/lit/ - Literature

No one here knows anything about any of this stuff. Ask a priest or a book. Both would be more informative than anything that will happen ITT.

>>6488710
Nah, lurk more. Don't be prejudiced.

>>6488708
I deeply wish to upset this woman, if you see what I mean.

>>6488708
They aren't actually particularly upset with the catholics at all anymore.

Though the center of it all is of course papal authority and the division between metaphysics and mysticism.

do catholics still reject the practice of the jesus prayer and the whole "becoming one with the light"?

http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii

>>6488756
http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/51

>>6488722
>and the division between metaphysics and mysticism.

Can you elaborate on this?

>>6488869
Orthodox simply advocate a more intuitive, mystical understanding of God and reality (nous), while catholics have a more empirical, intellectual approach.

>>6488916
Your use of the word empirical is strange. The author most responsible for pushing this idea (that Orthodox = mystical-intuitive, Catholic = metaphysical-rationalist) today is John Romanides, and he says that Orthodoxy is more empirical in that it's based on "experience", that dogma is not so much as important as mystical experience, and that authority in the church is not based on an exterior hierarchy, but on who has the most spiritual experience to instruct others.

Really though, this is a slander imo. It's true that there is a lot of theology in the Catholic Church that is systematic and that employs dogmatic formulae, syllogism, etc., but that is not the entire theology of the Church. In fact, that kind of theology is usually reserved to the professional theologians; the common theology of the Church that is open to everyone is more based on mystery, grace, illumination, etc., it's just that it is guided / framed by dogmatic formulae which keep people from drawing false conclusions from their mystical experiences and starting another damned sect.

>>6488708

>>6488708
In Catholicism Holy Spirit is the part of the trinity as a distinct person while in Orthodoxy he is a fruit of love that comes from Father and Son.
Purgatory is a distinct state for Catholics while for Orthodox it is a part of Hell, temporary purgation by fire so to speak.
Also Catholic theology is more rational and systematic while Orthodox is more mystical.
If I'm wrong someone correct me.

>>6488957
>In Catholicism Holy Spirit is the part of the trinity as a distinct person while in Orthodoxy he is a fruit of love that comes from Father and Son.

It's more the other way around. One of the main differences between the two is that Orthodoxy EMPHATICALLY denies that the Holy Ghost comes from the Father AND the Son (they assert that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only).
The Holy Ghost being a fruit of love that comes form Father and Son is Catholic.

>The Holy Spirit, it is contended, proceeds from the Father and the Son as the term of the love by which God loves Himself. He is not the love of God in the sense of being Himself formally the love by which God loves; but in loving Himself God breathes forth this subsistent term. He is Hypostatic Love. Here, however, it is necessary to safeguard a point of revealed doctrine. It is of faith that the procession of the Holy Spirit is not generation. The Son is "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14). And the Athanasian Creed expressly lays it down that the Holy Ghost is "from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."
Catholic Encyclopedia

>"The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son"
St. Augustine, De Trinitate

>Holy Ghost proceeds from the Divine Will, inflamed, as it were, with love.
Roman Catechism (Catechism of Trent)

>>6488708
I hear that a lot, but I also see a LOT of Eastern Orthodox Catholics end up quoting Augustine nearly verbatim in their disagreements with Catholics.

>>6488945
>It's true that there is a lot of theology in the Catholic Church that is systematic and that employs dogmatic formulae, syllogism, etc., but that is not the entire theology of the Church. In fact, that kind of theology is usually reserved to the professional theologians; the common theology of the Church that is open to everyone is more based on mystery, grace, illumination, etc., it's just that it is guided / framed by dogmatic formulae which keep people from drawing false conclusions from their mystical experiences and starting another damned sect.
This. The Western Catholics are accepting of Eastern Catholic approaches, and they acknowledge many of the Eastern saints and theological work.

>>6488708
Let's add Protestants to the discussion. How are they different from the others? They seem rather influenced by St. Augustine and St. Paul; how do the others see these two? How do the Orthodox feel about sola fide?

>>6489031
They removed 5 sacraments, decided that every uneducated fuck can interpret the bible and try to distance themselves from all Catholic and Orthodox tradition. Really it's such a big bubble of heresies.

>>6488999
>I hear that a lot, but I also see a LOT of Eastern Orthodox Catholics end up quoting Augustine nearly verbatim in their disagreements with Catholics.

How? Also, nice trips.

Can a catholic worship atvan orthodox church, and can an orthodox at a catholic one? Would either of them be lost? Would it feel familiar? What would be different?

>>6489415
Only thing I know is that I'd stuck out like a sore thumb at an Orthodox church.

>>6489031
In regards to this question, I seriously recommend Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (or any other work as well, but definitely this) by Heiko Oberman. Gained some real clarity on the source of protestant theology

>>6489415
Former Catholic, Orthodox convert here

Yes, but you cannot receive the Eucharist (literally "receiving communion") if you are not in communion with the Church. Most Catholic priests don't know all of their parishioners well enough, nor do they care enough to withhold communion from non-members, or people who haven't confessed in ages or ever, or people otherwise living in sin. It is out of fashion to withhold communion in the Catholic Church now, even though it was ostensibly done for a person's own benefit lest they "eat and drink unworthily to their own damnation" (see: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade for a take on the concept).

Orthodox churches tend to be smaller, so the priests can take a more patristic role, and in my experience hold the parishoners to a higher standard with respect to the Eucharist. But anyone can attend the whole liturgy just as anyone can attend a Catholic mass.

As for the liturgy and mass, there are similaries, but Orthodoxy has not significantly changed the liturgy since around the 4th century. The Roman Tridentine Mass is from 1570, and the Catholic Novus Ordo Mass is from 1969, and is much less formal. So, many of the sayings will be similar in all, but Orthodox do not use organs or instruments, while you can even find guitars and tambourines at a Catholic mass these days. Catholics are sort of a mid-way point between mainline-protestants and Orthodox these days with respect to Mass.

Are anglicans just catholics that are not in communion with Rome, or is there a difference? What did they think of themselves during the late 1500s, knowing that they were created by a greedy lustful guy just so he could be the man in power? Wasnt there repentance? Feelings of remorse?

But is that really important? Surely the truth of God's message is above base material concerns like the kind of instruments played at mass? Otherwise it remains rooted in some kind of material culture and is not trully universal.

>>6489523
It's not that material concerns supersede God. God is woven into in material world, and it is the expression of His mind. Because Christ redeemed Creation, Christianity has always incorporated the stuff of the world into worship (water, oil, bread, wine). God's message is not about escaping the horrible material world and transcending to nirvana, but rather the opposite: to live as close as possible to Kingdom of Heaven while on Earth, to do one's best to bring it here.

We ourselves are partly material as triune (body, soul, and spirit) beings, which means we aren't simply floating ghosts trapped in bodies that are besides the point--our material bodies are an inseparable aspect of our being, which is why Christianity teaches the ultimate reunification of flesh. How one physically worships reflect what one believes, and an important aspect of Christianity has been it's connection to the apostles and their example given the *physical* proximity to Christ. The basic norms of how you worship go back to the 1st century. It is merely part of the spiritual discipline, and infinitely modifying and adding to it leads to a corruption of the spiritual discipline.

>>6489448
Would you per chance happen to have book recommendations on Orthodoxy ?

>>6489593
"The Orthodox Church " and "The Orthodoxy Way" by Bishop Kallistos Ware -- I'd say together they're the most commonly recommended options.

"Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky -- Very thorough but concise catechesis; considered a classic.

>>6489515
Why do you think the Pilgrims came to America?

>>6489629
Thanks a lot !

Should I read all of the volumes of the Philokalia? Is there a good abridged version or is that a blasphemy.

>>6491125
It's not really the kind of thing that can be abridged (thought I'm sure you can find something of the sort), as it is a somewhat disparate collection of monastic writings spanning a millennium. If you want to read it for scholarly and informational purposes, then I would say go right ahead. However, if you want to read it for spiritual guidance, then I would ask whether you already have a developed, consistent, and prolonged prayer and liturgical regiment? I've never read the Philokalia because hesychastics are considered advanced pursuits, and without sufficient spiritual and doctrinal understanding, one can glean many false impressions from the writings. There is popular new age mysticism, and then there is Christian mysticism. Anyone unfamiliar with the differences could be lead to some dark places.

Basically walk before you run. The Philokalia is the deep end of the pool.

>>6488916
>>6488945
One might almost suggest that the Western and Eastern Church are two halves of a whole that aren't really complete without each other.

Monthly reminder that Nicea 3 is happening.

>>6491827
Ecumenicism is a well-intentioned impulse, but ultimately dishonest. I can't help but notice it's the Catholics who express this sentiment more often than the Orthodox. Love does not mean ignoring truth for the sake of being agreeable. I left the Catholic Church because it seems to have forgotten that.

>>6488708

no the schism came from both the obsession with the pope's authority (good grief they were right with that objection), and the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed being used in place of the Apostles'.

The theological ramifications do not end with theosis vs accumulation of grace. Orthodoxy considers each task as bringing one closer to god, and so the philosophy (and any philosophy) of augustine isn't really problematic, but is considered incomplete from the outset (as one of many tasks that might be done). This claim is nice because Orthodoxy doesn't need to base itself on rational predication. It claims that universally the things that we do might help us to know god, and following the bible is the best path to doing so.

Another great difference (though the two often overlap, for obvious reasons) is the method of theology between the two churches. One positively asserts what is divine (catholic), while the orthodox uses negative assertions in order to distinguish god. This isn't intuitive, but it is much easier to claim that eg. God is *not* temporal, than to claim that God is 'everlasting'.

>>6491920
fuck, accumulated works*

>>6491920
This is a good post, thanks.

>mfw >>6488710 is followed by lots of historically & theologically detailed replies

The Catholic think god exists a lot. The Orthodox think god exists frequently.

>>6489031
They are (or were) different in that they interpreted the bible literally, as opposed to th medieval catholic position which regarded the events in the bible as a metaphor, not as a historically accurate depiction of historical events. Which was the reason the clerus opposed translations of the bible, because they feared that the uneducated masses would mistake the bible for the latter.

>>6495408
>as opposed to th medieval catholic position which regarded the events in the bible as a metaphor, not as a historically accurate depiction of historical events

What's the Orthodox take on this?

>>6495828
The fact that there was no canonical Bible for the first few hundred years of the Church, and that Church Fathers debated including the OT int the Canon at all should tell you a lot. The Bible is a "pedagogy of Christ", a library of books, letters, and songs from different ages, and different genres. Taking the Bible literally would be like taking the library literally--it depends what section you're in. I like to say we take the Bible literarily, as opposed to simply metaphorically.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/war_and_violence_in_the_ot
>But I like the quote saying Ignatius of Antioch, who at the end of the very first century, said, “Our archives is Jesus,” and of course his teacher, St. John the Theologian, and the writings attributed to John in the New Testament say that the Word of God is Jesus Christ; it’s the second Person of the Trinity. The Word of God [is] not a book. But we do believe that the Scriptures are inspired by God for the sake of our salvation and for the sake of our understanding of the Gospel, but that we like to say that the Scriptures are not a Quran. The Bible’s not a book that fell from heaven intact.

Great article on the subject:
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2014/10/01/bible-become-quran/
>Has Your Bible Become a Quran?

>>6489318
>decided that every uneducated fuck can interpret the bible
That's not what sola scriptura means, it simply means you can't add doctrines required for salvation on top of the Bible.

>and try to distance themselves from all Catholic and Orthodox tradition
Nah, they're easily the most liturgical protestants next to Anglicans (and that's because half of Anglicans do not consider themselves protestant).

>>6496137
So Protestants are basically Muslims?

>>6496165
Mainline protestants aren't fundamentalists, imbecile.

>>6494200
10/10
Would kek again

>>6496165
In the sense that they hate pictures and love words.

If the pope keeps being this much of a progressive liberal there won't be any Catholicism left.

>>6496185
Sunnis aren't Wahhabis, imbecile. But all Wahhabis are Sunni and all Christian fundamentalists are Protestant.

>>6496284
http://youtu.be/fdmrqx3fvRo

>>6496288
Wahabbis are more comparable to Westboro Baptists than Christian fundamentalists in general. Your equivalency is awful.

>>6496351
Shia = Catholic
Sunni = Protestant

You can't deny this.

>>6496359
I sure as shit can. Mainline Protestants have female clergy and are often cool with gays, you can't say the same shit about Sunnis.

>>6496351
The Westboro Baptists don't run a state like Salafis (Saudi Arabia). It is the predominant form in the Hanbali madhhab (school of jurisprudence) at this point, and funded more than any other school. Again, thanks to the House of Saud. It it hardly a fringe cook version like WB.

>>6496288
>sunnis are not wahhabis
>but all wahhabis are sunni
>therefore some sunnis are wahhabis
>but sunnis are not wahhabis

have you forgotten to dilute the wine again aristotle?

>>6496373
What's your point? Are we measuring in extremism, or numbers? The extremism of general fundies can't remotely be compared to that of Wahabbis, which is closer to the extremism of the WBC.

>>6496386
I'd rather be a Muslim living in a WBC run state then a Christian in Saudi Arabia

>>6496397
So would I, considering that, despite their gloating over death and God's wrath, they are themselves totally opposed to the death penalty.

>>6496386
I think the original point is the premium that both Protestants and Muslims place on the written word as the primary basis of their religion, despite, in the case of Christianity, this being an ahistorical approach.

It's obviously unfair to compare the two in a moral sense, but I think
>https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2014/10/01/bible-become-quran/
is right in its position on Islamic philosophy's influence on western medieval Christianity, thus Catholic Scholastics, and thus Protestantism.

>>6496418
The point of Protestantism is that you can't add doctrine required for salvation *on top* of the Bible, not that every word of the Bible is about what you must do for salvation. It seems a lot of people have difficulty wrapping their heads around that, but it's really not that crazy or ahistorical.

My take on the whole thing as an Orthodox later atheist.

Catholicism has almost none of the whole Hesychasm tradition Orthodoxy has and as a result speculative theology i.e. does original sin exist? Or if the world pre-destinied do not apear on Orthodox theology. Hence why the filioque became such a big issue, for the Orthodox belivers the Holy spirit comes ONLY from the father,his divine revelation is direct and hollistic as opposed to the intermediate Catholic church that caries the sacrament. The Orthodox is a univocal religion and cannot accept a heterodoxous theological opinion, this is the main reason why revelation and asceticism while the equivocal nature of Catholicism in having one authority in charge puts them at odds with the whole "Church is a way of life" kind of thing.

While comparing the two is interesting, it is also worth noting that Orthodoxy did not produce any metaphysical theories that contributed to philosophy and as such heavily retreated into the stoic form it wields today.

Other than that I see both of them drifting to irrelevancy, Protestant ethics are as active and alive as ever in the thriving cycle of Capitalism, while Catholicism has become a rigid hierarchical money making business and Orthodoxy is too archaic and stuck to tradition to transmit the Hesychastic practices to non-members of the church,something which made it unique in the first place.

>>6496408
>they are themselves totally opposed to the death penalty.
[citation needed]
Please

>>6496435
This is still ahistorical as the Bible itself was doctrinally Canonized by the Church, not the other way around, and it does not contain within it a textual basis for its own supposed preeminence. I'm not saying the Church is therefor allowed to make up whatever doctrines it wants and contradict scripture, but it's important to know where the authority comes from. It comes from Christ, the Head of the Church, entrusted to the Apostles and their disciples (the Priesthood), who with all the faithful make of the Body of Christ, the Church.

The Bible came *out of* the Holy Tradition of the Church. It can't be the source of salvation any more than a child can be a parent to it's mother.

>>6496460
Says on their FAQ "We don't believe in physical violence of any kind", so I'd presume.

>>6496472
They're saying the Bible lists everything in it that is needed for salvation, including traditions, not that hugging a bible is enough to get you salvation. Protestants aren't anti-tradition, they're just saying it's bullshit to suggest you need traditions in addition to one's listed in scripture or else you'll go hell. That doesn't mean God can't prefer tradition, or that traditions can't be right, it's a matter of salvation. Anglicans, for instance, acknowledge all the sacraments that Catholics do, but their protestant, meaning they don't think Lutherans are going to hell for failure to acknowledge the sacraments not explicit in scripture. They think Lutherans are wrong on this, but they still see them as saved.

>>6496435
>>6496487
Orthodox would say you can't make a list of requirements for salvation in the first place.

>>6496495
Protestantism is a reaction to Catholicism, not Orthodox, particularly the Catholic doctrine of indulgences. There was never an Orthodox Reformation.

>>6496520
Indeed. I left Catholicism myself, so I am sympathetic to the Protestant position. I just wonder what would have happened had Luther been more versed in eastern Christianity. It's a bit of an irony how wrapped up Protestant theology is in the circumstances of medieval Catholicism despite it's who premise being to escape its follies. He, and those who followed him really were convinced that the historic Church really was gone, if it ever existed at all, and they pretty much had to start over.

>>6496531
I don't think he had remotely enough knowledge to go on, and the Orthodox Church wasn't present there at all at the time, so there's no where he could really go with that. If the Orthodox Church did have a presence there, though, I imagine he would have converted.

So do the Orthodox like Aquinas or what?

>>6488708
St. Augustine was a slightly confused mystic who accidentally snuck in a lot of manicheanism. and would have other slightly confused mystics kicked out.

>>6491920
>. One positively asserts what is divine (catholic), while the orthodox uses negative assertions in order to distinguish god. This isn't intuitive, but it is much easier to claim that eg. God is *not* temporal, than to claim that God is 'everlasting'.

You must be confused as to the reason or that this is actually a thing.

Via negativa argumentation, which you attribute to the Orthodox, was and is part of the Catholic philosophical tradition. Both positive and negative assertions are the same thing. They stick with the positive statements because those are what the negative assertions reference for meaning. When you say God is everlasting you are saying that God is not temporal. One is saying God goes beyond time and the other is saying that God is outside of it. Together you have a God that has both presence and transcendence.

'not temporal' alone means nothing because we are temporally bound,as is our thought, but saying everlasting is at least something we can imperfectly imagine.

>>6497669
Please respond

>>6497669
More than St. Augustine, buy Aquinas isn't really emphasized either.