(http://lccn.loc.gov/95023657) the Rev. Elizabeth+ Rankin Geitz makes
a great exposition of one of the key creeds of Western Christianity.
In many ways the Nicene Creed (which was decreed by Constantine)
represents what makes the Western Church (the Eastern Orthodox
churches rejected the creed over the filioque clause).
As I compare the Nicene Creed with the Filianic Creed
(http://www.mother-god.com/I-believe.html), how one might describe the
unknowable and undescribable (such is the mystery of the infinite God
in blessed trinity) seems to always cause one problem or another.
The filioque debate, of course, caused the major schism between the
West (Rome) and the East (Constantinople) because they could not
settle if the Holy Spirit could be described as coming from both
"Father" and the "Son", or only from the "Father."
Likewise, difficulties with semantics may be grounds for future
controversies when taking note of how the Filianic Creed expresses the
third person of the Trinity. This, of course, is more of a surface
difference, yet it may have a potential for a great misunderstanding
and great confusion down the road.
While the Filianic Creed itself never is specific about the third
person, a Filianic catechism describes her as the Absolute Deity and
the Dark Mother.
Both phrases are potentially controversial and thus require much
clarification for those who are not very familiar to them. Without
doubt both phrases would generate two important thealogical questions:
1. Are the first and second persons "not absolute" or "less than
absolute" if the third is the absolute deity? Does this argument come
from the former having "shapes" while the latter being "without form"?
2. There is no darkness in God (cf. Creation 1:9; John 1:5; 1 John
1:5) and that according to the Filianic thealogy everything was pure
golden light in the beginning; it was only after the Snake came into
the picture (Creation 2:1) the darkness, or the kear, came into
existence. Although the "dark" in "Dark Mother" refers to obscurity
("Whose Name has not been spoken on this earth") describing a Godhead
with an adjective that is of not God is quite problematic.
1 comments:
The terms "Absolute Deity" and "Dark Mother", while perfectly exact if understood correctly, do underline the limitations of Modern English and of West Tellurian language in general.
A more accurate rendition might be "Nirguna Brahman" - God Without Form (although putting it into English again leaves the formula open to misunderstanding).
Any formal delineation whatever is by definition a limitation. To predicate anything is to deny something else, which is why the Upanishads say of the Absolute "neti, neti" - "not this, not this".
The term "Absolute" in this case is intended to convey the absence of any formal limitation, while "Dark" is intended to convey Her transcendence of human comprehension.
To make this absolutely clear, the Filianic Rite refers to Her as "Dark beyond the Light and Light beyond the Darkness", which is clearly intended to prevent any interpretation of "Dark" in a privative sense.
"Whose Name has not been spoken on this earth" should be understood in the same sense as "the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao".
This is not to say that God with Form is in any way deprecated. She manifests first as the Mother and then as the Daughter: but such a descent into the world of Form is purely an act of Grace and mercy to fallen creatures.
Post a Comment