Talk:Priscillianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Extreme Ascetism?[edit]

It seems to me that there is a tendency by historiographers to portrait heretical figures, like Priscillian, or devoted practitioners of medicinal arts and spiritual practices, austerities, of both the east and the west, as extremist, fanatical or something like it, far fetched for the modern, or contemporary mind, consumerist if so, to grasp, or at least envision as a preferable impossibility. It should be noted that Priscillian, along with manicheans, the cathars, bogomils and others, has been accused for both extremes: Total rejection and free love. It is although very likely that the doctrine of Jesus, to reject the family as an worldly institution, has been applied by various followers, congregations, in a more literal sense than what has been found pragmatic for the authorities of both secular and clerical matters. These old grounds for scepticism in regard of familiarism as a repressive force has also become a hot subject in contemporary philosopy (still heretical). It is of course difficult to say anything certain about what the teachings and practices of movements like that pertaining to Priscillian (-ism???); but it is not difficult to imagine that the sets of practices that may have been applied by such devoted followers, embraced both extremes and the middle path, due to the moral phantasy growing from the vision that holds that living as a christian is to live the parable of making love with God, a Parable very much connoted to the christianity of Maria Magdalene. Such christianity, in our era, may make sense to conceive as a kind of tantric christianity. As I interpret the information I've found on the subjects regarding the story and teachings of the holy man, Priscillian, it seems that praying, and divine contemplation combined with intimacy between bodies became sanctioned, by what is later known as the Roman Catholic Church, as a consequence of what is here termed Priscillianism, Primarily this sanction manifested the tradition that devoted men and women were not to practice together; nuns and munks were not to mingle... Such possible enlightenments combined with the outsourcing of the doctor-title (by Catholicism), to use a contemperary concept for it, from it's original congregational application, beyond the constraints of the rhetoric, the scholarly and sophistic; but rather as the divine task most high, and most serving of all, according to Saint Paul, I think, in regard of ecclesiastic community building (without the constrictions of the family, but through shared communal responsibility, for kids and environment, nutrition of body, soul and spirit); are to be considered in the continuous life of this article. --Xact (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


POV[edit]

This article looks like extreme Catholic Encyclopedia POV. Priscillianism involved an extreme asceticism but there seems to be little actual evidence of being derived from Gnostic-Manichaean doctrines except that Augustine was opposed to both. 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. We need some modern scholarship in the article with some neutrality.Benvenuto (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a very clear connection - a "spirit vs flesh" dualism (as pointed out in the Britannica article). But I agree that the text is clearly biased. The current Wikipedia practice of using the Catholic Encyclopaedia as an automatically neutral source in religious matters, and the Library of Congress Country Studies as an automatically neutral source in political matters, is just, well, adorable. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as POV, the article on Priscillian seems to cover the details of the controversy with a POV that's less biased by church orthodoxy. Is there even any value in maintaining a Priscillianist page separate from the article on Priscillian, or can the article on Priscillian alone suffice? Craig Schamp (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Informationally, the article does not make sense. How Priscillianism can be a Christian doctrine at all if it is based on Gnostic-Manichaean doctrines? The article blabbers on irrelevant early Christian church history, and is mum on the spread of the Priscillianism, its influence, the points where Priscillians conflicted with the incipient Catholic doctrines, and the points where Catholic doctrines clashed with the Priscillianism's teaching, does not mention the secular court of 384 that was used to resolve the theological conflict, the lowly accusations in magic and moral turpitude, and finally execution of the Priscillianism followers for good 2 centuries to eradicate it to "decline and die out". The reference to the Old Testament to the exclusion of the New Testament clearly indicates that Priscillianism is not a Christian doctrine, but just the opposite, a teaching that competed with Christianity. Barefact (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)