But how many Anglo-Saxons,
>>other than those associated with the Church, could have discussed the
>>meaning of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, or other finer points of
>>theology?
>
>How many people in the late twentieth century who call themselves
>Christians would be able to do this? I used to be astounded at the
>ignorance of fellow members of my church--until I realized that "being a
>Christian" and "understanding Christianity" are two very different things.
>Let's beware, lest in our own erudition we impose impossible standards of
>"right" Christianity. Judging from friends who have converted, it seems
>that internal conversion often comes first, followed by the dogma, "faith
>seeking understanding," as Anselm said.
>
>Phyllis
>
>Phyllis G. Jestice
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Phyllis has made the very point I would like to have made. I was talking
to a parishioner the other day, a lifelong Catholic and a man of some
standing in our parish. It emerged in conversation that he regarded Satan
as a sort of god, the creator of all the evil things in the universe. This
is rank dualism. I went through the opening clauses of the Nicene Creed
with him - We believe in one God, the creator all that exists, etc. He was
astounded when their significance was pointed out: it had never occurred to
him. It is beside the point to call him stupid; he is in fact an educated
man, holding down a well-paid professional job.
I do not believe that the inhabitants of old Byzantium had any better
understanding than my parishioner, despite their somewhat feverish interest
in all things dogmatic. If they did, why did the period produce so many
stunningly obtuse heresies? Every clause of the Nicene Creed, and the
various other Christians creeds, refutes some error which, however basic,
was widely held by people at the time. That is why it was necessary to
produce the creeds and hold the councils.
Oriens.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|