Theresa Gross-diaz wrote:
>And concerning Cathars: I was under the impression that they did not have
churches >in the physical sense of a building, so nothing to desacralize/
deconsecrate/ >desecrate. A sacred structure would rather go against the
concept of the material >world being intrisically unholy, would it not?
>TGD
I totally agree. Indeed, this was one of the Cathar philosophy's main
respects (and, generalizing, the entire dualist "heretic" philosophy).
But also in the Orthodox Chrsitendom, the problem of the materiality is more
subtle. For instance, the icons - that in our modern vision, belongs to the
material world - were considered in the Byzantine theology as a
"akheiropoeti" (literally translated: "not-created-by-the-hand", in the
sense of anti-materialism. The icons were considered as being created by the
divine grace). Actually, the "icon" word comes from Greek, initially meaning
"image". So, nothing to do with materiality.
This is only one example, but I think is rather suggestive for the Christian
mystery. At least, in its Eastern form.
As the Cathars (or the Bogomils, for the Eastern dualist heretics), it seems
that they were not able to understand this mystery.
Serban Marin,
Bucharest, Romania,
[log in to unmask]
PS. I don't know about the medieval period, but nowadays there is the custom
that an icon, after built, to be consecrated by a priest. Only after this
consecration, the icon ceased to be considered as "built", and begans to be
"created". By the Holy Spirit, of course.
|