Dear Reader,
I chewed my way through the Opera Omina (both books) and came up with more questions than answers. Isn't it maddening when you sit down with source material and not only can't you find explanation of material in the other primary work you're reading but a laundry list of other questions pop up. In comparing the Opera Omnia to the Clear Recital (ECE edition because it is the most popular), I couldn't find clarification of a number of things that bothered me about some passages in the Clear Recital. I couldn't help but come to the conclusion that Filianism/Déanism have an incomplete theology. Honestly, the deeper I read into it, the more I find unclear where it is said to be simple.
I know some find satisfaction in the fact that there are deeper mysteries that can not be fully comprehended. But when a statement is presented as fact and there is no follow up or exposition to explain that fact, I'm left wondering what is missing, where do I find it, and how do I present it to prevent the confusion of others. I can't help a measure of grief that much of the sacred knowledge is hidden or lost. We have a portion of the wisdom of the elders and this grieves me, for I see a time coming that we shall have need of it.
Exactly! I have yet to finish my own reading of the Opera Omnia, because I get bogged down in taking notes and trying to look things up, and it just gets to the point where I can't even finish one of the shorter essays because of it. Or rather, I can finish reading, but I feel as though I'm missing huge amounts of context. It really doesn't help that a lot of the online resources are gone, even with the wayback machine.
ReplyDeleteAlso, at least for me, I feel like 'deeper mysteries' should be things like 'the nature of Déa' or 'contemplating how to apply the scripture to my life' and not 'what on earth was the context for this essay' or 'are the fragments incomplete work or were they meant to stand alone' etc. Two different avenues of research and two different mindsets for them, imo.