CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM GENERAL

[Anonymous No.19890749]

Hadewijch Edution
> Gain or loss, honor or shame,
>Consolation at being with God in heaven
>Or in the torture of hell:
>This Fire makes no distinction.
>It burns to death everything it ever touches:
>Damnation or blessing no longer matters.

[Anonymous No.19890768]

christer mysticism is just pantheism for people who would have been persecuted if they spelled out what they thought or felt; that's why it's all vague and florid

[Anonymous No.19890776]

>>19890768
>christer mysticism is just pantheism
do you have a single fact to back that up

[Anonymous No.19890803]

>>19890749
Was she not a heretic?

[Anonymous No.19890873]

>>19890776
Read the "mystics." You can call it whatever you like to preserve your orthodoxy but for whatever reason these writers were not content to sit in church and obey the priest's message of god as being absolutely apart.

[Anonymous No.19890893]

>>19890873
What mystics and what theology have you actually read?

[Anonymous No.19890912]

>>19890893
>what non-scriptural sources have you read to inform your non-scriptural reading of christianity?
See this is exactly the problem! Even you're too embarassed to affirm the religion as such and must resort to the graftings of neoplatonic theology or whatever else to escape your despotic desert fables.

[Anonymous No.19891089]

>>19890912
Acts of the Apostles 8:30-31
>And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
>Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

[Anonymous No.19891103]

>>19890873
>>19890912
you seem not only misinformed, but very angry. I will pray for you.

[Anonymous No.19891128]

Kowalska's diary is pretty neat

[Anonymous No.19891145]

Best introduction to the mystics?

[Anonymous No.19891150]

>>19891145
Catechism of St. Pius X

[Anonymous No.19891158]

>>19891150
Thanks

[Anonymous No.19891230]

>>19891150
oh weird i have this, why do you say that?

[Anonymous No.19891232]

>>19891089
Ah right it's all just an allegory, I need the mystery explained to me by a cultist!

[Anonymous No.19891272]

>>19891230
1. Mysticism is nothing more than the contemplation of sacred mysteries, which are in turn the revealed truths and their consequences.
2. Therefore, to engage with genuine mysticism it is necessary first to know the fundamental truths of faith.
3. The Catechism of St. Pius X is written in a very clear and simple style, making it well suited for the learning of the truths of faith, but also for contemplating these same truths.

[Anonymous No.19891283]

>>19891232
Go teach yourself calculus

[Anonymous No.19891289]

>>19891283
>>19891232
If you refuse to be taught, you have refused to learn

[Anonymous No.19891294]

>>19890749
I know of some writers but I can't recall

[Anonymous No.19891311]

>>19891272
Im quite familiar with Catholic Dogma, although I grow to learn more about it every day, so your answer was basically "learn the fundamentals and then reflect on them" ?

[Anonymous No.19891316]

>>19890749
Julian of Norwich was pretty good. Got me to start praying and going to church again.That was 10 years ago now and has worn off, though.

I'm reading the Booke of Margery Kempe now and honestly East Anglian religious expression for 14th-16th centuries seems crazy. A lot of mystics and Catholic energy, and also the centres of Lollardy and eventually Puritanism.

> All shall be well, and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well
>If there is anywhere on earth a lover of God who is always kept safe, I know nothing of it, for it was not shown to me. But this was shown: that in falling and rising again we are always kept in that same precious love.
>And in this he showed me a little thing, the quantity of a hazel nut, lying in the palm of my hand, as it seemed. And it was as round as any ball. I looked upon it with the eye of my understanding, and thought, ‘What may this be?’ And it was answered generally thus, ‘It is all that is made.’ I marveled how it might last, for I thought it might suddenly have fallen to nothing for littleness. And I was answered in my understanding: It lasts and ever shall, for God loves it. And so have all things their beginning by the love of God.

[Anonymous No.19891317]

>>19891283
>just trust my sorceror who says he is literally god
based and racketeerpilled

[Anonymous No.19891342]

>>19890749
Can anybody give me a rundown why the most influential mystics of the Renaissance are St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa de Avila? They are both Jews and it seems suspicious.

[Anonymous No.19891359]

>>19891342
why don't you read them and find out for yourself. They loved God and communicated that love well.

[Anonymous No.19891403]

>>19891342
>St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa de Avila? They are both Jews and it seems suspicious.
I can't talk about St. John but St. Teresa was a deep follower of Jesus even if her family were originally jewish.
We should find merit and marvel in those that converted and accepted Christ, for the belief of Saint Teresa was real and to the end she had Jesus in her heart.

[Anonymous No.19891404]

>>19891342
You use their names. You use their myths. You use their god. You use their commandments. You use their prayers. You use their holy land. You use their scriptures. God forbid, I suppose, you were to use their "mystics" too.

[Anonymous No.19891406]

>>19891342
All the first Christians were jews, retard. You cant escape the influence of Judaism. You cant and you wont.

[Anonymous No.19891419]

>>19891404
This anon is wrong, for it is not their god, but for God we are his people (all the christians in the world).
>>19891406
Anon, please. To be harsh and cruel with the other anon is arrogant and will only have the opposite effect. We should guide him, not yell at him.
For what Christians follow is not Judaism not the Law, not modern judaism or talmudism, but the Will of the Father.

[Anonymous No.19891425]

>>19891419
arrogance*

[Anonymous No.19891436]

>>19891311
The contemplation of God and the things of God is the essence of genuine Christian mysticism. The great mystics are guides to the practice of contemplation. Once you are familiar with the fundamentals of faith, the mystics will show you how to enter into the profound depths of truth. But at no point does any genuine mysticism depart from the consideration of fundamental truths. Many contemplatives, for example, have spent much of their lives lost in the consideration of just the first two word's of the Lord's Prayer.

[Anonymous No.19891443]

>>19891406
Neither should he want to. But there is an obvious differance between the Jews and the ancient Hebrews who were God's elect among the gentiles, a nation of priests, and the Jews after the Deicide, since they incurred the blood curse upon themselves. And since that time, falling under the influence of Pharisees, and scorning God, they have grown a wretched people.
In any case, Jews are not barred from God's love and communion with Him if they repent so it's silly to read into it like that anon did.

[Anonymous No.19891450]

>>19891443
This man speaks the truth

[Anonymous No.19891469]

>>19891342
They are influential in the Church because they are great Saints. Why do you cast suspicion on those whom the Church has declared holy?

[Anonymous No.19891492]

>>19891419
Your entire revelation and creed depends upon their religion having been poorly transmitted to you by Greek speaking fishermen. If you discard it you have no foundation for anything you claim, nothing at all except sorcery and fideism. If you are not in continuity with them, why should anyone care what lineage Jesus had, which prophecies he fulfilled, which god he spoke of, etc.? None of it makes any sense with you walking and quacking like a duck.

[Anonymous No.19891499]

It’s called Gnosticism

[Anonymous No.19891526]

>>19891492
From whom have you received? Bring them forth and show us their justice.

[Anonymous No.19891531]

>>19891492
Lots of words to say nothing. You accuse me of things I did not said or implied.
For the only thing I said was that making a claim such as "their god" it is wrong, for it implies dominance, the hebrews were God's people and now the christians are God's people.
God is the landowner of the vineyard, not them.

[Anonymous No.19891555]

>>19891317
Are you proud of a bastard knowledge? What thoughts pass through your head that were not given to you by another? What words do you possess which you were not taught? As you judge, so shall you be judged.

[Anonymous No.19891576]

>>19891531
>now the christians are God's people
That you can even claim this in the first place is because of the very religion you so insist you do not belong to, whose doctrines you've gobbled up at the supermarket of late antiquity along with a mishmash of others.

[Anonymous No.19891582]

>>19891555
>What thoughts pass through your head that were not given to you by another? What words do you possess which you were not taught?
I didn't realize christers believed in the infinite regress. I thought you made god to avoid this very problem!

[Anonymous No.19891605]

>>19891576
>religion you so insist you do not belong to
I'm not ancient hebrew to follow the Law, neither a nazarene. To pretend otherwise would be heresy and would be against God's commands.
We follow the new covenant Christ gave to use through His apostles and we can join those chosen by God by following God's will, but not through the Law but through the spirit of the Law as christians.
>whose doctrines you've gobbled up at the supermarket of late antiquity along with a mishmash of others.
You now speaking of heresies, for the christian doctrine came directly from The Son, which is The Father and The Holy Spirit. He gave the doctrine to His disciples and guide them through the Holy Spirit to spread the word of God to the gentiles.
The landowner of the vineyard (Jesus) will decide with who He will spread coin and wealth, not the workers.

[Anonymous No.19891619]

>>19891582
What problem?

[Anonymous No.19891643]

>>19891605
>We follow the new covenant Christ gave to use
This entirely presupposes the prior religion which you deny continuity with. It makes no sense without it. Your later quip about heresy against the word to be spread to the gentiles is cut from the same cloth. The god, his message, and his audience, are entirely defined in terms cribbed from the other religion.

[Anonymous No.19891648]

>>19891605
Please stop responding to these people, they're here to derail the thread.

[Anonymous No.19891674]

>>19891605
My brother and friend, I think you may be contending beyond your strength. Your opponent is not a doubter who might be converted by explanation, but rather he intentionally blasphemes. In your responses, you are making small but significant mistakes in doctrine. I humbly ask you to change your tack or refrain altogether.

Christ's first and second coming are clearly foretold in the Law and the Prophets. While Christ revealed new things, it is the same religion as it was from the beginning. The Law of Charity has been binding always.

[Anonymous No.19891675]

>>19891648
And you are here to derail the board with your world-hating dogmas. Yes you should read Teresa de Avila. Maybe you will reach the same conclusion as Bataille.

[Anonymous No.19891676]

>>19890873
>obey the priest

[Anonymous No.19891678]

>>19891648
>>19891674
Understood. I will stop.

[Anonymous No.19891705]

>>19891678
It is commendable of you to receive our words so simply. Please pray for me friend, that I may be as agreeable towards those who offer me counsel.

[Anonymous No.19891722]

>>19891705
I am just someone that tried to argued to those that speak blasphemies, but I was also naive, and because I was naive I could not recognize my adversary and the limits of my knowledge.
I'm glad you decided to stop me, so I understand my mistake.
I will pray for you and I will pray for me.

[Anonymous No.19891736]

>>19891705
>>19891722

[Anonymous No.19891808]

>If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/

[Anonymous No.19891847]

>>19891808
>If, as a tranny, you want to be expelled from the women's room go to /hers/

[Anonymous No.19891853]

>>19891847
How do troonchads do it? Rent-free in every last god-forsaken thread

[Anonymous No.19891913]

>>19891808
This thread is a discussion of the writings of Christian Mysticism and how to approach them. OP and others have been given recommendations of books. If others try to detail the thread with conversations unrelated to the topic at hand, ban them, not the thread. Of course, when any other subject devolves into secondary conversations, the threads are retained. Christian literature is literature.

[Anonymous No.19891933]

>>19891359
>>19891403
>>19891469
My problem is that many Jews in Spain were forced to convert and some crypto-Jews, such as Rodrigo Borgia (Alexander VI) weakened the Catholic Church and giving rise to the Protestant Revolution. That Conversos such as John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and Ignatius of Loyola become one of the most influential figures from the Renaissance and onward strikes me as highly suspicious. Now, I did not read any of their writings, so I cannot say more about them.

[Anonymous No.19891948]

>>19891933
I suppose Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have to go too.

[Anonymous No.19891954]

>>19891933
this thread is not about your schizo conspiracies. It's to discuss the Christian mystics and the content of their writings. Stop derailing threads. This thread had potential to be interesting and informative but has devolved to the lowest common denominator again.

[Anonymous No.19892019]

>>19891933
Does the Church exist to bow to your authority, or for you to bow to her authority? If the Church has found no error in these saints, but has instead raised them to the highest honor, why do you dare to do otherwise? You have not read their words, but countless other saints have. When you doubt the Church in one thing, you doubt the Church in all things.

[Anonymous No.19892036]

>>19892019
Not him, but the defenders of Christianity have become extremely slow-witted of late. You are appealing to an authority he doesn't care about to defend something he is questioning. So your answer is effectively arbitrary and he can dismiss it as such and persist in his opinion, because the Christian had no answer other than "well, I agree with the church." Yes, this is known, that Christians agree with themselves!

[Anonymous No.19892038]

>>19892036
I think anon was assuming that >>19891933 was a Christian, but I agree it's probably not the case

[Anonymous No.19892052]

>>19892036
You are wrong, the person I am responding to either believes himself to be Catholic and therefore believes in the authority of the Church, or else desires to appear Catholic so as to trick this who are Catholic into doubting. If he is Catholic, it is good for him to know the gravity of what he does inadvertantly. If he is not Catholic, but intentionally deceives, it is good that his ulterior intention be revealed so that this who are Catholic do not fall into the same error.

[Anonymous No.19892060]

>>19891948
You cannot compare ancient Jews with post-Christian Jews.

>>19891954
Kike detected.

>>19892019
Hyper-subordination is a disease in the modern Catholic Church, this is why men are turned off. Even saints such as Philip Neri, the Second Apostle of Rome, were highly unorthodox in their practice but completely subordinate to his superiors. To question beatification does not fall into the latter category. The Renaissance is a highly questionable time for the Mother Church, so your slow wit is not asked for.

>>19892036
You are right, but I am Catholic. Only asking questions, but hyper-legalism gets the better of them.

[Anonymous No.19892102]

>>19892060
>The Renaissance is a highly questionable time
Yes it would be interesting to see, for instance say, Catholics in the Islamic Republic of Faranjistan in 2600 AD arguing about Pope Francis and whether his late modern views on interfaith dialogue were a causal factor in the decline of the church or a divine providence meant to reduce the church to a smaller but more faithful institution.

[Anonymous No.19892117]

>>19892102
I know you mock me but it is likely to be the case. In any case, you can answer my question in good faith or be silent.

[Anonymous No.19892164]

>>19892117
If christers had any reverence for authority they would have burned incense for the Roman emperor. These legalistic disputes about respecting papal authority are quite ironic in broader context. But I suppose even Jesus had told you to render unto Caesar.

[Anonymous No.19892165]

>>19890749
>mysticism

[Anonymous No.19892181]

>>19892060
>You cannot compare ancient Jews with post-Christian Jews.
Yes you can, they're still around.

[Anonymous No.19892231]

>>19892060
1. The majority opinion by far is that Canonization is dogmatic. There are only a few notable theologians who have seriously postulated that it is not dogmatic, relegating the question of canonization's magisterial weight to a highly restricted theological discussion.
2. Even if canonization admitted of some small possibility of error, this would not give the lay person the freedom to doubt all canonizations.
3. St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Ignatius are not like some saints who have been raised recently with an abbreviated review of their life, nor are they like some saints of old of whom we have received few monuments. Rather, they are Saints of the highest order--honored in the old liturgical calendar, read and taught throughout the Catholic world, the founders and reformers of venerated and austere orders which have in turn produced countless saints.
3. While you claim a concern for the uncertainties did the Renaissance due to the confusion and calamity of the Protestant revolt, these three saints in particular have been held as some of the great lights of the Church in that time.
4. St. Phillip Neri himself was strongly influenced by his relationship with St. Ignatius, and many of the priests if his order were first made priests in the Society of Jesus. Your use of the word "unorthodox," is calumnious, though probably unintentionally so; that some practice is unconventional does not make it unorthodox. St. Francis was unconventional in his practices of poverty and Eucharistic adoration--could we dare call him unorthodox?
7.You admit to never having read the works of these spiritual masters. Clearly, you have not read any of the praise thrown on them or their works by so many eminent theologians and spiritual teachers. These commendations, of course, are so effusive and so universal, however, that you could hardly be ignorant of them, unless you were ignorant of almost the whole of mystical theology.
8. If almost the whole of the Church could read the works of St. Ignatius, St. John of the Cross, and St. Theresa of Avila until now and find no error, but rather have expressed nothing but admiration, how could you or any of us suppose to find such error or fault? Are you or I greater in our faith and theological understanding than St. Pius X or St. Alphonsus Liguori?
9. Neither St. Theresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross were themselves conversos, but the descendents of conversos, whose faith was tried by the Inquisition. For what reason, then, do you bring these saints under suspicion?

[Anonymous No.19892240]

>>19892164
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar. It belongs only to God to be worshipped. Whoever demands otherwise is a usurper and an anti-Christ.

[Anonymous No.19892306]

>>19892231
>For what reason, then, do you bring these saints under suspicion?
Because the inherent hatred Jews have for Catholicism, going as far as leading double lives, showing Catholic devotions outside, while practicing Judaism inside. The strongest influence of St. Philip Neri was the Dominican Order, but he kept a good relationship with Ignatius of Loyola and wanted to die as a martyr by proselytizing in India, that is true. Yes, I meant his practice was unconventional, no reason to be hairsplitting here.

I'm astonished that nobody wants to admit the fact that the Catholic Church made the grave mistake of forced conversion upon Jews who'd practice Judaism in secret. All you do is appealing to authority, while ignoring the fact that a couple of heretics were canonized later on, and vice-versa could be also the case.

As said, all I say is that it is HIGHLY suspicious that the most influential figures during the Renaissance were JEWS in POSITION OF POWER within the CATHOLIC CHURCH. They did not have as much prominence in the Early Middle Ages, or late antiquity.

[Anonymous No.19892312]

>>19892306
>They did not have as much prominence in the Early Middle Ages, or late antiquity.
They converted the Romans to Christianity after losing every war. Kind of a power move

[Anonymous No.19892334]

>>19892312
I dunno why you goys act cheeky while avoiding the core of the question for half a dozen posts.

[Anonymous No.19892370]

>>19892334
Well, why didn't you say you were after the core of the question? Start with the Assmann, egyptologist Jan Assmann.

[Anonymous No.19892421]

>>19892306
So, having not read these great saints, having read nothing of mystical theology, you have already made your conclusion.

An appeal to authority is legitimate where the authority is legitimate. If you doubt St. Theresa of Avila, will you doubt also St. Alphonsus Liguori? And if you doubt St. Alphonsus, will you doubt also St. Pius X? Is the entire contemplative practice since St. Theresa corrupt? Then the Church is corrupt. But if the Church is corrupt, then Christ is a liar. You transgress the bounds of tolerable speculation.

St. Peter himself denied Christ. He was an apostate! It is a man's end that makes him a saint or not a saint. It is not the mere fact of their salvation that were are debating--rather, you calumny three eminent Saints whose lives and writings are essential to the development of the Church. Their lives are inseperable from the life of the Church. Whoever in this day seeks to practice Christian meditation--that is, whoever today even attempts to pray the rosary--is indebted to St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. There is no Catholic doctrine of prayer which excludes the teachings of St. Theresa and St. John. Likewise St. Ignatius. When you contemn them, you contemn all who have followed them, and that is the whole Church.

And it is disgusting to think of St. Ignatius or St. John of the Cross or St. Theresa of Avila in terms of power. When you fast as they fasted, when you suffer as they suffered, when you are poor like they were poor, then should you come and speak of power.

[Anonymous No.19892459]

>>19892421
>St. Peter himself denied Christ. He was an apostate!
I forget it if was Celsus, Julian, or both, but the pagan writers found this funny as well, that the founders of Christianity did not believe in Jesus themselves

[Anonymous No.19892522]

>>19892459
They're not laughing now.

[Anonymous No.19892567]

>>19890768
this would be a stronger point if the thread didnt start with mentioning literally the one christian mystic for which that isnt true. Hadewijch denies all access to the Divine and makes like a whole point about how we can only love God by betraying him and all that. Very far removed from the more (neo-)platonic inspired mysticism of most christian mystics where the goal is approaching and fusing with a pantheistic One

[Anonymous No.19892633]

>>19892522
Well it turns out that a church run by atheists eventually deteriorates into scamming the gullible, so I'd say they may still be laughing that divine mirth of the gods.

[Anonymous No.19892709]

>>19892421
You make good points. I stay humbled. Thank you for your good words. By any time I will read their works. For the moment, I will study the mysticism of St. Philip Neri.

God bless you, anon.

[Anonymous No.19892789]

>>19892709
It is heartening to hear. And I must sincerely apologize if at any time I overstepped in my exhortation. I only hoped to convey the serious danger we can sometimes find ourselves in when we entertain certain thoughts, no matter how little we might intend those consequences. It is good that you have found a saint whose writings speak to your heart. In so much as there is one faith and one salvation, all the teachings of all the saints must necessarily agree in their end, and God is good to have provided so many masters by which each man may learn according to his character and God's design.

[Anonymous No.19892829]

>>19892789
No need to apologize, the harshness is needed and does good for those with a thick skull. There is a certain danger indeed and it can weaken one's faith to the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, St. Philip Neri burnt all his writings before he died, but a short book was not so long ago published in which his mysticism is studied through his biography and cultural background. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.19892918]

>>19892459
That's because they saw the situation through pride. Jesus understood the challenge his apostles were facing and was kind and merciful with them, even in their lack of faith. For even those that were next to God doubted, but God never doubted of us.

[Anonymous No.19892938]

>>19892918
>God never doubted of us
Why did he wait thousands of years to send Jesus/himself to reveal his new covenant and extend chosenness to all mankind?

[Anonymous No.19892969]

>>19892938
Because that's His will
And His trust and will are not mutually exclusive, anon.
But I will stop after this reply, your question clearly feels loaded and I feel there must be someone better than me to explain this situation to you

[Anonymous No.19893073]

>>19892829
I will have to put that on my list. St. Pius X in his Catechism gives the lives of the saints as one of the great proofs of the faith, and I find that I do not give enough of my time to good hagiographies.

[Anonymous No.19893101]

>>19892969
So he is capricious and acts on whim as far as we can know. Kind of hard to do our due diligence and underwriting on this covenant we're supposed to agree to with him

[Anonymous No.19893116]

>>19893101
Is God able to deceive or be deceived?

[Anonymous No.19893133]

>>19890749
Is Eastern Orthodox the best Christian sect for mysticism?

[Anonymous No.19893145]

>>19890749
I quite like Thomas Merton's writings. What are /lit/'s opinion of him? He's pretty much the only thing helping rekindle by love for God and Jesus

[Anonymous No.19893165]

>>19893116
Well apparently he established a new covenant that voided the old one. Will he do that again?

[Anonymous No.19893173]

>>19892829
That book's on my list, how is it? I have his little book of maxims too, which is great.
I finished pic related last month and I've got Bl. Pierre Marie-Eugenie's two volumes on Carmelite spirituality next.
>>19893133
More or less all of the elements of Orthodox mysticism can be found in the Catholic Church, and the Western mystical traditions are unknown even by its heirs. So no, I don't think that the Eastern Orthodox are best for mysticism, but I can certainly understand those who do.

[Anonymous No.19893192]

>>19893133
No. In so far as everyone is capable of prayer, everyone is capable of contemplation. However, as much as man's mind is open to angelic influence in prayer, it is also open to the demonic. The Evil One and his minions will frequently present themselves as angels of light to the intellect, and thereby introduce endless errors and bad notions to thwart you on your journey to Divine Union. It is therefore necessary to have clarity in regards to what is heresy and what is truth, and it is also necessary to submit yourself to an authority, for God uses the structures of authority to speak on a human level, even when the holders of authority are not themselves good. The Eastern churches, in breaking away, no longer have a clear authority and they are not able to agree amongst themselves as to error and truth. As a consequence, they have been without direction for 1000 years. While one can learn from their fathers about the spiritual dangers that were present in the distant past, they have little clear teaching on anything since. The Russians and the Greeks disagree, for example, about whether Catholic baptisms are valid. While this might seem irrelevant to mysticism, the sacraments are some of the most sublime subjects for contemplation, and even a small misunderstanding about them can lead to the most profound errors.

[Anonymous No.19893212]

>>19893165
Can you describe the nature of the old covenant and the new? What did God promise in each, and what does he require? How has each covenant been sealed? For what purpose did God make each covenant? With whom was each covenant made?

[Anonymous No.19893221]

>>19892060
your conception of Catholicism borders on DaVinci Code levels of cringe. You are more concerned peddling pride and envy in your heart than igniting it for love of God's creatures. You are willing to believe these objectively outlandish and unlikely things because it stokes your ego to feel like you are part of a secret cabal of truth-knowers. Please touch grass and also touch pews. And no, not at a LARP church.

[Anonymous No.19893284]

>>19893212
In one he is a tribal war god (of a defeated people, one might add) and the next he is Dionysus. It seems opportunistic to say the least

[Anonymous No.19893513]

>>19893221
Friend, why this invective? As you judge, so shall you be judged. The anon you are replying to would seem to have turned back already from some of his more strident statements. Do we not all, at times, speak too strongly and beyond our capacity?

[Anonymous No.19893519]

>>19893284
Can you be more specific? When does God forge the old covenant and with whom? What are the consequences he warns for those who dial the new?

[Anonymous No.19893576]

>humility
>piety
>meekness
>virtue
>spiritual battle with demons
>fasting, vigil, prayer, communion
>union with the Holy Triune God
I see the Latin mystics as a Western form of Desert Father/Athonite monks, which is why I read hem. And the differences to be mostly cultural.

[Anonymous No.19893597]

>>19893173
The book is alright. The author encourages you to get off your ass and get to work, which is nice. He's kind of a dick though and gives us his thoughts on homosexuals, radical feminists and contraception in the final chapter. And also glibly dismisses "oriental" meditation. But I suspect these things might not bother you so much.

[Anonymous No.19893636]

>>19893576
are you a catholic?

[Anonymous No.19893654]

>>19893636
No Im Ortho.

[Anonymous No.19893770]

>>19893576
Refreshing to see some charity on this for once

[Anonymous No.19893771]

Kill niggers

[Anonymous No.19895530]

>>19891342
>They are both Jews and it seems suspicious.
Imageboard brain rot