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

Re: Ecclesia Gnostica:

Expand Messages
  • hesperos19
    ... dissatisfactory ... of ... crossposted With al due respect Terje, I think that you are mischaracterizing some of he statements made by discussants on this
    Message 1 of 48 , Oct 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@y..., Terje Dahl Bergersen <terje@b...> wrote:

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

      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
      confusion.

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

      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
      work
      > under the Gnosis, which were more explicit
      > in, for instance, Gnosticmillenium, is unclear and confusing to
      those
      > 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
      more
      > than that,remembering that the Gnostic Society is an
      associated
      > activity of Hoeller´s
      > - the continuation of a legacy which stretch back 75 years, to
      1927,

      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
      way.

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

      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

      Coraxo
    • hesperos19
      ... crossposted ... attacks ... uninformed) ... work ... those ... The posts which mention Hoeller on Gnosticmillenium@yahoogroups.com og which I am list-owner
      Message 48 of 48 , Oct 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gnosticism2@y..., Terje Dahl Bergersen <terje@b...> wrote:

        > There were a significant number of posts which were
        crossposted
        > throughout two forums, not only "Gnosticism" - as such, the
        attacks
        > on the character of Hoeller (which I can only think of as
        uninformed)
        > and everyone involved with EG or any other kind of ecclestiacial
        work
        > under the Gnosis, which were more explicit
        > in, for instance, Gnosticmillenium, is unclear and confusing to
        those
        > who have not participated in more than one forum.

        The posts which mention Hoeller on
        Gnosticmillenium@yahoogroups.com og which I am list-owner
        are posts # 464, 534, 537, 538, 544, 547, 548, 618, 621.

        In none of these posts was Hoeller's character attacked; the
        question arose regarding sacramentalism - which a discussant
        and I engaged the view of Testimonium Veritas regarding water
        baptism vis a vis the Valentinian - orientated position of the
        Ecclesia Gnostica.

        I raised doubts regarding Hoeller's apostolic succession -
        however, if these doubts were "illinformed" you COULD have
        clarified the matter - verdad?

        In fact the questions were based on a lack of understanding of
        what the EG and EGN and their doctrines, and based upon a
        lack of knowledge on my part regarding the tradions of the
        Ecclesia Gnostica - and of course these questions and doubts
        have been answered elsewhere - at least to my satisfaction.

        Not everyone is going to see the church positions of EG and
        EGN as self-evident, due either to lack of information, contact, or
        context - and the more informed approach would be to respond
        with information, contact, context by way of explanation.

        Of course since Hoeller did publish these materials in his new
        book - questions regarding the necessity and legitimacy of
        Church and sacramentalism are going to be raised, and I think
        most people are willing at least to listen to well thought and
        reasonable replies.

        Coraxo
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.