Gnostic Elements in Early Catholicism

[Daniel_Keeran]

Originally Posted by Daniel Keeran
Now James, did you not refer to Rev.14 to support literal rather than metaphorical virginity/celibacy? Is the ascetic celibate contemplative life more honored, more pure, more holy than married life?

Yes - the two central figures of the NT, Jesus and Mary set the example. They were both virginal and celibate. And we also know that there is a hiearchy in heaven and the notion of the “least in heaven”.

This does not mean that a married couple properly consecrated to each other and the Lord and living in a CHASTE life can not attain to high levels of perfection though.

But its clear that there is special recognition given to virgins, priests/bishops and the martyrs…But being the least in heaven or higher up is infinitely better than not being in at all so to speak.

James

All things being equal, virgins have a higher place in heaven than married couples? By married couples being “chaste” do you mean not having sexual relations?

In sacred scripture the celibate are said to have a gift to be celibate, not a higher gift. It was never a command to be celibate for any bishop or deacon, let alone apostles.
1 Corinthians 7 “I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.”

The introduction of celibacy at Elvira and later Nicea is interesting information and shows when gnostic tendencies became codified “commanding to abstain from marriage.”

Tertullian wrote that Paul was the apostle of the heretics because the gnostics in his area were reading their views into Paul’s writings.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Yes - the two central figures of the NT, Jesus and Mary set the example. They were both virginal and celibate.

James

Jesus was probably celibate although interestingly scripture does not say so, does it? Mary was celibate and virginal until Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:24-25 “When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had NO UNION WITH HER UNTIL she gave birth to a son.”

The above verses explain where Jesus’ brothers and sisters came from, against the Protevangelium of James (140-170 AD), that first claimed children of Joseph by a previous marriage: “But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl.”

In the Mary Ever-Virgin article on this site, see the following: According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The PRINCIPAL AIM of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the PERPETUAL AND INVIOLATE VIRGINITY of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

So the PJ writer appears to have had a gnostic agenda.

I think Origen (185-254 AD) was first to say Mary had no other children or sexual relations. Athanasius of Alexandria (293-373 AD) was first to refer to her as “ever virgin.”

 

[CentralFLJames]

Jesus was probably celibate although interestingly scripture does not say so, does it? Mary was celibate and virginal until Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:24-25 “When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had NO UNION WITH HER UNTIL she gave birth to a son.”

The above verses explain where Jesus’ brothers and sisters came from, against the Protevangelium of James (140-170 AD), that first claimed children of Joseph by a previous marriage: “But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl.”

In the Mary Ever-Virgin article on this site, see the following: According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The PRINCIPAL AIM of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the PERPETUAL AND INVIOLATE VIRGINITY of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

So the PJ writer appears to have had a gnostic agenda.

I think Origen (185-254 AD) was first to say Mary had no other children or sexual relations. Athanasius of Alexandria (293-373 AD) was first to refer to her as “ever virgin.”

You might want to read this:
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV

Mary was ever Virgin and the more direct way to show that Jesus had no brothers and sisters is to know that the brothers and sisters phraseology comes from the limits of the language elements that had no word for cousins and made no distinction.

The English phrase “had NO UNION WITH HER UNTIL she gave birth to a son” does not mean that after the birth he had relationships. This is an idiom that is meant only to focus the reader to the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin to fulfill OT prophesy of “the virgin will be with child”.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

All things being equal, virgins have a higher place in heaven than married couples? By married couples being “chaste” do you mean not having sexual relations?

All we know for certain is that Jesus constantly told people to follow Him and carry your crosses and that there are great rewards for those who perfect themselves. Paul seemed to think one should remain virginal. All the Holy Family were virginal or chaste - Jesus and Mary being virginal (Catholic Belief) and Joseph not having any spousal relations.

Jesus tells the rich man if he wants to be perfect sell all and follow Jesus - that would mean to take his complete life as an example - including chastity.

Chaste in marriage means a unitive rather than an exploitive or selfish sexual intimacy given in the proper context of a loving Christian familial experience.

My personal opinion is that those that give up more for Christ and the kingdom of heaven the greater the reward. I have no way to judge for God to know if its more a sacrifice to give up the right to marriage and remain virginal or to suffer a bad marriage and remain loyal to it and be pragmatically a virgin by being tethered to a shrew.

But I would think normatively a virgin, martyr and a priest all in the service to Christ get the highest rewards - a closer and deeper relationship to Christ in eternal beatitude. But some saints both married and unmarried are right up there with them I am sure. We do not have more detail about the hiearchy of rewards but we can count on a “fair” system that is based on service and sacrifice so that “the greatest among you shall serve the least”.

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

… great rewards for those who perfect themselves. Paul seemed to think one should remain virginal. All the Holy Family were virginal or chaste - Jesus and Mary being virginal (Catholic Belief) and Joseph not having any spousal relations.

Jesus tells the rich man if he wants to be perfect sell all …including chastity.

Chaste in marriage means a unitive rather than an exploitive or selfish sexual intimacy given in the proper context of a loving Christian familial experience.

… But some saints both married and unmarried are right up there with them I am sure.

James

So are you saying to be “perfect” means for married couples and “married saints” to: 1) not engage in sexual relations at all or 2) not mutually enjoyable sexual relations? Which one?

The rich man interpretation is an interesting and in my view gnostic commentary.

 

[CentralFLJames]

So are you saying to be “perfect” means for married couples and “married saints” to: 1) not engage in sexual relations at all or 2) not mutually enjoyable sexual relations? Which one?

The rich man interpretation is an interesting and in my view gnostic commentary.

Not at all. It means committing one’s marriage to the service of God as the principal focus.
We do have a mandate to be fruitful and multiply afterall. And raising a new child for Christ is certainly a wonderful work for Christ. Even if the pleasure of intimacy is very transient the fruit of raising the child in a loving Christian family bring eternal reward in itself.

I am sure that Mary’s mother and Father are highly rewarded in heaven for example.

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Not at all. It means committing one’s marriage to the service of God as the principal focus.
We do have a mandate to be fruitful and multiply afterall. And raising a new child for Christ is certainly a wonderful work for Christ. Even if the pleasure of intimacy is very transient the fruit of raising the child in a loving Christian family bring eternal reward in itself.

I am sure that Mary’s mother and Father are highly rewarded in heaven for example.

James

So one can attain perfection while enjoying wild pleasureable sex in old age?

 

[CentralFLJames]

So one can attain perfection while enjoying wild pleasureable sex in old age?

I don’t think sex in and of itself has ever been mentioned as a necessary act of eternal bliss or sanctification. This is an idea that was popular with some of the pagan beliefs actually. I don’t think you will find any of that in celibate and chaste minded Catholic teaching.

Do you have any scriptural evidence of anyone that had wild and and pleasurable sex in old age declared just before God? We can surmise from scripture that Abraham and Sarah had intimacy at an old age and were able to conceive Isaac. But I think it would be quite a stretch to put assumptions in the mechanics don’t you? After all, Abraham got his justification through faith. And I doubt that that had any guised “old faithful” connotations.

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I don’t think sex in and of itself has ever been mentioned as a necessary act of eternal bliss or sanctification. …Do you have any scriptural evidence of anyone that had wild and and pleasurable sex in old age declared just before God?
James

I am not suggesting sex is “a necessary act of eternal bliss or sanctification…”

I am asking you, in your view or in Catholic theology or sacred tradition, can an older married couple attain perfection while during their barren years they enjoy wild pleasurable sex?

 

[CentralFLJames]

I am not suggesting sex is “a necessary act of eternal bliss or sanctification…”

I am asking you, in your view or in Catholic theology or sacred tradition, can an older married couple attain perfection while during their barren years they enjoy wild pleasurable sex?

As long as sex does not become a preoccupation and selfish over indulgence that turns each other into nothing but a pleasure machine so to speak and is being chaste and not degrading the dignity or person-hood of the other it is of course possible that they may attain salvation. The assumption is that they are not living in bed 24 hrs a day for nothing but sex and actually getting out and about and being charitable, praying and having God in their relationship and staying in grace.

Within the marital context there is certainly no sin for chaste pleasure as long as it does not become the end-all purpose in life or an addiction that unbalances the couple’s realtionship with God or cause harm.

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

…of course possible that they may attain salvation. The assumption is that they …being charitable, praying and having God in their relationship and staying in grace.

Within the marital context there is certainly no sin for chaste pleasure …
James

Can they attain the highest level of perfection (not just salvation) if they engage in wild pleasurable sex with the parameters you mention?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Can they attain the highest level of perfection (not just salvation) if they engage in wild pleasurable sex with the parameters you mention?

If they were martyred for the faith (not during the conjugal act ) then its possible they could reach very high levels of reward. But I doubt they would ever get as high as a virginal baptised young saint who never committed a single mortal sin and died defending the faith. There is a subtle tension between holiness and innocence that interplays with concupescence. This is not to be confused with the “evil substance” of the gnostics or antinominanists. Concupescence is a function of personal sin and even when sin is forgiven there is an appetite or gravity toward it that must be overcome and its generally requires grace in the presence of much self-denial for it to replace lost innocence with holiness.

There is another semantic that you are not picking up on. This is the idea of a soul’s spiritual capacity. A soul that starts of innocent in baptism at an early age, stays out of grave sin and avails itself of sacramental grace as often as it can will rapidly advance in holiness and actually increase its capacity for more grace. No soul can ever attain to the level of Mary “full of grace” since she never sinned (pre-saved by Jesus even from original sin) and therefor is “blessed above all women” (even Eve who was created without sin but fell). Mary is the upper limits of a human soul and no one can reach her level - ever (due to original sin). But the concept here I want to point out is that a married couple are by necessity of the marriage bond committing themselves to each other and have less time to serve God and do His will and frankly have more domestic-relational dynamics to deal with than a single person (in general). Pragmatically, when one is living in a close marital relationship it will also be inevitable that one will be selfish or grow at different rates than their spouse and this can impede mutual advancement. The good news though is that the marital partnership is meant precisely so each may help the other gain heaven. But the aggressive pursuit of attainment of spiritual perfection would generally stress a marital relationship. One would tend to want to advance faster than the other could. St. Bridget in her later married life elected to live as brother and sister with her spouse so they both could advance (he had a late life conversion). She ended up setting up a new convent away from the marital embrace entirely.

So perfection is hard to quantify since we all MUST be perfect in heaven (removal of concupescence) for whatever our spiritual capacity is. Perfection from another perspective is attaining to “be all God destined us to be” from a spiritual capacity perspective. From my readings of the saints I believe that most fall far short since God pushes us hard and most resist getting that close to God since grace implies suffrage and service.

James

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Gnosticism seems to have the core element of distancing from the physical through ascetic celibate discipline characteristic of the pneumatics, at least in Marcionism, that has its parallel in sainthood in Catholicism and to which monastics aspire…

So,
Gnosticism actually has principles, or not?

 

[statimsciens]

I haven’t read all the posts, they get quite detailed, but this whole conversation is based on false assumptions. I’ve read Peter Brown and Elaine Pagels, it would seem to me that there never was any “gnostic-ism” no identifiable group or movement with shared ideals and doctrines across time. Many so-called gnostic groups did not embrace a dualistic view of the universe or a yen for esoteric knowledge.

For instance, what is essentially “gnostic” about asceticism? Asceticism develops in numerous cultures without the benefit of something called gnosticism as a pre-requisite.

This really is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

So, what defines something as “gnostic”? And why, if people two millennia removed from the situation can so easily identify gnosticism, could first century Christians not?

 

[CentralFLJames]

I haven’t read all the posts, they get quite detailed, but this whole conversation is based on false assumptions. I’ve read Peter Brown and Elaine Pagels, it would seem to me that there never was any “gnostic-ism” no identifiable group or movement with shared ideals and doctrines across time. Many so-called gnostic groups did not embrace a dualistic view of the universe or a yen for esoteric knowledge.

For instance, what is essentially “gnostic” about asceticism? Asceticism develops in numerous cultures without the benefit of something called gnosticism as a pre-requisite.

This really is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

So, what defines something as “gnostic”? And why, if people two millennia removed from the situation can so easily identify gnosticism, could first century Christians not?

Exactly my principal problem with the naked speculation. The OP is forced to become an infallable interpreter of both scripture, Catholicism and gnosticism with no common standard except for orthodox Catholic belief to be the whipping boy for any thing the OP wants to imagine is ‘gnostic’. Who or what represents “orthodox” gnosticism?

It’s an impossible tangle of fuzzy standards that can only lead to belittling Catholicism. So I see it as essentially a thinly veiled anti-catholic attack…

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

So,
Gnosticism actually has principles, or not?

Yes, Gnosticism has a number of core principles and concepts partially listed in the OP and reflected in Catholicism.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

If they were martyred for the faith (not during the conjugal act) then its possible they could reach very high levels of reward. But I doubt they would ever get as high as a virginal baptised young saint …requires grace in the presence of much self-denial for it to replace lost innocence with holiness.

A soul that starts of innocent in baptism at an early age, stays out of grave sin and avails itself of sacramental grace as often as it can will rapidly advance in holiness and actually increase its capacity for more grace. No soul can ever attain to the level of Mary “full of grace” since she never sinned (pre-saved by Jesus even from original sin) and therefor is “blessed above all women” …Mary is the upper limits of a human soul and no one can reach her level - ever (due to original sin). But the concept here I want to point out is that a married couple are by necessity of the marriage bond committing themselves to each other and have less time to serve God and do His will and frankly have more domestic-relational dynamics to deal with than a single person (in general). Pragmatically, when one is living in a close marital relationship it will also be inevitable that one will be selfish or grow at different rates than their spouse and this can impede mutual advancement. The good news though is that the marital partnership is meant precisely so each may help the other gain heaven. But the aggressive pursuit of attainment of spiritual perfection would generally stress a marital relationship. One would tend to want to advance faster than the other could. St. Bridget in her later married life elected to live as brother and sister with her spouse so they both could advance (he had a late life conversion). She ended up setting up a new convent away from the marital embrace entirely.

So perfection is hard to quantify since we all MUST be perfect in heaven (removal of concupescence) for whatever our spiritual capacity is. Perfection from another perspective is attaining to “be all God destined us to be” from a spiritual capacity perspective. From my readings of the saints I believe that most fall far short since God pushes us hard and most resist getting that close to God since grace implies suffrage and service.

James

I actually understand Origen better from reading your comments. I think he believed one achieved perfection through rebirths and eventually reach the highest level. This is all very different than my reading of scripture and sounds more like the Orphic, Pythagorean, Platonic, Gnostic thinking of achieving perfection, detachment from the material, through a celibate ascetic contemplative life.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I haven’t read all the posts, they get quite detailed, but this whole conversation is based on false assumptions. I’ve read Peter Brown and Elaine Pagels, it would seem to me that there never was any “gnostic-ism” no identifiable group or movement with shared ideals and doctrines across time. Many so-called gnostic groups did not embrace a dualistic view of the universe or a yen for esoteric knowledge.

For instance, what is essentially “gnostic” about asceticism? Asceticism develops in numerous cultures without the benefit of something called gnosticism as a pre-requisite.

This really is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

So, what defines something as “gnostic”? And why, if people two millennia removed from the situation can so easily identify gnosticism, could first century Christians not?

The writers of the New Testament and also some early church writers refer to beliefs that one can also see in the Nag Hammadi texts and in Valentinus’ work the Pistis Sophia (140-200 AD). These references and texts seem to have the common theme of belief in the evil or fallen quality of the flesh and of the material world, and the goal of the person is achieving perfection through awareness of this goal and through ascetic celibate contemplative life modelled first by the Pythagorean communities contemporary with Buddha. There was no group that called themselves “Gnostics” that I know of.

The idea of achieving perfection means detachment from the desires of the body and took the form of sometimes vegetarianism and typically celibacy. In the case of Valentinus, his followers did not forbid marriage but encouraged celibacy as the best route to perfection. The Pistis Sophia teaches rebirth into a body following a cleansing sins by fire after each death. This emphasis against sexuality was common in Roman society as was the idea of cleansing stains by fire after death, probably borrowed from Plato and other Greek sources. The Orphic Gold Tablets have similar ideas originating with the Mycean culture (1500 BC) that may have derived the ideas from Hinduism.

 

[LionHeart777]

if I read the Pistis Sophia correctly, the cleansing mentioned was not limited to fire, but that was one element. Clearly a cleansing fire can be symbolized by the refiners fire, isn’t that what Paupl alks about? I don’t think that Catholic Dogma teaches that the fire is literal, although it doesn’t exlude that possibility either—if I understand correctly. To me it’s wild speculation that one cannot prove–your assertions. That there is a “positive” associated w/ celibacy in the Bible I think is clear from a simple reading, however it’s not imposed on believers. IF, the Church does have the power to bind and to loose, then they can impose celibacy on the clergy. I believe from reading the ECF’s that Rome has the right to bind and loose (another post I guess.) Not all Catholic priest are unmarried, only in the Latin Rite.

 

[LionHeart777]

granted, their is logic to your speculations, but that doesn’t make them neccessarily correct—I believe that there are other explanations.