Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Non-Catholic Discussion Subforum => Topic started by: TheReturnofLive on March 19, 2021, 07:01:36 PM

Title: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: TheReturnofLive on March 19, 2021, 07:01:36 PM
TL;DR

In "The Brothers Karamazov", Dostoevsky gives a parable where Christ comes back for a second into Seville, Spain, where the Inquisition grabs him and tries him for heresy.

In it, the Inquisition tells Christ to not bother them, because the Catholic Church had provided  all three temptations that the devil gave in the wilderness. For one, the Catholic Church provided the people with security, food, and sustenance, even though the devil himself tempted Christ with bread and with security from harm. Additionally, the devil tempted Christ with political power, and has there ever been an institution that was so politically influencial as the Catholic Church? Not a single institution, the Roman Empire not withstanding, has managed to unite so much people under it's breadth and wield such political power as did the Catholic Church during the medieval period. The Pope could depose monarchs and wreck havoc on nations by excommunicating, could organize manpower and tax nations for crusades, etc.

The inherent paradox which Dostoevsky seems to attack on Catholicism, and perhaps, Christianity itself, is that the monastic mode of living inherent in Catholicism is paradoxical to the needs of the every single person. Each person needs food, each person needs security, each person needs government and political power - so how exactly is Christianity compatible with human nature? And moreover, how could you unconditionally love humanity when they are so flawed, so weak, and so pathetic as to not be able to embrace the monastic mode of living, yet love the monastic mode of living all the same?

Thoughts?



Here's the relevant passage:


"And behold, He deigned to appear for a moment to the people, to the tortured, suffering people, sunk in iniquity, but loving Him like children. My story is laid in Spain, in Seville, in the most terrible time of the Inquisition, when fires were lighted every day to the glory of God, and 'in the splendid auto da fe the wicked heretics were burnt.' .'....He visited His children only for a moment....

"He came softly, unobserved, and yet, strange to say, everyone recognised Him. That might be one of the best passages in the poem. I mean, why they recognised Him. The people are irresistibly drawn to Him, they surround Him, they flock about Him, follow Him. He moves silently in their midst with a gentle smile of infinite compassion. The sun of love burns in His heart, and power shine from His eyes, and their radiance, shed on the people, stirs their hearts with responsive love. He holds out His hands to them, blesses them, and a healing virtue comes from contact with Him, even with His garments. An old man in the crowd, blind from childhood, cries out, 'O Lord, heal me and I shall see Thee!' and, as it were, scales fall from his eyes and the blind man sees Him. The crowd weeps and kisses the earth under His feet. Children throw flowers before Him, sing, and cry hosannah. 'It is He- it is He!' repeat. 'It must be He, it can be no one but Him!'....

"There are cries, sobs, confusion among the people, and at that moment the cardinal himself, the Grand Inquisitor, passes by the cathedral. ..... The crowd instantly bows down to the earth, like one man, before the old Inquisitor. He blesses the people in silence and passes on' The guards lead their prisoner to the close, gloomy vaulted prison- in the ancient palace of the Holy, inquisition and shut him in it. The day passes and is followed by the dark, burning, 'breathless' night of Seville. The air is 'fragrant with laurel and lemon.' In the pitch darkness the iron door of the prison is suddenly opened and the Grand Inquisitor himself comes in with a light in his hand. He is alone; the door is closed at once behind him. He stands in the doorway and for a minute or two gazes into His face. At last he goes up slowly, sets the light on the table and speaks....

"'Is it Thou? Thou?' but receiving no answer, he adds at once. 'Don't answer, be silent. What canst Thou say, indeed? I know too well what Thou wouldst say. And Thou hast no right to add anything to what Thou hadst said of old. Why, then, art Thou come to hinder us? For Thou hast come to hinder us, and Thou knowest that. But dost thou know what will be to-morrow?....

..... "The old man has told Him He hasn't the right to add anything to what He has said of old. One may say it is the most fundamental feature of Roman Catholicism, in my opinion at least. ..... For fifteen centuries we have been wrestling with Thy freedom, but now it is ended and over for good. Dost Thou not believe that it's over for good? Thou lookest meekly at me and deignest not even to be wroth with me. But let me tell Thee that now, to-day, people are more persuaded than ever that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and laid it humbly at our feet. But that has been our doing.

'for the first time it has become possible to think of the happiness of men. Man was created a rebel; and how can rebels be happy? Thou wast warned,' he says to Him. 'Thou hast had no lack of admonitions and warnings, but Thou didst not listen to those warnings; Thou didst reject the only way by which men might be made happy. But, fortunately, departing Thou didst hand on the work to us. Thou hast promised, Thou hast established by Thy word, Thou hast given to us the right to bind and to unbind, and now, of course, Thou canst not think of taking it away. Why, then, hast Thou come to hinder us?'"...


"'The wise and dread spirit, the spirit of self-destruction and non-existence,' the old man goes on, great spirit talked with Thee in the wilderness, and we are told in the books that he "tempted" Thee. Is that so? And could anything truer be said than what he revealed to Thee in three questions and what Thou didst reject, and what in the books is called "the temptation"? And yet if there has ever been on earth a real stupendous miracle, it took place on that day, on the day of the three temptations. The statement of those three questions was itself the miracle. If it were possible to imagine simply for the sake of argument that those three questions of the dread spirit had perished utterly from the books, and that we had to restore them and to invent them anew, and to do so had gathered together all the wise men of the earth- rulers, chief priests, learned men, philosophers, poets- and had set them the task to invent three questions, such as would not only fit the occasion, but express in three words, three human phrases, the whole future history of the world and of humanity- dost Thou believe that all the wisdom of the earth united could have invented anything in depth and force equal to the three questions which were actually put to Thee then by the wise and mighty spirit in the wilderness? From those questions alone, from the miracle of their statement, we can see that we have here to do not with the fleeting human intelligence, but with the absolute and eternal. For in those three questions the whole subsequent history of mankind is, as it were, brought together into one whole, and foretold, and in them are united all the unsolved historical contradictions of human nature. At the time it could not be so clear, since the future was unknown; but now that fifteen hundred years have passed, we see that everything in those three questions was so justly divined and foretold, and has been so truly fulfilled, that nothing can be added to them or taken from them.

"Judge Thyself who was right- Thou or he who questioned Thee then? Remember the first question; its meaning, in other words, was this: "Thou wouldst go into the world, and art going with empty hands, with some promise of freedom which men in their simplicity and their natural unruliness cannot even understand, which they fear and dread- for nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom. But seest Thou these stones in this parched and barren wilderness? Turn them into bread, and mankind will run after Thee like a flock of sheep, grateful and obedient, though for ever trembling, lest Thou withdraw Thy hand and deny them Thy bread." But Thou wouldst not deprive man of freedom and didst reject the offer, thinking, what is that freedom worth if obedience is bought with bread? Thou didst reply that man lives not by bread alone. But dost Thou know that for the sake of that earthly bread the spirit of the earth will rise up against Thee and will strive with Thee and overcome Thee, and all will follow him, crying, "Who can compare with this beast? He has given us fire from heaven!" Dost Thou know that the ages will pass, and humanity will proclaim by the lips of their sages that there is no crime, and therefore no sin; there is only hunger? "Feed men, and then ask of them virtue!" that's what they'll write on the banner, which they will raise against Thee, and with which they will destroy Thy temple. Where Thy temple stood will rise a new building; the terrible tower of Babel will be built again, and though, like the one of old, it will not be finished, yet Thou mightest have prevented that new tower and have cut short the sufferings of men for a thousand years; for they will come back to us after a thousand years of agony with their tower. They will seek us again, hidden underground in the catacombs, for we shall be again persecuted and tortured. They will find us and cry to us, "Feed us, for those who have promised us fire from heaven haven't given it!" And then we shall finish building their tower, for he finishes the building who feeds them. And we alone shall feed them in Thy name, declaring falsely that it is in Thy name. Oh, never, never can they feed themselves without us! No science will give them bread so long as they remain free. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us." They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious. Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful and ignoble race of man? And if for the sake of the bread of Heaven thousands shall follow Thee, what is to become of the millions and tens of thousands of millions of creatures who will not have the strength to forego the earthly bread for the sake of the heavenly? Or dost Thou care only for the tens of thousands of the great and strong, while the millions, numerous as the sands of the sea, who are weak but love Thee, must exist only for the sake of the great and strong? No, we care for the weak too. They are sinful and rebellious, but in the end they too will become obedient. They will marvel at us and look on us as gods, because we are ready to endure the freedom which they have found so dreadful and to rule over them- so awful it will seem to them to be free. But we shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name. We shall deceive them again, for we will not let Thee come to us again. That deception will be our suffering, for we shall be forced to lie.

"'This is the significance of the first question in the wilderness, and this is what Thou hast rejected for the sake of that freedom which Thou hast exalted above everything. Yet in this question lies hid the great secret of this world. Choosing "bread," Thou wouldst have satisfied the universal and everlasting craving of humanity- to find someone to worship. So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship. But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once to worship it. For these pitiful creatures are concerned not only to find what one or the other can worship, but to find community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship they've slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another, "Put away your gods and come and worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods!" And so it will be to the end of the world, even when gods disappear from the earth; they will fall down before idols just the same. Thou didst know, Thou couldst not but have known, this fundamental secret of human nature, but Thou didst reject the one infallible banner which was offered Thee to make all men bow down to Thee alone- the banner of earthly bread; and Thou hast rejected it for the sake of freedom and the bread of Heaven. Behold what Thou didst further. And all again in the name of freedom! I tell Thee that man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born. But only one who can appease their conscience can take over their freedom. In bread there was offered Thee an invincible banner; give bread, and man will worship thee, for nothing is more certain than bread. But if someone else gains possession of his conscience- Oh! then he will cast away Thy bread and follow after him who has ensnared his conscience. In that Thou wast right. For the secret of man's being is not only to live but to have something to live for. Without a stable conception of the object of life, man would not consent to go on living, and would rather destroy himself than remain on earth, though he had bread in abundance. That is true. But what happened? Instead of taking men's freedom from them, Thou didst make it greater than ever! Didst Thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering. And behold, instead of giving a firm foundation for setting the conscience of man at rest for ever, Thou didst choose all that is exceptional, vague and enigmatic; Thou didst choose what was utterly beyond the strength of men, acting as though Thou didst not love them at all- Thou who didst come to give Thy life for them! Instead of taking possession of men's freedom, Thou didst increase it, and burdened the spiritual kingdom of mankind with its sufferings for ever. Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide. But didst Thou not know that he would at last reject even Thy image and Thy truth, if he is weighed down with the fearful burden of free choice? They will cry aloud at last that the truth is not in Thee, for they could not have been left in greater confusion and suffering than Thou hast caused, laying upon them so many cares and unanswerable problems.

"'So that, in truth, Thou didst Thyself lay the foundation for the destruction of Thy kingdom, and no one is more to blame for it. Yet what was offered Thee? There are three powers, three powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive for ever the conscience of these impotent rebels for their happiness those forces are miracle, mystery and authority. Thou hast rejected all three and hast set the example for doing so. When the wise and dread spirit set Thee on the pinnacle of the temple and said to Thee, "If Thou wouldst know whether Thou art the Son of God then cast Thyself down, for it is written: the angels shall hold him up lest he fall and bruise himself, and Thou shalt know then whether Thou art the Son of God and shalt prove then how great is Thy faith in Thy Father." But Thou didst refuse and wouldst not cast Thyself down. Oh, of course, Thou didst proudly and well, like God; but the weak, unruly race of men, are they gods? Oh, Thou didst know then that in taking one step, in making one movement to cast Thyself down, Thou wouldst be tempting God and have lost all Thy faith in Him, and wouldst have been dashed to pieces against that earth which Thou didst come to save. And the wise spirit that tempted Thee would have rejoiced. But I ask again, are there many like Thee? And couldst Thou believe for one moment that men, too, could face such a temptation? Is the nature of men such, that they can reject miracle, and at the great moments of their life, the moments of their deepest, most agonising spiritual difficulties, cling only to the free verdict of the heart? Oh, Thou didst know that Thy deed would be recorded in books, would be handed down to remote times and the utmost ends of the earth, and Thou didst hope that man, following Thee, would cling to God and not ask for a miracle. But Thou didst not know that when man rejects miracle he rejects God too; for man seeks not so much God as the miraculous. And as man cannot bear to be without the miraculous, he will create new miracles of his own for himself, and will worship deeds of sorcery and witchcraft, though he might be a hundred times over a rebel, heretic and infidel. Thou didst not come down from the Cross when they shouted to Thee, mocking and reviling Thee, "Come down from the cross and we will believe that Thou art He." Thou didst not come down, for again Thou wouldst not enslave man by a miracle, and didst crave faith given freely, not based on miracle. Thou didst crave for free love and not the base raptures of the slave before the might that has overawed him for ever. But Thou didst think too highly of men therein, for they are slaves, of course, though rebellious by nature. Look round and judge; fifteen centuries have passed, look upon them. Whom hast Thou raised up to Thyself? I swear, man is weaker and baser by nature than Thou hast believed him! Can he, can he do what Thou didst? By showing him so much respect, Thou didst, as it were, cease to feel for him, for Thou didst ask far too much from him- Thou who hast loved him more than Thyself! Respecting him less, Thou wouldst have asked less of him. That would have been more like love, for his burden would have been lighter. He is weak and vile. What though he is everywhere now rebelling against our power, and proud of his rebellion? It is the pride of a child and a schoolboy. They are little children rioting and barring out the teacher at school. But their childish delight will end; it will cost them dear. Mankind as a whole has always striven to organise a universal state. There have been many great nations with great histories, but the more highly they were developed the more unhappy they were, for they felt more acutely than other people the craving for world-wide union. The great conquerors, Timours and Ghenghis-Khans, whirled like hurricanes over the face of the earth striving to subdue its people, and they too were but the unconscious expression of the same craving for universal unity. Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar's purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal state and have given universal peace. For who can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? We have taken the sword of Caesar, and in taking it, of course, have rejected Thee and followed him. Oh, ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their science and cannibalism. For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, "Mystery." But then, and only then, the reign of peace and happiness will come for men. Thou art proud of Thine elect, but Thou hast only the elect, while we give rest to all. And besides, how many of those elect, those mighty ones who could become elect, have grown weary waiting for Thee, and have transferred and will transfer the powers of their spirit and the warmth of their heart to the other camp, and end by raising their free banner against Thee. Thou didst Thyself lift up that banner. But with us all will be happy and will no more rebel nor destroy one another as under Thy freedom. Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only become free when they renounce their freedom to us and submit to us. And shall we be right or shall we be lying? They will be convinced that we are right, for they will remember the horrors of slavery and confusion to which Thy freedom brought them. Freedom, free thought, and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: "Yes, you were right, you alone possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!"

"'Receiving bread from us, they will see clearly that we take the bread made by their hands from them, to give it to them, without any miracle. They will see that we do not change the stones to bread, but in truth they will be more thankful for taking it from our hands than for the bread itself! For they will remember only too well that in old days, without our help, even the bread they made turned to stones in their hands, while since they have come back to us, the very stones have turned to bread in their hands. Too, too well will they know the value of complete submission! And until men know that, they will be unhappy. Who is most to blame for their not knowing it?-speak! Who scattered the flock and sent it astray on unknown paths? But the flock will come together again and will submit once more, and then it will be once for all. Then we shall give them the quiet humble happiness of weak creatures such as they are by nature. Oh, we shall persuade them at last not to be proud, for Thou didst lift them up and thereby taught them to be proud. We shall show them that they are weak, that they are only pitiful children, but that childlike happiness is the sweetest of all. They will become timid and will look to us and huddle close to us in fear, as chicks to the hen. They will marvel at us and will be awe-stricken before us, and will be proud at our being so powerful and clever that we have been able to subdue such a turbulent flock of thousands of millions. They will tremble impotently before our wrath, their minds will grow fearful, they will be quick to shed tears like women and children, but they will be just as ready at a sign from us to pass to laughter and rejoicing, to happy mirth and childish song. Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life like a child's game, with children's songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin. We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated, if it is done with our permission, that we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and they will adore us as their saviours who have taken on themselves their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us. We shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have children according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient- and they will submit to us gladly and cheerfully. The most painful secrets of their conscience, all, all they will bring to us, and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present in making a free decision for themselves. And all will be happy, all the millions of creatures except the hundred thousand who rule over them. For only we, we who guard the mystery, shall be unhappy. There will be thousands of millions of happy babes, and a hundred thousand sufferers who have taken upon themselves the curse of the knowledge of good and evil. Peacefully they will die, peacefully they will expire in Thy name, and beyond the grave they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity. Though if there were anything in the other world, it certainly would not be for such as they. It is prophesied that Thou wilt come again in victory, Thou wilt come with Thy chosen, the proud and strong, but we will say that they have only saved themselves, but we have saved all. We are told that the harlot who sits upon the beast, and holds in her hands the mystery, shall be put to shame, that the weak will rise up again, and will rend her royal purple and will strip naked her loathsome body. But then I will stand up and point out to Thee the thousand millions of happy children who have known no sin. And we who have taken their sins upon us for their happiness will stand up before Thee and say: "Judge us if Thou canst and darest." Know that I fear Thee not. Know that I too have been in the wilderness, I too have lived on roots and locusts, I too prized the freedom with which Thou hast blessed men, and I too was striving to stand among Thy elect, among the strong and powerful, thirsting "to make up the number." But I awakened and would not serve madness. I turned back and joined the ranks of those who have corrected Thy work. I left the proud and went back to the humble, for the happiness of the humble. What I say to Thee will come to pass, and our dominion will be built up. I repeat, to-morrow Thou shalt see that obedient flock who at a sign from me will hasten to heap up the hot cinders about the pile on which I shall burn Thee for coming to hinder us. For if anyone has ever deserved our fires, it is Thou. To-morrow I shall burn Thee. Dixi.'"*


"A precious admission, in spite of your 'not a bit the same.' I ask you why your Jesuits and Inquisitors have united simply for vile material gain? Why can there not be among them one martyr oppressed by great sorrow and loving humanity? You see, only suppose that there was one such man among all those who desire nothing but filthy material gain-if there's only one like my old Inquisitor, who had himself eaten roots in the desert and made frenzied efforts to subdue his flesh to make himself free and perfect. But yet all his life he loved humanity, and suddenly his eyes were opened, and he saw that it is no great moral blessedness to attain perfection and freedom, if at the same time one gains the conviction that millions of God's creatures have been created as a mockery, that they will never be capable of using their freedom, that these poor rebels can never turn into giants to complete the tower, that it was not for such geese that the great idealist dreamt his dream of harmony. Seeing all that he turned back and joined- the clever people. Surely that could have happened?""

""What if it is so! At last you have guessed it. It's perfectly true, it's true that that's the whole secret, but isn't that suffering, at least for a man like that, who has wasted his whole life in the desert and yet could not shake off his incurable love of humanity? In his old age he reached the clear conviction that nothing but the advice of the great dread spirit could build up any tolerable sort of life for the feeble, unruly, 'incomplete, empirical creatures created in jest.' And so, convinced of this, he sees that he must follow the counsel of the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction, and therefore accept lying and deception, and lead men consciously to death and destruction, and yet deceive them all the way so that they may not notice where they are being led, that the poor blind creatures may at least on the way think themselves happy. And note, the deception is in the name of Him in Whose ideal the old man had so fervently believed all his life long. Is not that tragic? And if only one such stood at the head of the whole army 'filled with the lust of power only for the sake of filthy gain'- would not one such be enough to make a tragedy? More than that, one such standing at the head is enough to create the actual leading idea of the Roman Church with all its armies and Jesuits, its highest idea. I tell you frankly that I firmly believe that there has always been such a man among those who stood at the head of the movement. Who knows, there may have been some such even among the Roman Popes. Who knows, perhaps the spirit of that accursed old man who loves mankind so obstinately in his own way, is to be found even now in a whole multitude of such old men, existing not by chance but by agreement, as a secret league formed long ago for the guarding of the mystery, to guard it from the weak and the unhappy, so as to make them happy. No doubt it is so, and so it must be indeed. I fancy that even among the Masons there's something of the same mystery at the bottom, and that that's why the Catholics so detest the Masons as their rivals breaking up the unity of the idea, while it is so essential that there should be one flock and one shepherd.... But from the way I defend my idea I might be an author impatient of your criticism. Enough of it.""

"I meant to end it like this. When the Inquisitor ceased speaking he waited some time for his Prisoner to answer him. His silence weighed down upon him. He saw that the Prisoner had listened intently all the time, looking gently in his face and evidently not wishing to reply. The old man longed for him to say something, however bitter and terrible. But He suddenly approached the old man in silence and softly kissed him on his bloodless aged lips. That was all his answer. The old man shuddered. His lips moved. He went to the door, opened it, and said to Him: 'Go, and come no more... come not at all, never, never!' And he let Him out into the dark alleys of the town. The Prisoner went away.""
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Xavier on March 22, 2021, 02:55:58 AM
Live, Prof. Thomas Woods has an excellent must read book, how the Catholic Church built Western Civilization. The Church built hospitals, orphanages, charities, beautiful cathedrals, developed technology in Her monasteries, and was the Church that taught the people of Europe the Holy Name of Jesus Christ and His saving Gospel. That's why the people of Europe loved the Church and why they disliked heresy. I'm of the view that even people in heresy, even born in heresy, should simply be answered by arguments only, as the Church knows She can do, and has always done since the Apostolic age (in the Council of Trent, some Protestants were invited to come discuss doctrine at the Council with the Council Fathers), provided the heresy is non-violent. When someone is falsely saying the Pope is Anti-Christ, whereas the Bible clearly says Anti-Christ denies the Father and the Son, while the Catholic Church taught the world the Trinity - and not only is he saying it, but he is instigating violent revolt against the Pope and the whole Church, then legitimate self-defense is allowed. I am for reason and argument, and for defending the Truth of the Faith from the sources of revelation. But non-Christians or non-Catholics should not be attacking the Catholic Church. If they are, there is legitimate self-defense on the part of the Catholic Church.

Here's the book: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/05/thomas-woods/how-the-catholic-church-built-western-civilization/

As for how we love the monastic life while also loving persons who may despise it, that's simply part of the basic Gospel. We are to love everyone, according to Our Lord's Second Great Commandment, without exception as our brother or sister and neighbor, bless and not curse them, and desire their good and happiness. But when it comes to loving God, which is the First and Greatest Commandment of all, we should strive to be good disciples of His, and therefore seek that life which most easily conduces to perfection. For many people, especially those expressly called to it, this state in life is what aids them in attaining the perfection to which nonetheless all are called.

I hope that helps clarify.

In Christ,
Xavier.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Mono no aware on March 24, 2021, 05:45:21 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on March 19, 2021, 07:01:36 PMThe inherent paradox which Dostoevsky seems to attack on Catholicism, and perhaps, Christianity itself, is that the monastic mode of living inherent in Catholicism is paradoxical to the needs of the every single person. Each person needs food, each person needs security, each person needs government and political power - so how exactly is Christianity compatible with human nature? And moreover, how could you unconditionally love humanity when they are so flawed, so weak, and so pathetic as to not be able to embrace the monastic mode of living, yet love the monastic mode of living all the same?

The mistake here is that there is no "monastic mode of living inherent in Catholicism" (or Christianity itself).  Paul was Pharisaical and Jesuitical in his temperament.  He was shrewd.  He knew precisely when to be laxist and what he could get away with.  He would hold up an ideal and glorify it.  And then he would pull back at the last minute, and say it was an ideal and not a necessity.  Virginity and marriage: virginity is the ideal, but for those who cannot control their lusts, well then it's ho-hum, "let them marry."  He seems to have realized that a religion of celibates would have neither much in the way of attraction nor much of a future. 

The Shakers would later put this theory to the test.  They mandated celibacy for all, and now they are nearly extinct.  Total estimated Shaker population: 2.  Their failure proves Paul's savvy.  Now maybe Jesus himself had been more strict, but "the last Christian died on the cross," and what we are left with is the religion of St. Paul.  And Paul was brilliant.  Idealists tend to be loonies, but worldlings can be very clever.

Xavier has a recommended a book called How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (such triumphalism in a title), so I will recommend a book as well.  I believe I recommended it to you once before: it is The Antichrist, by Friedrich Nietzsche.  An equally provocative title, but really it is far more anti-Paul than anti-Christ.  Paul is probably the most widely-read and deeply-examined writer in human history, but I don't think anyone ever peered unblinking into Paul's malevolent & cunning spirit than the German philosopher did.  Nietzsche gazed long into the abyss.  He also loved Dostoevsky.  Nietzsche observed the worldliness of Christians and asked, "whom then does Christianity negate?"  Christianity has succeeded in its worldly forms because Paul devised it that way.  He put in all the right loopholes.  "The priest is a steak-eater."


Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Xavier on March 31, 2021, 03:06:04 AM
St. Paul the blessed Apostle suffered greatly and gloriously for Our Lord Jesus Christ. He was praised by the whole Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), and by St. Peter in his second epistle. He was martyred together with St. Peter under the Emperor Nero in Rome. St. Paul was praised by the other Apostles and worked together with them for the Glory of Christ our King.

Somehow, Nietzche neglects to take this important facts into account. Deistic polemicists against Christianity also forget to mention it. St. Paul was a Martyr for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Why would St. Paul willingly undergo this kind of being crucified with Christ, this perpetual and lifelong spiritual martyrdom, if not because he had truly met and known the Risen Lord, having no doubt in his conviction that Jesus Christ the Lord had truly conquered the Grave?

"2 Cor 11:[21] I speak according to dishonour, as if we had been weak in this part. Wherein if any man dare (I speak foolishly), I dare also. [22] They are Hebrews: so am I. They are Israelites: so am I. They are the seed of Abraham: so am I. [23] They are the ministers of Christ (I speak as one less wise). I am more; in many more labours, in prisons more frequently, in stripes above measure, in deaths often. [24] Of the Jews five times did I receive forty stripes, save one. [25] Thrice was I beaten with rods, once I was stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I was in the depth of the sea.

[26] In journeying often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils from my own nation, in perils from the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils from false brethren. [27] In labour and painfulness, in much watchings, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. [28] Besides those things which are without: my daily instance, the solicitude for all the churches. [29] Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is scandalized, and I am not on fire? [30] If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things that concern my infirmity."
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Mono no aware on March 31, 2021, 07:51:17 AM
Nobody is denying the martyrdom of St. Paul.  As for why he would willingly slog through all the trials and tribulations that met him in his ministry, the answer was given by Nietzsche: it was the will to power.  Paul wanted power: "be ye followers of me."  He even issued the reigning pope at the time a blunt correction to his face.  That takes chutzpah.  Traditional Catholics like to emulate that one.  But people in the quest for power will sometimes endure much in order to have it. 

It is really a question of psychology.  Some are delicate and would rather not be shipwrecked and robbed and starved and out in the cold, but others are determined, and are willing to suffer the cost for the prize.  For Paul, it was freedom from the law.  He had to get rid of the law, come hell or high water.  It was an ideological commitment, and people tend to get zealous for those things.  Paul had already been a zealot for the rabbinical side.  Nietzsche perceived that Paul had wanted yet more: he wanted revenge.  On the Jews and their oppressive law, on the Romans and their imperial brutality, and on the cruelty of his own obscurity and insignificance. 

When Paul was publicly beheaded, there was probably a crowd and it probably included many Christians, who would have been praying for him and repeating his own exhortations about rejoicing in your persecution.  What power does a Roman axe have when you're going to meet the Lord in your resurrected body?  Paul had achieved a renown and a cultic power by the time he died which he could never have hoped for in his former life as a persecuting toady for the Pharisees.  He had thrown off the fetters, and here he was, a leader; his memory would be immortal.  Glorious day.


Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 01, 2021, 06:28:09 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on March 31, 2021, 07:51:17 AM
Nobody is denying the martyrdom of St. Paul.  As for why he would willingly slog through all the trials and tribulations that met him in his ministry, the answer was given by Nietzsche: it was the will to power.  Paul wanted power: "be ye followers of me."  He even issued the reigning pope at the time a blunt correction to his face.  That takes chutzpah.  Traditional Catholics like to emulate that one.  But people in the quest for power will sometimes endure much in order to have it. 

It is really a question of psychology.  Some are delicate and would rather not be shipwrecked and robbed and starved and out in the cold, but others are determined, and are willing to suffer the cost for the prize.  For Paul, it was freedom from the law.  He had to get rid of the law, come hell or high water.  It was an ideological commitment, and people tend to get zealous for those things.  Paul had already been a zealot for the rabbinical side.  Nietzsche perceived that Paul had wanted yet more: he wanted revenge.  On the Jews and their oppressive law, on the Romans and their imperial brutality, and on the cruelty of his own obscurity and insignificance. 

When Paul was publicly beheaded, there was probably a crowd and it probably included many Christians, who would have been praying for him and repeating his own exhortations about rejoicing in your persecution.  What power does a Roman axe have when you're going to meet the Lord in your resurrected body?  Paul had achieved a renown and a cultic power by the time he died which he could never have hoped for in his former life as a persecuting toady for the Pharisees.  He had thrown off the fetters, and here he was, a leader; his memory would be immortal.  Glorious day.

Yeah but fwiw I think Nietzsche's idea that Paul corrupted Jesus's teaching to damn people to hell and that Paul's followers added the Bible verses of Jesus talking about hell is unfounded imo. Surely Paul was opportunistic in that sense, using the fear of death to bring people to God through himself, but still.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Non Nobis on April 02, 2021, 12:36:43 AM
Satan must have propped open Nietzsche's eyes and whispered lies in his heart to get.him to find such ugliness in St. Paul. Satan no doubt found that a good way to attack  Christ, who specially chose St. Paul to help guide His Church.

I pity you  deniers and doubters on these Holiest days of the year.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Xavier on April 02, 2021, 03:48:25 AM
Happy Good Friday, folks! Praise be to Our Lord Jesus Christ for His Redeeming Sacrifice.

Poor St. Paul. He is much maligned by non-Christians after his death, as he was during life, but he is much beloved by Christians for being a good and faithful Apostle of Christ. Above all, that's what he was. He knew Jesus Christ was the Promised Messiah, the Suffering Servant for our sins so eloquently foreseen by King David in Psa 21 [22 in modern versions] in 1000 BC, the Prophet Isaiah in Isa 53 in 700 B.C. and so many other places. The Scriptuees declared beforehand that Christ, the True and Holy Paschal Lamb of God, would be the Atoning Sacrifice for the sins of all. St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, St. John, St. Jude and all the holy Apostles and disciples of the Lord, understood this Truth, and bore witness to it with their life and their blood - just like their Master Himself had borne witness to the Truth He Himself was with His Holy Life and His Precious Blood.

I pray, Pon and Live, that the Good Lord Himself clarifies your doubts and that you find healing, reconciliation, joy and peace in Him this Good Friday.

God Bless.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Mono no aware on April 02, 2021, 10:22:04 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on April 01, 2021, 06:28:09 PM
Yeah but fwiw I think Nietzsche's idea that Paul corrupted Jesus's teaching to damn people to hell and that Paul's followers added the Bible verses of Jesus talking about hell is unfounded imo. Surely Paul was opportunistic in that sense, using the fear of death to bring people to God through himself, but still.

Yes, it's pure supposition.  On the other hand, Jesus never set anything down in writing (that which he is said to have inspired notwithstanding), so all we have to speculate on is Paul coming first and everything else afterwards.  The concept of fiery Gehenna is unquestionably Jewish, and was very much in vogue in the riotous apocalypto-Messianic atmosphere of 1st c. Judaism, and therefore would have been quite familiar to both Jesus and Paul.  So it is only left to consider which of them had the more vengeful psychology.  Paul seems the better candidate.  Just read the second half of Romans 1.  You have to admit, though, "the last Christian died on the cross" is a good line (and appropriate to today on the liturgical calendar).

Nietzsche bristled against Jesus' inherent Jewishness, but otherwise he tended to suppose him as a mystic given over to a kind of purity of perception.  Jesus had fared much better than Paul in overcoming his own Hebrew instincts of resentment and indignity.  Even the worst insult Nietzsche doled out to him, "idiot," is actually a left-handed compliment, since according to a footnote in my edition, this is a reference to Dostoevsky's novel of the same name, which the German philosopher had enjoyed, the eponymous character being tragically misunderstood.  Nietzsche of course thought the gospels would have been great had there been a Dostoevsky around to compose them.


Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 02, 2021, 11:55:19 AM
Quote
Yes, it's pure supposition.  On the other hand, Jesus never set anything down in writing (that which he is said to have inspired notwithstanding), so all we have to speculate on is Paul coming first and everything else afterwards.  The concept of fiery Gehenna is unquestionably Jewish, and was very much in vogue in the riotous apocalypto-Messianic atmosphere of 1st c. Judaism, and therefore would have been quite familiar to both Jesus and Paul.  So it is only left to consider which of them had the more vengeful psychology.  Paul seems the better candidate.  Just read the second half of Romans 1.  You have to admit, though, "the last Christian died on the cross" is a good line (and appropriate to today on the liturgical calendar).

I think it goes further back beyond Judaism considering the concept appears not only in other religions which would have had geographic crossover (for instance, "Tartarus" and maybe "Hades" in Greek Paganism), and religions which don't even have geographic crossover (for instance, "Naraka" in Buddhism and Hinduism).

What is Jewish is the basis by which people are judged (being pure in heart or not, being meek or not, being loving or not, loving God or not) and perhaps eternity of it (Virgil's Aeneid seems to suggest that Hades involves reincarnation of some kind).

I find it incredibly ironic that religious Jews today deny the existence of Hell even though the Book of Enoch clearly shows it was their own creation.

Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 02, 2021, 10:22:04 AM
Nietzsche bristled against Jesus' inherent Jewishness, but otherwise he tended to suppose him as a mystic given over to a kind of purity of perception.  Jesus had fared much better than Paul in overcoming his own Hebrew instincts of resentment and indignity.  Even the worst insult Nietzsche doled out to him, "idiot," is actually a left-handed compliment, since according to a footnote in my edition, this is a reference to Dostoevsky's novel of the same name, which the German philosopher had enjoyed, the eponymous character being tragically misunderstood.  Nietzsche of course thought the gospels would have been great had there been a Dostoevsky around to compose them.

My supposition here is that Nietzsche did this to mitigate controversy and perhaps add greater marketability to his works. Good luck trash-talking Jesus in 19th century Germany. It's not like today where you can make fun of Yahweh incarnate with trivial consequence. Plus, you add greater credibility to your works playing up the Gnostic "Jesus was secretly following my beliefs" card
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 02, 2021, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis on April 02, 2021, 12:36:43 AM
Satan must have propped open Nietzsche's eyes and whispered lies in his heart to get.him to find such ugliness in St. Paul. Satan no doubt found that a good way to attack  Christ, who specially chose St. Paul to help guide His Church.

I pity you  deniers and doubters on these Holiest days of the year.

For Nietzsche, most things that drive human beings to action is a desire for power, which human beings will do even if it means tactically rallying people around you to call those with power "evil, wicked, hell-bound, bastard of Satan!"

It's the same tactic that contemporary leftist radicals use. Set your own beliefs as "good", those opposed to your beliefs as "evil," then justify that by trying to rally people around yourself to shun and break down those who you hate, all to just seize power. I can guarantee you that at least 30% of the supporters of Black Lives Matter don't actually care about black lives, they are using it as a tool for power and influence.

Whether or not Saint Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit or was an opportunistic power-seeker is probably something only he would have known.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Xavier on April 02, 2021, 10:51:28 PM
Blessed Holy Saturday to all. I pray we all console Mother Mary's Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart this Holy Saturday, which is also First Saturday. Today, She experienced measureless grief after the cold-blooded murder of Her Divine Son. As the Saints and Mystics tell us however, with a Love that knew no bounds in Her Immaculate Heart, and with Unmatched Heroism, She the Divine Mother forgave the murderers of Her Son.

I do not think St. Paul's critics like Nietchze would have been able to endure his degree of persecution, notwithstanding their opinions on "will to power"! It was exactly the opposite for St. Paul. St. Paul would have had all power and glory, no persecution or sorrow, if he had continued as he was, as a Rabbi, as a Pharisee, as a Hebrew of Hebrews, a disciple of Gamaliel, just as he was in Judaism. For the one crime of loving Jesus Christ, instead he had only sorrow upon sorrow, grief upon grief, the stigmata, so many persecutions, so much opposition, such endless tribulation in his life of perpetual martyrdom. St. Paul is a Model Apostle and a Model Christian Man of the Ages.

St. Paul the Apostle mentions in the Epistle to the Galatians, that if he still preached Circumcision, the offence of the Cross would cease, and he would face no persecution! The easy alternative, the trap offered by Satan. Stop preaching the Cross, and stop being spiritually crucified yourself! But never would the holy Saints take that easy path. They took the Royal Road of the Holy Cross, of lifelong sufferings, of perpetual martyrdom, simply because they burned with love for the Pierced and Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Angelical St. Thomas gives a beautiful explanation of why painful Circumcision for the Jews has now been replaced by painless Baptism for us Gentiles. The fathers of old, by circumcision, testified that Christ was yet to come and make painful expiation for our sins. Circumicision signified that original sin and all sin required painful expiation in blood, which the Jewish Messiah would make in His own Divine and Precious Blood. But Holy Baptism on the contrary signifies that Christ has already come and redeemed us in His Precious Blood. Hence, as before it was necessary to confess Christ would come in the future, but today it would be treason to confess that Christ is still to come, so also before Christ it was necessary to be circumcized, but after Christ, it is necessary to be Baptized, and thus confess Christ has redeemed us.

All the holy Apostles, including St. Peter, Pope of Rome, and St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, and the whole Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, as we read in Acts 15, approved and ordered promulgated as the Word of the Lord, the Holy Ghost, speaking through them, this decree on the Grace of Christ, through Faith in His Sacrifice, and how it had replaced the old law of circumcision given for a while. They condemned the Judaizers who were trying to impose unlawful requirements upon the Gentiles. Praise be to the Saints for all their lives work, for which we, their spiritual children, will always be grateful. The Glory of Christ our God shines resplendently in His Saints.

God Bless.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Mono no aware on April 03, 2021, 09:12:29 AM
Quote from: Xavier on April 02, 2021, 10:51:28 PMI do not think St. Paul's critics like Nietchze would have been able to endure his degree of persecution, notwithstanding their opinions on "will to power"! It was exactly the opposite for St. Paul. St. Paul would have had all power and glory, no persecution or sorrow, if he had continued as he was, as a Rabbi, as a Pharisee, as a Hebrew of Hebrews, a disciple of Gamaliel, just as he was in Judaism.

No, I don't think this is true.  As a Pharisee it was Paul's job to suss out the Christian believers from among the Jews, and to put them to death.  Some people have an aptitude for this sort of thing, but not all.  It's like the Einsatzgruppen squads used by the Nazis.  The German military wondered what use might be gotten from its rejects: the men with poor eyesight, flat feet, or blubbery paunches.  And somebody thought, "well, can they at least fire a rifle at random into a ditch?"  The answer was yes, and so the Jews were put into ditches, and the Einsatzgruppen stood at the edges and fired at random.  What had not been considered was the mental toll this would exert on the executioners, and not a few of them ended up going loony or alcoholic.  It is surmised that this failure may have been a reason for the Germans devising the more clinical and detached means of gas chambers.  Of course, this all assumes that you do not deny the Holocaust—possibly a poor analogy to use on a traditional Catholic forum. 

The point is, Paul may've converted, in part, out of regret and remorse for what he was doing in his Pharisaical zealotry.  The other part would've been the will to power and revenge.  The best reward Paul would've gotten as a Pharisee was an epistle reading, "Saul: keep up the good work.  You're a real mensch.  Sincerely, Sanhedrin."  He was a dutiful insignificant little Jew in a vast pagan realm, and he was killing people over a theological dispute.  He must've felt a particular resentment towards the Romans with their majestic savagery.  The Romans killed for more noble purposes: order and empire. 

There is surely power to be had in being the leader of a charismatic movement where the faithful flock to your speeches, and attend to the readings of your letters, and grab the hem of your robe to tell you at every opportunity how grateful they are that you have brought them the gospel of eternal salvation.  And you get to regale them with how awful the Romans are.  Not that they needed telling: these were predominantly the slaves, the poor, the women, and the lower classes.  You were all united in your faith, and soon the world was going to end, and the trumpet would sound, and those nasty Romans would get their comeuppance & be punished forever, and the downtrodden Christians would rise up into the luminous heavens in glorified bodies to enjoy the torments of their erstwhile oppressors.  Vengeance, sweet vengeance, will be yours.


Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Mono no aware on April 03, 2021, 09:30:17 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on April 02, 2021, 11:55:19 AMI think it goes further back beyond Judaism considering the concept appears not only in other religions which would have had geographic crossover (for instance, "Tartarus" and maybe "Hades" in Greek Paganism), and religions which don't even have geographic crossover (for instance, "Naraka" in Buddhism and Hinduism).

What is Jewish is the basis by which people are judged (being pure in heart or not, being meek or not, being loving or not, loving God or not) and perhaps eternity of it (Virgil's Aeneid seems to suggest that Hades involves reincarnation of some kind).

Yes.  The emergence of fiery Gehenna as a popular Jewish motif was largely one born out of resentment and revenge.  The Jews had been oppressed by the Greeks, followed even more so by the Romans, and it was beginning to seem as if the earthly insults would never end.  When you have no power, you tend to cry out things like, "how long, O Lord?" and daydream of revenge.  Nietzsche rightly points out that such pleas and fantasies lack nobility.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Vetus Ordo on April 03, 2021, 08:24:10 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 03, 2021, 09:12:29 AM
There is surely power to be had in being the leader of a charismatic movement where the faithful flock to your speeches, and attend to the readings of your letters, and grab the hem of your robe to tell you at every opportunity how grateful they are that you have brought them the gospel of eternal salvation.  And you get to regale them with how awful the Romans are.  Not that they needed telling: these were predominantly the slaves, the poor, the women, and the lower classes.  You were all united in your faith, and soon the world was going to end, and the trumpet would sound, and those nasty Romans would get their comeuppance & be punished forever, and the downtrodden Christians would rise up into the luminous heavens in glorified bodies to enjoy the torments of their erstwhile oppressors.  Vengeance, sweet vengeance, will be yours.

This doesn't square very well with the information we have about Paul and his life as an apostle.

While being the leader of a charismatic movement is a powerful motivation, it doesn't seem to adequately explain Paul's steadfastness unto the end, his joy in withstanding many trials and tribulations or his aura of sanctity. There was ultimately no revenge for him to take on the Romans either: he was killed by them. Just like his master.

It takes a lot of imagination to read a Pauline epistle, like Romans or Galatians, and conclude one is reading the work of a resentful Jew seeking revenge on Rome, a spiritual fraud whose personal accomplishment lies in conning gullible slaves and women into his apocalyptic cult. And all of that while getting people who knew Christ personally, like Peter and James, to be on his side. One would have to radically re-write the history of the Apostolic church in order to arrive at a Nietzschean understanding of the blessed man of Tarsus.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Mono no aware on April 04, 2021, 08:01:22 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on April 03, 2021, 08:24:10 PMWhile being the leader of a charismatic movement is a powerful motivation, it doesn't seem to adequately explain Paul's steadfastness unto the end, his joy in withstanding many trials and tribulations or his aura of sanctity. There was ultimately no revenge for him to take on the Romans either: he was killed by them. Just like his master.

No, but that's just it: there was no revenge to be had.  At least not at the time.  It would be three hundred years yet until Constantine and Theodosius—and Paul neither predicted that kind of reversal of earthly fortune, nor did he expect to see it in his own time.  As said, the revenge would be had in the afterlife.  That much is clear from what Paul preached.  He was stoking the desire for revenge, and making it into an eschatology.

Having a policy of "rejoicing in your tribulations" is a very clever one to have for any nascent sectarian religious movement, which is naturally going to come across its share of adversity.  You have to see your own persecution as a sign of God's favor.  And the leader has to exemplify this quality above all.  If he can't convince himself, he is unlikely to convince many others.  David Koresh and his handful of followers in the beginning were homeless and indigent and living out of abandoned buses, having been expelled and shunned by the more mainstream Davidians.  Doubtless Koresh drew frequent spiritual nourishment from the Pauline well in those days.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Vetus Ordo on April 04, 2021, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 04, 2021, 08:01:22 AMNo, but that's just it: there was no revenge to be had.  At least not at the time.  It would be three hundred years yet until Constantine and Theodosius—and Paul neither predicted that kind of reversal of earthly fortune, nor did he expect to see it in his own time.  As said, the revenge would be had in the afterlife.  That much is clear from what Paul preached.  He was stoking the desire for revenge, and making it into an eschatology.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by revenge then. Can you point out a clear example of eschatological revenge in Paul?

QuoteHaving a policy of "rejoicing in your tribulations" is a very clever one to have for any nascent sectarian religious movement, which is naturally going to come across its share of adversity.  You have to see your own persecution as a sign of God's favor.  And the leader has to exemplify this quality above all.  If he can't convince himself, he is unlikely to convince many others.  David Koresh and his handful of followers in the beginning were homeless and indigent and living out of abandoned buses, having been expelled and shunned by the more mainstream Davidians.  Doubtless Koresh drew frequent spiritual nourishment from the Pauline well in those days.

Adversity, grief, pain, etc., these are all part of human life to varying degrees. Accepting life's tribulations as God's will is what elevates man from this vale of tears. I don't see that as an indictment on Paul's theology or anyone else's for that matter. No authentic religious experience can ignore the necessity of accepting God's will in everything and relying on Divine Providence. The singularity of Paul's teaching is that these tribulations are ultimately redemptive when united by faith to Christ's sacrifice.

Be that as it may, there was no worldly gains to be had in his career. The apostle from Tarsus was in prison half the time being beaten or humiliated. He didn't fill houses and public squares or had much of a following during his life time. The early church was scattered and services were conducted in the privacy of homes or in catacombs. The least one can reasonably conclude is that Paul was profoundly changed by his religious experience in the road to Damascus and that he was absolutely convinced of the truth of his message. Was he suffering from a delusion? Considering the substance of his writings and, perhaps even more importantly, that the other Apostles ratified his mission, that is highly unlikely. Unless, of course, one is arguing for the utter corruption of the NT texts and the writings of the early church.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Mono no aware on April 04, 2021, 09:54:13 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on April 04, 2021, 09:10:06 AMI'm not entirely sure what you mean by revenge then. Can you point out a clear example of eschatological revenge in Paul?

I should think it's the overarching concept of the Christians being the elect and the unbelievers being the damned.  In Romans I.16-32, this spirit of revenge is explicitly directed at the Romans and their sexy hedonism, and their Hellenistic admiration of line & form.  He gratuitously imputes to them a knowledge of God, which he says they willfully rejected in order to "worship the creature rather than the creator."  But, lo!—according to Paul, "the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness."  In 1 Corinthians XI, he assures his hearers that they will get to sit in delicious judgement of their earthly enemies: "do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world?"

Quote from: Vetus Ordo on April 04, 2021, 09:10:06 AMThe apostle from Tarsus was in prison half the time being beaten or humiliated. He didn't fill houses and public squares or had much of a following during his life time.

I'm conceding the tribulations, but I'm also noticing some real successes.  In his letters he often tells his communities how he desires or intends to come to them personally in order to strengthen them in their resolve.  It seems he had a profound effect on the faithful in his public sermons, so much so that without his charisma, they tended to backslide whenever competing sectarians came onto the scene, whether Gnostic magicians or Judaizing preachers: "O stupid Galatians!  Who has bewitched you?"  In 1 Corinthians III, he even has to caution his hearers against putting him on a pedestal.  It appears that Paul had a special quality of forging a spiritual intimacy and bond with the brethren he converted, which he sometimes has to tamp down with a bit of humble-bragging.  There are frequent instances of "I boast not in myself," and "it is purely by the grace of God," &c.

In Romans XV.24, he said he was looking to undertake a journey to Spain.  I wonder if he ever got there.


Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Xavier on April 06, 2021, 02:59:07 AM
Happy Easter, Everyone! Hope everyone is enjoying the Presence of the Risen Lord this Easter Season.

I think St. Paul's Life can only be explained by his earnest conviction of what he believed in: this is true even of his life in Judaism, when he was a persecutor of Christians and of St. Stephen. He sincerely believed, at first, that Christians were following a false Messiah. Remember following a false Messiah was almost like following a false God to a devout Jew. So he persecuted Christians having that conviction, as he explains in his epistle. He did it in ignorance, and by God's Goodness, he received Mercy in the fullness of time. Then he saw the Truth, that he was opposing the hope of Israel, the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ. From that day on, he never looked back nor wavered in the Truth of his now Christian Faith.

St. Paul the Apostle converted around A.D. 34-35, according to many historians. The Council of Jerusalem was around 48 A.D. Most of the Pauline Epistles were written after this stage, in the 50s to 60s. He was martyred around 67 A.D. For the first fourteen years, St. Paul was mostly unknown, and lived evangelizing, praying, fasting, sacrificing etc as a monk and an Apostle. He labored diligently for the Cause of the Gospel. It was only much, much later, after many persecutions, much sorrow, and many tribulations, that his painful efforts bore great fruit. Hence one cannot really say that those fruits - which could hardly have been naturally foreseen, and only followed strenuous efforts - were the reason for his Ministry in the first place. It's much more reasonable to think St. Paul changed because he saw the Risen Christ - the reason he himself, as an eyewitness, gave.

Conservapedia has a decent chronology of St. Paul's Life, based on the Catholic Encyclopedia, here: https://conservapedia.com/Saint_Paul

Quote from: PonThe point is, Paul may've converted, in part, out of regret and remorse for what he was doing in his Pharisaical zealotry.

Hi Pon. I disagree. St. Paul could not have undergone such a dramatic 180 degree transformation simply out of that. At best, he would have stopped expressly persecuting them if that was the case, and left it to his others. From his own perspective, he did nothing wrong. He was persecuting those who were leading Israel astray, so he thought. It was only when he realized that he, and the Pharisees, were really leading people astray, by leading them away from the Jewish Messiah, upon meeting the Risen Christ, that he converted to Christ. St. Paul's sincerity can hardly be doubted by anyone who studies his epistles and his Apostolic labors; he really believed in Jesus.

So the question is, why did he change so dramatically? The best explanation, imo, and in the opinion of many others, is he really saw Christ Risen from the dead. That, and as he explains, when he was blind, he was given visions and understanding of Christ's Mission. So in time he came to fully understand who Jesus Christ was.

As St. Paul later recounted, he persecuted the Church of God, and considered himself unworthy to be called an Apostle. Yet he labored more diligently than all the other Apostles, because so great was his love for Christ - and the letters he wrote etc bear this out - yet it was not he who labored, but the Grace of God given to him.

God Bless.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Mono no aware on April 06, 2021, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: Xavier on April 06, 2021, 02:59:07 AMSt. Paul could not have undergone such a dramatic 180 degree transformation simply out of that. At best, he would have stopped expressly persecuting them if that was the case, and left it to his others. From his own perspective, he did nothing wrong. He was persecuting those who were leading Israel astray, so he thought. It was only when he realized that he, and the Pharisees, were really leading people astray, by leading them away from the Jewish Messiah, upon meeting the Risen Christ, that he converted to Christ.

Paul was unquestionably a devout believer in the God of the Hebrews.  When a Pharisee, he seems to have taken the law and his religious duties with the utmost seriosity, so much so that he was a zealot.  He was quite unlike those serene legalistic rabbis back in Jerusalem reclining on their pillows and fingering their jewelry, whom Jesus had called hypocrites and whited sepulchres, "who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel."  They were constantly finding loopholes in the law to benefit themselves.  These were the true cynics, not Paul. 

But like many a zealot, Paul burned out.  It happens often.  You see it frequently on these traditional Catholic forums.  White-hot converts come in on fire for the faith, condemning everyone and everything left and right, staking out the most militant and extreme positions, going on rabid heretic-hunts, &c.  And then after a while they're gone.  Zealotry is difficult to sustain over time.  Zealots are like Roy in Blade Runner: "the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long."

The question is what happened when Paul's zealotry came to the end of its tether.  He had struggled mightily under the burdens of the law, which he had taken so seriously.  And he had been killing people in its name.  That's got to hurt.  I think he found the answer (or rather, put the answer) in the very movement he had been opposing: he saw Christ as having come to fulfill the law so that he (Paul) wouldn't be oppressed by it any more.  "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."  Paul wanted to get rid of the law.  That's what he saw in Joshua Ha-Nostri: the ultimate fulfillment of the law, and consequently its end.

Quote from: Romans VII.22-25I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.  Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

It probably did seem like a blinding light and a mystical experience.  In Christ, Paul was able to get rid of the burdensome law that had made him a persecuting maniac and troubled his flesh.  He was finally unburdened: he was at last an antinomian Jew.  As Nietzsche well puts it, "the Christian is merely a Jew of 'more liberal' persuasion."  Paul had out-rabbi'd the rabbis.  Now he was answerable only to Jesus.  And, conveniently, Jesus was revealing things to him personally.

Quote from: F.W. NietzscheLuther may have had similar feelings when, in his monastery, he wanted to become the perfect man of the spiritual ideal: and just as Luther one day began to hate the spiritual ideal and the Pope and the saints and the whole clerisy with a true, deadly hatred—all the more the less he could own it to himself—so it was with Paul.  The law was the cross to which he felt himself nailed: how he hated it! how he resented it! how he searched for some means to annihilate it—not to fulfill it any more himself!

And finally the saving thought struck him, together with a vision—it could scarcely have happened otherwise to this epileptic.  Paul heard the words: "why dost thou persecute me?"  The essential occurrence, however, was this: his head had suddenly seen a light: "it is unreasonable," he had said to himself, "to persecute this Jesus!  Here after all is the way out; here is the perfect revenge; here and nowhere else I have and hold the annihilator of the law!"  Until then the ignominious death had seemed to him the chief argument against the Messianic claim of which the adherents of the new doctrine spoke: but what if it were necessary to get rid of the law?

The tremendous consequences of this idea, of this solution of the riddle, spin before his eyes; at one stroke he becomes the happiest man; the destiny of the Jews—no, of all men—seems to him to be tied to this idea, to this second of its sudden illumination; he has the thought of thoughts, the key of keys, the light of lights; it is around him that all history must revolve henceforth.  For he is from now on the teacher of the annihilation of the law ...

This is the first Christian, the inventor of Christianity.  Until then there were only a few Jewish sectarians.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Vetus Ordo on April 06, 2021, 05:17:43 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 04, 2021, 09:54:13 AM
I should think it's the overarching concept of the Christians being the elect and the unbelievers being the damned.

The concept of election is already present in Judaism.

If election and reprobation are manifestations of eschatological revenge, then the whole experience of monotheism is guilty of the same thing. Paul and Christ are of one mind.

QuoteIn Romans I.16-32, this spirit of revenge is explicitly directed at the Romans and their sexy hedonism, and their Hellenistic admiration of line & form.  He gratuitously imputes to them a knowledge of God, which he says they willfully rejected in order to "worship the creature rather than the creator."  But, lo!—according to Paul, "the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness."  In 1 Corinthians XI, he assures his hearers that they will get to sit in delicious judgement of their earthly enemies: "do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world?"

Yes but this is nothing more than zealotry for God's truth. The same phenomenon happened with the prophets of the Old Testament or with Christ Himself who repeatedly condemned the wicked generation that lived in Israel in His day. What is especially Pauline about those passages? The very same things could have been said by Elijah or Isaiah.

QuoteIn Romans XV.24, he said he was looking to undertake a journey to Spain.  I wonder if he ever got there.

No-one knows for sure but there are popular traditions associated with it.

Check Paul's Missionary Journey to Spain: Tradition and Folklore (https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/document/download/240d98d46822eef693484c34c5aecf0d.pdf/BA_1978-2_PaulsMissionary.pdf) if you're interested.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 06, 2021, 08:49:04 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on April 06, 2021, 05:17:43 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 04, 2021, 09:54:13 AM
I should think it's the overarching concept of the Christians being the elect and the unbelievers being the damned.

The concept of election is already present in Judaism.

If election and reprobation are manifestations of eschatological revenge, then the whole experience of monotheism is guilty of the same thing. Paul and Christ are of one mind.


For Nietzsche, yes. Christianity was Judaism par excellence, taking their entire moral system to a degree not ever seen before; In the way that Christians portrayed Christ, Jesus was the ultimate personage of the Jewish moral system -  the paradox of a divine entity suffering needlessly, a god dying on a cross.

Nietzsche interprets the history of the Judaism starting as a belief system no different than the Pagan Greeks, Romans, or other European / Near Eastern Pagan belief systems - in a similar way that the Roman Empire was a product of the divine (the Romans saw themselves as descendants of the Trojans, Caesar a descendent of Venus herself, and according to the Aeneid, the glory of the Roman Empire was the will of the gods, with Augustus Caesar being a foretold "son of a god") - the Israelites were a divine nation, God's "chosen people" from the seed of Abraham, God handpicking out the lineage of David, with a similar "civilizing" and "conquering" instinct no different than Rome. The first half of the Old Testament can be summed up as a worship of the nation of Israel, as in "Look how powerful and glorious our nation and God is! Our land is one of milk and honey, where beautiful women adorn themselves in ornaments and myrrh, marrying handsome men happily in drunken marriage with wine, where we can watch the beautiful Cedars of Lebanon unlike no other, where children run freely in the fields with the lambs" and "God is with us, our God has flooded the Earth, conquered that awful Pharaoh of Egypt, destroyed Philistine warriors with slingshots, burned down entire cities with fire and brimstone from the heavens, and conquered the Gentiles - don't even try to wage war against our glorious nation" - but with the Babylonian Exile, Greek pillages, and Roman Imperial conquest, the Jews, rather than let go of the illusion that God was really flourishing them, redirected the narrative from one of national, economic, and militaristic glory, into one of poverty in spirit, meekness, humility, hope and love.

It was a subversion, one from "our national prosperity is a sign of God's favor and influence" into "our lack of prosperity is a sign of God's favor and influence."

Christianity was a "final assault" on the national instinct of Israel, eliminating any final "remnant" of national glory. Indeed, the Messiah was not an earthly king who would restore the worldly kingdom of Israel, He was the one who sealed its fate as accursed ruins.
Title: "Soy judío de Tarso de Cilicia, una ciudad no sin importancia."
Post by: Mono no aware on April 07, 2021, 07:43:56 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on April 06, 2021, 05:17:43 PMThe concept of election is already present in Judaism.

Yes, of course.  This is why Nietzsche considered the Jews "the most catastrophic people in world history"—because of their arrogance that they were God's chosen people, an idea which they refused to let go of.  TheReturnofLive has summed up the theological degeneration of the Hebrews in the above post.  (He appears to have read The Antichrist, peace be upon him).  When the Jews could no longer muster military successes, they began to devise fantasies of having revenge in the afterlife.  The afterworld was no longer just She'ol, the shadowy realm of the dead.  Instead there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth: "fiery Gehenna."  For Nietzsche, these notions of resentment and revenge were unclean and sickly, not the product of noble instincts or healthy minds.

Quote from: Vetus Ordo on April 06, 2021, 05:17:43 PMYes but this is nothing more than zealotry for God's truth. The same phenomenon happened with the prophets of the Old Testament or with Christ Himself who repeatedly condemned the wicked generation that lived in Israel in His day. What is especially Pauline about those passages? The very same things could have been said by Elijah or Isaiah.

Paul's transgression (and novelty) is twofold.  Hitherto the Jews' disgraceful ideas had been confined to the Jews.  There was an eruv, so to speak, delineating these things.  The Romans themselves had begrudged the Jews their eccentricities.  But with the citizen of Tarsus, the Hebrew theology was now being offered to the Gentiles, eagerly and urgently.  "To the Jew first, then to the Greek."  Proselytizing—Judaizing.  This was bad.  Although, de gustibus non est disputandum: you and I will disagree on the comparative merits of Athens and Jerusalem.

Secondly, there was the fact that Paul was limning the Jewish ideas of the afterlife and revenge more luridly than ever before.  A gooey heaven, and the faithful lording it over the damned, even over the angels.  The resentment quality had never been more pronounced.  It was the glorification of the dregs of society.  It was blessed are the meek, and blessed are you when they persecute you.  One way in which Paul (and Jesus, if they were of one mind) deviated from the Old Testament and the prophets was that in the Judaism of yore, God had used the enemies of the Jews in order to chastise them.  "The anger of the LORD flared up against Israel, and he delivered them into the power of plunderers who despoiled them" (Judges II.14).  "I now will strip away your skirts, so that your shame is visible.  Your adulteries, your neighings, your shameless prostitutions: on the hills, in the fields I see your detestable crimes" (Jeremiah XIII.26-27).  Whereas in Christianity, your debasement at the hands of your enemies was seen as a sign of God's favor.

Quote from: Vetus Ordo on April 06, 2021, 05:17:43 PMCheck Paul's Missionary Journey to Spain: Tradition and Folklore (https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/document/download/240d98d46822eef693484c34c5aecf0d.pdf/BA_1978-2_PaulsMissionary.pdf) if you're interested.

Gracias.  Speaking of Spain, would you happen to know which Spanish translation of the bible is considered the most "arch" or King James-like in the quality of its prose?  I am looking to acquire a Spanish bible.  My preference at the moment is for the Félix Torres Amat version made in 1825.  The translator was a Barcelonan Jansenist, which commends him, but I do not know what his literary skills were like.


Title: Re: "Soy judío de Tarso de Cilicia, una ciudad no sin importancia."
Post by: Vetus Ordo on April 07, 2021, 10:24:13 AM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 07, 2021, 07:43:56 AMYes, of course.  This is why Nietzsche considered the Jews "the most catastrophic people in world history"—because of their arrogance that they were God's chosen people, an idea which they refused to let go of.  TheReturnofLive has summed up the theological degeneration of the Hebrews in the above post.  (He appears to have read The Antichrist, peace be upon him).  When the Jews could no longer muster military successes, they began to devise fantasies of having revenge in the afterlife.

What you, and Nietzche, call the "theological degeneration" of the Hebrews, I understand to be a perfectly reasonable unfolding of divine revelation and the maturing process of the religious experience of Israel. Theological development, or the blossoming of truth, is a concept that permeates the entire Bible. As for election, again, Paul is merely echoing the teaching of Christ and the Prophets before Him. Paul's take on the vessels of honor and dishonor in Romans, for instance, is the very same concept of the sheep and the goats that Christ speaks of in John.

QuotePaul's transgression (and novelty) is twofold.  Hitherto the Jews' disgraceful ideas had been confined to the Jews.  There was an eruv, so to speak, delineating these things.  The Romans themselves had begrudged the Jews their eccentricities.  But with the citizen of Tarsus, the Hebrew theology was now being offered to the Gentiles, eagerly and urgently.  "To the Jew first, then to the Greek."  Proselytizing—Judaizing.  This was bad.  Although, de gustibus non est disputandum: you and I will disagree on the comparative merits of Athens and Jerusalem.

Secondly, there was the fact that Paul was limning the Jewish ideas of the afterlife and revenge more luridly than ever before. (...)

Paul preached to the gentiles with the knowledge and permission of the other apostles and in clear obedience to the great commission given by Christ: ??????????? ??? ??????????? ????? ?? ???? (Matt. 28:19). Be that as it may, the idea that the Graeco-Roman civilization, and by extension Europe, was irreparably tainted with the Jewish ethos brought by Christianity is, quite frankly, a boring subject that is reminiscent of the prejudices of 19th century German scholarship. To be honest with you, I don't see any intellectual merit in it. My main interest here was to understand what made Paul stand out from the rest in your view.

QuoteGracias.  Speaking of Spain, would you happen to know which Spanish translation of the bible is considered the most "arch" or King James-like in the quality of its prose?  I am looking to acquire a Spanish bible. My preference at the moment is for the Félix Torres Amat version made in 1825. The translator was a Barcelonan Jansenist, which commends him, but I do not know what his literary skills were like.

The classical Spanish translation of the Bible is the famous Reina-Valera, originally published in 1602. Like the KJV, it's a Protestant version but it has its linguistic merits if you're fond of the eloquence brought about by some archaisms. The Torres Amat that you mentioned is the preferred Catholic version. It's probably your best shot. I've never read it, though, but it's a direct translation of the Vulgate, much like the Douay-Rheims in English. Pre-Vatican II, you also have the Nácar-Colunga version.
Title: Re: "Soy judío de Tarso de Cilicia, una ciudad no sin importancia."
Post by: Mono no aware on April 07, 2021, 12:57:01 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on April 07, 2021, 10:24:13 AM
The idea that the Graeco-Roman civilization, and by extension Europe, was irreparably tainted with the Jewish ethos brought by Christianity is, quite frankly, a boring subject that is reminiscent of the prejudices of 19th century German scholarship. To be honest with you, I don't see any intellectual merit in it. My main interest here was to understand what made Paul stand out from the rest in your view.

Yes, we have strayed from the question posed in the OP, and in going so far afield, I may have indulged my some of my usual prejudices.  I thank you for the information on Spanish bible translations. 

Just to return finally to the OP, I should qualify my original response.  I referred to Dostoevsky's notion of a monastic Christianity as a "mistake," but to clarify: it was a mistake of the heart.  Dostoevsky seems to have believed that in the beginning there existed a pure Christianity, full of a beautiful contemptus mundi, and that it gradually became corrupted.  This used to be my own view as well.  I think it's wrong, but I also think it's an honest and well-intentioned mistake.  The question is, was Paul a Jansenist in spirit, or a Jesuit?  He can be interpreted both ways.  It's interesting that Dostoevsky failed to approach Paul or early Christianity more cynically.  He was certainly genuine in his doubts.  I don't think any ordinary believer could write a chapter like "Rebellion."
Title: Re: "Soy judío de Tarso de Cilicia, una ciudad no sin importancia."
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 09, 2021, 05:33:46 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on April 07, 2021, 10:24:13 AM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 07, 2021, 07:43:56 AMYes, of course.  This is why Nietzsche considered the Jews "the most catastrophic people in world history"—because of their arrogance that they were God's chosen people, an idea which they refused to let go of.  TheReturnofLive has summed up the theological degeneration of the Hebrews in the above post.  (He appears to have read The Antichrist, peace be upon him).  When the Jews could no longer muster military successes, they began to devise fantasies of having revenge in the afterlife.

That would be fine, but one issue that I personally have not resolved is the implication of a contradiction within the Judeo-Christian moral framework - that is, it decries dominance and validates such decrying through dominance.

The Christian moral framework embraces the importance of being anti-dominance - "poor in spirit", "detached from materialism", "being chaste / pure in heart", "being subservient", "detesting earthly and worldly glory", "loving thy enemies", "peacemakers"

And what is the justification behind this? Dominance.

Simply put, those who act in a submissive way will be rewarded with dominance - for being "non-materialistic" and "poor in spirit", they get crowns of gold and sit on royal thrones; for "loving thy enemies" and being "peacemakers", they rise above the angels and watch their enemies burn for eternity; for 'being subservient", and "detesting earthly and worldly glory," they inherit the New Earth and the New Jerusalem, the eternal kingdom which shall rule over all.

In fact, God Himself seems to justify His entire existence in the Old Testament, and the New Testament to some degree, by His omnipotence - that is, his power over all of creation. It's a contradiction to decry dominance as evil and worship an omnibenevolent God because of His dominance soliloqy in Job.

The only way to resolve this in my opinion is to admit that this is a mischaracterization of the ethos of Christianity - that Christianity does allow dominance. That earthly glory is good to some extent. That lust is good to some extent. That materialism is good to some extent. That war can be good to some extent.

But judging by Saint Paul's letters and Jesus's own words, it's hard to take away that conclusion with things like "Those who live by the sword die by the sword" and "If your right eye causes you to sin, cast it out and throw it away from you" and the command by Christ to have no possessions when the Apostles preached the Gospel.


And I think this goes back to the original point of my post as well - when I "monastic", I guess I should've clarified not "monastic" in the sense of any particular monastic Christian tradition from the time of Saint Benedict onwards, but rather the complete detesting of materialism that one finds in the Gospel when, it seems for Dostoevsky, materialism is necessary to function as a human being and to find happiness.

I associate monasticism with detachment from the world.
Title: Re: "Soy judío de Tarso de Cilicia, una ciudad no sin importancia."
Post by: Mono no aware on April 10, 2021, 06:44:13 AM
Yes, I had taken your "monasticism" to mean "asceticism" generally, so I read you correctly.  But I think there is a difference to be made between "dominance" and "materialism."  In spite of the ecclesiastical differences, Dostoevsky was an admirer of the Old Believers for their rustic piety.  A log cabin is a material possession, that can't be denied, but if your log cabin is out in the backwoods of Siberia and you and your family are living on mushrooms and berries and misshapen tubers and the occasional hare, with only the bible to read, you're not really dominating anybody. 

So individually, it's possible to be a Christian and happily take on voluntary poverty.  Such was also the charism of St. Francis and his brethren.  I suppose what could be argued is that a mendicant is merely parasitic on a civilization which indeed requires dominance and industry.  Which is what I read Dostoevsky's Inquisitor as arguing for: that a whole society of Christians with the spirit of meekness and poverty would scarcely be able to put on its socks in the morning, so to speak.  And yet, if you have a thriving society of dominance where Christianity is the religion, then Nietzsche's critique will scorch you, as I suspect you have already read:

Quote from: El AnticristoWhere has the last feeling of decency and self-respect gone when even our statesmen, an otherwise quite unembarrassed type of man, anti-Christians through and through in their deeds, still call themselves Christians today and attend communion?  A young prince at the head of his regiments, magnificent as an expression of the selfishness and conceit of his people—but, without any shame, confessing himself a Christian!  Whom then does Christianity negate?  What does it call "world"?

I think the only answer, for the Christian, is to live more or less as an Old Believer, or Jansenist, or Franciscan.  You can still evangelize in your clumsy way, since isn't that what Alyosha is trying to do, with his hesitant words and childlike innocence?—but the expectation shouldn't be to convert all of society.  That would be futile.  The wheat must grow alongside the chaff.  The lesson is in the Constantinian settlement: that when Christianity became the state religion, nominal pagans all of a sudden became nominal Christians, and the difference was negligible.  The spirit of poverty and humility lost all its bite.  Christianity requires a "world" and an "other" to oppose.  A dying to self: this is a hard saying, and few there are who can accept it.  The Grand Inquisitor notwithstanding, the epigraph for The Brothers Karamazov is John XII.24.

That said, now that it has persisted for so long, the bourgeois version of Christianity is always going to be the more popular.  That's why Christians tend to love Jordan Peterson and his "dominance hierarchy."  They can love it without any suggestion of shame.


Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Arvinger on April 13, 2021, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 04, 2021, 09:54:13 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on April 04, 2021, 09:10:06 AMI'm not entirely sure what you mean by revenge then. Can you point out a clear example of eschatological revenge in Paul?

I should think it's the overarching concept of the Christians being the elect and the unbelievers being the damned.  In Romans I.16-32, this spirit of revenge is explicitly directed at the Romans and their sexy hedonism, and their Hellenistic admiration of line & form.  He gratuitously imputes to them a knowledge of God, which he says they willfully rejected in order to "worship the creature rather than the creator."  But, lo!—according to Paul, "the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness." 

That is clearly not a correct interpretation of Romans 1:16-32 in the context of the whole Epistle. St. Paul's point here is not to single out Romans or anyone else and demonstrate their wickedness (ironically, the so-called "LGBT Christians" use the same argumentation in attempt get around the clear condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 - "you know, Paul was writing only about Roman temple prostitution here, not homosexuality in general!"). Rather, what St. Paul is talking about here is Creator - Creation relationship which is being twisted by human sin. In subsequent chapters (Romans 2 and 3) Paul applies the wickedness described in Romans 1:16-32 universally to everyone in the world in order to demonstrate everyone's sinful state in the eyes of God and, thus, universal necessity of faith in Christ for salvation. Moreover, his accusation is directed primarily towards his Jewish Christian believers, demonstrating their sinfulness described in Romans 1:16-32 in order to show them that possession of the Mosaic Law by them is useless, as the Law cannot save them from their miserable state - only Christ can. So, Paul's argument is quite opposite to your theory and your interpretation of Romans 1:16-32 is off the mark.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Mono no aware on April 13, 2021, 12:21:39 PM
The phraseology Paul uses seems particularly directed at Roman pagans.  The scholars who footnoted Romans I.18-32 (https://bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/1) in the NABRE take this same view:

Quote from: New American Bible Revised EditionIn this passage Paul uses themes and rhetoric common in Jewish-Hellenistic mission proclamation to indict especially the non-Jewish world.  The close association of idolatry and immorality is basic, but the generalization needs in all fairness to be balanced against the fact that non-Jewish Christian society on many levels displayed moral attitudes and performance whose quality would challenge much of contemporary Christian culture.

The NABRE editors, of course, would probably be viewed by traditional Catholics as, if not precisely LGBT Christians, then certainly too modern to bother with.  But a citation in the 1859 Haydock commentary (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hcc/romans-1.html) of the Douai-Rheims indicates the same thing:

Quote from: Haydock commentaryPaul begins to speak of the heathens, and of the wicked world, whose sins God punisheth from time to time with visible chastisements of plagues, famines, wars, &c. and that because they detain the truth of God in injustice, or in iniquity, that is, because they have not honoured God, even according to the knowledge which he has given them of him, especially their philosophers.

In his Third Homily on Romans (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210203.htm), St. John Chrysostom essentially puts forth the same scheme I was speaking of.  San Juan: "Paul seems to me to be aiming against the Greeks" and "he silences the unbeliever and the Grecian, by what he says presently of the judgment of God, bringing an uncontrovertible demonstration from the things which were done by them."  The "them" being the "Greeks" or "Grecians," spiritually speaking—for the system of the Roman pagans was massively drawn from the pantheon, aesthetics, and philosophy of the Hellenes.  Which is merely what I had said, though admittedly without St. John's fondness for Paul:

Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 04, 2021, 09:54:13 AMThis spirit of revenge is explicitly directed at the Romans and their sexy hedonism, and their Hellenistic admiration of line & form.  He gratuitously imputes to them a knowledge of God, which he says they willfully rejected in order to "worship the creature rather than the creator."  But, lo!—according to Paul, "the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness."
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Arvinger on April 13, 2021, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 13, 2021, 12:21:39 PM
The phraseology Paul uses seems particularly directed at Roman pagans.  The scholars who footnoted Romans I.18-32 (https://bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/1) in the NABRE take this same view:

Quote from: New American Bible Revised EditionIn this passage Paul uses themes and rhetoric common in Jewish-Hellenistic mission proclamation to indict especially the non-Jewish world.  The close association of idolatry and immorality is basic, but the generalization needs in all fairness to be balanced against the fact that non-Jewish Christian society on many levels displayed moral attitudes and performance whose quality would challenge much of contemporary Christian culture.

The NABRE editors, of course, would probably be viewed by traditional Catholics as, if not precisely LGBT Christians, then certainly too modern to bother with.  But a citation in the 1859 Haydock commentary (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hcc/romans-1.html) of the Douai-Rheims indicates the same thing:

Quote from: Haydock commentaryPaul begins to speak of the heathens, and of the wicked world, whose sins God punisheth from time to time with visible chastisements of plagues, famines, wars, &c. and that because they detain the truth of God in injustice, or in iniquity, that is, because they have not honoured God, even according to the knowledge which he has given them of him, especially their philosophers.

In his Third Homily on Romans (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210203.htm), St. John Chrysostom essentially puts forth the same scheme I was speaking of.  San Juan: "Paul seems to me to be aiming against the Greeks" and "he silences the unbeliever and the Grecian, by what he says presently of the judgment of God, bringing an uncontrovertible demonstration from the things which were done by them."  The "them" being the "Greeks" or "Grecians," spiritually speaking—for the system of the Roman pagans was massively drawn from the pantheon, aesthetics, and philosophy of the Hellenes.  Which is merely what I had said, though admittedly without St. John's fondness for Paul:

There is no question that pagans are examples of what it means to twist Creator - Creation relationship which St. Paul describe in Romans 1 and Jewish Christians could have interpreted that way (the NAB commentary is not wrong here in regard to Romans 1), but it is a non-sequitur to claim that he limits this condemnation to pagan Romans in context of the whole letter. What does Paul say immediately afterwards, in Romans 2?

Romans 2:1: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.  

Paul is setting a "trap" for his Jewish-Christian readers in Rome - they condemn the pagans for doing things described in Romans 1, but then Paul points out, that in the eyes of God they are exactly as sinful and guilty as pagans are, which leads to the universal necessity of faith in Christ for salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike, which Paul lays out in Romans 3. His whole point is that Jewish Christians, despite the fact that the Jews posess the Mosaic Law, are not in any way better then Gentiles and equally need redemption in Christ.

Therefore, what Jewish Christians could have recognized at being directed specifically towards pagans in Romans 1, in Romans 2 is revealed to apply to everyone, not just pagans. To imply that St. Paul is somehow creating a distinction here ignores the line of argument about universal sinfulness of mankind which Paul develops from Romans 1 through 3.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Mono no aware on April 13, 2021, 01:53:37 PM
Quote from: Arvinger on April 13, 2021, 01:20:55 PMThere is no question that pagans are examples of what it means to twist Creator - Creation relationship which St. Paul describe in Romans 1 and Jewish Christians could have interpreted that way (the NAB commentary is not wrong here in regard to Romans 1), but it is a non-sequitur to claim that he limits this condemnation to pagan Romans in context of the whole letter. What does Paul say immediately afterwards, in Romans 2?

Romans 2:1: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

Yes, of course.  But this doesn't negate anything of what I maintained about the passage: he deliberately singles out the Romans for their so-called pagan filth, and speaks of how God's wrath will be upon them.

And then he warns his brethren that they, too, may expect damnation if they will not be steadfast, excellent, and upright in the faith.  Conceded.  You can certainly label this a rhetorical trap being set for Jewish Christians (though Romans I.5-6 seems to indicate a Roman community of Gentile Christians), but nevertheless, the rhetoric itself depends on the drama he unspools: that of the wicked pagans getting their just desserts.  This is not a "non sequitur"—it's the essence of the passage.  Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.  Confucius is damned and the Romans are doomed, but the Christian is special: the Christian has hope.  "The one who is righteous by faith will live."


Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Xavier on April 14, 2021, 08:54:13 PM
Quote from: PonBut like many a zealot, Paul burned out.  It happens often.  You see it frequently on these traditional Catholic forums.

Hi Pon. I disagree that St. Paul burned out. He remained zealous until the end, the day of his Martyrdom under Nero with St. Peter. He was always zealous, first for Judaism, then for Jesus Christ. You could compare it to a devout Orthodox Christian poster who, let's say, is first convinced the Papacy is the Anti-Christ, and wars against it zealously; then, later on, he is convinced he was mistaken, the Papacy is truly of Jesus Christ, then zealously champions the Papacy until the end of his life. He always remained zealous. We would say, at first his zeal was misplaced, later on, it was properly placed. That is the only difference, but he never ceased to be greatly zealous in his own convictions.

I wish our friends would see St. Paul's Life for what it is: a great evidence and a manifest sign of the Presence, Power and Love of the Risen Christ. Only the Risen Christ could have effected so great a transformation as we see in St. Paul's Life. St. Paul was sure he had seen a Risen Christ, and went to his death as a Martyr for Jesus only because of that. God Bless.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Arvinger on May 08, 2021, 04:14:03 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 13, 2021, 01:53:37 PM
Quote from: Arvinger on April 13, 2021, 01:20:55 PMThere is no question that pagans are examples of what it means to twist Creator - Creation relationship which St. Paul describe in Romans 1 and Jewish Christians could have interpreted that way (the NAB commentary is not wrong here in regard to Romans 1), but it is a non-sequitur to claim that he limits this condemnation to pagan Romans in context of the whole letter. What does Paul say immediately afterwards, in Romans 2?

Romans 2:1: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

Yes, of course.  But this doesn't negate anything of what I maintained about the passage: he deliberately singles out the Romans for their so-called pagan filth, and speaks of how God's wrath will be upon them.

And then he warns his brethren that they, too, may expect damnation if they will not be steadfast, excellent, and upright in the faith.  Conceded.  You can certainly label this a rhetorical trap being set for Jewish Christians (though Romans I.5-6 seems to indicate a Roman community of Gentile Christians), but nevertheless, the rhetoric itself depends on the drama he unspools: that of the wicked pagans getting their just desserts.  This is not a "non sequitur"—it's the essence of the passage. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.  Confucius is damned and the Romans are doomed, but the Christian is special: the Christian has hope.  "The one who is righteous by faith will live."

It is, again, misrepresentation of Paul's point. The Apostle does not merely say "if you do this too, you will be damned like the Romans" - that would imply that Christians are by default in better position than the pagans. Rather, his message to Christians and Jews in Romans 2 is: "you are like the Romans and you are no better then them". Paul demonstrates that everyone is in the same position before God (condemnation), therefore everyone needs justification in Jesus Christ, as he teaches in Romans 3. You miss Paul's main message from Romans 1 and 2 - universal sinfulness of mankind.

The bolded quote is most certainly wrong, because in Romans 2 St. Paul reveals that Romans 1 applies to Christians and Jews the same way as to pagans, therefore the former cannot claim any moral high ground over the latter. I think you are trying to fit your exegesis to your preconceived thesis.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Mono no aware on May 09, 2021, 07:36:14 AM
Quote from: Arvinger on May 08, 2021, 04:14:03 PMThe Apostle does not merely say "if you do this too, you will be damned like the Romans" - that would imply that Christians are by default in better position than the pagans. Rather, his message to Christians and Jews in Romans 2 is: "you are like the Romans and you are no better then them". Paul demonstrates that everyone is in the same position before God (condemnation), therefore everyone needs justification in Jesus Christ, as he teaches in Romans 3. You miss Paul's main message from Romans 1 and 2 - universal sinfulness of mankind.

Of course.  Massa damnata.  I'm not missing that.  All I am pointing out is that in teaching his doctrine of the universal sinfulness of mankind, Paul deliberately singled out the Hellenes to make his point.  The passage's strength comes from the Christian hearer delighting in God's wrath against the idolaters.  Conceded, "all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God," and conceded: Paul does turn things around on his reader to point out that they, like the Hellenes, are convicted of original sin.

But even with the universal sinfulness established, the Christian hearer is nevertheless able to enjoy God's wrath being poured out on the idolaters, because the old dispensation is over, and things are now in the age of Christ.  Paul says of himself and his Christians, "we boast in hope of the glory of God.   The love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us" (Romans V.2,5).  The aforementioned pagans will go to eternal fire, because Paul imputes to them an innate knowledge of the Hebrew God (Romans II.14-19), a knowledge for which they are without excuse (Romans I.20).  And yet they persist.   Chapters later, they are "the vessels of wrath made for destruction by God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power."  Whereas Paul and his Christians are "the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared previously for glory, namely, us whom he has called" (Romans IX.22-24).

The whole point of Paul's limning this doctrine of universal sinfulness is to draw out the unique, special, and gratuitous gift and privilege of being a Christian.  I don't see how that's not the overarching message of the epistle to the Romans.  You might be straining a gnat to swallow a camel here.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: Tennessean on May 10, 2021, 07:57:47 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on March 19, 2021, 07:01:36 PM
Additionally, the devil tempted Christ with political power, and has there ever been an institution that was so politically influencial as the Catholic Church? Not a single institution, the Roman Empire not withstanding, has managed to unite so much people under it's breadth and wield such political power as did the Catholic Church during the medieval period. The Pope could depose monarchs and wreck havoc on nations by excommunicating, could organize manpower and tax nations for crusades, etc.
The bezant, the only gold coinage in circulation through the Roman world until the 14th century, made the Byzantine Empire exceedingly more influential than any Pope or inquisition. Of course all the world's commerce came through Byzantium. The Emperors were the only men in Christendom who could mint gold coins, and once they lost the gold mines or the mines went bust, they had no way of meeting the market's need for more coinage. They had the West by the purse through most of the medieval period. The tyranny of Finance upon the earth, which we live in the aftermath of today, exceeds any medieval despot's wildest imagination. Maybe Dostoevsky couldn't see into the future, but I don't see Byzantium get nearly the criticism they deserve these days. They get a free pass as if the West were always the bullies, and I think this is absurd and stupid.
Title: Re: Dostoevsky's Paradox of Catholicism and the Gospel: The Grand Inquisitor
Post by: DigitalLogos on May 10, 2021, 03:13:16 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on March 19, 2021, 07:01:36 PM
TL;DR

In "The Brothers Karamazov", Dostoevsky gives a parable where Christ comes back for a second into Seville, Spain, where the Inquisition grabs him and tries him for heresy.

In it, the Inquisition tells Christ to not bother them, because the Catholic Church had provided  all three temptations that the devil gave in the wilderness. For one, the Catholic Church provided the people with security, food, and sustenance, even though the devil himself tempted Christ with bread and with security from harm. Additionally, the devil tempted Christ with political power, and has there ever been an institution that was so politically influencial as the Catholic Church? Not a single institution, the Roman Empire not withstanding, has managed to unite so much people under it's breadth and wield such political power as did the Catholic Church during the medieval period. The Pope could depose monarchs and wreck havoc on nations by excommunicating, could organize manpower and tax nations for crusades, etc.

The inherent paradox which Dostoevsky seems to attack on Catholicism, and perhaps, Christianity itself, is that the monastic mode of living inherent in Catholicism is paradoxical to the needs of the every single person. Each person needs food, each person needs security, each person needs government and political power - so how exactly is Christianity compatible with human nature? And moreover, how could you unconditionally love humanity when they are so flawed, so weak, and so pathetic as to not be able to embrace the monastic mode of living, yet love the monastic mode of living all the same?

Thoughts?

Simple: "Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you." St. Matt. 6:33