Symbols Revisited

I was going to post this as a comment on Pauli's most recent post on Kuyper and symbolism, but that one is back a little way now so I thought it might now get noticed as much there. I was thinking more on the symbolism thing because I was editing encyclopedia article the other day beginning with "G," including "Gnosticism" and in particular an article on "Political Gnosticism." The author of the latter article talks about a philosopher named Eric Voegelin who's theory/contention was that Gnosticism is the basic underpinning of much modernist thought. Then the author went on to critique Voegelin's position and list the major criticism's of it by other thinkers. I think Voegelin has something but I also think the issue is a subtle one that one cannot state too simply (this is in regards to my own comments on Gnosticism and symbolism). In regards to symbolism, though, I really think that what is at the heart of it is "participation," which I have discussed on this site before under the Greek term Methexis, which is in turn discussed as the sixth chapter in a book on 4th-century sacramental typology, entitled Mystagogy, by Enrico Mazza. The connection with Harry Potter is in what Pauli and I have discussed sometimes as the "sacramental" quality of some of the images in HP (such as the hidden, unassuming nature of the Leaky Cauldron leading to the big wonderful world of diagon alley). In short, I think symbolism is all wrapped up in and fulfilled in the Incarnation. There is a real participation between the higher realities and the mundane details of images just as, in Christ, human nature really participates in the divine nature of God, has a real communion in it. Like I said in one of my comments on Pauli's Kuyper post, I think there is a similarity between some ancient "ways of getting it wrong" and some modern ones: Particularly Apollinarius and Descartes. The former pictured the Logos as simply controlling the Flesh without it involving a distinctly human soul and the latter thought of the human person as a "ghost" (spirit) in the "machine" (flesh) - no soul. In short, the human soul (ie, Harry as the Golden Soul) IS that participation. Symbolism works so well to capture the human imagination because the human soul of Christ is THE key to the magic of the sacraments. The question of symbolism is indeed not one that should be taken lightly. Pauli noted that the Eastern Orthodox draw the line on symbolism at the 2 dimensional icon, rather than the 3 dimensional statue, and it is indeed an issue to be considered seriously. The ancient pagan religions believed too in "methexis," in participation. In fertility cult rituals (basically idolatrous worship) they believed that they participated in the creative power of the gods (this is officially called the belief in "emanation"). Contrary-wise, Israelite religious thought made serious distinctions regarding the distance between Yahweh and humans. And it was right, for that time, to do so. True participation, as the pagans believed they had in their worship, could not be attained until the Incarnation (from a Catholic standpoint, what they got wrong in fertility cult is gotten right in the fact that marriage is a sacrament ... but in Catholic sacramental theology all of sacraments flow from the one sacrament, the "Blessed Sacrament" - Christ Incarnate in the Eucharist ... and even in marriage, procreation is said to be the spouses "cooperating" with God's creative power, not the kind of participation the pagans thought of - marital love does not "cause" new life, but is rather the "occasion" of God creating new life - it is always God who creates the soul that animates the body). (I have worked here and there, in academic studies, on this, participation through ritual/liturgy, as a pagan concept that could not be fulfilled until Christ, in addition to what I think is a related concept in paganism that cannot be fulfilled, that of a priest acting "in persona" of a god, as the Catholic priest is said to act in persona of Christ in the Eucharistic liturgy and confession, etc.) In the end I think Kuyper is confused and detracts from the realization of the full implications of the Incarnation ... but I just wanted to throw this out there to say I think he has at least identified a core question and to say that there is fundamental question there.