do this he must adopt it and add special stuff to it since it is as yet only human;
And
(g) no matter at what stage God chooses to do (e) it will be necessary for him to do (f);
However:
(h) the process (f) is a version of adoptionism;
(i) adoptionism is incompatible with an orthodox view of the incarnation;
Therefore:
(jv) The incarnation cannot have involved a virginal conception.
How can the argument be saved?
I anticipate that you might say that the argument can be saved by amending (d) and go like this:
(av) A virginal conception took place by the unique action of the Holy Spirit on/with Mary to produce a cell that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
Then:
(b) a cell then existed in Mary’s womb (or fallopian tube) that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
(c) a cell that has all the necessary components to become a human being [and is in the womb] is a person;
And:
(dv) that person was Jesus;
(e) God chose this cell to be the incarnation of the Son;
But
(fv) in order to do this he need not adopt it since it is his Son;
Therefore:
(jv2) The incarnation involved a virginal conception.
(m) A non-virginal conception would not have resulted in a cell that was Jesus;
Therefore:
(n) A non-virginal conception is by the original argument incompatible with the incarnation.
Faults in the revised ‘saved’ argument
But the problem with the revised argument is that
(dv) that person was Jesus;
and
(m) A non-virginal conception would not have resulted in a cell that was Jesus;
are both just assumed and no arguments are given for either of them. The argument thus still begs the question and gives no grounds whatsoever to reject as impossible the following:
(a) A non virginal conception took place when Mary’s egg and Josephs sperm fused and a cell was produced that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
Then:
(b) a cell then existed in Mary’s womb (or fallopian tube) that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
(c) a cell that has all the necessary components to become a human being [and is in the womb] is a person;
And:
(dnv) that person was, by the action of God, Jesus;
(e) God chose this cell to be the incarnation of the Son;
But
(fnv) in order to do this he need not adopt it since it is his Son;
Therefore:
(jnv) The incarnation involved a non-virginal conception.
Summary
Your argument using adoptionism does not depend for its force on the origin of the cell which began Jesus’s physical incarnation. It depends on the composition of the cell. As such it cannot rule out the fact that God may have produced that cell by the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm.
Further problems
The argument (may, if I have understood you correctly) also rely on a highly debatable view of what constitutes a person.
Perhaps you could suggest where my attempted reconstructions of your argument go astray and could be improved. I hope I amended things properly as I copied and pasted!
Best wishes,
Glenn
--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
in order to do this he must adopt it and add special stuff to it since it is as yet only human
Is this perhaps the nub of the matter ?
The importance of the idea of the virgin birth is that it is tied up with our understanding of Jesus being "fully human and fully divine". That seems to me to be what the pro-virgin-birthers are defending. (no abbreviation - I'm afraid VB will always be visual basic to me).
If you believe that divinity is a matter of "special stuff", then the only logical options are that it was there from the beginning or was added later.
Father Gregory seems to think that "added later" is not tenable, but to those of us with less theological education it's not totally clear why "adoptionism" is bad.
The argument for a spontaneously-created sperm cell joining a natural egg cell (as against other ways in which special stuff could be present at conception) seems so far beyond anything that we could possibly know that I'm reluctant to go there.
What if it's not a case of "special stuff" at all ? What if that's too crude and materialistic a concept of what divinity is ?
What alternatives are there ?
One which comes to mind ((caution: wild speculation alert)) is the possibility of "perfect DNA". What if there were some possible combination of the genes of Mary and a biological father that was not only free from the more obvious impairments that human beings suffer (defective vision, skin problems) but free from every possible blemish, every malign tendency ?
But even that's not good enough, is it ? Is that a reason to worship the baby ? No it's not.
Sorry for ill-thought-out ramblings. I'll stop here at the point of tentative disbelief in "special stuff" and the thought that divinity is some sort of emergent phenomenon beyond humanity.
Only the God who is love itself is worthy to be worshipped. The spark of the divine can only be seen in creatures that are developed enough to demonstrate some sign of love. I find myself unable to worship the divine foetus.
Some years Christmas is really difficult...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I am confused. What is unreasonable or irrational about the Virgin conception of Christ that doesn't apply just as much to any other NT miracle?
Thanks,
Reader alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Russ
I'll leave Chesterbelloc to respond to Glenn's post. Thanks for some very interesting questions.
May I pick up a few key points?
quote:
The importance of the idea of the virgin birth is that it is tied up with our understanding of Jesus being "fully human and fully divine".
That is most certainly correct but it begs the question as to what is meant by "divine."
Christian theology differentiates between "divine" as something ADOPTED by God but which is a CREATED "thing" and "divine" as an attribute, energy or ontological category ... having the ESSENCE of God ETERNALLY.
(There is of course the metaphorical or hyperbolic sense which is entirely earthbound ... "that was a "divine" chocolate pudding!" ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) }
Examples ...
Divine - adopted ...
The evangelists embarked upon a divine mission.
The divinely appointed fathers met in Council.
By grace we are to partake of the divine nature.
Divine - essential / eternal
The divine nature and human natures form a hypostatic union in the oner Person of Christ.
The divine nature cannot be seen by anyone.
When Christian theology affirms the divinity of Christ it does NOT refer to the former created sense but the latter uncreated sense. This was, of course, the issue behind the conflict with Arianism but it is also typical of adoptionist christology.
Adoptionism has Jesus as an ENTIRELY AND EXCLUSIVELY human natured person with "divinity" either as some sort of created extra stuff added from conception onwards OR (more classically) with a temporary possession of and by the Holy Spirit effectively rendering Christ's identity as "the Word / Logos FROM ETERNITY made flesh" redundant.
Why is this important? Because in the adoptionist scheme of things the incarnation is reduced to prophetic inspiration (albeit to a higher degree). In fact by being so reduced it ceases to be the Incarnation. The flesh must be joined to the Godhead not just the Spirit. This is what the Virgin birth ensures. The nature of that union at conception and subsequently (the enhypostatic union according to Leontius of Byzantium) is manifested as a certain sharing of attributes from each nature but without an erosion of either. Beyond that the Church has not gone and any toying with meta-genetics is pure speculation.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory
You talk of the speculative nature of going beyond the metagenetics. I don't think that would mean much to a convention of lumberjacks. The theology you expound is at best hinted at in scripture. St Paul frequently uses the "Risen Christ" and the "Spirit" interchangeably. I am not a sola scriptura adherant, but it is a serious stretch of NT theology to arrive at your theology. A "lower" Christology may be heretical to the Orthodox, but can be supported by both scripture and ancient non canonical sources.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Paul
quote:
The theology you expound is at best hinted at in scripture.
Scripture is quite clear ... God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. This is all about what "in" means once God is accepted as the subject. Classic Christianity (for want of a better word) doesn't have a "high" christology ... it has a christology that does justice to God ACTING out salvation ... himself, personally, in the flesh. That's biblical.
Meta-genetics ... trying to work out how the Incarnation involved the manipulation of human genetics. That's speculation .. or rather the rationalism of trying to pin down a miracle so that it can subjected to human logic ... the evidence of someone putting a host under the microscope trying to find the Body of Christ. It's all the same. Fruitless. That's non-biblical supposedly in the service of the Bible.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Meta-genetics ... trying to work out how the Incarnation involved the manipulation of human genetics. That's speculation .. or rather the rationalism of trying to pin down a miracle so that it can subjected to human logic ... the evidence of someone putting a host under the microscope trying to find the Body of Christ. It's all the same. Fruitless. That's non-biblical supposedly in the service of the Bible.
"someone putting a host under the microscope trying to find the Body of Christ. " This at least rules out a literalistic understanding of transubstatiation so is hardly fruitless.
If I am told that Jesus did not have an earthly father and yet was fully human I am entitled surely to ask about his genetics. What can it mean to say that 'Jesus was fully human but without a biological father but I am not prepared to say anything about his genetics'? I imagine that the reply would be 'they were fully human' and if I then ask 'how can that be?' I will probably be told: 'God can do anything, so if it says that God did X or Y God did indeed do X or Y and so that's that, don't ask questions.'
It is the same with the Chalcedonian account of the incarnation. The council ruled out various other approaches to understanding the incarnation and produced a tantalisingly summarised account of the key points they saw as essential and did not bother to expound how the parts of the definition were logically consistent, they just implied that they were. Trying to give a fuller exposition of the incarnation and also of its relation to the virgin birth is not idle speculation, it is trying to assess whether the doctrine is logically contradictory, logically coherent or undecidable. What is wrong with that?
In any case, what makes you think that logic is merely human? Is mathematics merely human? Is science merely human? Done by humans yes but transcending their whims and wishes and not mere convention.
If I am convinced by the evidence and arguments for the conclusion that the Church is authoritative and to be trusted in its declaration that these doctrines are true then I may feel that I can assent to them in an intellectually responsible manner and test them no further. If, on the other hand, I am not convinced by those arguments (and I am not) I will naturally feel the need to examine those doctrines carefully (along with wider issues too) to see if I can assent to them in an intellectually responsible manner.
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Glenn
You have to use the right tools for the job. No physicist can do without mathematics. No literary historian can do without textual analysis. No theologian can do without Tradition.
The action of God in the material realm is accessible but it cannot be circumscribed by an earthbound empiricism. You can ask away about genetics as much as you like but in the case of the Virgin Mary it will remain speculative. The veracity of the Virgin Birth is not established by scientific enquiry. Logical positivistssay that this is the only truth worthy of the name. I demur.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I hope everything is okay with Eb'lis, but I notice he hasn't been able to return to his thread for nearly four and a half pages. I've found the Orthodox contribution to this thread instructive and fascinating, and I know a number of Anglicans of different stripe have contributed here; but I'm still rather hoping to find out
a) why Eb'lis, as an RC is concerned specifically for the CofE clergy mentioned in the OP's survey -the ecumenical interest of a fellow Christian is a good enough reason, so it would be good to know that and
b) if any useful comparisons or contrasts can be drawn with RC clergy, in much the same way as we've had useful contributions from the Orthodox folk.
Mind you, if it clashes with the OP, perhaps it wouldn't be that useful - maybe I'm just being nosey! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Anselmina,
I think Eb'lis is horrified at what a monster he started, and can't bear to look!
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
"that was a "divine" chocolate pudding!"
I'm all in favour of divine chocolate pudding...
quote:
The divine nature and human natures form a hypostatic union in the one Person of Christ.
The divine nature cannot be seen by anyone.
I have a problem with the term "nature" as used by some people educated in the classical tradition. The nature of a thing (a chocolate pudding or anything else) is not some separate attribute which can be “known only by faith” and is unrelated to any of its observable characteristics. It's just a way of saying what the thing really is, where “real” is used in the conventional this-worldly sense. You can suggest that a chocolate pudding has a fruity nature (because that fits your theology better), but if there isn’t any fruit in it and it doesn’t taste in the slightest bit fruity then you’re just playing a theological game of pretending.
Whether you call it "divine essence" or "special stuff" I strongly suspect that it doesn't exist. What properties is this stuff supposed to have ? Sonship is about quality of relationship, not meta-biology.
Divinity as an attribute means "relating to God" which is something to do with being worthy of worship. It’s not some label on the soul which God can read and theologians deduce.
If I've understood you right you're saying that the reason for insisting on a non-adoptionist model is that without it there's no clear line to draw between what Christ was and what ordinary Christians are in their most Spirit-filled moments. But why does there have to be a clear line ? What’s wrong with a mental picture of Christ being “like the saints, but more so” ? Maybe God didn’t come down to earth from heaven, but then we now know that heaven isn’t in the literal sense “up” in the first place.
quote:
any toying with meta-genetics is pure speculation.
At last! I agree with Father Gregory about something!
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Russ
quote:
What’s wrong with a mental picture of Christ being “like the saints, but more so” ? Maybe God didn’t come down to earth from heaven, but then we now know that heaven isn’t in the literal sense “up” in the first place.
(You are of course correct on the classical take on adoptionism).
If Jesus is just like us only a better human (by any definition) then God has not done anything more than [1] use more promising material [2] through [1] work more in Christ than us. In other words the Incarnation is not necessary at all because GOD himself, directly, through and in the humanity of His Son has not done anything to save us ... he has merely provided us with an inspiring example. Harnack rules OK? I think not. I don't see how that can be squared with the New Testament at all. Whatever Christ as done as a human it is God-made-flesh who has done it as SUBJECT.
Nature? It has become difficult to talk about "nature" in our culture (which is why Buddhism is making headway of course). The difficulty about nature resides in its fluid and indeterminate expression. The ontology, therefore, is sacrificed to the phenomena. I suppose the only way of resolving this is to ask a negative question.
What would it be about an android that would not make it share in human nature?
What is it about a dolphin (or an alien) with similar capabilities to that of a human that would make neither capable of sharing in human nature, (whatever that was).
Notice that human nature is singular. It is one thing we all share, not some stuff each individual possesses in the pineal gland or anyone else, (Descartes - soul - ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) )
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Fr. G said this on RooK's Satan thread:
quote:
The fall of Lucifer is theological reflection dressed up in mythic concepts, language and narrative, (just as much as Adam and Eve is theological reflection dressed up in mythic concepts, language and narrative).
I put the virgin birth in the same category.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I know you do Ruth ... but where do you draw the line? Another thread perhaps on myth, facticity and truth? However, that would go I suppose in:- "Why do we believe anything at all?"
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
The concept of the "virgin birth" may simply reflect the culture of the 1st & 2nd century AD which was placing increased emphasis of the value of an ascetic, celibate life. (Not just the orthodox Christians but the neo-platonists, the Epicureans, the gnostics - everyone).
One Gnostic text (written around 150AD) does claim/admit that the virgin birth is basically a myth - something that mainstream orthodox opinion obviously rejected (as did much other Gnostic writing). However, one cannot help but wonder if (on this issue at any rate) the author of the gospel of Philip was a lone honest voice.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The ontology, therefore, is sacrificed to the phenomena. I suppose the only way of resolving this is to ask a negative question.
What would it be about an android that would not make it share in human nature?
Fr Gregory,
If an android behaves as human, why would one not treat it as human ?
And if in the course of getting to know it better, one found that although some of its habits and speech patterns strongly suggested its human-ness, other thought patterns and behaviours were more reminiscent of dealing with computer software, could one not say that it shared some but not all of human nature ?
Or that, as the android industry developed, that its products were becoming more human over time ?
I guess I'm querying why one should start with some sort of definition of human (or divine or android or chocolate) nature and then try to build on that. Rather than starting from the observed phenomena and responding appropriately to them.
What's wrong with a philosophy that treats the "nature" of something as the sum total of phenomena (not all of which will have been observed) ?
I'm not sure where this fits into anything else, and I'm out of my philosophical depth. But it strikes me that you took my tentative suggestion
(that, not knowing or understanding exactly what Jesus was/is, a good mental model might be "like the saints but more so", indicating a direction or bearing into mystery from a point within our experience) and turned it into a flat definition "just like us only a better human" which you then proceeded (quite understandably) to be dissatisfied with.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Fr. G said this on RooK's Satan thread:
quote:
The fall of Lucifer is theological reflection dressed up in mythic concepts, language and narrative, (just as much as Adam and Eve is theological reflection dressed up in mythic concepts, language and narrative).
I put the virgin birth in the same category.
I see Genesis 1-11 as being a polemical myth written to oppose the myths of the time, probably Babylonian.
'Too many cooks spoil the broth' says one.
'Many hands make light work' retorts the other.
'There's lots of gods and goddesses and the sun and moon and stars are among them.' says Babylon.
'There's only one God who made everything, the sun and moon are mere light sources' says Genesis.
What's different about the NT? Well, I think this is relevant:
2 Peter 1:16 (NRSV)
'For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of His majesty.'
Now, when you couple this verse, which is about the Transfiguration, with the Pastoral Epistles, where myths are written against, it seems to me, that it would be quite hypocritical, for these writers to be deploring myths, yet accepting a mythological Virgin Birth.
So, it seems reasonable to me, to accept the Virgin Birth as true.
What I do have a problem with, is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, based on the Scripture which states she had no relations with Joseph while she was pregnant. I know there's an OT Scripture for it, but I find it hard to accept that 'the gate' is Mary's reproductive organs.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Russ
I don't think that anything we make from anything other than our own DNA will ever be human = share human nature. So, yes, I do appear to suggest that human nature is coded into the DNA ... how else would it get there? The best an android could be is a good behaviour mimic.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
The following is a reproachably overdue reply to Glenn's last post on my arguments for the necessity of the VB. Many apologies, Glenn - I've been on shore-leave since my last post and this is my first chance to respond decently to your commendably analytical post. It seems as if the the thread has died in the interim - I do hope that wasn't anything to do with my recent silence (fat chance!). Thank you for the compliment of a careful and extended response to my opinions.
Just to clarify my views, then ...
Firstly, with reference to what you label stage (c) in my argument: "a cell which has all the necessary components to become a human being [and is in the womb] is a person". This is actually more than I want or need to say here (as you yourself alluded to, the issues in the personhood debate are rather complex - I don't wat to get caught up in that any more than I can avoid). All I want to say is that if a full complement of genetic "stuff" is already in place in the form of an entirely humanly-fertilised cell (let's say Mary and Joseph's), then, barring obstacles, you've got all you need for a person right there. There is no need for any other "stuff" to happen for this cell to become a person.
I think this brings us on to the next point. You say "The ... problem we face is that [you] simply assume that a non-virginal conception avoids adoptionism. [You] do not say why." Well, I do want to say that it is both the origin and the composition of the cell that counts here (even if it seemed to you that I based my argument only on composition), because if the origin of the cell is M and J's gametes meeting, then whatever follows to "make the cell God" too, either is an add-on to what is already there (the person that would have resulted plus the "God" bit), or the replacement of some stuff that's already there with the stuff that makes the resulting person God, which we both agree would be the obliteration of the person-that-would-otherwise-have-been, and therefore a non-starter.
Now I'm just not going to pretend that I know how what happened happened biologically (that's part of the mystery), or even make a half-arsed attempt to speculate - that would be nuts, yes? But surely if Christ is really God as well as really human He must have a full complement of genes and retain full Divinity but still be just one person, not the man + God, or not really both only really one and apparently the other (name your favourite Christological heresy to fill in this gap). The state of affairs in which God adds divinity to the M-&-? cell is one which would give you more than one whole person (we don't want that, I take it); the state of affairs in which God just "chooses" the M-&-? cell to be His son is just adoptionism (how is the cell really going to be a person who is actually God unless the Holy Spirit was involved in the creation of the cell? [OK, maybe that's begging the question a bit ...]); and the state of affairs in which God "overwhelms" the entity is the obliteration of its nature, not its transformation (if this needs to happen, why have the cell as it was with a full complement of genes in the first place?).
How does a virginal conception avoid adoptionism in my view? Well, not all virginal conceptions necessarily would. But one in which God provides the necessary complement to Mary's genetic contribution at the conception without any extra human agent at least gives us a resultant person which is God's and Mary's uniquely. It is the person that results from this union that seems to be the only unqulifiedly plausible candidate for being God, just as the only plausible candidate for being my son would be someone with both his mother's and my genes. How is the resulting person divine as well as human? Well, that is precisely another part of the Mystery of the incarnation (God not having genes, and divinity presumably not being genetic, and all). It's really a process of eliminating the alternatives - any non-virginal account we have seen so far either makes the (human) father's role superfluous, or seems to involve adding to or adopting an already existing (potential, if you like) person.
Now I'm sure that this is going to be a far from adequate response to your carefully considered breakdown of what you understandably took for my argument, but I feel I should get this off straight away before
(a) one of us dies
(b) everyone loses any interest they ever had ("Too late" was the cry ... )
(c) I waste away for lack of gin/food/shore-life!
Thanks again, Glenn - this is what purgatory if really for!
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I feel I should get this off straight away before
...
(c) I waste away for lack of gin/food/shore-life!
In the "Land o' Cakes" (and "pehs")! That seems unlikely CB (Omit 'pehs' if that is not pies).
Many thanks for the reply. I will print it off and read mark and inwardly digest it and attempt a response.
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc,
Thanks again for your reply, and apologies for this response being delayed.
Since this thread has gone off the boil it may help if I remind any others reading it that the strand of this thread that we have been discussing is something like this:
If the orthodox view of the incarnation is true, is there anything about the incarnation that requires Jesus not to have had a human father’s sperm involved in his conception.
My contention is that we cannot demonstrate this to be the case. You have bravely been trying to see how far one can get with trying to show that is an implied reqirement of the incarnation.
We seem to both agree that Jesus would have had “a full complement of genes.” This seems a reasonable implication of the orthodox view of the incarnation, which holds that he was fully human.
I am not sure if I am just going to end up saying the same again but here goes:
It seems to me that there are two parts to your argument.
Part (1) Firstly, your argument against the incarnation involving a human sperm fertilizing a human egg.
quote:
I do want to say that it is both the origin and the composition of the cell that counts here (even if it seemed to you that I based my argument only on composition), because if the origin of the cell is M and J's gametes meeting, then whatever follows to "make the cell God" too, either is an add-on to what is already there (the person that would have resulted plus the "God" bit), or the replacement of some stuff that's already there with the stuff that makes the resulting person God, which we both agree would be the obliteration of the person-that-would-otherwise-have-been, and therefore a non-starter.
…
the state of affairs in which God just "chooses" the M-&-? cell to be His son is just adoptionism (how is the cell really going to be a person who is actually God unless the Holy Spirit was involved in the creation of the cell? [OK, maybe that's begging the question a bit ...]);
Part (2) Secondly, your argument that the virginal conception avoids adoptionism.
quote:
How does a virginal conception avoid adoptionism in my view? Well, not all virginal conceptions necessarily would. But one in which God provides the necessary complement to Mary's genetic contribution at the conception without any extra human agent at least gives us a resultant person which is God's and Mary's uniquely. It is the person that results from this union that seems to be the only unqualifiedly plausible candidate for being God, just as the only plausible candidate for being my son would be someone with both his mother's and my genes. How is the resulting person divine as well as human? Well, that is precisely another part of the Mystery of the incarnation (God not having genes, and divinity presumably not being genetic, and all). It's really a process of eliminating the alternatives - any non-virginal account we have seen so far either makes the (human) father's role superfluous, or seems to involve adding to or adopting an already existing (potential, if you like) person.
Problems with Part (1) your argument against the incarnation involving a human sperm fertilizing a human egg.
There are two main problems with Part (1) of your argument.
(1) (a) The first, as I pointed out in my earlier post, is that it can only carry weight if a virginal conception can be shown to avoid adoptionism as well. This depends on Part (2) of your argument and I will therefore deal with it there.
(1) (b) You say “how is the cell really going to be a person who is actually God unless the Holy Spirit was involved in the creation of the cell?” and you then acknowledge that ”OK, maybe that's begging the question a bit …”. This is indeed a begged question. If Jesus’ biological existence commenced with the creation of a cell with a full complement of genetic material, then what difference does it make how the Holy Spirit brought that cell into existence? If he chose to create an entire cell from nothing, or used an egg of Mary’s and added the other half of the set of Chromosomes from nothing, or used an egg of Mary’s and a sperm from Joseph or some other method, we would still end up with a cell with a full complement of genetic material. So what difference does it make?
Your argument hinges on the view that it does make a difference, and that it makes a difference to which person it is that that cell is (or will become). Here we run right up against the problem of what is it about a cell that makes it one [potential] person and not another. Why would a cell brought into existence by the Holy Spirit from an egg of Mary’s and a sperm from Joseph not be Jesus. Because something would have to be added to make it God? But why would it have to be added? (Here, of course, we are in the realms of the philosophy of the self and of persons and I am out of my depth!)
Problems with Part (2) your argument that the virginal conception avoids adoptionism.
The bit of your argument that is problematic to me is this:
quote:
… a virginal conception … in which God provides the necessary complement to Mary's genetic contribution at the conception without any extra human agent at least gives us a resultant person which is God's and Mary's uniquely. It is the person that results from this union that seems to be the only unqualifiedly plausible candidate for being God … How is the resulting person divine as well as human? Well, that is precisely another part of the Mystery of the incarnation (God not having genes, and divinity presumably not being genetic, …
I have two problems with this argument:
(1) (a) Firstly, it is precisely the fact that, “God not having genes, and divinity presumably not being genetic,” that leaves it entirely obscure why God needs the cell that begins Jesus’s biological existence to have specially created genes rather than those a human father would provide.
(1) (a) The creation by the Holy Spirit of a cell with a full complement of genetic material without the use of a human sperm is still the creation of a human cell and the question of why this cell should be a divine person rather than a merely human person still remains unanswered and so still potentially a case of adoptionism.
Conclusion
Your argument has initial plausibility but fails to demonstrate that, if the orthodox view of the incarnation is true, there is something about the incarnation that requires Jesus not to have had a human father’s sperm involved in his conception.
This is not surprising given the mystery involved in the incarnation, and the difficulties involved in the concept of what constitutes a person, let alone what is involved in the idea of a human person and the second person of the trinity being one and the same.
More on the implications of this shortly. (I hope).
Glenn
--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
The concept of the "virgin birth" may simply reflect the culture of the 1st & 2nd century AD which was placing increased emphasis of the value of an ascetic, celibate life.
Not likely. In Matthew 1:25, it says that Joseph didn't sleep with his wife until she had borne Jesus. The implication is that after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary slept together like any ordinary married couple of the time. Considering that the Gospels report that Jesus had brothers (or half-brothers, if you want to be precise), a straightforward reading of the Gospels would indicate that Mary did not remain a virgin. That hardly would constitute emphasis on "an ascetic, celibate life."
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
divinity presumably not being genetic
Chesterbelloc,
Are you sure you don't believe that ? You seem to be arguing that:
- divinity was part of Jesus' identity from the beginning
- identity is determined by DNA at the moment of conception
and being reluctantly forced by the logic of these premises into the conclusion that Jesus must have had "godly" genetic material that came from some source other than a human father. Without ever wishing to take such a materialistic view of what divinity is.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
In Matthew 1:25, it says that Joseph didn't sleep with his wife until she had borne Jesus. The implication is that after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary slept together like any ordinary married couple of the time.
So when Jesus says "Lo I am with you always, until the end of the age" the implication is that after the current age ends, he'll leave us on our own?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Black Dog
Shipmate
# 2344
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I hope everything is okay with Eb'lis, but I notice he hasn't been able to return to his thread for nearly four and a half pages. I've found the Orthodox contribution to this thread instructive and fascinating, and I know a number of Anglicans of different stripe have contributed here; but I'm still rather hoping to find out
a) why Eb'lis, as an RC is concerned specifically for the CofE clergy mentioned in the OP's survey -the ecumenical interest of a fellow Christian is a good enough reason, so it would be good to know that and
b) if any useful comparisons or contrasts can be drawn with RC clergy, in much the same way as we've had useful contributions from the Orthodox folk.
Mind you, if it clashes with the OP, perhaps it wouldn't be that useful - maybe I'm just being nosey!
Sorry i've been away and i didn't plan to be so its taken some time for me to catch up on whats been said etc.
However I was interested because in answering a) The church of England seems to be losing the plot somewhat, to me there is a stark difference between modernisation (which the R.C Church certainly requires) and forgetting what your faith was built upon in the first place.
In regards to B) I have no idea what the R.C clergy feel re this issue though i would guess it may be a v. similar stance to the Orthodox view? The rekationship between Orthodoxy and R.C is certainly there, as I was once told that if as a R.C you can't get to church for some reason but you can get to an Orthodox Church that will do under the circumstances. Over To Fr Greg....
--------------------
The difference between love and comfort is that comfort is more reliable and true. Brutal and mocking but always there it is a crutch for enmity's saddest glare.
Posts: 453 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Eb'lis
The Roman Catholic, Orthodox and conservative Protestant positions on the virgin birth are, as far as I can see, identical. The wider issues concerning original sin, the perpetual virginiy of the Mother of God etc. are more divergent. The only difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism would be in the implications of original sin for the Immaculate Conception, (which we don't believe in). However, we have moved away from the Virgin Birth by a long way when we come to that aspect.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Hello, Eb'lis.
Thank you for you response. So, no surveys taken of RC clergy beliefs then? And based on the assumption that all RC clergy belief reflects whatever the Church dogmatic tradition and teaching is? That's fair enough.
As I suggested in an earlier post, this doesn't reflect my many conversations with many RC ordinands and clergy friends; but from what I understand they are rarely subject to the same force of scrutiny for what they personally believe, as opposed to what the Church publicly affirms, that CofE clergy regularly fall under.
The lack of survey material based on RC clergy, similar to the one in your OP would seem to back that up. That's really all I wanted to know.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Anselmina
Why is a conclusion made that Catholic clergy opinions as a whole must be at variance with formal Church teaching based on a statistically non-significant collection of anecdotal accounts AND that their personal beliefs are a matter of indifference provided that they "get on with the job." That seems rather cynical to me.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Black Dog
Shipmate
# 2344
|
Posted
Sadly my whole basis for the question is based on a survey within the church of england and reported on bbc teletext!
I doubt that the catholic church woud even entertain such a survey...
--------------------
The difference between love and comfort is that comfort is more reliable and true. Brutal and mocking but always there it is a crutch for enmity's saddest glare.
Posts: 453 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory
I am rather cynical! But my cynicism has nothing to do with my qestion.
My question was to find out if it was possible to compare like with like as in: a survey of CofE clergy belief states that 'da-de-da'; a similar survey of RC clergy belief states that 'da-de-da'. Simple as that.
In the context of Eb'lis's comments about Catholic clergy's attitudes being the same as that of Orthodox clergy's to Church teaching, in terms presumably of acceptance and obedience, I stated that this didn't mainly reflect my own experience of RC ordinands and clergy. I made no statement concluding that Catholic clergy opinion as a whole must be at variance with Church teaching.
This is another reason why it would have been interesting just to know how another church's clergy view the dogmatic teaching and authority of their Church, compared to the CofE folk. I'm the first to say that just because I have personal anecodtal experience of RC clergy who do not personally agree with certain tenets of their church teaching, doesn't mean that they are typical. My clumsy question was: is there any information which helps us to understand what the typical RC cleric's view is, bearing in mind the apparent contradictory evidence I personally have to date? That's all.
I'll admit it could have read ambiguously. I guess the lack of such information means that strictly speaking I can't make either assumption about my anecdotal experience; that it is or isn't typical.
I'd also like to come to the conclusion that, well, we're all rather cynical about such surveys and gathered information anyway, and tend to take these things with a large dose of salt. So it wouldn't matter that we didn't have statistics on clerical belief. But then, if that were so, this thread wouldn't exist. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Anselmina
I take your point. I have been known to use anecdotal evidence as well and then be challenged to present survey material. On the other hand we are dealing with matters that can't easily be assessed and personal impressions and accounts ARE important. I SUSPECT that there will always be clergy who are in significant variance with their church's teaching and practice. I think that the more significant difference between churches lies in the self understanding and doctrinal standards expected between the churches. On that there does seem to be "clear blue water" between the Catholic / Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Church. I am not saying that "anything goes" in Anglicanism but it is much looser. Even Richard Dawkins says so, (with approval of course), so it must be so!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
In Matthew 1:25, it says that Joseph didn't sleep with his wife until she had borne Jesus. The implication is that after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary slept together like any ordinary married couple of the time.
So when Jesus says "Lo I am with you always, until the end of the age" the implication is that after the current age ends, he'll leave us on our own?
Um, no. There's a difference between saying "X didn't happen until Y" and "X will happen until Y." The implication of the former is that X does happen, but only after Y, while with the latter, X may or may not continue after Y.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Anselmina and Fr. Gregory
Do you consider that the fidelity to the required doctrinal standards might mean that even if a Catholic or Orthodox priest had private doubts about an important aspect of Christian doctrine, he'd be less likely to say so. Fr. Grgory, while I don't for an instant doubt your total commitment to your doctrine, you have told us in the past that an Orthodox priest isn't permitted to say anything against church doctrine.
This thread has become so long that I hope I'm not referring to something which has already beeen said, but there is a huge variance among Anglicans depending which position they occupy in the church. The survey in the OP was conducted for the Church Union, an anglocatholic group and published in New Directions, the FIF journal, which I subscribe to. Obviously the compilers are against women in the priesthood, but interestingly only 33% of women clergy feel confident about the virgin birth. Evangelical groups like the Church Society and Reform, and anglocatholic groups like FIF and the Church Union had more than 90% affirmation, wheras in liberal groups like Affirming Catholicism it was much lower.
So it depends where one is in the C of E how high the standard of doctrinal purity will be.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Um, no. There's a difference between saying "X didn't happen until Y" and "X will happen until Y." The implication of the former is that X does happen, but only after Y, while with the latter, X may or may not continue after Y.
In 2 Samuel 6:23 we read that "Therefore Michal
the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death".
Err...
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Paul
I can't speak for the Roman Catholic Church but if an Orthodox priest felt constrained not to believe in such a fundamental doctrine as this, as likely as not he would vote out of Orthodoxy never mind merely resign his priesthood. Our self understanding and freely assented to norms are very, very different from those that apply in the "west."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Um, no. There's a difference between saying "X didn't happen until Y" and "X will happen until Y." The implication of the former is that X does happen, but only after Y, while with the latter, X may or may not continue after Y.
In 2 Samuel 6:23 we read that "Therefore Michal
the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death".
Err...
Ok, let me restate. "X didn't happen until Y" usually implies that X happened after Y. It's not an absolute requirement that X ends up happening, but the usual implication is that X does.
In Samuel 6:23, X is Michal having a child and Y is when she died. In this particular case, X can't after Y, for obvious reasons, which nullifies the typical implication that X would happen after Y. Hence, for this special case, the natural reading is that X didn't happen.
Now with Matthew 1:25, X is Joseph having sex with Mary and Y is when she gave birth to Jesus. Now in this case, X most certainly can happen after Y, so the reader can infer that X probably did happen after Y. References to Jesus' brothers would probably confirm to the attentive reader that what probably happened did: Joseph knew Mary and begat quite a few sons.
The text allows for the reader to infer that Mary didn't have sex after Jesus' birth and remained a virgin, and that Jesus' brothers are really cousins, but that reading is highly counterintuitive and inconsistent with the customs of the Jews, who did not typically value celibacy.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
In Matthew 1:25, it says that Joseph didn't sleep with his wife until she had borne Jesus. The implication is that after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary slept together like any ordinary married couple of the time
This is surely right, unless there is some unusual idiom or turn of phrase involved here. If Dick said "I did not sleep with Dora until she and I got married." the implied contrast is with sleeping with her before they did. It is unlikely to mean that he never did sleep with her!
Similarly the implied contrast in Matt 1:25 is that Joseph did not sleep with Mary before she bore Jesus, but he did afterwards.
G.
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
Anselmina and Fr. Gregory
Do you consider that the fidelity to the required doctrinal standards might mean that even if a Catholic or Orthodox priest had private doubts about an important aspect of Christian doctrine, he'd be less likely to say so.
Oh dear, PaulTh. I couldn't say! My anecdotal evidence - which Fr. Gregory quite rightly implies is limited in its usefulness (and in relation to this thread utterly marginal) - was that for some soon-to-be Catholic priests of my acquaintance their position on certain doctrines was, while in the lecture room, what they understood the Church wanted it to be, was, whilst in private something a little more coloured by personal interpretation.
As a lowly Anglican I have no idea how typical this is, or even how serious it is ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) . Perhaps other Catholics here could speak up for how likely or unlikely it is to hear their clergy disagree with official Church positions on doctrine?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
