Which Early Christian Heresy are You (good silly fun quiz)

[Thomas]

... but some of them were eyed with suspicion by the respective doctrinal institutions.
Didn't Eckhart get accused of heresy and summoned to appear before the inquisition?

Yep. Politics.

Eckhart was called before the Inquisition by Henry of Virneburg, the Archbishop of Cologne. It's not clear why. The Archbishop was very conservative and may have found some of Elkhart’s ideas troublesome. Further, he was a Franciscan, and at the time political infighting between the Franciscans and the Dominicans was at its height.

It's now generally held that he used language which is open to misinterpretation, but his foundations are orthodox and there is no question of heresy. The charges made against him can be argued and there's little doubt Eckhart would have won his case if he had lived long enough.

But such is often the case. Origen suffered the same. St John of the Cross suffered dreadfully under his abbot. In fact, in the Fathers of the Church, there is only one (St Gregory Nazienzen) who has never been questioned regarding his orthodoxy. Teilhard de Chardin is another example who has been condemned for certain ideas, but lauded for others ...

The New Age et al delighted in declaring Eckhart a 'Zen Christian' and insisted he was thinking 'outside the box' of Roman orthodoxy. Not true, really, they're just trying to create an artificial gap between him and the Church because they can't bring themselves to accept his orthodoxy.

 

[Thomas]

What is the deepest depth? The centre of the earth. What is the highest high? No limit.

I was thinking in spiritual terms.

 

[RJM]

I was thinking in spiritual terms.

That's it. Nature imperfectly reflects spirit; darkness is not the opposite but the lack of light. In that sense the devil is gravity that drags downward to death. Death is final. Evil is what leads to death. But the zebra must die to give life to the lion. That sort of stuff, lol ...

 

[RJM]

... What I was aluding to is that the bread has to be made 'just so'. For mass, for the church, I agree. But there is also the aspect that anything will serve, as long as it fits the idea: "Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, wh earth has given and human hands have made".

But I am also of the opinion of St Augustine. Christ is the Eucharist ... and so are we.

Yes. There is a list of rules about how the host (and the wine) should be made. A priest told me that nowadays it is made with a specially hardened edge so it doesn't easily make crumbs.

In the old days if a consecrated host was dropped, it was a really serious business. Everything is regulated. The altar cloth must nearly but not quite reach the ground, etc.

 

[Thomas]

Nature imperfectly reflects spirit; darkness is not the opposite but the lack of light. In that sense the devil is gravity that drags downward to death. Death is final. Evil is what leads to death. But the zebra must die to give life to the lion. That sort of stuff, lol ...

OK, but I'm following the idea of darkness of the Christian apophatic mystical tradition:

Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness; Guide of Christians to Divine Wisdom; direct our path to the ultimate summit of your mystical knowledge, most incomprehensible, most luminous and most exalted, where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness, and surcharging our blinded intellects with the utterly impalpable and invisible fairness of glories surpassing all beauty.
For by the unceasing and absolute renunciation of yourself and of all things you may be borne on high, through pure and entire self-abnegation, into the superessential Radiance of the Divine Darkness. (The Mystical Theology, Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite)

Eckhart, in Sermon 69 on the Kingdom within:

No one should think it is hard to come to this, even though it sounds hard and a great matter. It is true that it is a little difficult in the beginning in becoming detached. But when one has got into it, no life is easier, more delightful or lovelier: and God is at great pains to be always with a man and to lead him inwards, if only he is ready to follow. No man ever wanted anything so much as God wants to bring a man to knowledge of Himself. God is always ready, but we are unready. God is near to us, but we are far from Him. God is in, we are out. God is at home (in us), we are abroad. The prophet says: "God leads the just through narrow paths to the highway, that they may come out into the open"

This is all in the apophatic way, the via negativa, which is no better than the cataphatic via positiva, but the one must walk hand-in-hand with the other to avoid excesses of either.

 

[Thomas]

Yes. There is a list of rules about how the host (and the wine) should be made. A priest told me that nowadays it is made with a specially hardened edge so it doesn't easily make crumbs.

Quite.

Around the time of the first millennium, the idea was that Christ was present at the altar, but slowly the idea changed to Christ present on the altar. More and more the emphasis became on the Sacrifice (whereas the Orthodox emphasise the Resurrection). One commentator observed that homilies of the day would have you believe the altar cloth was dripping with blood. It all became rather visceral. The early medieval imagination can be quite frightening!

In the old days if a consecrated host was dropped, it was a really serious business. Everything is regulated. The altar cloth must nearly but not quite reach the ground, etc.

Yep. I've seen the host dropped, and eaten by the officiating priest, which is the right thing to do.

If you're as old as me, you'll remember the Rite of Consecration, in which from that moment on, the priest would keep the forefinger and thumb touching, because they had touched the host. It's the kind of symbolism I like.

I don't mind regulation, it's when the essence of the thing is lost I get concerned.

People regard tradition like ossified bones. I see it as a clear spring ...

... Look at the way our MPs conduct themselves in Parliament. There you can see everything wrong with 'tradition'. Conduct like that would get you excluded at school! And ... surprise, surprise ... a report discovered that institutionalised sexism is ingrained into the conduct of the place, which no doubt the members regard as nothing more than Benny Hill-style good fun. It's dreadful. A national embarrassment. But if you challenge the barracking, the comments, the pinched bums and what have you ... if you suggest that banging the desk when the PM enters a committee meeting is rather childish and purile, you'll get told 'it's tradition!'

 

[RJM]

Again, my concept of sacrifice is giving something valuable to God alone. It's the first commandment. So one took a prize animal and slaughtered it and then burned it to ash.

It wasn't to be eaten or given to the poor. It was given to God alone. It is what Mary Magdalene did when she anointed the feet of Christ with expensive ointment, that could have been sold for the poor.

It's what the humanists don't get. Of course love your neighbour. But first love God. Everything else comes from this.

This ritual of sacrifice began to be associated with blood on the altar. As if it was the blood that mattered.

Christ ended blood sacrifice. Imo.

 

[RJM]

Quite.

Around the time of the first millennium, the idea was that Christ was present at the altar, but slowly the idea changed to Christ present on the altar. More and more the emphasis became on the Sacrifice (whereas the Orthodox emphasise the Resurrection). One commentator observed that homilies of the day would have you believe the altar cloth was dripping with blood. It all became rather visceral. The early medieval imagination can be quite frightening!


Yep. I've seen the host dropped, and eaten by the officiating priest, which is the right thing to do.

If you're as old as me, you'll remember the Rite of Consecration, in which from that moment on, the priest would keep the forefinger and thumb touching, because they had touched the host. It's the kind of symbolism I like.

I don't mind regulation, it's when the essence of the thing is lost I get concerned.

People regard tradition like ossified bones. I see it as a clear spring ...

... Look at the way our MPs conduct themselves in Parliament. There you can see everything wrong with 'tradition'. Conduct like that would get you excluded at school! And ... surprise, surprise ... a report discovered that institutionalised sexism is ingrained into the conduct of the place, which no doubt the members regard as nothing more than Benny Hill-style good fun. It's dreadful. A national embarrassment. But if you challenge the barracking, the comments, the pinched bums and what have you ... if you suggest that banging the desk when the PM enters a committee meeting is rather childish and purile, you'll get told 'it's tradition!'

I saw the host dropped at Benediction a short while ago. The Abbot just told the old monk who dropped it to put it into the monstrance and the ceremony went on.

I like the rituals of Catholicism too. It retains the majesty and mystery. People think Catholics mindlessly believe what they're told to. But we all know it's the shell of the nut. Imo

 

[Thomas]

It's what the humanists don't get. Of course love your neighbour. But first love God. Everything else comes from this.

Exactly. What the humanists don't get even more, is 1: Love God, 2: Love neighbour, 3: After 1 & 2, then love yourself.

The notion that one has to love oneself before one can love anyone/anything else is a testimony of the egoism of this age.

Christ ended blood sacrifice. Imo.

Yup.

 

[RJM]

@Thomas: Oh, I see.

... "God leads the just through narrow paths to the highway, that they may come out into the open"...

Like sand through an hourglass. But rising. Contraction in order to expand again on the other side. But always greater than was lost. The horus and the nexus. The narrow door.

I like how the essential symbols recur in all faiths and esoteric systems. Things that cannot be properly explained in words.

 

[Cino]

@Thomas: Oh, I see.

... "God leads the just through narrow paths to the highway, that they may come out into the open"...

Like sand through an hourglass. But rising. Contraction in order to expand again on the other side. But always greater than was lost. The horus and the nexus. The narrow door.

I like how the essential symbols recur in all faiths and esoteric systems. Things that cannot be properly explained in words.

This particular mystery recurs even outside religion and esoterica. It is birth & growing up.

 

[Cino]

Exactly. What the humanists don't get even more, is 1: Love God, 2: Love neighbour, 3: After 1 & 2, then love yourself.

The notion that one has to love oneself before one can love anyone/anything else is a testimony of the egoism of this age.


Yup.

I feel that this notion of loving oneself is severely distorted and misapplied, like all so many deep truths.

I don't understand it as a call to narcissism.

In Christian terms, it is how God loved the world first. We need to be able to recognize love and be loved, in order to love and give love. It would be a fair bit of hubris to assume we can create love ourselves, out of nothing.

In secular terms, this is reflected for example in the study of child development. Neglected or abused children have a hard time developing a healthy self image and to love themselves, or others for that matter, often not even their children, perpetuating this over generations. Children growing up loved and with secure bonds are able to give love.

 

[RJM]

Although there are abused children, most parents love their children and give them the best they can. This is true for all time and all places, and even for all species. Even a mother hen loves and fiercly protects her chicks.

(I've watched a mother fish in a fish tank carefully herding her brood of little ones, each smaller than a pinhead.)

Parental neglect and abuse are mostly a result of breakdown of family structures, drug addiction etc, and yes, the lack of spiritual direction and values. Imo

(post edited)

 

[RJM]

This particular mystery recurs even outside religion and esoterica. It is birth & growing up.

Getting the most important soul stuff in times of material restriction and sorrow and difficulty.

EDIT: Learning to safely let go of material weight that burdens the spirit, and to let God take over completely. But sometimes I think a person has to lose a lot to reach that point. The stripping away may be painful.

 

[Thomas]

I feel that this notion of loving oneself is severely distorted and misapplied, like all so many deep truths.

Yep. I don't think one can love oneself, other than in a narcissistic way?

Self-love is putting oneself first and before others. Love is putting the other before self.

I don't understand it as a call to narcissism.

It is in the sense of those who tell us we cannot love others unless we love ourselves first. That's simply not true.

This discreetly translates to putting oneself foremost, or in the centre, and regarding everything else as relative to that. It's an appeal to consumer culture.

In Christian terms, it is how God loved the world first.

Not sure I get you?

I get that God loves the world: "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3), "Because Israel was a child, and I loved him: and I called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1) "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son" (John 3:16). I don't see where God loves Himself before the world.

We need to be able to recognize love and be loved, in order to love and give love. It would be a fair bit of hubris to assume we can create love ourselves, out of nothing.

I'd say love goes way deep into our humanity, we don't have to learn it, it's part of the wiring. I'd say its not even limited to our humanity, it's wired into nature.

In secular terms, this is reflected for example in the study of child development. Neglected or abused children have a hard time developing a healthy self image and to love themselves, or others for that matter, often not even their children, perpetuating this over generations. Children growing up loved and with secure bonds are able to give love.

OK ... but those same kids can overcome their hardships, and grow up loved and secure and become monsters?

I'd draw a distinction between secular love and spiritual love.

 

[Arif Ghamiq]

Rumi goes on about wine, idols, and how he found something superior to belief (and unbelief). Sure, this is highly symbolic, and he claims his poetry can only be properly interpreted within Islam, but plenty of literalist readers have great trouble reconciling some of his poems with the teachings of Islam.

This is very true - if the writings of Rumi aren't properly interpreted by Islamic Symbolism and the Mystical Traditions within Islam, the literal minded Muslim will see pure Shirk (Polytheism, Idolatry), which is the greatest sin in Islam, and will see nothing more.

The reference you made to "something superior to belief (and unbelief)" is a reference to Ma'rifah "Knowing" - a kind of Islamic Gnosticism ['Irfani]. The 'Arif ("Knower"- Muslim Gnostic), who is beyond Islam and Kufr (Unbelief) is referred to in this Rumi quote:

"Beyond Islam and Unbelief there is a "desert plain". For us, there is a "passion" in the midst of that expanse. The Knower [of Allah] who reaches it will prostrate, (For) there is neither Islam nor Unbelief, nor any "where" (in) that place."

And Allah knows best...

 

[Ahanu]

This is very true - if the writings of Rumi aren't properly interpreted by Islamic Symbolism and the Mystical Traditions within Islam, the literal minded Muslim will see pure Shirk (Polytheism, Idolatry), which is the greatest sin in Islam, and will see nothing more.

The reference you made to "something superior to belief (and unbelief)" is a reference to Ma'rifah "Knowing" - a kind of Islamic Gnosticism ['Irfani]. The 'Arif ("Knower"- Muslim Gnostic), who is beyond Islam and Kufr (Unbelief) is referred to in this Rumi quote:

"Beyond Islam and Unbelief there is a "desert plain". For us, there is a "passion" in the midst of that expanse. The Knower [of Allah] who reaches it will prostrate, (For) there is neither Islam nor Unbelief, nor any "where" (in) that place."

And Allah knows best...

May have to start another thread on this topic in the forum for Islam . . .

 

[Cino]

May have to start another thread on this topic in the forum for Islam . . .

I would certainly be interested!

 

[Cino]

Yep. I don't think one can love oneself, other than in a narcissistic way?

Self-love is putting oneself first and before others. Love is putting the other before self.

That sounds like love is some kind of jockeying for position in order to get the VIP treatment - or meekly letting someone else get in before oneself.

I'm not a big fan of St. Paul, but the passage about love in 1 Corinthians 13 is a lot more to the point of what I mean. Take patience and kindness. Love towards oneself does not mean seeking or hogging another person's kindness or exploiting their patience, but recognizing kindness and patience because one has been treated kindly and patiently, one is allowing kindness and patience to be shown to oneself. Self-Love is not the opposite of Love for Another, but the opposite of Self-hate.

If God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son... then who are we to decide who should be loved, or to withhold love from anyone in the world. And that includes ourselves.

It is in the sense of those who tell us we cannot love others unless we love ourselves first. That's simply not true.

This discreetly translates to putting oneself foremost, or in the centre, and regarding everything else as relative to that. It's an appeal to consumer culture.

I'd call that self-indulgence, not love for oneself. And I agree that it is not good.

I'd draw a distinction between secular love and spiritual love.

Now I am not sure I get what you mean? "I love candy" vs "I love you" vs "I love God"? The middle one can have a lot of different meanings, if that's where you are coming from.

 

[RJM]

I am the vine.