Jump to content

Talk:Meister Eckhart: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Heresy: new section
Line 67: Line 67:


Tillich said: "To say 'God exists' is to deny Him." I'd say that statement itself shows an influence by Eckhart. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/169.133.253.21|169.133.253.21]] ([[User talk:169.133.253.21|talk]]) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Tillich said: "To say 'God exists' is to deny Him." I'd say that statement itself shows an influence by Eckhart. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/169.133.253.21|169.133.253.21]] ([[User talk:169.133.253.21|talk]]) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Heresy ==

I found this articles about the rehabilitation of Master Eckhart, in summary : Meister Eckhart's rehabilitation after 750 years culminates in the verdict that he never needed a rehabilitation. Such is the summary of the response which the then Master of the Dominicans, Timothy Ratcliffe, received from the Vatican in 1992, and which he had summarized in a letter to Peter Talbot Wilcox, the then President of the British Eckhart Society, dated 15 August 1992.
Sources: http://www.academici.com/blog/7263/meister_eckhart_rehabilitated_by_the_pope.html
==========
My main language is french, so I can't edit the english version of the articles. But I would appreciate if someone could edit in order to reflect this informations.

Thank you

Dominic

Revision as of 01:17, 21 November 2010

WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Philosophers / Religion / Medieval Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Philosophers
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
Taskforce icon
Medieval philosophy
WikiProject iconChristianity: Catholicism Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

works and doctrines

Hi, person who reverted my "vandalism". The section on Eckhart's doctrines is much too long and detailed to be a section of the main article - hence I moved it to it's own page, which I conveniently linked to when I removed the text. I'm going to go ahead and revert your reversion, and if you want to discuss this change, please do so here. Thank you. Cantara 01:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the quote where Eckhart describes the subjects of his preaching. The paragraph was already discussing Eckhart's themes, and that quote is the standard summary of what Eckhart said in his German sermons.

Need Clarification

What do the words "mysticism is penetrated by the spirit of the University in which it occurred" mean? Lestrade 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Go read Ferruolo, The Origins of the University, Stanford UP 1985. The University of Paris was not much more significant than any other Cathedral School or scriptorium libnrary until Abelard set fire to rational debate in his dispute with William of Champeaux about the rules of philosophic ontology. Ths spirit of the University was originally dogmatic Roman, but it attracted a number of free-thinking young men who disputed the Realist schola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.153.183 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eudemonism and Christianity

After contrasting the eudemonism of Protestant Christianity with original Christianity and other religions – according to the article on eudemonism, the Christian use of the concept came from Aquinas through Augustine (both lived prior to the Protestant movement). I reverted my edit that noted this, because I don't have a copy of Welt to check on why Schaupenauer may have described it as a Protestant concept. Can you shed some light on this question? --Blainster 19:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By eliminating asceticism and its central point, the meritorious nature of celibacy, Protestantism has already given up the innermost kernel of Christianity, and to this extent is to be regarded as a breaking away from it. In our day, this has shown itself in the gradual transition of Protestantism into shallow rationalism, that modern Pelagianism. In the end, this results in a doctrine of a loving father who made the world, in order that things may go on very pleasantly in it (and in this, of course, he was bound to fail), and who, if only we conform to his will in certain respects, will afterwards provide an even much pleasanter world (in which case it is only to be regretted that it has so fatal an entrance). This may be a good religion for comfortable, married, and civilized Protestant parsons, but it is not Christianity. Christianity is the doctrine of the deep guilt of the human race by reason of its very existence, and of the heart's intense longing for salvation therefrom.

Lestrade 19:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

I have to say I am very uneasy reading Schopenhauer's words on Eckhardt. Full of insight though they may be they are filtered through S's very particular negative view of the world. Eckhardt's vision was one of Joy and Love, not despair - he uses these words continously in regard to the experience of achieving union with God. I'm also bored of people, when the encounter someone working in the Christian tradition who's views they have sympathy with automatically calling them a Bhuddist or Hindu (people call the Cathars Buddhists, S saying Eckhardt had to dress his Eastern Mysticism up in Christian garments etc). Because we don't like what Christianity has become doesn't mean when we find people who got close to its true spirit that they weren't Christians. At some point we are going to have to accept that in their purest forms all religious movements get close to a profound spiritual truth, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or whatever. Eckhardt regarded himself as a Christian and we're going to have to accept that.

It is simply incorrect to attribute his views to other creeds without hard references - if you're arguing "ecumenity of the spirit", you should extract these considerations to another section named something like "Parallels with other creeds". If you wish to prove it the hard way, I would suggest you prove the oriental explorer Rusbroec (from the Pas de Calais) was linked to Jan van Ruusbroec's family, which WOULD be an interesting addition to our understanding of the roots of European mysticism. The area to research there is genealogy, Jan was almost certainly descended from the Counts of Flanders, but "almost certainly" is not hard documented genealogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.153.183 (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to find some quotes by Eckhardt to counterbalance S's interpretation - I may even find some Jung on him. ThePeg 10:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eckhardt's Death

Am I wrong or is the inference in this article that Eckhardt might not have died but just disppeared off somewhere else? I may be muddling things up but its pretty clear there is no record of his death and the article suggests he may have just continued his teaching elsewhere. Could he have avoid the stake? ThePeg 10:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what were the charges

What heresy, specifically, was Eckhart charged with? Or "heresies," I imagine. Jonathan Tweet 20:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He had the bad luck to run into the founders of the Inquisition. The head of the Cistercian Order, Cardinal Konrad von Urach (d.1327 as a defeated papabile), Second Papal Legate to the Albigensian Crusade 1220-1223 and founder of the Inquisition, was on the heels of the Cathars, who were not confined to the south of France - his follower Boniface of Brussels was exiled from Paris during the student troubles of Carnival 1229, and was present in Cologne February 1229 - March 1231, investigating the Archbishop of Cologne's activities. This made Boniface enemies, which he added to in his next job as Bishop of Lausanne, chasing the Holy Roman Emperor (and ostensible Muslim) Frederic II, who had not delivered on his commitments to Konrad to undertake a new Crusade. Boniface was eventually the target of an attempted assassination, and retired to Konrad's Abbey of the Cambre just outside Brussels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.153.183 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Eckhart

Why Johannes? Show me one - only one hand where "Johannes" is named! There is only one Meister Eckhart and his name is "Eckhart von Hochheim". Forget your Johannes. --Eckhart Triebel (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the article

I am shocked: "Coming into prominence during the decadent Avignon Papacy and a time of increased tensions between the Franciscans and Eckhart's Dominican Order of Preacher Friars, he was brought up on charges later in life before the local Franciscan-led Inquisition."
Was ist das für ein Quatsch? Was erzählt der uns hier eigentlich? Eckhart hatte es nicht nötig, von der päpstlichen Seite her "prominent" zu werden, er tritt auch nicht erst durch seinen prozess in "prominence" und mit den hier konstruierten "increased tensions" hatte Eckhart nun soviel wie gar nichts zu tun - und die "lokal Franciscan-led Inquisition" ist reine Fiktion. An diesen Aussagen ist nichts wahr, aber auch gar NICHTS. Eckhart Triebel (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above on the charges against him. Konrad von Urach was the second son of Count Egino von Urach, founder of the House of Wurttemberg, and was Head of the Cistercians - he refused the Papacy in 1227, and did not long outlive the deed. It has been posited that there was a hidden schism within the Great Schism, between the Major Orders, particularly the Benedictines, Franciscans and Cistercians on the one hand, and the mendicant orders represented in Germany by the Dominicans. There most certainly was a plan afoot to move the Papacy to Brussels under the Duke of Brabant and with the help of the de Montforts, a cadet line of their common scion the Duchy of Flanders, as testified by Pope Leo XII in the 1890s, declaring the ArchiAssociation of the Eucharist as being perpetually and universally based there - the Inquisition was publicly understood (Brussels Region Archeaological Atlas vol 10.2, p151) to have placed one of the great relics there. Eckhart was simply a bystander in a larger conflict, between the Muslim Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, and the House of Zahringen, representing the Southern German aristocracy and the Papacy, who could not stand his lifestyle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.153.183 (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous Info

I just removed some info which didn't have anything to do with Meister Eckhart. It's from the Overview section. I'll post it below. If I was wrong, please feel free to re-include it. Alphabet55 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of imprimatur from the Church and anonymity of the author of the "Theologia germanica" did not lessen its influence for the next two centuries — including Martin Luther at the peak of public and clerical resistance to the irrationality of the Catholic indulgences — and was viewed by some historians of the early twentieth century as pivotal in provoking Luther's actions and the subsequent Protestant Reformation.

“The two eyes of the soul of man,” says the Theologia Germanica,”cannot both perform their work at once: but if the soul shall see with the right eye into eternity, then the left eye must close itself and refrain from working, and be as though it were dead. For if the left eye be fulfilling its office toward outward things, that is holding converse with time and the creatures; then must the right eye be hindered in its working; that is, in its contemplation. Therefore, whosoever will have the one must let the other go; for ‘no man can serve two masters.’“[1]

It's not superflous, it provides some linkage to his philosophical descent, as a key player in proto-Protestantism and, indeeed, the birth of liberal humanism in a time of great feudalism. I think this needs enhancement, rather, so I've reinstated it as a Posteriority section, as distinct from the "Where we are now" which is affected by everything which happened later.

Housekeeping

Hi, just to let folks know I started reading this page, and notice some of the Wiki links had no object to link to, so have started going through taking out the linkage & reverting back to text. While doing so I noticed a comment, rephrased it slightly and inserted reference to support it. I also reformated a couple of references into the citations template. The 'Christianity through the centuries' one didn't make sense, so I re-did it using the info available to men - if I missed something, and you have the actual book, feel free to correct me - but on the internet there are a number of references to this where the author and publisher are mixed up. I went to Google scholar and Amazon to establish these, but if you have an author for a particular section, let me have it and I'll insert in the citation in the appropriate place. I have had an interest in Eckhart for twenty years, and have several translations of his works, but only a few commentaries. Mish (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twentieth century theologians influenced by Eckhart

Was Paul Tillich influenced by Eckhart? I believe he was. I shall leave some one more informed me to note this. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here's a start - Paul Tillich, Carl Jung and the Recovery of Religion, John P. Dourley, Taylor & Francis (2008) [1]

Tillich said: "To say 'God exists' is to deny Him." I'd say that statement itself shows an influence by Eckhart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.253.21 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heresy

I found this articles about the rehabilitation of Master Eckhart, in summary : Meister Eckhart's rehabilitation after 750 years culminates in the verdict that he never needed a rehabilitation. Such is the summary of the response which the then Master of the Dominicans, Timothy Ratcliffe, received from the Vatican in 1992, and which he had summarized in a letter to Peter Talbot Wilcox, the then President of the British Eckhart Society, dated 15 August 1992. Sources: http://www.academici.com/blog/7263/meister_eckhart_rehabilitated_by_the_pope.html

==

My main language is french, so I can't edit the english version of the articles. But I would appreciate if someone could edit in order to reflect this informations.

Thank you

Dominic

  1. ^ Theologia Germanica, public domain