[RD] Ask a Theologian V

ParkCungHee · Jul 26, 2014

Plotinus said:
Ideally it would help to read Henry of Ghent first, because that's who Scotus is normally engaging with. But Henry's not much easier to read than Scotus himself, and to understand Henry you usually have to start with Aquinas... and so it goes back! This is one reason why scholastic philosophy is difficult.

Well, I've got enough of Aquinas in me that I think I'd feel comfortable jumping into Henry of Ghent then.

A better solution might be to read Scotus alongside a modern explanation of his thought. Allan Wolter and Richard Cross are the Big Names in Scotus studies.

Oooh, that's just the sort of thing I could use. Come to think of it, part of the reason I want to read him is biographical. Do you know of anything good that's been made on that end?

Plotinus · Jul 26, 2014

ParkCungHee said:
Oooh, that's just the sort of thing I could use. Come to think of it, part of the reason I want to read him is biographical. Do you know of anything good that's been made on that end?

There isn't anything that I know of, mainly because Scotus didn't really do very much and relatively little is known of his life. He probably came from Scotland, was educated at Oxford, taught there, moved to Paris, was temporarily exiled in Oxford again, moved to Cologne, and died. There's not much more to say, so I don't think there's any book that focuses on the biographical side of him.

I do have a pretty exhaustive bibliography for Scotus - or at least it was exhaustive a few years ago when I made it - which I'll stick here in case you find it helpful.

Spoiler :

Takhisis · Jul 26, 2014

Holy spoilers, Plotman! Do you actually have all those stashed around in the secret lair?

Plotinus said:
Not sure what you mean by this - can you specify?

Well, basically:
'Where do the men come from, in the Biblical view of events? Do they come from Adam and Eve? Whom do Cain and the rest marry?'

Jehoshua · Jul 27, 2014

Plotinus said:
It's clearer in the Catholic Church, which simply rejects Anglican claims to apostolic succession on the grounds that Anglican orders are straightforwardly invalid since they are rivals to Catholicism.

Not quite that simple. Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae declared Anglican orders to be utterly null and void due to deficiency of intention and form in the Anglican ordination rites. In the case of deficiency of intention, it is as you say, Leo concluded they expressed an intention to create a priesthood different from the sacrificing priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church. However at the same time Anglicanism is considered to reduce ordination to a mere ecclesiastical institution, an appointment or blessing, instead of a sacramental conferral of actual grace by the action itself, with this being the essence of the conclusion that Anglicans lack holy orders (in addition to the absence of apostolic succession considered to result from the original heresy and consequential deviation). The ordination of women in anglicanism, and the considerations behind that decision to depart from apostolic tradition effectively reinforces this conclusion from a Catholic perspective.

Agent327 · Jul 27, 2014

Jehoshua said:
The ordination of women in anglicanism, and the considerations behind that decision to depart from apostolic tradition effectively reinforces this conclusion from a Catholic perspective.

Leaving aside the fictitious notion of 'apostolic succession' - which is as much a departure from early Christianity as the exclusion of women from a prominent position position - the whole 'Catholic perspective' is only traditional since it became such, i.e. with the rise of Rome as anything but a local bishopry. Which, obviously, in itself is a 'departure from apostolic tradition'. It is easy to forget that every 'tradition' started out as something new, a change to the way things were done before the start of any 'tradition'. (Leaving aside the question if any tradition is in itself a good thing. The centuries old tradition of antisemitism seems to gone somewhat out of fashion in 1945.)

Anywho, carry on.

Plotinus · Jul 27, 2014

Takhisis said:
Holy spoilers, Plotman! Do you actually have all those stashed around in the secret lair?

Not at all. I only have the bibliography, not the books.

Takhisis said:
Well, basically:
'Where do the men come from, in the Biblical view of events? Do they come from Adam and Eve? Whom do Cain and the rest marry?'

Well, there is no biblical answer to that. All you have is the two creation stories in the opening chapters of Genesis. The Bible - and even Genesis itself - isn't a unified narrative; it doesn't contain the resources to answer questions like that, which don't arise in the course of it.

JEELEN said:
Leaving aside the fictitious notion of 'apostolic succession' - which is as much a departure from early Christianity as the exclusion of women from a prominent position position -

I don't think that's accurate. The notion of apostolic succession is important to Irenaeus and particularly Tertullian. As for excluding women, there is very little evidence for women in "prominent positions" in the early church. Pliny reports finding Christian women who claimed to be "deaconesses", and the Montanists had female prophets. Neither of these is inconsistent with the Catholic exclusion of women from the priesthood.

_random_ · Jul 27, 2014

The traditional answer in Jewish apocrypha seems to be that Cain married his sister. So that's that I guess.

Plotinus · Jul 27, 2014

Yes, and I think that's the traditional Christian answer too. My point was just that neither that answer nor any other is found in the Bible - it's an extrapolation that goes beyond it.

classical_hero · Jul 27, 2014

Plotinus said:
Well, there is no biblical answer to that. All you have is the two creation stories in the opening chapters of Genesis. The Bible - and even Genesis itself - isn't a unified narrative; it doesn't contain the resources to answer questions like that, which don't arise in the course of it.

Sigh. There are not two different stories, just that one we have the general overview of creation and then from 2:5, we have a more specific view about the events in the Garden of Eden.

To answer Tak, all men are descendants of Adam and Eve. The commands against incest are found in the laws of Moses, which are many years after Adam and Eve.

The Strategos · Jul 27, 2014

Plotinus said:
As for excluding women, there is very little evidence for women in "prominent positions" in the early church. Pliny reports finding Christian women who claimed to be "deaconesses", and the Montanists had female prophets. Neither of these is inconsistent with the Catholic exclusion of women from the priesthood.

I think it depends on how you interpret "prominent positions," ordained clergy were not always the most respected spiritual authority in a community as the church orders especially make clear. At various times and places women remained a viable alternate spiritual authority.

You mentioned Montanists had female prophets, though of course this was not a distinctly Montanist phenomenon, the Bible itself records there being at least 10 female prophets, with five of them: Anna in Luke and the four daughters of Philip in Acts, in the New Testament. One of the main themes of the Didache (which I would argue is at least a contemporary of some of the writings of the New Testament if not earlier but that is a different discussion entirely) is the struggle for religious authority between the highly respected itinerant prophets (which Acts/Luke suggests might include females) with the less respected local overseer/bishop. On the subject of itinerant religious authorities: Whatever Paul intended through his debated reference to Junia in Romans 16, at least some prominent early Christians thought it clear that it was a reference to a woman who held the office of apostle (such as Chrysostom, Homily on Romans 31).

The Martyrdom of Perpetua suggests that the titular character held at the very least a "prominent position" (as seen by her fellow inmates coming to her for spiritual direction) and possibly quite a bit more (I here refer in particular to Perpetua's role as mediator between a bishop and a presbyter, where both the bishop and presbyter fell and Perpetua's feet and recognized her authority to mediate between them).

More specific to the mentioned Catholic position, some women in some places were known to teach and baptize. Acts of Paul and Thecla, Tertullian (On Baptism), and Didascalia all betray first-hand knowledge of women preaching and baptizing. Tertullian, of course, is famous for being against the practice, but the Didascalia seems to recognize that it cannot completely eradicate the phenomenon stating it only "suggests" that women not be allowed to baptize. Charlotte Methuen, for one, seems to think that the author of the Didascalia recognized his community saw female widows as a viable alternative to the clergy. Church orders also show knowledge of wealthy patrons being a competing religious authority, presumably female patrons could also act as a competing authority as well as their male counterparts. And while I don't have any firsthand knowledge of examples (unless you grant the widows and virgins of the church orders as examples), it would not surprise me if considering the well known competing authorities of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the "holy men"/monastics that holy women were in some areas a likewise threat.

Takhisis · Jul 27, 2014

Plotinus said:
Not at all. I only have the bibliography, not the books.

Pity.

Plotinus said:
Well, there is no biblical answer to that. All you have is the two creation stories in the opening chapters of Genesis. The Bible - and even Genesis itself - isn't a unified narrative; it doesn't contain the resources to answer questions like that, which don't arise in the course of it.

I know, but I don't take Genesis that literally anyway

_random_ said:
The traditional answer in Jewish apocrypha seems to be that Cain married his sister. So that's that I guess.

Plotinus said:
Yes, and I think that's the traditional Christian answer too. My point was just that neither that answer nor any other is found in the Bible - it's an extrapolation that goes beyond it.

Yes, I'd heard of the sisters and also of Lilith, but there is no canon, as I thought.

classical_hero said:
Sigh. There are not two different stories, just that one we have the general overview of creation and then from 2:5, we have a more specific view about the events in the Garden of Eden.

At the very least they're two distinct versions of one creation myth

classical_hero said:
To answer Tak, all men are descendants of Adam and Eve. The commands against incest are found in the laws of Moses, which are many years after Adam and Eve.

Thanks.

Gary Childress · Jul 27, 2014

Hi Plotinus,

Are you very familiar with religions other than Christianity? If so I am interested in what your take is on whatever fundamental differences may exist between Christianity vs. Buddhism, Hinduism or Daoism. In other words, how would you characterize each of those religions above compared to the others. I assume these are all religions based at least somewhat on shared human experiences. But somehow there are differences. What would you say most accounts for those differences? And how would you sum up the "primary" or "fundamental" differences of those religions?

Thanks.

Berzerker · Jul 28, 2014

People were made on the 6th day, "Adam" was either among them or he was made afterward... Thats why Cain was worried about being killed for his deed against Abel and how he found a wife. Adam was taken from mankind's original homeland eastward to the Garden, he did not follow God's initial instructions for humanity - to multiply and fill the world. Eve was made later, she was not a 6th day creation... How else do you explain the appearance of Adam long before Eve was made?

Jehoshua · Jul 28, 2014

JEELEN said:
Leaving aside the fictitious notion of 'apostolic succession' - which is as much a departure from early Christianity as the exclusion of women from a prominent position position - the whole 'Catholic perspective' is only traditional since it became such, i.e. with the rise of Rome as anything but a local bishopry. Which, obviously, in itself is a 'departure from apostolic tradition'. It is easy to forget that every 'tradition' started out as something new, a change to the way things were done before the start of any 'tradition'. (Leaving aside the question if any tradition is in itself a good thing. The centuries old tradition of antisemitism seems to gone somewhat out of fashion in 1945.)

Anywho, carry on.

Thus spake Jeelen, pontificator of the cult of liberalism and priest of the great gods freedom and equality, to which tradition and dialectic are anathema :rolleyes:

.anyways, Plotinus said what there is to be said regarding your utterances.

As to Strategos' reference on baptism, technically one doesn't need to be ordained to baptise, or even Christian, one just has to intend to induct one into the Church of God and conduct the rite with appropriate matter and form (fresh water over head in such a way as it flows, and "I baptise you in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy spirit"). Hence women being able to baptise is a non-starter, since they can (indeed the Mortara affair was a thing because a serving woman in the household allegedly conducted an emergency baptism during a childhood illness), although ordinary practice is to have baptisms done by the clergy.

Paul in Saudi · Jul 28, 2014

What do we know of the spiritual life and status of animals? Is there an introductory text on modern theological thought on this subject you could recommend?

Plotinus · Jul 31, 2014

Gary Childress said:
Hi Plotinus,

Are you very familiar with religions other than Christianity? If so I am interested in what your take is on whatever fundamental differences may exist between Christianity vs. Buddhism, Hinduism or Daoism. In other words, how would you characterize each of those religions above compared to the others. I assume these are all religions based at least somewhat on shared human experiences. But somehow there are differences. What would you say most accounts for those differences? And how would you sum up the "primary" or "fundamental" differences of those religions?

Thanks.

I don't know very much about them, unfortunately. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Daoism are certainly all quite different from Christianity in that they are not monotheistic - or at least, they're not monotheistic in the same way (I know that some forms of Hinduism come close). They're also not incarnational, at least not in the same way (again, some forms of Hinduism come close).

I think that all religions ultimately derive from fundamental features of human nature, such as our tendency to see patterns in things, our tendency to prefer intentional explanations over mechanistic ones, and so on. Everyone has these tendencies, though they do not result in religious belief among everyone. We can think of the different religions as different manifestations of these tendencies. They've developed differently from the same reason that other cultural heritages, such as language and customs, have developed differently - i.e. there's no grand explanation, it's just how things have turned out. I'm not sure what more I can say, really.

Paul in Saudi said:
What do we know of the spiritual life and status of animals? Is there an introductory text on modern theological thought on this subject you could recommend?

This again isn't something I know much about. Christopher Southgate has written about the moral value of animals from a theological viewpoint, particularly animal suffering in the context of the problem of evil, but I don't know if that quite matches what you're after. You might try looking up some of his books, such as this one. There's also an article by Jane Goodall here that speculates about whether apes might have "spirituality" - perhaps that's closer to answering your question.

Tahuti · Jul 31, 2014

Do you think the Bible advocates Universal Reconciliation and baptism by desire? Are the two related?

Arakhor · Jul 31, 2014

Newsflash - everything in theology has a fancy term, whether you know it or not.

(I was brought up with Universal Reconciliation, but it was never called that, rather as a necessary condition of God being omni-benevolent.)

Agent327 · Jul 31, 2014

Plotinus said:
I don't think that's accurate. The notion of apostolic succession is important to Irenaeus and particularly Tertullian. As for excluding women, there is very little evidence for women in "prominent positions" in the early church. Pliny reports finding Christian women who claimed to be "deaconesses", and the Montanists had female prophets. Neither of these is inconsistent with the Catholic exclusion of women from the priesthood.

I don't understand what you are trying to say with that last sentence. Women were purposefully excluded from positions of prominence. The mention of prophetesses falls under that, although a complementary reason was obviously that a church-based organization has little use for prophets speaking on their own authority rather than the church's. But it has also undeniably to do with the growing patriarchialism in the establishing church: women could found or lead communities or be 'diaconesses', as you say. Indeed, women played an important part in the spread of Christianity; none of this should be surprising given the attitude that Jesus himself displays towards women, as it is reported in the gospel texts. It wasn't until the 3rd century that women were forbidden all priestly functions during the eucharist. One does not forbid that which does not exist.

So Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with the concept of apostolic succession; that stands to reason, as the notion couldn't have come out of thin air. But the early Christian communities (i.e. early Christianity) were not. Which is hardly surprising, as it suggests some sort of transfer of authority. Also, Peter (who, according to a dubious gospel quote, was to be Jesus' successor) effectively did not 'succeed' Jesus; James, his brother, did, as leader of the Jerusalem community.

Early Christianity did not have an organization until it was built up in the form as we know it today. Until that point - and quite some time after - it was effectively a sect, with all the varying opinions on what constitutes true Christianity. In spite of heresizing such opinions, they form an integral part of the history of Christianity and have ultimately led to the 260 plus official Christian churches of today.

Jehoshua said:
Thus spake Jeelen, pontificator of the cult of liberalism and priest of the great gods freedom and equality, to which tradition and dialectic are anathema .anyways, Plotinus said what there is to be said regarding your utterances.

I appreciate your attempt at humour, but value Plotinus' responses a bit more, if you don't mind.

Jehoshua said:
As to Strategos' reference on baptism, technically one doesn't need to be ordained to baptise, or even Christian, one just has to intend to induct one into the Church of God and conduct the rite with appropriate matter and form (fresh water over head in such a way as it flows, and "I baptise you in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy spirit"). Hence women being able to baptise is a non-starter, since they can (indeed the Mortara affair was a thing because a serving woman in the household allegedly conducted an emergency baptism during a childhood illness), although ordinary practice is to have baptisms done by the clergy.

Very interesting, but rather unrelated to my comment. Jesus didn't baptize, as I'm sure you know. It's an innovation of the early church - just as 'apostolic succession', as I mentioned.

El_Machinae · Jul 31, 2014

I count Jesus as healing 11 lepers. Am I wrong?

[RD] Ask a Theologian V

Deity

Philosopher

¡Patria y vida!

Catholic

Observer

Philosopher

Jewel Runner

Philosopher

In whom I trust

Thanatos

¡Patria y vida!

Student for and of life

Deity

Catholic

Emperor

Philosopher

Writing Deity

Dremora Courtier

Observer

Colour vision since 2018

Similar threads