OT: Europe's Problem--And Ours

[Zubivka]

I agree with many up here so far, including Bloom's excellent explanation of the cross-Atlantic "parallax", and certainly with Claudine's view of Poland's Euro policy.

Btw, Poland is the ONE country of Europe most controlled by its (catholic) church episcopate. No wonder its current political ally so far is Spain, with an Aznar publicly wearing black suit / white shirt garment often WITH purple either socks or tie--an old recognition sign of Opus Dei, i.e. the "Secret Services of Vatican" which set up us the Spanish Civil War, aka military-catholic coup (putsch), in the 30's...

One aptly mentioned that USA (which I insist is NOT America) is certainly the most tolerant government today for religious people. I just wish it was more tolerant to non-religious people, i.e. atheists/agnostics or whoever thinks that one

should leave to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar.

And thats's the main parallax between the majority of Europeans and the US of A'merkins. Or Islamic "republics"... :roll:

NB: Let's applaud to the great military and diplomatic feat of our enlightened, liberal, West against the mediæval rulers of Middle East: we brought them fire and steel and great expenses, just to blissly empower an ISLAMIC republic in Afghanistan, and probably same in Iraq this uncoming year. :adminok:

Sorry if some disagree, but to me any "Republic" that entitles itself as "Islamic" (or Christian--s.s.d.n.) falls short of any right to be called a democracy.

We're slowly, but surely, creeping back to Middle Ages!

[elendil]

Zub! You're alive, after all! I was beginning to have my doubts when you failed to show on this thread. But here you are, and living in America! A word of advice: if you're gonna live here, you should learn to spell America in your avatar. Otherwise you might end up on the same plane with Bloomie, back to Bretagne.

I agree with many up here so far, including Bloom's excellent explanation of the cross-Atlantic "parallax", and certainly with Claudine's view of Poland's Euro policy.

Yes, those perfidious Poles. By the way, what do you make of the German government playing footsie with irredentist groups that want to reclaim Germany's eastern territories: Silesia, Pomerania, Sudetenland, etc.? Do you recall a few years ago on the occasion of an official state visit that the Poles had to demand that the German government knock that off? And imagine that Poland would want to get close to the world's biggest super power rather than trusting its fate entirely to the tender mercies of Russia and Germany! I mean, it might be understandable if the Poles had any grievances against these wonderful neighbors over, oh, say the last 400 YEARS OR SO, but that doesn't count for anything now does it? And how ungrateful of the Spaniards to gang up with the Poles and ask the Germans and French to live up to the agreements that they freely signed! The nerve of them! Where are their manners? Don't they know that the French and Germans want an EU only because it'll be good for everyone else? Hey, EU, love it or leave it, right? Democracy may be one thing, but Untermenschen disagreeing with their betters is quite another, I guess.

Btw, Poland is the ONE country of Europe most controlled by its (catholic) church episcopate. No wonder its current political ally so far is Spain, with an Aznar publicly wearing black suit / white shirt garment often WITH purple either socks or tie--an old recognition sign of Opus Dei, i.e. the "Secret Services of Vatican" which set up us the Spanish Civil War, aka military-catholic coup (putsch), in the 30's...

Hmm, black suit and white shirt. What are the probabilities that any given person thus attired might be in OD? 50/50? And then purple socks or tie tip the scales? Does he send signals with his pocket handkerchief?

Look, I really try to be up front. I've said before that my youngest brother is an OD priest and that about half of my rather large family are associated with OD in one way or another. You'll have to take my word that no one in my immediate family is or has been a member. But this bit about

Opus Dei, i.e. the "Secret Services of Vatican" which set up us the Spanish Civil War, aka military-catholic coup (putsch), in the 30's...

is simply, and I'm really trying to be charitable, inaccurate.

I have next to me Robert Hutchinson's "Their Kingdom Come": according to the blurb on the back it's "An explosive expose of one of the most powerful and secretive sects operating within the Roman Catholic Church--Opus Dei." If you check it out on Amazon you'll probably find that Opus Dei hates this book. I think it's eminently fair to say that Hutchinson has an axe to grind. Nevertheless, I believe that he does get his basic facts right, including facts that I'm sure OD prefers not to have public. (In the later chapters he has a lot about claimed OD involvement in the Banco Ambrosiano scandal, etc.) But here's what Hutchinson says of OD's early history.

- OD was founded in October, 1928.
- two years later, early 1930, Escriva still had only one "disciple," a priest.
- summer 1930, the first lay person joined; that = 3 members if you count Escriva himself.
- by the outbreak of the Civil War there were 10 "disciples."
- in 1938 one of them became a deputy minister of education
- two others found desk jobs at the military headquarters in Burgos.

Here's how Hutchinson sums up the situation as of the end of the war, 1939:

Because Opus Dei had no more than a handful of members in 1939, no money, no headquarters and not even legal status, its agenda over the next few years might have seemed outrageously ambitious. (p. 89)

It's simply silly to suggest that OD had anything at all to do with the Civil War.

The key point, I think, is that in 1939 Escriva published The Way, which became the foundation for OD's recruiting efforts and its mass appeal. It was only after 1939 that OD started its explosive growth and rise to influence. Think what you will of Escriva and his cult of personality--and I have major problems with it all--but those are the facts of the matter during the Civil War period. As to the later developments and the exact nature of OD's appeal, its spirituality and its organizational character, none of those are issues right now.

NB: Let's applaud to the great military and diplomatic feat of our enlightened, liberal, West against the mediæval rulers of Middle East: we brought them fire and steel and great expenses, just to blissly empower an ISLAMIC republic in Afghanistan, and probably same in Iraq this uncoming year.

Point taken, Zub, and it's a legitimate concern. Nevertheless, inaction hardly seems an option. There are many days on which I wonder whether there are any good options at all, but we're not alone with regard to the problem of Wahabbi inspired terrorism. I'd be quite open to someone suggesting an overall foreign policy for the US - oops - I mean to say, America.

One aptly mentioned that USA (which I insist is NOT America) is certainly the most tolerant government today for religious people. I just wish it was more tolerant to non-religious people, i.e. atheists/agnostics or whoever thinks that one

So far the only person I recall on the Chiffboard who has openly avowed his atheism is Stoner. But I'm sure there are others. Perhaps he or one of the others could start a thread on which they could swap persecution stories.

Sorry if some disagree, but to me any "Republic" that entitles itself as "Islamic" (or Christian--s.s.d.n.) falls short of any right to be called a democracy.

Let me repeat myself here. The entire West is living off the spiritual capital of Christianity. That includes our various forms of government that, to varying degrees, stress the dignity of the individual. I know there will be people who will claim that it was the rise of modern movements like the Enlightenment that led to representative government. I would disgree in two respects: 1) the theories of divine ordination of kings and authoritarian government were an aberration in European history that began, for a variety of reasons, in the Renaissance period, and then receded; and 2) the Enlightenment philosophies, to the extent that they attempted to present a positive public agenda, were little more than a warmed over, secularized version of Christianity--Christian morals stripped of any truly rational or doctrinal justification. That's been the spiritual crisis of the West ever since. I can't actually remember whether Weigel addresses this, but he should. What I've called the malaise of the West can be traced back to the attempt of the West to go its own way, preserving Christian values but cut off from Christian foundations. The West has yet to come to terms with that issue. And that's not intended as a whitewash of our Christian past.

(An aside: It's an irony of U2's recent post that he suggests that Christians can obtain "what we'd really need to know" by reading the NT and paying attention only to the direct quotes of Jesus' words. That approach would have met with wide agreement from the philosophes of the Enlightenment--and I'm pretty sure was tried by more than one in an attempt to construct a purely rational system of "religion." The life of Jesus, stripped of actual life, stripped of its historical context, stripped of his mighty works, his signs and miracles--even of his rising from the dead.)

Obviously the role of religion and government--or just generally, of organizational authority--in society is well worth our consideration. I have to tell you, I was absolutely heartbroken that my poor OT: Skepticism and Freedom thread slipped off the front page of the Chiffboard, an orphan with no substantive posts to its credit. Let me close this post with a quote from the linked article/book review in that thread, since it seems to me to directly address your point:

Only in the brief conclusion to the book are citizenship and self-government taken up as explicit themes. There Epstein concedes that “legal and political institutions can only go so far,” that “enlightened statesmen,” an “informed public,” as well as “an informed and deep set of business, political, and intellectual elites” are crucial to the flourishing of a self-confident liberal society. Epstein is thus forced in the end to concede that the classical liberal order depends upon a moral framework that it has difficulty articulating and that it sometimes actively undermines. While we should be grateful to Epstein for highlighting the complex ties that bind skepticism and liberty in the modern world, at the same time, his noble failure teaches us that philosophical liberalism is incapable of doing full justice to the goods that are necessary to sustain a free society. As Tocqueville explained with the greatest penetration, liberal democracy is far richer than the theory that is used to justify it. That is a valuable insight for every season.

Oh, if you reply, please don't educate me about Armorica--I was only yankin' your chain a little.

[elendil]

I just ran across this article in this morning's WaPo. Seems very on target for what most people wanted to talk about on this thread. It even goes into stats a bit. The title is: "In Europe Is It A Matter of Fear, Or Loathing?" Here's the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan23.html

[GaryKelly]

And just in case any of the WaPo's readers missed the point of the article, they very kindly provided visual hints in the form of "advertisements" at the bottom of the page:

[Zubivka]

Does he send signals with his pocket handkerchief?

Now that you mention it... he does often pull it out his breast pocket, but me simpleton assumed it was to wipe his forehead.

Oh, if you reply, please don't educate me about Armorica--I was only yankin' your chain a little.

Just as well, don't educate me in Untermenschood (or make the chain sore where it rubbed, same thing) : I'm half-Ukrainian through my mother, DP from 41 to 45...

Btw, talking about irredentists, I'm for Galician Separatism!

Here's to Free and Independent Galicia* !

* Why choose? I mean it BOTH in Spain AND Poland--that should teach 'em!

PS: you should title your threads OD instead of OT

But I forgot: Opus Dei didn't really exist, if I correctly read.
The P8 lodge didn't exist before it was dissolved.
There's eveidence that the Bank of Vatican never existed before its bankrupcy.
Tautologic! If you know of a secret organzation, then it doesn't exist since it's not secret... At the minute you learn of it, it ceases to exist and, come to think of it, did it ever?

Now, here's a scoop: Pie XII didn't exist either.

It's all Atheist-Marxist propaganda :roll:

[elendil]

Zub wrote:

But I forgot: Opus Dei didn't really exist, if I correctly read.

Shame on you, Zub. In your eagerness to find a secret organization you missed an interesting point re Escriva and OD, namely, what was it's canonical status in those early years, and to what bishop was Escriva answerable? Hutchinson suggests that Escriva was basically in an irregular status during his early years in Madrid, freelancing, so to speak. He had gone to Madrid for studies which, if I recall the book, he may have dropped for his own project, whereas he should have returned to his own diocese. At least these are the claims, if I recall correctly. I'm open to correction on this, but truth is often stranger than fiction.[/quote]

[Zubivka]

Hutchinson suggests that Escriva was basically in an irregular status during his early years in Madrid, freelancing, so to speak. He had gone to Madrid for studies which, if I recall the book, he may have dropped for his own project, whereas he should have returned to his own diocese. At least these are the claims, if I recall correctly. I'm open to correction on this, but truth is often stranger than fiction.

Ok-ok, shame-shame-shame(syncopation)shame-on-me, id est, mea maxima culpa, etc. I flee under the fire of this subtle distinguo and ad hoc explanation (revision?).
So Opus Dei didn't have influence over fascist Spain, it's the "dissidents" which did. The original flavour organization can only be blamed of poor control of a member getting "freelance". Which in turn is beneficial, as proving it's not the monolithic organization that them pinko-Zubo-Marxo-Atheists suggest, otherwise they'd have terminated his heresy.

You didn't expect me without a Parthian arrow, did you? So...
Same way, some communists preserved in Ethnic Curios Parks of Europe (like Serbia, Bulgaria) argue that Staline was only free-lancing, not a true-believer officially annointed by the free Komintern.

I wonder if others insist Torquemada was only free-lancing as well when he decided the true Crusade was against his own people. Worth trying, anyway : that would cleanse the scutcheon of the Inquisition, another organization set up for the ultimate good of mankind.

Anyway, QED: it's not the secret and/or subversive organizations working for some Ultimate Good which do the wrong. Blame it all on the free-lancers.

I guess it's only the "ultimate" which makes me paranoid in these cases

[elendil]

Zub, you misunderstood me. There was no subtle distinguo, I was pointing out a possible instance of hypocrisy.

My main point was not whether or not the Church took sides in the Civil War or was to blame for this, that, or any other thing, but that as a simple matter of fact OD was nowhere near sufficiently developed to have any influence over the Church in general, over the Nationalists, or over events in general--it had too few members at the time and wasn't even recognized by the Church, for which reason Escriva was probably laying low with regard to Church authorities, under the radar as we now say. In any event, I think Escriva was more concerned with preserving his resources, so to speak, for later.

Re Torquemada, whether or not he had anything to do with the Inquisition would not clear the Inquisition per se. Torquemada did not = the Inquistion, which extended over a far greater span of years than T's lifespan. BTW, your remark about T's "own people" relies upon demonstrably false information which on another thread which I definitively refuted--feel free to look it up, as it's interesting history.
Gary, the cool thing about those ads is that they change from day to day.

[U2]

. . .U2, I didn't forget about you. Unfortunately, this exchange turned out pretty much as a anticipated, which is why I earlier declined to even get into this type of discussion--churlish as that may have seemed at the time. Let me get to the real issue, as I see it. . .

You’ve been pretty clear about how you see it. I failed to recognize the “real issue” was subjective and declarative. Being remembered, only to be summarily dismissed, has a tinge of disingenuousness about it. Heh heh.

Read whomever, but try this: get a red-letter version of the New Testament, and read only the words and phrases directly attributed to Christ, those in red. Surely those words would contain what we'd really need to know.

. . .As a Christian, I have no alternative but to start with Christ and his Church--not with a book, no matter how hallowed. I think I stated that revelation in the truest sense is Jesus himself.

Interesting thought. But what’s the source?

All else has been handed down, i.e., is tradition of the Church (as Paul keeps repeating) and so is revelation in a derivative sense, i.e., derived from the primary sense. You didn't respond to that concept.

Sorry, I must have missed your question. I’m making the point that the words of Christ are all that is needed to understand his concepts, and that they are simple ones.

I might add that the Church, the living body of Christ as Paul calls it, is in a sense revelation as well. The fact is, Jesus of Nazareth lived, died, rose again from the dead, and instituted his Church before a single word of the New Testament was ever written. The apostles went about the Mediterranean world preaching the good news of Jesus without red-letter editions[/].

I’m using “red letter” to denote words and lessons directly attributable to Christ, rather than some feature of modern publishing. Am I understanding you correctly that you think the apostles were preaching about church government rather than focusing on Christ’s actual teachings of forgiveness and salvation? (red letters)

The infant local churches existed for decades without red-letter editions of anything.

Agreed. I am saying his apostles were relaying Christ’s quotes, miraculous acts, and example as the primary message during those decades, and that the traditions that now serve as divisive were only beginning to form. Those quotes are what later were placed in red.

Are we to assume that they lacked "what we'd really need to know"? I don't think so. The Church provided them with that. It was, in fact, the Church that Jesus instituted that gave its blessing to what later became known as the NT, and that Church existed for centuries before the NT (as well as the Christian form of the OT, come to think of it) was authorized in final form.

Well the books certainly came to be compiled and adopted by the church, and by that time a church that had formed traditions and concepts that complicated the simple teachings of Christ. That’s where the cart was put in front of the horse. That’s where man’s concepts of church government, and formality, and structure exceed the teachings of Christ. At least anything I’ve seen attributed to him (in red. )

I disagree utterly and totally with the idea that all we need to know is contained in the red letters of a red-letter edition. This supposes that these books were written as treatises of moral and systematic theology, which is simply not the case. Sorry if I sound a bit snippish. It's partly that I've heard these arguments so many times. And from people who tell me that I'm an idolater and no Christian. Burns me a little, is all

I’m supposing that the books were written to convey the actual teachings of Christ. The thief on the cross didn’t have the church. He had no books, he had no guidance. He had sincere compassion for a man he saw as guilty of nothing, and a simple expression of faith. It’s an example, personally involving Christ, beautiful in simplicity. And no less applicable for instruction than any of Paul’s later writings to the Romans, Corinthians, or Ephesians.

Yeah, having someone label you and be dismissive because they've deliberately classified you and assigned you a position, or standing, can be frustrating. I hope you didn't get any of that dismissive "idolater" stuff out of what I wrote. If you did, you need to take a quick run back through it. You mean to tell me that even after you've explained the "real issue" that folks continue to repeat the same old arguments? They must not be reading close enough.

[elendil]

Well the books certainly came to be compiled and adopted by the church, and by that time a church that had formed traditions and concepts that complicated the simple teachings of Christ. That?s where the cart was put in front of the horse. That?s where man?s concepts of church government, and formality, and structure exceed the teachings of Christ. At least anything I?ve seen attributed to him (in red. [icon_smile_144.gif] )

It would appear logically that by accepting the books that the Church accepts and rejecting those that the Church rejects you're accepting the authority of the Church. To reject the authority of the Church but accept its definition of what is or is not scripture seems quite illogical to me. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you reject the Church's authority to decide on what is scripture or on other matters of discipline and doctrine, then you should allow each individual to make that decision on his own. There's a further problem. You simply assume that the red-letter words are all we need to know and that the church promulgated certain books for that purpose. That presupposition appears to me to be quite unwarranted. Modern scholarship has debunked the notion that the early local churches were unformed. The writings of the apostolic fathers convincingly show that the early church was Catholic--before the canon was finally decided. While I'm glad you haven't called me an idolater, many years of experience tells me that this discussion will go no where. You may as well engage Bloomfield on this matter.

edited:

It also seems illogical to me to accept that Christ established a Church but then say, in effect, well, too bad, that one got corrupted, it exceeded Christ's teaching as I have personally decided it must have been, so we men will just have to do our best on our own. By the way, I'm a little curious about your long delay in posting. Another reason why I don't think I want to continue this.

[Bloomfield]

Well the books certainly came to be compiled and adopted by the church, and by that time a church that had formed traditions and concepts that complicated the simple teachings of Christ. That?s where the cart was put in front of the horse. That?s where man?s concepts of church government, and formality, and structure exceed the teachings of Christ. At least anything I?ve seen attributed to him (in red. [icon_smile_144.gif] )

It would appear logically that by accepting the books that the Church accepts and rejecting those that the Church rejects you're accepting the authority of the Church. To reject the authority of the Church but accept its definition of what is or is not scripture seems quite illogical to me. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you reject the Church's authority to decide on what is scripture or on other matters of discipline and doctrine, then you should allow each individual to make that decision on his own. There's a further problem. You simply assume that the red-letter words are all we need to know and that the church promulgated certain books for that purpose. That presupposition appears to me to be quite unwarranted. Modern scholarship has debunked the notion that the early local churches were unformed. The writings of the apostolic fathers convincingly show that the early church was Catholic--before the canon was finally decided. While I'm glad you haven't called me an idolater, many years of experience tells me that this discussion will go no where. You may as well engage Bloomfield on this matter.

Bloomfield is keeping out of this one. Let me just say that if Bloomfield believed in more than he does it would seem to Bloomfield that on the Day Judgment it will be Christ on right of God and not the Church. So much for its authority.

And a remark for elendil in particular: about that little compilation we call the Bible, perhaps it pays to look into what the compiler, Hieronymus, had to say about it himself.

[elendil]

I thought Jerome was a translator rather than a compiler, but I'm game: what'd he say?

[U2]

Well the books certainly came to be compiled and adopted by the church, and by that time a church that had formed traditions and concepts that complicated the simple teachings of Christ. That?s where the cart was put in front of the horse. That?s where man?s concepts of church government, and formality, and structure exceed the teachings of Christ. At least anything I?ve seen attributed to him (in red. [icon_smile_144.gif] )

It would appear logically that by accepting the books that the Church accepts and rejecting those that the Church rejects you're accepting the authority of the Church. To reject the authority of the Church but accept its definition of what is or is not scripture seems quite illogical to me. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you reject the Church's authority to decide on what is scripture or on other matters of discipline and doctrine, then you should allow each individual to make that decision on his own. There's a further problem. You simply assume that the red-letter words are all we need to know and that the church promulgated certain books for that purpose. That presupposition appears to me to be quite unwarranted. Modern scholarship has debunked the notion that the early local churches were unformed. The writings of the apostolic fathers convincingly show that the early church was Catholic--before the canon was finally decided. While I'm glad you haven't called me an idolater, many years of experience tells me that this discussion will go no where. You may as well engage Bloomfield on this matter.

el - I think you're correct about the discussion going nowhere, but it was a little frustrating from my perspective, to have positions I do not hold assigned to me just to simplify your life. Have a good one.

[Bloomfield]

I thought Jerome was a translator rather than a compiler, but I'm game: what'd he say?

Well, esp. for the NT, when you take several disparate versions and you come up with one translation, it's as much a compilation as a transation, and compilation suggests itself mostly because fabrication has such a negative spin to it. The famous thing Hieronymus/Jerome said was of course, "every translator is a traitor" (query: whom does a bible transator betray?), but there was another one that I can't put my finger on right now, that was juicy, too. Here I thought you were the type who had read Jerome's letters.

You'd best not respond to this, though.

[elendil]

First things first, Bloomie. It's high time for you to skedaddle over to the other thread (liberal schools, or somethin' like that) and refute my cynical take on Miranda.

I should preface my remarks by admitting that my education has not been such as I would have liked it to be. Like so many others I found that my education was in my own hands, but once I'd figured that much out it was probably a little late to really do it right. Plus, I'm a hopeless amateur, always coming up with some new project. Nevertheless, I am familiar with that quote of Jerome--I'd simply forgotten it.

fabrication has such a negative spin to it.

So true. However, a few things need to be said about the NT. As you note, there are many, many manuscripts, partial, fragmentary and complete to varying degrees of the NT. This is in stark contrast with most classical literature. Many classical authors, Tacitus, for example, exist only from a single manuscript. The comparative numbers show just how popular the NT was. In fact, some scholars say that the codex or leaf form of book on papyrus (as opposed to the scroll format) was invented by Christians so they could mass produce their scriptures. Errors, or typos, are an interesting subject. I pointed out, just recently, a Dutch typo on Dales "translation" thread. It's interesting that scholars have been able to calculate the rate of typos for trained scribes. For the Dead Sea scrolls, I believe, the rate is something like one per every 20 lines. When you think about it, you'll see that the liklihood of significant errors creeping in my mistake is almost nil. And that's especially the case because with the NT we are able to compare so many manuscripts and come up with an overwhelmingly probably reading.

How about deliberate error? Again, the huge amount of material guarantees that we have an excellent idea of what the original intent (ha! ha! a little legalese pun!) of the author will be apparent. And, in fact, there is virtually no variation from that standpoint. Yes, there are a few instances of scribes trying to "correct" the text, but these are virtually always glaringly obvious. The reason for this was clearly because the scribes felt themselves to be engaged in work on a truly sacred project and so went to extraordinary lengths to correctly transcribe the text. If you're interested, Bruce Metzger has a book on this whole subject entitled "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration." Metzger was the principal editor for the United Bible Society's "The Greek New Testament," now in its 4th edition, and coordinated with Kurt Aland's "Novum Testamentum Graecum." It's a fascinating subject, and one which lends itself to scientific controls. All you have to do, though, is read the NT in a Greek version which contains the full critical apparatus to be satisfied that the variations are really of minimal importance. Believe me, I've done it. I may have my faults (and I'll forgive you if you don't fully believe that), but I hope you'll realize something major wouldn't have slipped past me.

Bottom line: the NT is truly a translation, not a compilation and certainly not a fabrication. Even allowing for human error, there is virtually no matter of importance that can be disputed based upon the process by which the text was handed down. Those who wished to alter the Good News didn't alter the text of these books secretly: they either did it boldly and openly or, as was more usual, they wrote their own pseudepigraphal books, which were among those rejected by the Church.

"every translator is a traitor" (query: whom does a bible transator betray?)

Why do you put me to the test? Show me the Holy Bible! Whose name is inscribed upon it? Surely you didn't think I'd say the Bible translator betrays God? Of course not--he betrays the text, or the human author. But Jerome is right, of course, and translation is a crutch. Anyway, if you'd been reading my posts with the close attention that they deserve, you'd be well up on my "theology" of revelation, if I may be so bold as to say that.