/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19441362]

If you haven't read Bulgakov then you haven't lived

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/sergius-bulgakov-the-active-passivity-of-the-afterlife/

[Anonymous No.19441810]

>>19441362
Bulgakov was the greatest theological genius of the 20th Century

[Anonymous No.19441882]

I have this very book sitting on my very desk at this very moment

[Anonymous No.19441976]

>>19441362
Tell me more about him. Keep it concise.

[Anonymous No.19442449]

>>19441362
>>19441810
quick rundown?

[Anonymous No.19442569]

>>19442449
Universalist heresy based on OPs link. While I would NOT exclude the possibility of Salvation after one is already "in" hell, the duration, the difficulty and the pain involved in such an operation must be such that it is almost better to think of hell as an eternal option. It benefits nobody to think otherwise.

[Anonymous No.19443288]

>>19442569
>Universalist heresy based on OPs link.
I'm a fan of Fr. Kimel. There's a lot of great stuff on his website -- some really interesting discussions in the comments by *very* learned commentators. But he is a universalist, along the lines of David Bentley Hart. And although I do not know this for a certain, I think, perhaps, that issue *may* have tipped the balance for him as between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.19443415]

>>19443288
>But he is a universalist, along the lines of David Bentley Hart.
Refuted by Feser

https://catholicherald.co.uk/david-bentley-harts-attack-on-christian-tradition-fails-to-convince/

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/07/hart-hell-and-heresy.html

[Anonymous No.19443452]

>>19443288
I have some sympathy for the Universalist position, although I do not subscribe to it. I judt think that it is a very dangerous position to take for the salvation of souls, you will not lose much if you think that hell is permanent or so exceedingly difficult that it might as well be permanent. But I understand where a Universalist might be coming from.

[Anonymous No.19444137]

>>19442569
Bulgakov wasn't a universalist

[Anonymous No.19444326]

>>19441362
I enjoyed his essay on Judas, but I'm suspicious of his Sophiology works and the rumors of him being a universalist.

[Anonymous No.19444332]

>>19443452
I agree with you completely.

>>19443415
Yeah, I agree with Feser. And I think there's some critique of Hart in First Things, if memory serves, that's very good (a critique that really stuck in Hart's craw based on some comments he made on Fr. Kimel's blog, iirc).

[Anonymous No.19446044]

>>19442569
does it really bother you that much someone believes in your fairy tales in the "wrong" way?

[Anonymous No.19447167]

>>19444332
Hart is an absolutely brilliant theologian with an equally big ego and a vindictive streak. I love his books but all too often he shows he doesn't possess the Christian humility that should temper his gifted intellect.

[Anonymous No.19447605]

>>19447167
Hart is a brilliant writer and an average theologian. Certainly inferior to Feser (who is a much worse writer). They both have rather big egos though. Hart's theological and philosophical faults stem from excess sentimentality while Feser often errs on a robotic commitment to Thomism.

[Anonymous No.19447785]

>>19447605
>while Feser often errs on a robotic commitment to Thomism.

How so?

[Anonymous No.19447919]

>>19447785
Feser at times crosses the line into the part of thomism which is borderline cultish with the idea that applying Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy to any and all questions reveals what is definitely the case. If something violates thomistic reasoning it must definitely be wrong. At its worst, it at times feels like a pharisaical cult devoted to thomistic philosophy as the sole means by which what is right can be established, which leads to a sort of entirely aesthetically and ethically absurd positions in extreme cases. For example, Feser would explain the PoE with a reference to a teacher drawing an unfinished circle on the board to prove a point. Even if his explanation is metaphysically correct, it is aesthetically and ethically repulsive in the example he gives but this does not occur to him because he is so deeply committed to thomistic systemics. For another example look at his recent post about theologians vs pastors in which he builds up a strawman that applies to very small percentage of those engaged in pastoral care in order to exalt theological reasoning over pastoral care. At its worst, thomism is a metaphysical systematics that leads to in exteme cases to ethically and aesthetically repulsive scenarios that are entirely devoid of actual human experience, and the reply from thomist cultists in this respect is that it does not matter because they are right and humanity in the wrong. With that being said I have tons of respect for Aquinas and for thomism, I just dont believe it is an infallible position and I believe when it grows into a systemic superstructure that is its own purpose, it only remains divorced from lives, souls and philosophies out of an ivory tower. Now when you say that, those who have a cult-like devotion to thomism will immediately charge you with theological laxity, you being the cause for the slippery slope into error, being in the bed with modernity etc. There is no nuance for thomist cultists, either you are with them or you are the cause of all errors. If you read through Feser's blog and comment section, tjings lime this are a consistent occurrence. I am sorry if this sounds overly critical because I otherwise have a high opinion about thomism, thomists and Feser.

[Anonymous No.19447930]

>>19447919
Sorry for mistakes i am phoneposting

[Anonymous No.19448019]

In addition, if you read Feser vs Hart on animals in heaven. I have no position on that but if you go through Feser's text animals cant go to heaven because they are entirely corporeal and therefore according to A-T reasoning, they lack a part that could go to heaven. Even if you grant all that, it is conceivable that God could choose to preserve something of the animal and therefore the animal would be in heaven, we might not know how or why that would happen or which part that would be, maybe its an animal soul to that is different to a human soul and of which we know nothing or litttle about. It is entirely conceivable to me that even with the use of sound philosophy we so NOT know all the terms, functions, essences and axioms that God has in mind. But A-T is a bottom-up philosophical construction, once it defines its axioms it is impossible for it to deviate. What is then possible, even for God, becomes a game of logic within the framework of A-T axioms. It is very valuable but I perhaps fail to have the same faith in philosophical reasoning as thomists do. Historically I think there is the fear that deviating even in the slightest from the A-T structure which is very theologically and philosophically sound will invite all kinds of errors. I understand that danger and the value od thomism lies in the dispensation of sound teaching and providing a solid bedrock for people, the Church and everyone else. You will NOT go wrong by subscribing to that, but I do not think thomism of the Feserian kind is the sort of systematic structure with answers to all, otherwise Jesus would be a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.19448106]

>>19441362
>>19442569
>>19444137

I've read the article and known some of Bulgakov's writings. And while I have a soft spot for Russian sophilogists (especially Pavel Florensky), you cannot deny that Bulgakov is an universalist.

On the subject of the afterlife, Bulgakov mixed Christian dogma with turn of the century new-age inspirations (oriental, mostly from theosophy that ran wild in 19th Century Russia) as Origen did back in the day with exotric strands of neoplatonism.

There are two major mistakes Bulgakov makes in this regard, from an orthodox christian pov. First is that by treating the afterlife a "school", you end up with devaluing the central, core value that LIFE consists on EARTH (in Creation). God did not create humans and then uncrated them (like in gnosticism) but rather we are still the Temple of God, albeit in a debilitated form because of our mistakes.

The path to salvation starts in life. Once you die, the only thing left to do is for other people to pray (read: sacrifice themselves in life) for you on the other side. Through prayer (read: sacrifice) God's mercy may save one's soul from hell, of course, but while in Hell (or Hades or whatever you wish to call it) souls are static as they do not have the ontological axis (the Body) anymore. Talkinga about disincarnate souls doing deeds in the afterlife is completely outside of the spiritual schema of Christianity.

Secondly, as Origen, the second mistake is arguing on points related to other people's will. As >>19442569 indicates, it is irrelevant to think about this while people are saved based on their own will to accept or not God. People can pray for ages for a deceased to be saved if that specific soul refuses God - what can you do? Not even God can force a soul to accept Him, this is why Universal Salvation (and the Salvation of the Devil, another idea Russian sophiologists played with due to the german idealist and romantic influence) that Origen beget was refuted. Christianity is not arithmetics or math it is a living, breathing religion of a living God, with free will at it's core.

So in conclusion, treating the afterlife as a "school" is mostly oriental anti-vitalism. It automatically leads to the relativisation of life itself and for that reason, for suspending the idea of salvation in the afterlife, it is the work of the Devil. Yes, souls can be saved from Hell before the Final judgment via prayers of the living, but they themselves cannot. That is the whole idea of DEATH and SIN, you know?

Only for a faithful christian death does not exist. What and how that quantifies, God only know, not men and their thoughts or reflections.

A more correct pov would be: https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/logoi-in-hell-what-is-the-orthodox-teaching-about-eternal-damnation-and-how-do-logoi-fit-in/

[Anonymous No.19448127]

>>19448106
forgot to add pic, maybe someone enjoys it

[Anonymous No.19448195]

>>19448106
sounds like someone that hasnt read a word of bulgakov

[Anonymous No.19449161]

>>19448195
great counter-arguments

[Anonymous No.19449395]

>>19449161
i put in just as much an effort as the guy who wrote that