Christianity

[Belinda]

Alexix Jacobi wrote:

Honestly, to get an understanding of what Satan is, one has to turn back to the Medieval Schoolmen. In simple terms, it is an issue bound up with definitions. The conceptual blending of the ‘picture’ offered by Genesis but refracted through a lens of platonism.

This may be your definitive description and explanation of Satan. Even if you were the Pope speaking with the voice of authority it would be your own definition.

There is no definitive Satan. Satan is an idea and nobody has exclusive rights to what 'Satan' means. By all means, Alexis, say what may be a useful definition, but don't pretend there is an authoritative definition.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ,

I always enjoy your essays, but this...

...ignores my question.

Again (rephrased): is man Grendel, or is Grendel sumthin' 'other' than man?

Is Evil man's defect, or is Evil the intelligent infection that, as I say, inflames and makes malign an otherwise benign imperfection?

Or: did/does man engineer his own Fall, or was/is he pushed (or tempted to jump)?

As I say: I'm divided. I can make an equal argument for either.

There is the Christian story which we have been discussing that says, in essence, everything is messed up because we are messed up. That is, that *your lineage* did things that corrupted creation. (True, I am giving the Medieval interpretation, the Hebrew explanation (of Genesis) is multi faceted and shaded).

Is Man Satan? No. Man is a corrupted soul. And according the occidentalism and Catholicism there is no way out of that condition but by Grace (“undeserved gift”) and commitment to works of charity (which are varied).

For 1,000 years + these notions were lived in accord with. I pretend I am “preaching” for it, but in fact I am just talking about my own on-going relationship with it.

My own personal view is that “Satan” is a metaphor for the conflict we feel and cannot escape from because we see very clearly how terrible life actually is. A system in which living beings must consume other living beings in an eternal ecological cycle of violence, and a world that is mutable and shifting (becoming). As well as the recognition that our own life depends on crazy-making compromises we must make with that “world”, that reality.

[Belinda]

AJ,

I always enjoy your essays, but this...

...ignores my question.

Again (rephrased): is man Grendel, or is Grendel sumthin' 'other' than man?

Is Evil man's defect, or is Evil the intelligent infection that, as I say, inflames and makes malign an otherwise benign imperfection?

Or: did/does man engineer his own Fall, or was/is he pushed (or tempted to jump)?

As I say: I'm divided. I can make an equal argument for either.

There is the Christian story which we have been discussing that says, in essence, everything is messed up because we are messed up. That is, that *your lineage* did things that corrupted creation. (True, I am giving the Medieval interpretation, the Hebrew explanation (of Genesis) is multi faceted and shaded).

Is Man Satan? No. Man is a corrupted soul. And according the occidentalism and Catholicism there is no way out of that condition but by Grace (“undeserved gift”) and commitment to works of charity (which are varied).

For 1,000 years + these notions were lived in accord with. I pretend I am “preaching” for it, but in fact I am just talking about my own on-going relationship with it.

My own personal view is that “Satan” is a metaphor for the conflict we feel and cannot escape from because we see very clearly how terrible life actually is. A system in which living beings must consume other living beings in an eternal ecological cycle of violence, and a world that is mutable and shifting (becoming). As well as the recognition that our own life depends on crazy-making compromises we must make with that “world”, that reality.

So you give the name Satan to natural evil. I'd agree with that. Me, I'd also compare natural evil with the absolute, where there is no good or bad. I think we need to be able to picture the view from eternity as well as the commonplace view from temporal experience.

[Dubious]

For Brother Dubious:

"Will you walk into my parlor?" said the Spider to the Fly. "'Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you did spy; The way into my parlor is up a winding stair, And I have many curious things to show when you are there." "Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "to ask me is in vain; For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."

Who is the spider, who is the fly?
Until I know I cannot reply!

[Dubious]

There is no definitive Satan. Satan is an idea and nobody has exclusive rights to what 'Satan' means. By all means, Alexis, say what may be a useful definition, but don't pretend there is an authoritative definition.

It is entirely just, meaning balanced, that this refers as much to god as to Satan. In effect, two heads on one body.

[Gary Childress]

For Brother Dubious:

"Will you walk into my parlor?" said the Spider to the Fly. "'Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you did spy; The way into my parlor is up a winding stair, And I have many curious things to show when you are there." "Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "to ask me is in vain; For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."

Who is the spider, who is the fly?
Until I know I cannot reply!

Maybe it's just me but the thought of a human behaving like a spider is hideous and a human acting like a fly would be pretty disgusting. But what do I know? I guess my thoughts are irrelevant. I'm the one with the psychiatric diagnosis here.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Harry Baird]

Please hold on while I order another shipment. This is going to require more power.

Shipment's in.

!!! By the power of Grayskull !!!

You cannot separate the metaphysical origins from the metaphysical products and achievements. And those achievements operate in all the domains that you can name, from jurisprudence to the marriage between a man and a woman. That is why I say that our very selves have been created, or constructed, from metaphysical principles over centuries and millennia.

Your use of "metaphysical" in this paragraph is to me unhelpful and even misleading. I think it is better stated without it, as something like this:

You cannot separate the rituals, norms, institutions, general culture, and sundry beliefs and ideas - amongst all of which includes jurisprudence and marriage - from the basic (religious) Story of the society in which they developed. That is why I say that our basic social identity is an outcome of the interpreting of - and the working out from the principles embedded in, and the moral of - that Story over centuries and millennia.

Deferring until below the extent to which that is not entirely true:

OK, but I am much less interested in the Story of whichever society I happened to be born into, and in whatever principles and morals are embedded in that Story, and much more interested in the actual bleeping truth! The extent to which that Story and its principles and morals are true is the extent to which I embrace those aspects of the social identity that derive from them. Merely embracing (or recurring to) the social identity of the society into which I was born because I was born into it isn't going to determine for me whether or not the Story-principles-moral from which it derives are true. Open inquiry instead is going to determine that. Yes, in part that can entail careful consideration of one's own society's Story, but deep, ongoing immersion in that Story is not compelled; and yes, it can be grounding and psychologically beneficial to identify with one's cultural heritage, but reflexive patriotism is not compelled, and not a focus for me at this point.

Now, here's the deferred caveat. There are also aspects of social identity that are not best seen as strictly deriving from a Story (and/or its principles and moral), for some reason such as:

1. They are very contingent and arbitrary, in the two senses of (a) arising despite, not because of, their context, and (b) not being morally consequential (and thus, the acceptance of which is more a matter of aesthetic preference than of the ascribing of truth to any Story-principles-moral).
2. They are somewhat contingent, more inspired by the Story-principles-moral than deriving from them (and thus, can, to an extent, be assessed on their own merits, rather than by proxy on the merits of the Story-principles-moral).
3. They are universal and obvious (and thus, don't distinguish this social identity from that based on any other Story-principles-moral, which also entails them).

I am not a student of society so I don't feel well placed to offer a view as to the proportion of each of these aspects.

All of that, hopefully, gives you at least a sense of my answer to this:

What other option is there?

I continue to reflect that Powerful Question back to you for your consideration - again, even if only of possibilities that you would ultimately not endorse.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Who is the spider, who is the fly?
Until I know I cannot reply!

You & me & He
We remarkable three
Form a Trinity,
See?

[Harry Baird]

Or ask that damned Satanic Machine AI!

The Abomination told me, basically: it's up to personal interpretation. Not much support for your contention there, so, I looked up Tridentine Mass on Wikipedia. Not much support there either.

Looks to me that the fish has drowned the spider here...

[Harry Baird]

The values demonstrated by the life and work of Jesus fit well with impersonal God.

Not the primary value of Jesus, which was, as I affirmed earlier, personal relationship with a personal God.

Sure, if you choose to ignore that that was Jesus's primary value, then you can frame his values in a secular context - but you then have to ignore others of them, and you change the original context of the remainder (which doesn't necessarily invalidate them).

[Alexis Jacobi]

OK, but I am much less interested in the Story of whichever society I happened to be born into, and in whatever principles and morals are embedded in that Story, and much more interested in the actual bleeping truth! The extent to which that Story and its principles and morals are true is the extent to which I embrace those aspects of the social identity that derive from them.

Then you must realize that the visible model, our Earth and its biological/physical ecological system, is the ‘reality’ that you are chained to. There, in that, there are no truths, no right and wrong, and certainly no evil.

Principles, morals, ethics, values & meaning, these are metaphysical and pertain to human beings — and conceivably other sentient intelligent beings.

Truth at those ‘higher’ levels have no tangible existence on our planet Harry. They are only perceived and perhaps strived for, by intelligent persons.

Hence, naturally, the notion and concept of “revealed truth”.

Tell me now please: what is true?

[attofishpi]

The Mass, as you know, is a reenactment of the life and ultimate sacrifice of Jesus. The function of it is to take the hearer (watcher) from a lower plane to a higher plane on the inner level. Now, I know that many of the hardcore deniers who reside here can only scoff at my interest in these things.

Or ask that damned Satanic Machine AI!

Ok.

Certainly no reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Personally, I think it would be a rather nasty thing to have to witness on a Sunday morning.


The Tridentine Mass, also known as the Traditional Latin Mass or the Mass of Saint Pius V, refers to the form of the Roman Catholic Mass that was codified by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Here are some of the important aspects of the Tridentine Mass:

1. Latin Language: The Tridentine Mass is celebrated primarily in Latin. The use of Latin was considered a unifying element of the Catholic Church, ensuring a consistent liturgical language across different regions.

2. Rubrics and Liturgical Precision: The Tridentine Mass is characterized by detailed rubrics and precise gestures for the celebrant and other ministers. This emphasis on liturgical precision aimed to ensure reverence and uniformity in the celebration of the Mass.

3. Ad Orientem (Facing East): The Tridentine Mass is typically celebrated with the priest facing the same direction as the congregation, toward the altar or "liturgical east." This practice symbolizes the orientation toward God and the eschatological expectation of Christ's return.

4. Gregorian Chant: The Tridentine Mass prominently features Gregorian chant, which is a form of liturgical music with a rich tradition in the Catholic Church. Gregorian chant is sung in Latin and has a contemplative and meditative character.

5. Liturgical Structure: The Tridentine Mass follows a specific liturgical structure, consisting of various prayers, readings from Scripture, chants, and ritual actions. It includes sections such as the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Liturgy of the Word, the Offertory, the Canon of the Mass, and the Communion.

6. Emphasis on Sacrifice: The Tridentine Mass emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, focusing on the offering of Christ's body and blood to God the Father for the salvation of humanity. The priest acts as an intermediary, offering the sacrifice on behalf of the faithful.

7. Limited Active Participation: In the Tridentine Mass, the role of the congregation is primarily one of contemplative and silent participation. The prayers and responses are predominantly spoken or chanted by the priest and ministers, with the congregation observing and uniting their hearts and minds in prayer.

It's important to note that the Tridentine Mass underwent revisions over time, and the most recent edition in use before the Second Vatican Council was the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not much support for your contention there

Remind me, please, what am I contending?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Certainly no reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Personally, I think it would be a rather nasty thing to have to witness on a Sunday morning.

Certainly and most definitely precisely that.

Thus it is referred to as “the unbloody sacrifice”.

[Harry Baird]

Not much support for your contention there

Remind me, please, what am I contending?

That:

[t]he [Latin or Tridentine] Mass [...] is a reenactment of the life and ultimate sacrifice of Jesus.

Here, then, is what I put to The Abomination:

Is it accurate to describe the Latin Mass, also known as the Tridentine Mass, as a reenactment of the life and ultimate sacrifice of Jesus?

And here is the first paragraph of The Beast's response:

Describing the Latin Mass, also known as the Tridentine Mass, as a reenactment of the life and ultimate sacrifice of Jesus is a subjective interpretation that may vary depending on individual perspectives and beliefs.

It's not exactly a ringing endorsement...

I'll respond to your earlier post in due course.

[ETA]: For completeness, here is the rest of its Foul Utterance:

The Tridentine Mass is the traditional liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church as codified by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. It is conducted in Latin and follows a specific structure and form. The central focus of the Mass is the Eucharist, which Catholics believe is the re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

While the Tridentine Mass emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, it is not typically described as a direct reenactment of Jesus' life or sacrifice in the sense of a theatrical performance or historical reenactment. Instead, it is seen as a solemn and reverent celebration that makes present the sacrifice of Christ in a sacramental manner.

During the Mass, the priest, acting in the person of Christ, offers prayers, readings, and the consecration of bread and wine, which are believed to become the body and blood of Jesus. The faithful participate by offering their prayers, songs, and personal devotion. The focus is on entering into communion with God and receiving the grace and spiritual nourishment through the Eucharist.

It's important to note that interpretations and experiences of the Tridentine Mass can vary among individuals and communities, and some people may have a more symbolic or mystical understanding of its significance. Ultimately, how one perceives the Tridentine Mass will depend on their personal beliefs and theological perspective within the Catholic faith.