"Ever wonder why certain proponents of the Extraordinary Form give you the Gnostic vibes?"
No. While much can be said of the extraordinary form, gnosticism is not one of them.
The Mass can be participated in by the most simple of minds. Literacy, or hearing the words of the Mass said are not required for proper participation in the Mass.
If you're looking for gnosticism, it's easy enough to find by those who mistake modern sensibilities, and precision of science for perfection of knowledge.
And you're twisting things. Rather, literacy and hearing the words are not required for the Mass to be valid.
As for participation, that's not assured. Literacy and hearing are natural means of participation. Not having those does not necessarily prevent one from participating, but participation will inevitably seek the natural means.
The validity of the Mass does not depend on our participation, but our participation is not guaranteed by the validity of the Mass.
It is precisely this exaggerated conflating of the validity of the mass with full participation (the validity of the mass guaranteeing full participation) that is gnostic.
To strike down these natural means of full participation by saying that full participation is already inherently there, is, well, gnostic.
You are aligning ex opere operantis with ex opere operato. What very gnostic thing to do.
And gnosticism is not reducible to "perfect knowledge"; just as it's not reducible to dualism. It has many forms. But essentially gnosticism is latent in every one of us. You're proof of that right here.
3 comments:
"Ever wonder why certain proponents of the Extraordinary Form give you the Gnostic vibes?"
No. While much can be said of the extraordinary form, gnosticism is not one of them.
The Mass can be participated in by the most simple of minds. Literacy, or hearing the words of the Mass said are not required for proper participation in the Mass.
If you're looking for gnosticism, it's easy enough to find by those who mistake modern sensibilities, and precision of science for perfection of knowledge.
I said certain proponents of the extraordinary form - not the extraordinary form itself.
Try reading.
And you're twisting things. Rather, literacy and hearing the words are not required for the Mass to be valid.
As for participation, that's not assured. Literacy and hearing are natural means of participation. Not having those does not necessarily prevent one from participating, but participation will inevitably seek the natural means.
The validity of the Mass does not depend on our participation, but our participation is not guaranteed by the validity of the Mass.
It is precisely this exaggerated conflating of the validity of the mass with full participation (the validity of the mass guaranteeing full participation) that is gnostic.
To strike down these natural means of full participation by saying that full participation is already inherently there, is, well, gnostic.
You are aligning ex opere operantis with ex opere operato. What very gnostic thing to do.
And gnosticism is not reducible to "perfect knowledge"; just as it's not reducible to dualism. It has many forms. But essentially gnosticism is latent in every one of us. You're proof of that right here.
Post a Comment