(urth) Wolfean theologies

[Son of Witz]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Watkins [mailto:john.watkins04 at gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2009 07:23 AM
>To: 'The Urth Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies
>
>On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>wrote:

>> I certainly don't care to argue about what any of us here believe, but
>> discussing different interpretations of texts, Wolfe's or those that
>> informed Wolfe, are FAIR GAME.  I'm not presenting myself as better than any Catholics here. I made a critique about an institution's problems. Can't I?
>>
>
>
>Well, no, you really shouldn't, because a)  your opinion about the
>historical consequences of the Filioque is irrelevant, as far as I can tell,
>to anything Wolfe has ever written, and b)  it pollutes the list because
>naturally Catholics will want to defend themselves and their Church.
>Hair-pulling to get a reaction, well, gets reactions.  That's why it doesn't
>belong.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

You can't critique ANYTHING without SOMEONE getting offended.

B first) "Hair-pulling to get a reaction"  what, so you're saying I'm a troll, just spouting BS to get a reaction?  Wrong dude. I'm way to earnest to be a troll, and I don't throw things out just for reactions, unless I'm making a joke. I'm genuinely sorry people's feelings are hurt, but I'm not sorry about any of my views.

A) My opinion about the historical consequences of the Filioque may be irrelevant, fair enough, but that was not the meat of my point.  The concept of the Filioque (itself, not it's perceived consequences) is relevant to the discussion of Wolfe's writing. I brought up the Filioque because every time I've come to this list with my ideas about Severian and Christ, people here, Catholics and others, have sort of trashed my ideas based on a sort of "official understanding" of Christ.  (as a current post said "(let's just call him the OTC, or One True Christ, and assume we are talking about the Catholic one). "  Well, that's a fine assumption for some, to assume that you've got the bead on understanding Christ, and I guess everything that doesn't fit that is obviously poppycock. 

I brought up the Filioque for two main reasons. 
First, to demonstrate that even the Catholic view has been historically questioned, even to the point of being called Heresy, and that the Catholic view has MODIFIED itself over time, changing it's very creed. 
Secondly, which no one has touched, that the nature of the Filioque CHANGES the shape of the our understanding of Christ. It changes the Trinity from a triangle into a flat, hierarchical line. A few simple words and an entire foundational structure has been dramatically altered. That foundational structure is the very understanding of who or what Christ is.  

Now, I question how much Wolfe's writing should be viewed through the lens of strict Catholicism.  He's got the Pope, or Bishop of Viron as a vampire leading people to their doom. Hello? He feeds on children. Hello?
He's got a Torturer as a Christ figure who eventually ends up becoming the myth that shaped him, and to embody and give voice to that myth, he cites a derivative play as his source material. It's almost a farce.  He's got a Eucharist that involves exhuming and eating corpses. Real Kosher stuff.

But if that's not relevant enough for you all, I suggest you ignore me and go back to important stuff like "Would there be shadows in the valleys of the Whorl?" and the mechanics of the Shade.  Heavy stuff there. deeply relevant.

Go Team.
~SonOfWitz