Kind of an unusual but intriguing post over at the 4th Century on Nietzsche's notion of eternal recurrence and the crucifixion of the body of Christ. I haven't decided if I agree or not, but it certainly makes one think. It is somewhat in line with the discussion I had here onNietzsche and Christianity from way back in October. This idea in the 4th Century's take is definitely more Catholic. So it needs to be reworked a tad to fit in with Mormon notions. However the basic idea is interesting. The collection of true believers is often called "the body of Christ." In a way through the indwelling of Christ he has universalized his body. As a universal body, it must be continually crucified as it is renewed. (i.e. via new members) They also have an interesting take on cutting off parts of the body although I'm not quite sure I buy the Freudian imagery.
How to take this really depends upon whether you think there is more to all this language than mere symbolism. I suspect many Catholics think there is more to it than symbolism. I suspect most, but perhaps not all, Mormons would tend to think otherwise. Further how Mormons might consider this eternal recurrence of crucifixion would differ. I also think there is a problem of a tension between each individual member of the body "taking up the cross" and walking, if only symbolically, in Christ's steps, and the notion of the universal body doing this. i.e. I think there's an element of truth in all this, but I tend to see it more on the individual level rather than the universal level. I'd say most rituals, especially in Mormonism, end up being a walking through and mimicking Christ in a kind of iconic way. Baptism is the most obvious one, although to a Mormon there are far more. However while a Mormon sees these rituals as very important, I suspect most see them more as symbolic with the covenant associated with the rite being what is most important. i.e. the promise to walk as Christ.
The reason I'm a little leery of pushing this idea is two fold. First off I think the fit with Nietzsche is somewhat strained. (Of course I'd be interested in hearing why I'm wrong there) Secondly it seems to me that the whole point of the atonement in Christian theology of most brands, including Mormon theology, is that Christ's atonement is for all. He was crucified for all. Thus it is in a way it was a once and for all act that is vicarious for all. Now I think one could argue that this entails a crucifixion for all and thus an odd mixing of a repeated iconic act with a single absolutely individual act. I'm sympathetic to that paradoxical way of presenting it, but think once again one must be careful.
I enjoyed your take on the my post. I am interested in the "Catholocism" that you found in it. I was raised a Catholic, but I am quite far removed from my Catholic upbringing. So far removed in fact that it would have never occurred to me that the post reflected a Catholic viewpoint. Its interesting though to think of how much of our perspective is so incorporated that we often miss an opportunity for a healthy self-criticism of our assumptions simply because we are unaware of them.
Anyways, as for the Freudian aspects I will have to look again because I was not thinking Freud at the time. In fact, I scribbled the post on a napkin in a cafe thinking that I needed to see what others thought. When I returned home I was not quite sure what I thought anymore, but I decided to go with my impulse. Thanks for the commentary/criticism and for interest in our webpage. I plan on a spurt of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard posts in the near future unless I grow decadent, so I may become a frequent tourist in the theological realms.
"Catholicism," forgive the mis-spelling in the earlier comment. I, however, would not be able to sleep tonight without making the correction!
The Catholicism (and of course related movements) arises because it seems like the "indwelling" in ritual is taken as a real substance. The most obvious place Catholics do this is in the eurachrist (sacrament for Mormons). There one literally partakes of the blood and flesh of Christ. I think most protestants and others like Mormons would say it is just a symbol. It may be dedicated, but there isn't anything substantial.
The issue of the body of Christ is that it is a mystic body but not simply a symbolic way of saying those who've dedicated their life to Christ. (Of course here, more Protestants might be sympathetic to the way of thinking we see in more neoPlatonic inspired figures like Meister Eckhart)
I think you're basically right, Clark, but it might clarify things a little to think of it not just as a symbol but as a legal fiction. For us in the sacrament we notionally take the body of Christ into us and therefore notionally become him.
I think though that as a symbol it must be far more than a legal fiction. Further symbols have power in ways that legal fictions don't. Consider at a bare minimum the psychological effect of rites of passage.
I think part of the problem is that we in the modern world don't "get" myth or high symbolism. For us symbols are more akin to variables in a computer program. We think of them as stand-ins for a single feature and not "image-like" the way they were conceived up through the Renaissance. That has its pluses and minuses. Its plus is the rise of science which depends upon this way of thinking. The negative is loosing a lot of "meaning" that I think is beneficial.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble