Response to John Brightly

Thank you, John. I find your questions eloquent, well-reasoned, and important. As for Vietnam, one has to ask what it means to fight heroically in an unjust cause, whether it is possible at all to commit a war crime honorably..

Americans were outraged at Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. No declaration of war. Like Japan, we never declared war on Vietnam.  What became know as "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident" took place on August 4-5, 1964. President Johnson deemed it a causus belli, and Congress agreed on August 7 in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. President Johnson signed it three days later, giving him authority to "take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." Unfortunately, the Resolution was based on misinformation -to  put the matter generously.

The US Naval Institute offers a detailed account of the Incident, based on material declassified in the '00s. The gist of the precise account  is summarized by Navy Commander James Stockdale, who " had no doubt about what had happened: 'We were about to launch a war under false pretenses, in the face of the on-scene military commander's advice to the contrary.' "  

In addition to the lying,  there is a question of international law. Although it was held to satisfy our own Constitutional requirements for Congressional approval, did the Resolution of August 7 constitute a declaration of war?  If not, McCain and the other participants in the bombing, like the Japanese pilots of the "Day of Infamy", were war criminals, whatever their targets. I would be interested in John Shattuck's opinion: did the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution amount to a declaration of war in international law?

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 5:10 PM John Brightly <jbrightly@gmail.com> wrote:

Some people didn't get the attachment so I'm sending again..

-- 

Bill+  
****************************************************
GLORIA ENIM DEI  VIVENS HOMO ~ VITA AUTEM HOMINIS VISIO DEI   

                             - Irenaeus of Lyons, CIRCA AD  180    

Letting go is all we have to hold on to

                             - Gregg Eisenburg
Sermon Archives 

Commentary (personal blog)

Grail as the Vine Anew in the Kingdom

Vladika Seraphim (The Theology of Wonder) suggests that the Grail stories of the medieval romances are a figure of theosis. The Sacred Cup is the Eucharist after the Resurrection. This raises a question and a delightful expansion of the theology of the Eucharist.

An Orthodox monk once addressed the Yale Russian Chorus, when we visited Trinity-Sergievo Lavra in 1971, congratulating us on learning the language of the angels in heaven. For in eternity,all worship - including the Holy Eucharist - will be transcended (since we will be joined eternally in the Body of Christ, without need of sacraments) and we will simply sing God's praises. I remember that the monk was the choirmaster of the great monastic choir - the best in the world, in my opinion. So, perhaps Archimandrite Mattfey can be excused for forgetting the Lord's own promise to drink anew of the Vine in the Kingdom.

For that New Vintage - the Eucharist after the Resurrection - is what the Holy Grail signifies and represents. The Knights of the Grail are the heroic spiritual warriors, seeking theosis. And the divinization they seek is not for themselves alone, as individuals, but for the whole world. The divinization of the Cosmos is the goal.

Vladyka Serphim notes the forgotten author, Arthur Machen, who seems to have understood the matter. The Grail stories appear to have been an attempt to portray the Mystical side of Eucharistic theology, as the Schoolmen were describing it rationally. I can't help but consider this in conjunction with my reading of Submerged reality, a new study of Sophiology, by a Western medievalist, Michael Martin. The nominalists severed reason (science) from art and religion. The Romantics tried to reintegrate them (Goethe, &al.). A hundred years later, the Russian "silver age" produced Soloviev and Bulgakov and their Sophiology. [Something could be said, perhaps, from a Eurasianist perspective: the Russian contribution had roots slightly different from the Western Europeans. The Orthodox Slavs were already familiar with the Divine Feminine and the mysterious figure of Holy Wisdom.].  Could it be that the Grail as mystical transcendence is somehow related to Haighia Sophia, and that the Divine Liturgy, in its Eucharistic aspect, is also eternal?

The notion of a post-Resurrectional Eucharist seems to expand it from a Mystical re-presentation of Christ's Death "until I come again," to a Mystical entrance into the Resurrection itself, as with Christ we drink anew of the Vine in the Kingdom.