/lit/ - Literature

>>22341348
It’s enough to read St. Maximus the Confessor to see the truth.

OHNONONONNONONONONO

>How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now, as the elder of all the Churches which are under the sun, presides over all? Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law.

>For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendour of the Fathers and sacred dogmas…For ever since the Incarnate Word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Saviour , but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the most High.

>>22161150
Saint Maximus the Confessor isn't an eceleb larp flavor of the month book. He is an Orthodox Christian saint from AD 580.

I recommend all Eastern Orthodox to read St. Maximus the Confessor! He was a great Eastern Saint!

OHWAITNONONONONONOO.....

>How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now, as the elder of all the Churches which are under the sun, presides over all? Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law.

>For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendour of the Fathers and sacred dogmas…For ever since the Incarnate Word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Saviour , but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the most High.

— St Maximus the Confessor

>>21951047
Peter is especially singled out whether you like it or not. St. Maximus, Eastern father, said that Jesus’ promise to St. Peter directly implies that the Roman Church will never defect from the faith and will be forever a light of truth and orthodoxy. At the very least then the papacy was explicitly held to by some of the fathers, so you can’t say it’s a product of the “Carolingian Renaissance” or any bs like that.

>How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now, as the elder of all the Churches which are under the sun, presides over all? Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law.

>For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendour of the Fathers and sacred dogmas…For ever since the Incarnate Word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Saviour , but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the most High.

— St Maximus the Confessor

Of course Orthodox engage in a lot of cope about these issues, but even they generally admit that Rome was given primacy over all the other churches and the others appealed to Rome in times of dispute. The problem is many fathers locate this authority in the promise of Christ to Peter, which means Rome can never defect or the promise of Christ failed.

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now, as the elder of all the Churches which are under the sun, presides over all? Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law‘

Rome is not subject to synodal decisions, all churches are subject to Rome

t. Maximus the Confessor

I've been reading books on Maximus the Confessor and I think it's inspiring how he defended the Filioque and the Pope against the heretical Bishop of Constantinople. Cosmic Liturgy by Hans Urs Von Balthasar is a particularly good book about this Catholic Saint who defended Christendom against the heresies of Constantinople.

>>18733726

>The latter two are highly technical questions that simply werent even explored until centuries after our Lord's ascension. I didnt say that the truth isnt true until brought before a council, I said that belief in this particular doctrine is not imperative until brought before a council.

Who has actually decides which truths are "not imperative before brought before a council"? I have never seen a single Saint cited to back this idea up. I have only seen random academics arbitrarily draw lines between "non-essential technical questions" and "essential centers of the faith". Have the Church Fathers who defended the Orthodox Doctrine against these heresies like monophysitism described them as simply technical questions, or did they defend them as something essential to the faith?

Do you believe that it is valid to seperate communion from someone because of a "technical difference" that has not yet been officially condemned at a council? If no, then you have extreme problems if you want to rely on the testimony of St Maximus the Confessor.

St Maximus refused to enter into communion with any confessor of monothelitism, prior to the conciliar condemnation of monothelitism, because he plainly saw that it was not the same faith that he believed, since it did not have the same center of the faith.

If you believe that something like monothelitism is something "highly technical" and not necessary for salvation prior to an official canonical condemnation, then why is St Maximus the Confessor venerated for seperating communion with confessors of monothelitism, prior to their conciliar condemnation?

>That would damn the dead of half the Church for decades!
>The issues decided by the Councils are clearly necessary to salvation ONCE THEY ARE DECIDED, but to say that they are necessary before that is to damn everyone who never considered the problem in the first place.

Completely dishonest. Lack of explicitly talking about the technicalities of an issue does not equal being in error about a specific issue. The errors

Dyophysitism was always implicitly believed by the pre-Chalcedonian fathers, even if they did not use the exact word "Dyophysitism". How do we know this? All of the Chalcedonian Fathers referred to the prior Fathers as evidence that dyophysitism was already believed by the church! This video covers this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EYte-9BgXA

Why did they already implicitly believe dyophysitism? They lived a properly ascetic, spiritual life in Christ. Correct belief follows from a correct spiritual life, but your entire approach inverts this order - and subjects the accuracy of spiritual life to the refinement of explications of doctrine.

This is exactly why I say that you believe in doctrinal nominalism.

Whether it's "unfair", or whether I'm "qualified"(
You're anonymous, dude. No-one knows who you are, and no-one knows who I am. Just plainly speak the truth) has nothing to do with whether or not what I said is true.

>>16755461
*blocks your path*

>At this point we might recall the Buddhist saying samsara is nirvana, and nirvana is samsara, meaning that just as egoic consciousness was once our natural state, so is unitive consciousness now our ordinary state. Charity or compassion is the hallmark of the unitive state as the absence of the self-center is also the inability to put ourselves first, as we also see the same divine in others.
>The divine is the deepest point in ourselves where all movement comes to an end. Though we know the divine is infinite, phenomenologically it is still bound by consciousness, so it is impossible to know more about the divine because the self is not divine.
>There is a long way to get to the end of the unitive state and there will be hints to a final heavenly condition, beyond the unitive state, which now appears transient and meant only for this life. The final state seems to be beyond any sense of self and unity, transcended only in death.
>When the journey inwards is over, the movement through the state turns around and moves outward as the expanding divine-center tries to capture an all-inclusive love and generosity. This love is so great it would sacrifice heaven. The turning point is the choice between humanity and heaven itself and by following the footsteps of Christ, the Christian forfeits the ultimate divine in favor of selfless giving.
>In the end, the falling away of consciousness is composed of two events. The first is the cessation of the reflexive mechanism - knowing-self. The second is the dissolution of the divine-center, which is our entire experience of life and being. The second event ensures the permanency of the first. By now the ring of consciousness around the divine void has regressed to a small rim. The divine is still within the self and immanent in all that exists, but as soon as the rim of consciousness fades, there is no more self and without boundary the divine is no longer immanent and or transcendent, there is no more union, nor is there any experience of life or will.
>The unexpected aspect of the no-self experience is not the falling of the phenomenal self-experience, it is the dissolution of the divine and the experience of life. The divine still exists, but the experience of it through the self falls. This means that ultimately consciousness is the medium by which man experiences the divine; consciousness is the experience we are.

Maximus the Confessor wrote:

A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the Incarnation of God, which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man ... . Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He Who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the Divine Nature, and will raise it up for His Own sake to the same degree as He lowered Himself for man's sake. This is what St. Paul teaches mystically when he says, 'that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace' (Eph. 2:7)

Maximus the Confessor wrote:

A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the Incarnation of God, which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man ... . Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He Who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the Divine Nature, and will raise it up for His Own sake to the same degree as He lowered Himself for man's sake. This is what St[.] Paul teaches mystically when he says, '[]that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace' (Eph. 2:7)