Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FW: Newsletter www.chiesa

Expand Messages
  • chip sills
    Colleagues-- Relevant to discussion of gnosticism. Here the emphasis is clearly laid on gnosticism as self-salvation. Regards, CFS From:
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Colleagues--

      Relevant to discussion of gnosticism. Here the emphasis is clearly laid on gnosticism as self-salvation.

      Regards, CFS

      From: s.magister@...
      Subject: Newsletter www.chiesa
      To: nobody@...
      Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:51:32 +0100





      Newsletter di www.chiesa

















      8 febbraio 2008



      Un teologo rifà da capo la fede cattolica. Ma la Chiesa dice no

      È Vito Mancuso, in un libro di grande successo raccomandato dal cardinale Martini. Nel quale non c'è più peccato né redenzione, ma l'uomo si salva da sé. Dopo mesi di silenzio, il doppio altolà delle autorità vaticane. Ecco i testi integrali







      A Theologian Remakes the Catholic Faith from Scratch. But the Church Says "No"

      He is Vito Mancuso, in a highly successful book that has been recommended by cardinal Martini. In it, there is no longer any sin or redemption, but instead man saves himself. After months of silence, a double "stop right there"' from the Vatican authorities. Here are the complete texts







      Un théologien revoit la foi catholique de A à Z. Mais l'Eglise dit non

      Il s'agit de Vito Mancuso, auteur d'un livre à grand succès recommandé par le cardinal Martini. On n'y trouve plus ni péché, ni rédemption et l'homme se sauve lui-même. Après des mois de silence, le double holà des autorités du Vatican. Voici les textes intégraux







      Un teólogo pone de cabeza la fe católica. Pero la Iglesia dice no

      Es Vito Mancuso, en un libro de gran éxito, recomendado por el cardenal Martíni. Para el autor, no hay pecado ni redención, sino que el hombre se salva por sí mismo. Después de meses de silencio, el doble alerta de las autoridades vaticanas. Aquí presentamos los textos íntegros


      Clicca qui se non vuoi più ricevere la newsletter / Click here to cancel e-mail subscription.







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • fjjwagner
      The URL for Mr. Sill s article in English is found at: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/189243?eng=y I note the reference to Bishop Forte, one of
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        The URL for Mr. Sill's article in English is found at:
        http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/189243?eng=y

        I note the reference to Bishop Forte, one of then-Cardinal
        Ratzinger's men:

        ". . . .
        Well then, in "L'Osservatore Romano" of February 2nd, it is the
        archbishop-theologian Forte himself who deeply criticizes Mancuso's
        latest book.
        "His conclusion is straightforward: 'This is not Christian theology,
        but 'gnosis', the presumption of saving oneself on one's own.'
        . . . ."

        It appears that Voegelin's popularization of the concept of
        gnosticism can still be applied usefully today. Here is another.

        Mr Obama's presidential campaign has apparently taken on certain
        gnostic characteristics and people are beginning to notice. This
        from James Taranto's column yesterday in the WSJ:

        ". . . .The other day one Kathleen Geier, who says she voted for
        Obama and considers him 'a good progressive,' took to the liberal
        TPMCafe site to declare that she is 'increasingly weirded out by some
        of Obama's supporters':

        "She quotes from a Sacramento Bee article that she (and we) found
        'unsettling':

        "He looked at me, and the look in his eyes was worth 1,000 words,"
        said [Kim] Mack, now a regional field organizer. Obama hugged her and
        whispered something in her ear--she was so thrilled she doesn't
        remember what it was. . . .

        "She urged volunteers to hone their own stories of how they came to
        Obama--something they could compress into 30 seconds on the phone.

        "As Geier notes, 'this sounds more like a cult than a political
        campaign':

        "The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity-
        -the Obama volunteers speak of 'coming to Obama' in the same way
        born-again Christians talk about "coming to Jesus."

        "But he's not Jesus! He's not going to magically enable us to
        transcend the bitter partisanship that is tearing this country apart.
        ABC's Jake Tapper notes other enthusiasts and detractors from the
        enthusiasm, all on the Democratic left. 'I've been following politics
        since I was about 5,' Chris Matthews tells the New York Observer.
        'I've never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy.
        [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the
        New Testament.'

        "On the other side, Time's Joe Klein writes that there is 'something
        just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism' of the Obama
        campaign, which "all too often is about how wonderful the Obama
        campaign is." Adds the dyspeptic leftist James Wolcott:

        "'Perhaps it's my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly
        wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama
        campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or
        cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. . . . I don't look to
        politics for transcendence and self-certification.'

        "What are we to make of Obama himself in the midst of all this
        adulation? A cynic would say that he is a manipulator if not a
        demagogue, exploiting the gullible to further his own ambitions. A
        more charitable view is that his intentions are all to the good, that
        he has simply figured out how to tap into a genuine desire for
        inspiration in politics, and that if elected he will use his
        political powers to do good for the country. . . ."

        From WSJ online 07Feb 08:
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120240722108951205.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today

        I particularly liked Wolcott the atheist! There are also reminders here
        of Ronald Knox's _Enthusiasm_, the massive compendium of
        heresy through the millennia, which EV evidently admired.

        Cordially,

        Fritz Wagner


        On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:34:30 +0000, chip sills wrote:
        >
        > Colleagues--
        >
        > Relevant to discussion of gnosticism. Here the emphasis is clearly
        > laid on gnosticism as self-salvation.
        >
        > Regards, CFS
        >
        > From: s.magister@...
      • James Rovira
        On a conceptual level, are all religions/movements emphasizing self-salvation Gnostic, or is self-salvation one feature of Gnosticism that it shares with other
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 8, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On a conceptual level, are all religions/movements emphasizing
          self-salvation Gnostic, or is self-salvation one feature of Gnosticism
          that it shares with other religions/movements?

          Jim R
        • fjjwagner
          That is a question requiring a nuanced and lengthy answer! Some answers can be found in EV s CW 5, either NSP or SP&G. A search found 60 references, and one
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 8, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            That is a question requiring a nuanced and lengthy answer!
            Some answers can be found in EV's CW 5,
            either NSP or SP&G. A search found 60 references, and one
            that caught my eye is found at:
            http://fritzwagner.com/ev/gnosticism4_self_salvation.html

            One must keep in mind the non-gnostic elements in these
            movements:
            http://fritzwagner.com/ev/primacy_experiences_and_the_egophanic.html

            Cordially,

            Fritz Wagner

            On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:23:26 -0500, James Rovira wrote:
            > On a conceptual level, are all religions/movements emphasizing self-
            > salvation Gnostic, or is self-salvation one feature of Gnosticism
            > that it shares with other religions/movements?
            >
            > Jim R
            >
            >
          • Rhydon Jackson
            I would be interested in an analysis founded upon the recreation of the experiences engendering the symbols in question. It seems like the endorsements of, the
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 9, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I would be interested in an analysis founded upon the recreation of the
              experiences engendering the symbols in question. It seems like the
              endorsements of, the speeches of, and interviews with the candidate, are
              key sources for supporting the analysis of the self-interpretation of
              those involved.

              One doesn't have to go far in the speeches before one sees hope for a
              bipartisan coalition sufficiently large to do something significant
              described in terms of Heb. 11's "unseen." However, I'm not sure that
              fills out Voegelin's quintessential "gnostic" profile. Maybe an
              illegitimate twist of the text by way of "immanentization," but not
              quite the expectation of an "immanentized eschaton." One sees a steady
              emphasis on a putative artificiality in partisan categories, a professed
              lack of faith in "dogma" regarding the means to achieve the recent goals
              of the political left--a sort of post-ideological theme. And definitely
              one sees a sweeping hyperbole focused on hope, high expectation phrased
              in the traditional terms of American political rhetoric: biblical
              tropes, American exceptionalism, and the pantheon of national heroes.

              It seems to me the endorsements might also useful for understanding the
              self-interpretation of the people comprising the campaign in what appear
              to be socially effective numbers. There are plenty available, running
              from the hoary, progressive weekly The Nation to the hoary, conservative
              "intellectual" Jeffrey Hart. (I had quite a few chuckles over the last
              one because the first time I saw Voegelin's name was Hart's
              characterization of Mel Bradford as a "Confederate Voegelin"--somehow
              the juxtaposition of names here is very funny to me.) Lots of attention
              to a peculiar timing of opportunity, as in a "brief window", in the
              endorsements I've seen.

              I don't have the kind of fluency in American political discourse and its
              antecedents required to do the analysis. However, there are some
              symbols any analysis would have to pay attention to, I believe: "unity",
              already mentioned by several in this forum as a perennial and
              multi-valent symbol in American political discourse; "new/future/fresh
              start" as opposed to "old" or "past"--Hart's choice for a characterizing
              term, "redemption", fits in here, as does the
              "post-partisan/post-racial/post-whatever" theme; the seemingly potent
              symbol of a mixed race candidate with simultaneous appeal to whites and
              blacks.

              This last one is very intriguing to me. It is not surprising that a
              black candidate would lock up the black vote after having demonstrated
              the appeal to white voters seen in Iowa and South Carolina. However, I
              wonder to what extent the support of a black candidate factors into the
              significance of that support in the self-interpretation of the typical
              white supporter. Given the sorts of numbers I've seen on the rates of
              inter-racial marriages among 18-29 year old Americans, I wonder if some
              of this youth vote is sort of a "melting pot" identity thing. There are
              old reservations about the radical impact of technology on society--the
              auto as mechanical Jacobin. To what extent is the explosive expanse of
              mobility and communication over the last century an influence on the
              sorts of "unities" people interpret themselves as participating in?

              Certainly there is a rapid growth of in popularity here--perhaps
              partially a function of a sense of viability brought by the Iowa and
              South Carolina primaries. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of
              cross-over appeal to Republicans. I haven't seen any good numbers on
              that. I haven't seen anything on how things like crowds of 20,000 in
              Minneapolis and Seattle correlate with the record breaking--on the order
              of two to one--Democratic turnouts. But it seems likely. How
              extraordinary are these crowd sizes? There is a strong correlation
              between this popularity and youth turnout. I am no political scientist,
              but it does look to me as though something noteworthy may be afoot. A
              thorough analysis would be interesting.
            • fjjwagner
              From what I ve read, the Clintons are deeply embedded in the Democrat party machine and Obama doesn t have much of a chance unless the unions jump ship. Mrs
              Message 6 of 6 , Feb 9, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                From what I've read, the Clintons are deeply embedded in the
                Democrat party machine and Obama doesn't have much of a chance unless
                the unions jump ship. Mrs Clinton has the endorsement of such powerful
                Democrats as the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa. Also,
                Obama does well in caucauses and not so well in primaries. Because
                of the Democrat proportional allocation of delegates, as opposed to
                the Republican winner-take-all formula, when Obama wins by a small
                margin, he only gets a few more than half the delegates. It appears
                that the contest will go on neck and neck for some time. The outcome
                may depend on the Democrat "super delegates," who number around 800
                and are mostly elected Democrats holding public office. They are not
                bound to anyone until they vote at the convention. The super
                delegates were added in '80 to prevent an insurgent candidate from
                winning the nomination and then losing the general election (a George
                McGovern repeat). Since the super delegates constitute a fifth of all
                delegates, they would likely decide a close contest.

                Some bookies have the odds on Obama at 8/11 and on Clinton at 6/5. More
                can be found at: http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-
                election/us-presidential-election/democrat-candidate

                One problem with the notion of a "unity" candidate is that there are
                several intractable issues which separate Democrats from
                Republicans, Liberals from Conservatives, and Christians from
                the unchurched. The lion shall lie down with the lamb, but when!

                Duncan Currie in the Weekly Standard covers some of the issues that
                separate voters:

                "According to a Pew Research Center public opinion survey conducted
                in mid-January, partisan differences on several hot-button issues
                'increased substantially over the past year.' Some 47 percent of
                Democrats said 'dealing with global warming' should be a top priority
                for U.S. policymakers, compared to only 12 percent of Republicans. On
                health care, 65 percent of Democrats said that providing insurance to
                the uninsured should be a top priority, compared to just 27 percent
                of Republicans; 81 percent of Democrats said the same about reducing
                health care costs, compared to 53 percent of Republicans. On
                improving the job situation, addressing poverty, and protecting the
                environment, the relevant partisan gaps were 33 points, 28 points,
                and 28 points, respectively, with Democrats voicing more concern.
                Republicans placed greater emphasis on strengthening the military and
                dealing with illegal immigration--the relevant partisan gaps on those
                issues were 25 points and 21 points, respectively.

                "Polarization is also affecting Americans' views of the economy (a
                phenomenon Michael Barone has explored elsewhere). 'There continues
                to be a sizable partisan gap in ratings of the national economy," Pew
                reports. "Currently, 46 percent of Republicans, but just 24 percent
                of independents and 15 percent of Democrats, give the economy at
                least a good rating. During the 1990s, partisan differences on this
                question were relatively small and inconsistent in direction.
                Beginning in 2002, a substantial party divide opened up on the
                question and Democrats and Republicans have remained far apart in
                their assessments ever since.'"

                [Most Republicans admire President Bush. Only 5% of Democrats do.]

                For the whole laundry list, see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/703gcalo.asp

                Cordially,

                Fritz Wagner



                On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:21:37 -0500, Rhydon Jackson wrote:
                >
                > I would be interested in an analysis founded upon the recreation of
                > the experiences engendering the symbols in question. It seems like
                > the endorsements of, the speeches of, and interviews with the
                > candidate, are key sources for supporting the analysis of the self-
                > interpretation of those involved.
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.