stephan huller

I was watching the new HBO documentary Silence in the House of God which detailed sex abuse charges against priests and the idea that kept coming up over and over again in the course of the documentary were that the Pope couldn't move against individual 'bad priests' because they were living representatives of Jesus. This is present in various books as:

I have to admit, when I read these words or see firsthand the way that Catholic traditionally venerate their priesthood I find the anti-mythicist arguments that get bandied around more difficult to accept.

How could a historical man have been understood to have had the power to reshape other people into his image, his essence? And even if we accept a Morton Smith-like understanding of Jesus the Magician it is even more difficult to accept that Ignatius's earlier identification of the heavenly Father as a type of the bishop is similarly rooted. In other words, the idea that Jesus himself was a heavenly power like the Father must have been a deeper and more influential part of earliest Christianity than is actually recognized.

The inevitable question of why the synoptic gospel tradition doesn't reinforce this understanding, necessarily leads to us to one of two conclusions:

While most scholars hold (1) I am not so sure. For there are still plenty of 'supernatural' narratives in the gospel. The idea that Jesus was an ordinary human finds no place here either. To this end:

I find this proposition (a) extremely difficult to accept which leaves us only with Morton Smith's Jesus the Magician. But Jesus the magician can't explain the Catholic veneration of their priests as Jesus. Only a mythical Jesus can.

Clivedurdle

Is not a high Christology all over the synoptics? This is my beloved son, the birth stories in Luke and Matthew, the resurrection, the assumption, the transfiguration, the temptation ....

Are you not describing a protestant tradition of interpreting the synoptics to rationalise them and therefore invent an historical Jesus, by "parking" the supernatural bits? Did a human spend 40 days in the wilderness and go to and fro with Satan?

I wonder sometimes if people have read the synoptics! I suppose it is all the fault of the NEB corrupting me!
The re-enginering has happened since the seventeenth century. The catholic tradition - and earlier orthodox one - do reflect the original ideas of Immanuel - god with us.

The earlier pure xianity idea is also protestant propaganda, because protestants have dumped the authority of tradition in favour of worshipping words.

The Xian Christ is by definition mythological - fully god fully man is a classic chimera with interesting mathematical attributes!

steve_bnk

There is vry little said on details in the NT.

The RCC invented itself and all its rules and theolgy. They claim authority as the popes being in a line going back to Peter.

On moraity the pope is the guy with god's personal cell phone.

Going back in time when the RCC had power and could wield fear of eternal damnation, having a theiological justfication for priests being above civil law would be a very handy thing.

Priests have confessors, they can give each oher absolution.

I'm sure the RCC considerd itself above civil law in the sex abuse cases. Acknowledging civil law trumps theological morality is a very big deal, it threatens to undo the roots of theor theology and derived power as emissaries of god.

Subject to civil judgement over theology means the priests are ordinary schlubs lke the rest of us.

The RCC is about projecting power, simple human politics. Deference to the priests ispgragmatic part of that tration.

The online RCC catechism probably defines the pwers of the priets, Earthly and imagined.

Chili

The problem is that most people are looking eagerly to find the reign of God, wherein the I is the victim of the of the high horse he is riding, while each of the Seven Saraments is home to them and in real life to encounter.

And so, there is nothing wrong with Holy Orders, but that does not make the priest Holy, nor does it make the priesthood a bunch of Holy Men. They are sinners, just like us, and have their own faith journey to live so that they may find themselves as the sum total of these Holy Orders.

But I can understand the reason for their argument wherein to attach esteem to their position is needed to get the loot. Just Old British Law wherein the clothes do make the man and here now they put a rich man's claok on them to get the loot. With 500 million strong, I do suppose.

My son's car was stolen last year by 2 Canadian natives who took it for a joy-ride in rough terrain to get a more exciting ride. It was found 2 days later.

In the end the RCMP refused to press charges because they had no money to pay him, and they do not want them in their jails where they receive special treatment as natives and so is like a reward to them. His insurance paid the $9000 and the case was closed.

Chili

They humbly claim Apostolic Tradition to John 6.56 and protestants proudly proclaim apostolic tradition to John 6:66, as Christian that we call anti-christ because they denied the Christ already then.

No cell phone needed if he is home in Rome.

Eternal damnation is a protestant thing since it is not possible for Catholics to go to hell as Catholic, who are either hot or cold in their own right and left the lukewarm realm for protestants to bite their dust. Now that they are blinded by their radiance is not their problem, nor should it be, and if they want to purify their droppings and try to put a shine on it that should not be their concern either.

And they would tell you to speak for yourself and not from the speaker to yourself.

Oh, is there a RCC Cathechism online? Hmmm, I never knew. They must have put it there for you.

Thomas II

Interesting... "Why Priests?:A failed Tradition" by Gary Wills (or via: amazon.co.uk)

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-r...s/why-priests/

Chili

Transubstantiation is not a miracle but a simple fact wherein the mind must be transformed to see the 'equal' as in 'trees walking like men' instead 'men that look like trees' because of snot.

He hasn't got clue to even suggest that Christ was crucified because Jesus was. And humanity must be crucified so that at-one-ment can be in I Am' 'that' I Am, with no -ity about it of any kind.

So your lucid writer is an insult to ever this DB, and there goes Pulitzer and all. Can't they read?

Minimalist

I would suggest in roughly the same arrogant way that priests of Osiris (for example) handled ancient Egyptian religion.

http://www.king-tut.org.uk/egyptian-gods/osiris.htm

You must admit it is a great way to separate oneself from the commons.

Chili

Indeed it is wherein the light of Christ gives without receiving. That is the nature of Agape that has no opposite in 'love and hate' as eros and philia have, and therefore is not capable to receive, but radiates in all directions.

Unlike the light of common day it does not know darkness either, to make the light of common day the illusion that sophists manipulate as look-alikes, and kind of display their goods for Sunday shoppers to evaluate.

stephan huller

More interesting for me is the fact that many of the arguments between 'orthodox' and 'heresy' seem to be related to this topic. In On the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian denies the heresies claim that Jesus had special flesh (i.e. that it was of a different 'more perfect' nature). The implication seems to have been that the heretics themselves thought they had more perfect flesh too. The idea ultimately goes back to the Samaritan understanding of Moses who was said to have luminous flesh (hence the veil).