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

6733Re: Ecclesia Gnostica:

Expand Messages
  • hesperos19
    Oct 13, 2002
      --- In gnosticism2@y..., Terje Dahl Bergersen <terje@b...> wrote:

      > No, the majority of the posts where directed at how
      > and even "fake" the EG appears to be to a significant number
      > debatants...
      > There were a significant number of posts which were

      With al due respect Terje, I think that you are mischaracterizing
      some of he statements made by discussants on this list in the
      critique of the book by Hoeller " Gnosticism: New Light on the
      Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing" in which several questions
      were raised about sacramentalism as well as ecclesiatical
      authority, and the need for a church.

      Your replies did not really address the issues clearly, from what I
      can see, I did however my own research on the matter and now
      have a clearer understanding , at least for myself, of the
      Ecclesiastical position of the Ecclesia Gnostica and related
      churches, Eglise Gnostique and Apostolic Johannite Church.

      I think it is important to clarify this matter on lists where the sort
      of free lancing gnosticism seems to be the rule, so as to avoid

      > throughout two forums, not only "Gnosticism" - as such, the
      > on the character of Hoeller (which I can only think of as

      Nothing in my responses at least "attacked" Bishop Hoeller's
      "Character". I questioned the ecclesiastical claims of the
      Ecclesia Gnostica and authenticity of apostolic transmission of
      such - questions which I have largely cleared up doing my own
      research, and now accept and understand Bishop Hoeller's
      position better.

      Questioning authority is not equivalent to attacking character.

      I have also questioned Hoeller's seeming uncritical
      embracement of Jung - I am not to date satisfied with what I have
      seen to substantiate several of what I consider "errors" in Jung's
      understanding of gnosticism and his seeming drive to
      psychologize all myth and allegory. This may reflect the
      limitations of my own understanding of Jung, but I am not hoing
      to sheepishly put down my pen and blindly endorse Jungian
      psychoanalyst tradition as being "Gnostic", when in fact I see it
      as "Gnostic-like" but not truly soteriologic or salvific.

      > and everyone involved with EG or any other kind of ecclestiacial
      > under the Gnosis, which were more explicit
      > in, for instance, Gnosticmillenium, is unclear and confusing to
      > who have not participated in more than one forum.

      You have mischaracterized what I and others have written. This
      is unfortunate.

      > I can understand a significant number of people are
      dissatisfied with
      > the context of a Church (in America (or rather, Hollywood) it is
      > than that,remembering that the Gnostic Society is an
      > activity of Hoeller´s
      > - the continuation of a legacy which stretch back 75 years, to

      This is all well and good but the argument does not defend its
      Gnostic legitimacy - shelf life does not convey truth. Again the
      opportunity was there for you to clarify these questions in a
      thoughtful manner.

      Since many of us do not live in Hollywood or Oslo we have little
      or no contact with the Ecclesia Gnostica or its affiliates other
      than what is available on-line. We read Hoeller's book where a
      catechism is stated and sacraments, and episopy are outlined
      to a public which is unfamiliar with the traditions that you and
      those in Hollywood take as evident.

      Many people (especially those from a protestant or evangelical
      background) are inclined to see such aspects (sacraments,
      Bishops, catechisms) as being Romish affectations - which
      careful reading of Hoeller's book dispels - yet when brought up
      publicly these questions fail to be addressed in a meaningful

      Again, I had to go to the Eglisegnostique@yahoogroups.com list
      and ask the question for myself - and got satisfactory answer

      There are a number of good points you make later in your post
      which I do not comment on.

      Just to summarize - question and critique should not be
      confused with "attacking" someone's character.

      Legitimate questions have arisen on Hoeller's book regarding
      apostolic lineage, sacramentalism, and catechism - questions
      which I think deserve a meaningful reply without insinuating that
      the people asking those questions are "attacking" these
      traditions. Not everybody is going to take Hoeller's points as
      being self-evident, and thoughtful responses to questions
      regarding these points would be helpful.

      Legitimate questions have also been raised regarding the
      Jungian position that Bishop Hoeller takes, ones which can be
      asked without accusing the querent of "attacking".

      Pax Pleromae

    • Show all 48 messages in this topic