FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-12-2013, 11:52 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default The Catholic Priests Are Living Representatives of Christ

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:

Quote:
The Church describes this by saying that "the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, nets in persona Christi capitis" (§1548). The catechism then quotes the text of Aquinas (ST III. q. 22, a. 4c): "Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ" (The phrase in persona Christi derives much of its authority from its use in the theological writings of Thomas Aquinas.) The catechism's theological explanation of ordained ministry focuses upon the presence of Christ as head of the Church being made visible in the midst of the community of believers. Ignatius of Antioch is cited to say that "the bishop is the typos tou Patrou: he is like the living image of God the Father" (§1549). [The Theology of Priesthood p. 7]
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:

Quote:
1. the synoptic gospel are earlier than the Catholic interpretation of the priesthood and so primitive Christianity was corrupted in favor of the supernatural Jesus position.

2. the synoptic gospels were corrupted in the second century away from association with the supernatural Jesus camp and the Catholic understanding of the priesthood goes back to something older than the existing narratives.
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:

Quote:
a) the supernatural narratives are ahistorical and added to a lost 'strictly historical' gospel narrative to make up our existing synoptic narratives

b) the supernatural narratives represent vestiges of the original supernatural Jesus gospels left standing with the context of a newly re-engineered historical narrative.
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.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 03:16 AM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

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!
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:14 AM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,602
Default

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.
steve_bnk is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:18 AM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

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 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:36 AM   #5
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_bnk View Post
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.
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.
Chili is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:46 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 8,254
Default

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

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-r...s/why-priests/
Thomas II is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 09:05 AM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas II View Post
Interesting..."Why Priests?:A failed Tradition" by Gary Wills

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

Quote:
Going further, he boldly confronts the idea of Christ’s death as “sacrifice,” theorizing that the incarnation, not the crucifixion, was the truer source of humanity’s atonement.
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?
Chili is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:53 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
How could a historical man have been understood to have had the power to reshape other people into his image, his essence?
I would suggest in roughly the same arrogant way that priests of Osiris (for example) handled ancient Egyptian religion.

Quote:
Only the Pharaoh and the Priests of Osiris were allowed inside the temple and the priests would undergo ritual purification in a deep stone pool before they entered the Inner Sanctum of the Temple. This not only cleansed them but also gave them contact with the primeval moisture of life. Ordinary Egyptians were only allowed to come to the gates, or forecourt, of the temple of Osiris to pay homage and offer gifts to the God / Goddess. The Priests of Osiris would collect the gifts and say prayers on behalf of the person in the confines of the temple. The priests of Osiris, the God of Death, the Dead, the Underworld and Rebirth, would conduct ceremonies, sacrifices and chant magical incantations, sometimes referred to as spells.
http://www.king-tut.org.uk/egyptian-gods/osiris.htm

You must admit it is a great way to separate oneself from the commons.
Minimalist is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 07:49 PM   #9
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist View Post

You must admit it is a great way to separate oneself from the commons.
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.
Chili is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 07:54 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

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).
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:40 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.