René Girard Was Only Half Right | Jonathan Pageau
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 січ 2024
- Watch the full version: Sacrifice: The Paradox of Salvation - with Fr. Joseph Lucas: • Sacrifice: The Paradox...
Main channel: www.youtube.com/@JonathanPage...
💻 Website and blog: www.thesymbolicworld.com
🔗 Linktree: linktr.ee/jonathanpageau
🗣 Join The Symbolic World Community for discussions about symbolism: thesymbolicworld.com/subscribe
🔒 BECOME A PATRON
Website: thesymbolicworld.com/subscribe
Patreon: / pageauvideos
📱 SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook: / thesymbolicworld
Twitter: / pageaujonathan
Instagram: / jonathan.pageau
![[Unedited] A Problem Well-Stated is Half-Solved - with Daniel Schmachtenberger](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Up3SaeEoOv4/mqdefault.jpg)
You know these two aspects of sacrifice makes me think about the story of Rocky. The way he takes all the punches until he's knocked down to the floor and then ends up winning the fight, giving back his glory to the crowd. He's both the underdog scapegoat and the glorious fighter. Similarly, as a personal exemple I could give you, I'm a cook assistant in an elderly home and I'm also the one who serves the meal for supper. Whenever someone has something negative to say about the meal, I take the blame and apologize even though I could throw it back onto the chief. Whenever someone has something positive to say about the meal, I give the credits to the chief and I deliver the message to him.
Strangely, neither of you seems to have read the same Girard books I have.
Girard, protestant???
He was CATHOLIC, and came back into Catholicism BECAUSE of his work.
The idea that each of us has to take responsability for our own sins and internalize guilt,
instead of projecting it onto some scapegoat,
is the very core of Girard's thought when he says that Christ has abolished sacrifice.
What are you both talking about?
Catholicism is just pre-protestantism from an Orthodox perspective
Yep. That sure was a big miss, you dont have to dig very far to find it either.
Girard's work is amazing, as long as you realize that it doesn't quite cover the whole scope of the universe like he sometimes seems to think it does. But when you allow his ideas to have their place alongside other "meanings" of sacrifice, it hits like a ton of bricks. Also, for what it's worth, i believe Girard was a practicing Catholic, not a protestant :)
He was. He renewed his vows back in the late ‘80’s.
Almost every tribal legacy studied has had the same concept of the “sacred violence”. I don’t think Girard would’ve become so respected had his theories waned past the “Western corridor”. In a more concentrated “ experiment” Facebook was a testing platform ground for his theories.
Seems like Pageau is strawmanning Girard most of the time. Girard’s project is not explaining all aspects of ritual or sacrifice rather its center point is the relationship between mimesis, & Satan/ mass delusion/ ecstatic blood ritual . mimesis is fractal and Girard’ works can cohere with Jonathan’s image based concept of reality . I really wish Girard was still alive so he could participate in this discourse- there are a few people like Luke Burgis who I would like to see Jonathan talk to more.
@@SL-es5kb I know what you mean, but I do think Girard either thinks sacrifice is inherently bad/corrupt, or he just writes in such a way that it's hard to get any other impression. I admittedly haven't studied him beyond the major stuff but when I read I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, I definitely got the impression that Girard thinks ALL sacrifice is bad, or part of some dark side of humanity, or something to that effect. I love the book and recommend it all the time, but with the caveat that I think he misses the wider scope of sacrifice at times.
@@esterhudson5104 Absolutely, however I think it's really easy to read Girard and come away thinking ALL sacrifice is essentially "sacred violence," and not just a neutral or even positive impulse to sacrifice which has become corrupted.
"...too Protestanty for me..." I'm Catholic so I think I know what Fr. Joseph means. But some of the saints we venerate in both the East and West say some things which can sound "Protestanty."
Saint Irenaeus of Lyons: "He gave Himself as a ransom for us, the holy for the lawless, the guileless for the evil, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal."
Saint Gregory of Nyssa: "This Man, then, that has been formed with such skill, is taken by death, by the death on the Cross, and by the very means of death is brought into the realms above, by the price of His own blood ransoming the entire human race."
Saint Cyril of Alexandria: "For He is the propitiation for our sins, as John says, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world."
I think that a truly orthodox view is to see the complexity of an ineffable act of salvation accomplished by an ineffable God to reconcile with man fallen into ineffable chaos. The "Protestanty" thing we've got to steer clear of is the reduction of salvation to ONLY ransom or substitutionary atonement.
This is all to say that I think Fr. Joseph and Jonathan Pageau are right, but don't let yourself become allergic to ways of talking about salvation that have been there since the beginning.
Don't get infected by "Protestantyism" :)
thats because Catholic literature gave protestant a huge percentage of its thinking.
@@bardoface I've heard this before, but I've never seen it demonstrated in a way that was anything more than mere legitimate commonalities between the Protestants and Catholics (and even Orthodox in many cases). Luther had been a Catholic priest. Same with Calvin. But there was a real divergence. It seems ridiculous to say Protestants got their Protestantism from Catholics. I mean why wouldn't they have remained Catholic if that was the case? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you, in which case I apologize.
What makes it sound Protestant vs Catholic?
I think what Girard sees when looking at the Cross of Christ, is Christ doing away with man’s religion, totally “that ends in the sacrifice of the other” under the conditions of a mimetic crisis- an important distinction. He also sees Christ simultaneously “reading & revealing” the foundations of religions and religious myth. His collection of essays and correspondence on The Atonement per Protestant view, is incredibly refreshing. He finds a schema in the parable of the vineyard that reads really well alongside St. Symeon’s keen observation of “man’s anger,” in the hymns on Divine Eros that Girard rightly calls “hostility.” An oversimplification but helpful, what he finds is that our repentance is directly tied awareness of our hostility towards God’s Goodness who “thoughts are not our thoughts.”
Love you Jonathan!!❤
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: A sacrifice was made after the leper was declared healed (the "righteous" of an individual) by the priests. Sacrifices were made when counting the fighting men of Israel (the nation's "righteousness"). I'm seeing all sacrifices not to appease an angry God in any way, but to declare that even though we are well and have power, only God is righteous. And the only true atonement for our sins is His mercy, not our merit.
We treat people according to how we judge them (according to how we perceive their "righteousness"). Sacrifices declare human righteousness to be meaningless (as filthy rags) in and of itself. Jesus' human sacrifice to the laws of this world underlined this. He died according to the ways of the world, but God raised Him in defiance to declare his grace and mercy in spite of the injustice of the verdict. Faith on our part then sacrifices our judgmental ways against our neighbors-in the pattern of Christ by deferring judgment to "the one who judges justly" (1 Pet. 2:23).
The scapegoat at the crucifixion of God's son was another "son of a father," Barabbas, a man of worldly justice (a justice which always comes down to who has the power). The scapegoat represents the justice of the world that continues on according to God's grace.
Wisdom is collected by the member of the relationship more willing to be the responsible, emotionally mature, sacrificial example of leadership. This is the benefit of empathy; we earn the right to benefit from an experience whether it is ours or belongs to another.
This requires courage, but only in relative proportion to the other. We must learn to step out of the emotion we use to justify our weakness in favor of being stronger so we can learn to see the truth more clearly.
The entire point of life is to gain wisdom and contemporary men and women do not want anything to do with it. This is the best time to ever have lived a human life. Whether we are talking intellectually and theoretically or practically, wisdom has never been more readily available at any time in history than it is right now.
Study what is newly available and learn to apply it practically, which means selflessly in the spirit of empathy and communal/greatest benefit. Baz Lerhman put it this way. When asked about his leadership as a director, all he said was, "I eat their fear." Let that be the chosen direction and one can hardly go wrong. Do it without pride or separation. The whole truck is giving knowingly. It is preservative.
Two thoughts:
1. My sense is not that Girard developed a theory of social violence (the scapegoat mechanism) to understand the sacrificial system-it is rather than he found a theory to explain social violence through the history, the subversion, and the ultimate culmination-dissolution of sacrificial violence in the cross and resurrection of Christ.
2. The cross was not originally a symbol of sacrifice-it was a symbol of guilt. But the symbol became the reality, the sign became signified, because Jews and Gentiles united, finally, to hammer their sins into the head of their common scapegoat. Jesus commands us to take up our cross not as a redundant metaphor to reinforce his command of self-denial. He commands us to take up our cross because, like the thief acknowledged, “it is our just reward but this Man is innocent.” To take up our cross is first to confess our guilt and Christ’s innocence.
It seems like neither of you have read Girard, this is a weird take.
Agreed
Naming Mimesis and it’s link to violence was Renes real breakthrough. His work on sacrifice was a off shoot of that insight.
I do think Johnathan hyper focuses on the sacrifice aspect of his work. Rene, in his life time changed is tune on sacrifice.
I understand why the Orthodox push back on Rene Girard, he’s got STANS out there that’ll remind you of exactly what he warned against.
This title is Catholic rage click bait though. 😅
Thats heat
We are to be honest and not look to be blamed although we may suffer unfairly as part of our calling to be an honest witness to the truth; we are to acknowledge that Christ bio-logically served and was uniquely qualified to offer His life in order to become a memorial of human responsibility and we affirm our responsibility to bio-logically steward as living sacrifices of bio-logical service by referring to Christ's perfection in our prayer life; which communicates an understanding of our responsibility as stewards which provides a logical basis for Christ to mediate our repentance before the Father as the logical basis for granting us further responsibility in His Kingdom; the mediation of our repentance forms the logical basis for Christ to ask the Father to send the Spirit to inspire the bio-logical politics of His particular rule as the human King of Kings.
”By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.“
Hebrews 10:10 NASB2020
Can Girard be read through the same lens that this verse is read?
How is it read?
I'm sorry but johnathan and the other guy clearly haven't read girards work.
Girard is specific in that the sacrifice that is lost with Christ's crucifixion is the sacrifice of scapegoating alone. He's perfectly aware there are other forms of sacrifice outside if this that have nothing to do with this specific type of sacrifice that has been used to contain violence.
Girard doesn't claim anything more than that