Jesus Week

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok

But as I said, this doesn't matter anyway, because we don't believe in blood guilt for the most part

Unless this "we" excludes Catholics and Lutherans pre--1800, and Orthodox pre-1914, I have a hard time believing it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok

From a spiritual perspective, Calvinism is horrific. They've somehow managed to take the positive and loving philosophy of the original Nazarene, with its emphasis on individual choice, and turned it into a fatalistic existential gloom. It's like a church run by Goths. The fact that they're too busy contemplating the imagined misery of their own existence to really persecute is just a fortunate side effect.

The proof of the pudding is in the historical reality.

I think of 14th century Europe.

Or Tsarist Russia.

I think of 17th century Massachusetts (Quakers apart ) I see alot more of the loving and positiveness there.

But maybe i should turn aside. THis is YOUR thread about YOUR holy season. I cant judge, say, the spiritual life of a Russian monk apart from the social reality of which the Orthodox church was a part, and that isnt going to change as long as I keep my identity.

But if we're discussing (as we were) the issue of the Jews and blame for the crucifixion, the fact of Calvinists theology theoretically being more open to blood guilt than other christians, pales before the historical reality of Calvinist society relative to Catholic-Lutheran-Orthodox society.

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC in the 1970s the Mormons endeavored to posthumously 'save' the Jews of the US by gathering the names of Jews who had died and then holding ceremonies to posthumously induct them into the Church of the Latter Day Saints. When Jewish groups found out about this they went bananas and forced the Mormons to stop.

[DaShi]

But it was too late.

[Dr Strangelove]

The Quakers were never involved with Massachusetts and really weren't a Calvinist sect. Since they have no hard and fast doctrine they're difficult to place in any particular Christian camp.

Fortunately the world is controlled by the Anglicans now, and has been ever since the two greatest Anglican leaders met off the coast of Canada in August of 1941 to carve up the control of the world.

[Jon Miller]

Quakers are anabaptists

JM

[Elok]

Uh, the Orthodox pre-1914? I don't get it. Our last major change in dogma was the seventh Ecumenical Council in the eighth century or thereabouts. Certainly by 1914 the church was too fragmented to organize a council to establish such a change. If there were, I wasn't told about it.

I admit I don't know much about non-Orthodox theology through the ages (I have learned a disturbing amount about Calvinism thanks to Philosophiser, but that's about it). I'll admit I put my foot in it there. Permit me to amend what I said: the overwhelming weight of New Testament texts is against any belief in blood guilt. The very concept is antithetical to the teachings of Christ, which are all about individual responsibility. I don't know where exactly it is (is BK reading this thread?), but there's a point where Christ is asked, "who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" and he responds quite clearly that his ailment was not a punishment for anything.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Quakers are anabaptists

JM

Quakers are anti-ritual in general. That's not the same thing. They were persecuted as heretics in Massachusetts.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok
Uh, the Orthodox pre-1914? I don't get it. Our last major change in dogma was the seventh Ecumenical Council in the eighth century or thereabouts. Certainly by 1914 the church was too fragmented to organize a council to establish such a change. If there were, I wasn't told about it.

I admit I don't know much about non-Orthodox theology through the ages (I have learned a disturbing amount about Calvinism thanks to Philosophiser, but that's about it). I'll admit I put my foot in it there. Permit me to amend what I said: the overwhelming weight of New Testament texts is against any belief in blood guilt. The very concept is antithetical to the teachings of Christ, which are all about individual responsibility. I don't know where exactly it is (is BK reading this thread?), but there's a point where Christ is asked, "who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" and he responds quite clearly that his ailment was not a punishment for anything.

Im not talking about a change in dogma by a council.

Im talking about the actual beliefs of laypeople and priests, who expressed them via their words and actions. Read about the Kishinev Easter Pogrom of 1905. Whatever the high church councils said, its clear that many Orthodox Russians in that era effectively DID believe in blood guilt.


I have a different take on ecumenicalism than most christians (IIUC) and even some Jews - I think that before we discuss theology we have other matters to discuss.The place that followers of different faith traditions actually encounter each other is in THIS WORLD. And what matters most in interfaith relations is matters of THIS WORLD. Not who says what about blood guilt in theory, but who has actual blood on their hands, and what they do about it. Handsome is as handsome does, as the saying goes. I dont really care what the Mormons did about "converting" their Jewish ancestors. What I find interesting is that I can talk to a Mormon about living in "diaspora" and the pull of the "homeland" and the cultural aspects of religion, and they GET it. Im less concerned about which churches think im going to go to hell for not believing in the JC, than I am about which churches are lobbying to prevent the state where 5 million of my people live and are building Jewish culture, from defending itself. And in looking at history, Im less concerned about the evolution of theological councils, then looking at the kinds of societies practioners of various faiths actually built. Vatican 2 mattered to me , cause there was real life antisemitism among lay catholics in 1950s and earlier, and the change in church teachings probably lessened that (along with many other factors) But where these changes in teachings are not accompanied by such changes, theyre not of great interest to me.

And yes, thats a very subjective POV, I freely admit. Im not challenging YOUR interest in church teachings, just explaining why I react as I do.

Just as I would expect a muslim to ask me if the Olmert govt is going to make peace, or an african american to ask me if Jews are actually implementing social justice in this country, and not about, say, the relationship of the Talmud to later works of Jewish law.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The Quakers were never involved with Massachusetts and really weren't a Calvinist sect. Since they have no hard and fast doctrine they're difficult to place in any particular Christian camp.

Fortunately the world is controlled by the Anglicans now, and has been ever since the two greatest Anglican leaders met off the coast of Canada in August of 1941 to carve up the control of the world.

I was referring to the famous execution of quakers in Massachusetts. Whenever one says something positive about Puritan New England, its necessary to mention that, as a preemptive strike.

[lord of the mark]

Elok

Traditionally when a Jew wanted to praise a gentile King, he said "He is like King Cyrus (of Persia)"

Now Cyrus was a pagan, a Zoroastrian, whose religion was quite antithetical to Jewish belief. Much further than Christianity or Islam. Why, then is he so honored? Because he tolerated the Jews, released them from Babylonian enslavement, allowed their return to Jerusalema and construction of the Second Temple. It was his by his DEEDS that we judged him, not his beliefs.

[Elok]

This is true, but deeds should ideally spring from beliefs. If the beliefs and deeds don't match up, it's a sign of dysfunction which doesn't necessarily reflect on the beliefs in question. When the actions directly contradict the beliefs, it's nonsensical to judge the one by the other. You can only judge individuals for failing to honor their own principles, or for failing to teach their principles correctly to those in power.

The Russian peasants held plenty of Pogroms, I know, but they also spent centuries believing in vampires no matter how hard the Church tried to stamp the superstitions out. The villagers were Orthodox, but their behavior was not canonical in any sense. You can blame the church for failing to squash that nonsense out of them, but I can't imagine they actively encouraged it. That church spent a good many years getting pushed around by the Czar (there are saints who could only get away with criticising the Czar by feigning madness), much like the one in Byzantium, and had a pretty good sense of what it's like to be the underdog. They rarely had the power to waste on such rabble-rousing.

[lord of the mark]

"The anti-Jewish riots in Kishinev, Bessarabia (modern Moldova), are worse than the censor will permit to publish. There was a well laid-out plan for the general massacre of Jews on the day following the Orthodox Easter. The mob was led by priests, and the general cry, "Kill the Jews," was taken up all over the city. The Jews were taken wholly unaware and were slaughtered like sheep. The dead number 120 [Note: the actual number of dead was 47-48[2]] and the injured about 500. The scenes of horror attending this massacre are beyond description. Babes were literally torn to pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob. The local police made no attempt to check the reign of terror. At sunset the streets were piled with corpses and wounded. Those who could make their escape fled in terror, and the city is now practically deserted of Jews." [3]

A religion is what it does. I fully understand that Orthodox priests today would not do this. I also understand that Orthodox priests in Greece in 1905 generally didnt do this. To me this means that Orthodox today, and Greek Orthodox in 1905, were effectively practicing different principles than Russian and Romanian Orthodoc circa 1905. Whether there have been new church councils or not.

Now it may be that the positions you espuse were simply not communicated well from the Patriarchs to the village priests, due to the nasty Tsars, or something like that. Its also possible, that you are misreading things a bit. The Calvinist vs everybody else argument about "blood guilt" is, ISTM, an arguement about Adams fall and requisites of salvation for Christians. Its not, and never was, by either side, seen as guide to treatment of Jews. Rather the operative gospel text was "may his blood be upon us and upon our children". And, ISTM, a church of the elect, had far less trouble with a religious minority, than churches that aspired to universality. Jewish refusal to accept Christ was no worse, to many Calvinists, than the depravity of all mankind, and merited no particular punishment in this world. While to would be universal churches it was a constant threat.

Certainly that seems easier to reconcile with the historical facts than a blanket "well the peasants are backward and didnt get it".

[lord of the mark]

the words of "Saint" John Chrysostom:

"But I must get back again to those who are sick. Consider, then, with whom they are sharing their fasts. It is with those who shouted: "Crucify him, Crucify him", with those who said: "His blood be upon us and upon our children". If some men had been caught in rebellion against their ruler and were condemned, would you have dared to go up to them and to speak with them? I think not. Is it not foolish, then, to show such readiness to flee from those who have sinned against a man, but to enter into fellowship with those who have committed outrages against God himself? Is it not strange that those who worship the Crucified keep common festival with those who crucified him? Is it not a sign of folly and the worst madness?

(2) Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but not believe them; they read the sacred writings but reject their witness-and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage."

If John Crysostom didnt beleive in blood guilt, how could he say that the contemporary Jews of Antioch had shouted "Crucify him" ?

Was John Chystostom an ignorant peasant?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Winston
Society does indeed "shut down" during Easter in Scandinavia. Thursday, Friday, Sunday and Monday are all official holidays here.

Only Friday, Sunday, and Monday in Sweden.

As for society shutting down, well, kinda. Certainly, many things close, but it's not like the complete shutdown that afflicts Germany every Sunday.

My local supermarket is open 09.00-22.00 every day in the year, except Christmas Eve.