Pseudo-Dionysius and the Catholic Church

[Anonymous No.20638476]

Is the Catholic Church's priestly ordination and priesthood like what Pseudo-Dionysius describes in his work on Ecclesiastical Hierarchy?

Pseudo-Dionysius says that the hierarchs are beholden to esoteric knowledge and the further you go in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the more 'visions' and divine intuitions you receive. So why did Guenon tar christianity as having been stripped of its esoteric, initiatic content?

[Anonymous No.20638523]

>>20638476
The Church does not base itself on Pseudo-Dionyisus’s teachings. If you knew anything about Catholicism or went to any Catholic school you’d know that, but you don’t because you are an inauthentic e-christian wannabe.

Anyway. Catholic teaching is based on the teachings of the church fathers and the dogmatic reception of Aristotle as synthesized by St. Augustine and fellow travelers. They have their dogmas on the trinity, Mary, miracles, sin and so on, and this is all rationally articulated through Aristotleian concepts and logic. There is no mystic content properly defined in the official orthodoxes, it is all consistent with rational theology.

[Anonymous No.20638546]

>>20638523
Read Schuon's take on Christian initiation, I'm too lazy to type here.

[Anonymous No.20639613]

>>20638523
I'm not Catholic, or a Christian.
>There is no mystic content properly defined in the official orthodoxes, it is all consistent with rational theology.
Cringe. Just HOW can Christianity compete with Islamic tasawwuf then? Are you telling me Catholicism via scholasticism stripped itself of any semblance of esotericism? Wait so why the fuck did Guenon like scholasticism to begin with then?

[Anonymous No.20640070]

>>20639613
>Cringe. Just HOW can Christianity compete with Islamic tasawwuf then? Are you telling me Catholicism via scholasticism stripped itself of any semblance of esotericism? Wait so why the fuck did Guenon like scholasticism to begin with then?
Because Shankara's Advaita and Aquinas (and esp the Pseudo-Dionysus the latter draws from) agree on many points of metaphysics even if for Guenon Aquinas mostly dealt in theology and not pure metaphysics

[Anonymous No.20640079]

>>20638476
I think we should just call him Dionysius, guys, it's what he wanted to be known as...

[Anonymous No.20640246]

>>20640070
>and not pure metaphysics
shankara didn't do metaphysics, but ontotheology

[Dago No.20640302]

>>20639613
>Just HOW can Christianity compete with Islamic tasawwuf then?
By pairing it with Freemasonry

[Dago No.20640322]

>>20640302
The Romanian Guenonian shared this with me the other day regarding Guenon + Freemasonry
https://oeuvre-de-rene-guenon.blogspot.com/2011/07/les-positions-pseudo-guenoniennes-de_14.html?m=1

Pretty good desu

[Anonymous No.20640545]

>>20640246
ontotheology *is* metaphysics

[Anonymous No.20640548]

>>20638476
test

[Anonymous No.20641786]

>>20640070
Guenon be like
>I love Aquinas and scholasticism but sneer at neoplatonists like Plotinus who aligns closer to whatever I'm trying to get at (but I've never read him at all lol)

Makes me think.

[Anonymous No.20641797]

>>20638476
Stop turning religion into philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20642010]

>>20638476
>So why did Guenon tar christianity as having been stripped of its esoteric, initiatic content?

Borella wrote a whole book on this, literally begging Guenon to come back and LARP as a Hindu within Catholicism.

>>20641786
Guenon didn't read the stuff he was writing about. But it is still stupid for Plotinus/Porphyry to claim he had 4 discrete moments of union with the One. Shows how retarded the monistic LARP really is. Iamblichus and Proclus rightly perceived how stupid this was.

[Anonymous No.20643514]

>>20638523
Why did Catholics coom over Aristotle so hard when Plato and the Neoplatonists were superior in every way?

[Anonymous No.20644803]

>>20643514
because Plato was lost but Aristotle wasn't

[Anonymous No.20644980]

>>20643514
They only had one work of Plato.

[Anonymous No.20644991]

>>20638476
You are looking for the catholic eastern-orthodox church under the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople

[Anonymous No.20645011]

>>20643514
Most of Plato's work was inaccessible at the time.

[Anonymous No.20645160]

>>20638523
>Catholic teaching is based on the teachings of the church fathers and the dogmatic reception of Aristotle as synthesized by St. Augustine and fellow travelers
Who were influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius, even the scholastics reference him heavily

[Anonymous No.20645927]

>>20643514
Did they? Aquinas synthesizes Proclus and Aristotle in a way.

[Anonymous No.20645938]

>>20638476
>Pseudo-Dionysius
Where to start?

[Anonymous No.20646217]

>>20638476
That's Dionysius, simply. That's still what the orthodox claim, and is certainly true in a spiritual/archetypal meaning.
The papist don't follow Dionysios, from the middle age and aristotle/aquinas. But the orthodoxy still does, and I saw for example hierotheos of Nafpaktos claim the interjoining of spiritual and ecclesiastical hierarchy, though he says it's what should be and isn't really respected nowadays. Besides, really spiritual people most of the time don't want to burden themselves with a mundane role. The elite are still those outside of hierarchy, the hermits, identifying with the apophatic/negative theology approach

>>20642010
>begging Guenon
While Guénon was alive ?

>discret union
how is that retarded ? Most unions are momentary in the beginning. Some great saints even believed union can't be total and whitout end in this life.

[Anonymous No.20647116]

>>20646217
>how is that retarded ?

4 discrete finite moments of unification with the eternal, nameless One? stupid, Guenon was right to critique this and to say that Plotinus was probably 'badly initiated'

[Anonymous No.20647323]

>>20646217
>hierotheos of Nafpaktos
pretty based, his writings are good. unknown to many anons here though
>>20642010
>Guenon didn't read the stuff he was writing about. But it is still stupid for Plotinus/Porphyry to claim he had 4 discrete moments of union with the One. Shows how retarded the monistic LARP really is. Iamblichus and Proclus rightly perceived how stupid this was.
Guenon mentioned this too but did not understand what any of this meant, yes indeed a discrete union is not permanent, because it is discrete... e.g nirvakalpa samadhi, guenon didnt have a clue concerning plotinus/porphyry/iamblichus/syrianus/proclus/damascius, and so forth, he only had the superficial details, but he was right to associate them with vedanta.

[Anonymous No.20647333]

>>20647323
there are high levels of samadhi which are transient - however they of course induce more permanent modifications

[Anonymous No.20647401]

>navel gazing non-Christian bullshit
>duh power ob Ortodoooks
Hesychast-Christianity is retarded New Age horseshit. Sure, it's cool if you're into New Age, but it isn't Christianity any more than Pastor Joel Olsteen is "Christianity." And in my personal opinion, it is heresy-tier and in need of a Crusade.

[Anonymous No.20647481]

>>20643514
>>20644803
>>20644980
>>20645011
No it’s because everything good in Plato is in Aristotle and everything bad was left out. Plato is fundamentally Hebraic in that he only cares about universals, whereas Aristotle is more familiar to the Christian spirit since he deals with particulars; Christ is the mediator between the universal and the particular, which Jews don’t have (that’s why they’re only attracted to universal ideas like neoconservatism, marxism, liberalism, etc. rather than the life of nations). Also, Aristotle’s theory of being is far more mature than Plato’s and is no less the theistic. In fact Aristotle’s prime mover is more properly monotheistic than Plato’s demiugre.

[Anonymous No.20647507]

>>20647481
very little of Plato is dedicated towards universals as analytic Anglos understand them. Socrates mocks the idea of lowly universals like "hair-ness" in Parmenides as belonging merely to the realm of becoming. rather, you ought to focus on the Form of the Good and how it makes a chaotic universe intelligible.
>In fact Aristotle’s prime mover is more properly monotheistic than Plato’s demiugre.
Aristotle thought the world could only be reduced to 48-55 prime movers, believed the world existed forever and did not have a beginning, and likely did not believe in the individual soul (see the unity of the intellect controversy of the medieval period). Aquinas was only barely able to handwave that problem away. if anything, Plato is less "Hebraic", since he's fundamentally concerned and never tries to throw away the problem of the one and the many, the individual vs. the collective, etc.

[Anonymous No.20647519]

>>20647507
This completely contradicts Aristotle’s physics. Where are you getting the idea that he didn’t believe in a beginning? Or in a single prime mover? And Plato is obviously concerned with universals if you’ve ever read a single dialogue, wtf. Read the Republic or Symposium, justice and love. Hairness is too much like a particular for him that’s why he doesn’t assent to it, in Parmenides he’s trying to build to the most universal of all.

[Anonymous No.20647529]

>>20647519
>This completely contradicts Aristotle’s physics. Where are you getting the idea that he didn’t believe in a beginning? Or in a single prime mover?
From his Metaphysics.
>Near the end of Metaphysics, Book Λ, Aristotle introduces a surprising question, asking "whether we have to suppose one such [mover] or more than one, and if the latter, how many".[26] Aristotle concludes that the number of all the movers equals the number of separate movements, and we can determine these by considering the mathematical science most akin to philosophy, i.e., astronomy. Although the mathematicians differ on the number of movements, Aristotle considers that the number of celestial spheres would be 47 or 55. Nonetheless, he concludes his Metaphysics, Book Λ, with a quotation from the Iliad: "The rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be."[27][28]
Aristotle probably would like to be a monotheist, insofar as it's possible to analogize God and the prime movers, yet he could not logically commit to the proposition. Great quotation IMO, shows that Aristotle has an unappreciated depth to him.
> And Plato is obviously concerned with universals if you’ve ever read a single dialogue, wtf.
Yes, he's concerned with the Form of the Good. That's it. Everything else is either derivative of it or belongs to the realm of becoming.
>Hairness is too much like a particular for him that’s why he doesn’t assent to it
Okay, so you agree with me. What exactly is your issue here?

[Anonymous No.20647545]

>>20647529
Yeah exactly though, he reasoned about many different “movers” but not “prime movers.” There can only be one prime mover, and I believe he demonstrates this at the end of the Metaphysics as well, I would have to check, but I know he does so in the Physics.

The Form of the Good is the universal he is concerned with and all else derives from it. I agree with this and that Plato doesn’t care for hairness. My issue is that you aren’t seeing how this concern with the pure Universal Good means that Plato didn’t have a sufficient theory of mediation between it and the particulars, which Aristotle points out in the early books of Metaphysics leading him to develop hylomorphism. Christ also solved this problem within Jewish theology.

[Anonymous No.20647556]

>>20647545
>My issue is that you aren’t seeing how this concern with the pure Universal Good means that Plato didn’t have a sufficient theory of mediation between it and the particulars
Frankly because it's impossible with any sort of certainty. Neither does Aristotle successfully solve the issue (hence the Scholastic debates). Plato is aware of the difficulty of resolving this issue (see his attempt to do it through politics, Books II-IV and resolve the individual vs. collective debate, only to have everything fall apart with Socrates's inability to resolve the family disputes of Book V. The only way you're able to tackle it is by including the mystical, transcendent, and the revelatory. So, the later parts of The Republic, Meno, Phaedrus, etc. IMO, Peirce is a better Aristotle than Aristotle himself. You should look into him.

[Anonymous No.20647759]

>>20647556
That's not the only way you can tackle it, you can also tackle it by seeing beings as compounds of form and matter rather than as material participants in form, which is what Aristotle does. I have read some Peirce but he seems too Kantian for me, I want someone who does actual metaphysics rather than empirical-rational critique.

[Anonymous No.20647786]

>>20647759
>you can also tackle it by seeing beings as compounds of form and matter rather than as material participants in form, which is what Aristotle does.
all that does is reify a certain snapshot of the realm of Becoming without regard to its value. it says nothing about Being. that's why the Great Chain of Being and the Ancien Regime collapsed under Enlightenment skepticism and critique. read Heidegger.
>I have read some Peirce but he seems too Kantian for me, I want someone who does actual metaphysics rather than empirical-rational critique.
You haven't read enough Kant or Peirce to understand why they're essential. You can't go back to the past and expect it to work without critically examining what caused those systems to fail.

[Anonymous No.20647838]

>>20647786
I do read Heidegger, that’s why I’m at least partial to pre-critical metaphysics as he was; he probably cites Aristotle more than anyone because Aristotle understood what philosophy’s proper domain was to be (the question of being and our relationship to it), even if he set into motion the great error. He is not nearly as glibly dismissive of his metaphysics as you are making it out to be.

I understand why Kant and fellow travelers like Peirce are essential, and while we can’t go back to the past we certainly don’t need to persist in their fetish of the epistemic

[Anonymous No.20647861]

>>20647838
>I do read Heidegger, that’s why I’m at least partial to pre-critical metaphysics as he was
because Heidegger recognizes that trying to do an all-encompassing metaphysics of the world opens it to the corrosive forces of critique. it's just another vain attempt to slay the Python. and it ultimately doesn't work without robbing humanity of its ability to ponder the world critically. Heidegger just wants us to sit in the realm of Becoming forever and ever, despite our clear capacity to conceptualize the world of Being and the Form of the Good.
>I understand why Kant and fellow travelers like Peirce are essential
I just don't see where you take Peirce to be a Kantian. If anything, Peirce thinks he's a crucial permutation of Hegel, i.e. moving metaphysics to the domain of logic itself.
>while we can’t go back to the past we certainly don’t need to persist in their fetish of the epistemic
You can't do metaphysics without epistemology.

[Anonymous No.20648663]

>>20647481
you should read a history book or even see a youtube video of those made by scholars. Catholics were pretty interested in Plato, just as Aristotle, but they had no generalized access to his work... When they got access to Plato their study was deeply affected.

[Anonymous No.20649460]

bump

[Anonymous No.20649815]

>>20647861
> Heidegger just wants us to sit in the realm of Becoming forever and ever
This said about the man who says we will be able to behold being more essentially than ever after world technology reveals the Last God. You are completely false

>>20648663
Watching YouTube does not count as reading church fathers and Catholic theology. Sorry to let you down.

[Anonymous No.20651566]

>>20649815
>This said about the man who says we will be able to behold being more essentially than ever after world technology reveals the Last God. You are completely false
What do you think that will look like?

[Anonymous No.20651590]

>>20638476
It's all nonsense.
Catholics have several distortions. The Filioque is not even discussed, this is the case of the 8th century, many Catholic hierarchs are even ready to abandon it.
The most important theme is the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, simply because it makes other Catholic bishops infallible.
This is how the Catholic Church willingly overthrew its Popes, and overthrows them to this day. I don't like Catholicism for its political pretensions, which can be called imperialism, but I love ordinary Catholics and even more I love old Catholics.
See. Joseph Ratzinger really fought against pedophiles in his Church, and he was removed by the Catholics themselves. Francis really fights against the very same pedophiles and embezzlers of public funds, and he is also merged, but instead of being branded a Nazi, he is being branded a heretic.
The New Catholic Church renounced Pope Borja, and this was done under the influence of the Black Nobility of the Vatican, because the Catalan Borja tried to unite Italy, which harmed the aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.20651591]

λᾰ́βδωμᾰ

[Anonymous No.20651630]

>>20643514
I understand your concern.
You have probably read the works of the politician Lyndon LaRouche, who created his own system of the world, and where he gave Plato and Aristotle their places.

However, in real life, Plato wanted to preserve the old order. It seems that he wanted to introduce something like a caste system, although there may be some fabrications.

But in real history, Plato created the Neoplatonist school. They existed in Byzantium, and they were really pagans who believed in reincarnation, and they believed that the status of a person is determined by the Divine mind. Only the Neo-Platonist sect could find the Chosen Ones who would constitute the Highest Caste. This faith gave rise to Freemasonry and Luciferianism, no matter how scary it may sound.
A neoplatonist was such a philosopher and scientist as Pletho, who moved to Italy. He was considered the reincarnation of Plato. It was a famous sorcerer.
You should not laugh at the belief of ancient people in witchcraft, because witchcraft still exists today.
This is psychology and hypnosis, manipulations with people. Sorcerers do not know how to shoot fire, but they know how to influence people who are weak in spirit. Of course, in reality this is fraud, but this is the principle of witchcraft.

[Anonymous No.20651719]

>>20641797
There's no difference, retard. Philosophy is the love of knowledge and quest for truth/ultimate reality. God/the Good is the summit of all being

[Anonymous No.20651722]

noninterfacial

[Anonymous No.20652319]

>>20651630
You imbecile. At the council of Florence the Orthodox Church Hierarchy submitted to both Rome and the Filioque. What followed was a revolt by the "Orthodox" laity against the Orthodox Church Hierarchy, ultimately leading to the fall of Constantinople and the final remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire, all to spite Rome and the Catholic Church. Read a history book, faggot. And pic-related is an example of Creed alterations within Early Church History; the fact that the creed was changed, and clarified, is hardly an innovation. But of course because your "Ortodox" Church is built upon clouds (where your mind is) it will take more than just a simple rebuttal to convince you that the Filioque is valid, and that the fake Church in your clouded mind is nothing more than vapors and hallucinations (caused by your Schismatic heart desu).

[Anonymous No.20652334]

>>20651590
You imbecile. At the council of Florence the Orthodox Church Hierarchy submitted to both Rome and the Filioque. What followed was a revolt by the "Orthodox" laity against the Orthodox Church Hierarchy, ultimately leading to the fall of Constantinople and the final remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire, all to spite Rome and the Catholic Church. Read a history book, faggot. And pic-related is an example of Creed alterations within Early Church History; the fact that the creed was changed, and clarified, is hardly an innovation. But of course because your "Ortodox" Church is built upon clouds (where your mind is) it will take more than just a simple rebuttal to convince you that the Filioque is valid, and that the fake Church in your clouded mind is nothing more than vapors and hallucinations (caused by your Schismatic heart desu).

[Anonymous No.20652595]

>>20652334
For me, it's Oriental Orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.20652666]

>>20643514
Because they didn't learn Greek, so the gap from Boethius to Ficino is only filled by Eriugena, who doesn't have an audience.

[Anonymous No.20652696]

>>20651719
god isn't real, tongue my ass

[Anonymous No.20652913]

>>20647401
> it is heresy-tier and in need of a Crusade
based deus vult brother

[Anonymous No.20652946]

>>20652334
sorry your whole church made itself anathema bro enjoy HELL

[Anonymous No.20653031]

>>20651630
I do not remotely understand any of this post's incoherent ramblings

>This faith gave rise to Freemasonry and Luciferianism, no matter how scary it may sound.
By this warped logic, the entirety of Christianity is apparently Satanic considering that all of its early adherents and propagators were either Greek Platonists or Hellenized Jews following after the tradition of Philo

[Anonymous No.20653483]

>>20643514
>Why did Catholics coom over Aristotle so hard when Plato and the Neoplatonists were superior in every way?

Augustine followed Plato and the Neoplatonists. Although Aquinas became dominant at a certain point, there has always been a strong Augustinian tradition in the Church. For example, Ratzinger/Pope Benedict is an Augustinian. (Another school is that of Bonaventure/Scotus and the Franciscans, whose approach can most readily be harmonized with the Eastern Orthodox Palamite tradition.)

[Anonymous No.20653530]

>>20647401
I definitely find it sus that Palamas developed an entire theology - his tortured essence/energies "distinction" (which he variously argued was and was not an actual distinction) - just to make sense of an alleged (prelest?) mystical phenomenon (the hesychast monks). It is rather like Luther developing an entire theology out of his "Tower Experience" moment of mystic revelation -- even though that theology required him to effectively (if not in actual fact) dispose of the Epistle of James, which rather tends to condemn the orthodoxy of said theology.

[Anonymous No.20654634]

>>20638523
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.20654641]

>>20653530
>man adjust theory in light of new evidence
where's the problem? besides, the essence-energies distinction bridges the immanent-transcendent gap to explain who God is and our relationship to Him.

[Anonymous No.20654693]

>>20651566
Nihilism becoming too powerful due to becoming wedded to gene editing and other nature-disturbing technologies, life being drained of all sanctity and the passing of days feeling so meaningless and chaotic that we will glimpse the opposite of all this, and slowly slide into a staunch religiosity that prioritizes the everyday experiences, slows down time, reorients us to the world

[Anonymous No.20654728]

>>20653483
Augustine is to Neoplatonism as belly button lint is to pure diamonds

[Anonymous No.20654783]

>>20654641
>besides, the essence-energies distinction bridges the immanent-transcendent gap to explain who God is and our relationship to Him.
It really doesn't though. If anything it just kicks the problem upstairs.

For instance, what the fuck actually ARE God's "energies" to begin with? If they aren't God's essence, and God is identical with His essence, then where do they come from? Do they come from God? If they come from God, what could they have come from besides His essence? Does God's essence contain something within itself that is somehow not itself, from which these energies could emerge? If they aren't of the divine essence, in what respect can they be called either God or belonging to God? Are they separate, little gods of their own? At the end of the day you're still stuck with an unbridgeable gap between the transcendent and the immanent. This baffling shit is why a lot of Platonists just bit the bullet and became monists.

[Anonymous No.20654922]

>>20654783
These questions don’t really matter so much when you consider the firmament between the universe and the celestial realm. God’s essence is transcendent, his energies are immanent. Either you look for it and notice it written on your heart and in the world, or you ignore it. That’s all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.20655164]

>>20647481
It seems to me Plato become more associated with mystery cults early on so when Christian schools were allowed to teach Greeks again a bigger dived had formed and Plato wasn't copied. The divide is probably connected to what you identify, the very abstract academics of mystery schools like Pythagoras that are obsessed with universals against more practically minded people that want to organize societies.

[Anonymous No.20655265]

>>20647481
>Christ is the mediator between the universal and the particular
Meditations on the Tarot has a wonderful take on that.

[Anonymous No.20655866]

>>20654922
This is basically the equivalent of blowing a raspberry in a questioner's face in lieu of a legitimate response.

[Anonymous No.20656660]

>>20655866
I don’t really see it that way. God lies beyond the fabric of reality as we know it, yet He created reality too. How are we supposed to understand this? I’ve done my best to explain it.

[Anonymous No.20656901]

>>20656660
Not the guy you're replying to but it is really a shame that Barlaam's writings against the Hesychasts (navel-gazers, or Messalians) were completely destroyed by the Schismatics of Constantinople (pic-related).
But I think maybe this video captures some of what Barlaam argued against the Palamists, specifically their polytheistic, fundamentally carnal (Messalian) approach to 'perceiving' God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d07mgLoOW8g
But without a doubt, the Schismatic Eastern Churches are literally projecting when they lob accusations of "innovation" and "prelest" against Rome, when Rome more than any institution has stamped out heresy and innovations wherever they have sprung their sordid heads from, so much so that no other Church is attacked more ferociously, has been attacked more ferociously, and will be attacked more ferociously than Rome by liars, deceivers and all that have hardened their hearts against True Religion; hence, all the 'Ortodoks' and Protestant alliances fomenting at the edges of Christianity (Catholicism), all to spite Christ's Vicar and the Gospels themselves -- no different than wolves circling a flock ripe for the taking, so they believe...

[Anonymous No.20656956]

>>20656901
>specifically their polytheistic, fundamentally carnal
Can we stop with the cheap canards? There's nothing polytheistic nor carnal about it. Have you actually read anything by Palamas?

[Anonymous No.20657058]

>>20656956
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d07mgLoOW8g
The video literally proves that Hesychasts (and 'Ortodox' by extension) are polytheistic (and carnal like the Messalians). Peter has every reason to lock the gates of heaven against you 'Ortodoks' fakes.

[Anonymous No.20657083]

>>20657058
Given that you already come across as philosophically and theologically incompetent, I'm not going to watch an hour long schizo video. Tell me what about St. Palamas's method is "carnal" without misattributing to him some kind of naive realism (i.e. that we perceive the world directly, without some form of mediation by the intellect).

I won't even touch the polytheism point. You sound like a nontrinitarian with the way you sloppily throw out terms like that.

[Anonymous No.20657255]

>>20657083
>hour long schizo video
The video is concise enough and a reasonable length for such a profound problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d07mgLoOW8g
I'm not going to try to argue what has already been clearly demonstrated by someone more competent -- both philosophically and theologically -- than I. The fact that you want to debate "MEEEEEE" and face the facts from no one else is clear proof of your delusion and how puffed up you are by not mere prelest, but, dare I call it, apex-heresy ("Ortodoxy"). Besides, I'd have liked to read Barlaam's treatise beforehand except, as you know, the "Ortodox" burned all complete copies and only left fragments in the heretical writings of the supreme navel-gazer, Palamas.

[Anonymous No.20657359]

>>20654783
This intuitively makes sense to me. But how do Western Christians deal with the problem of God's transcendence vs. His immanence that Palamas sought to resolve?

[Anonymous No.20657363]

>>20657255
dimond brothers are literal heretical schismatics

[Anonymous No.20657412]

>>20657363
Yes, but they still get some things right. I have never seen a better defense of the biblical basis of prayer to saints than in one of their video, and I have read and listened to a great deal of apologetics on this subject.

Likewise, their critique of Palamism is devastating. (I am a different anon than the one who posted that video.) The only way to address it, really, is to (i) throw out the idea of divine simplicity, which is foundational in the Fathers or East and West, or (ii) essentially interpret Palamas's "distinction" out of existence.

[Anonymous No.20657417]

>>20657255
Palamism is a reaction to the deficiencies in Aquinias's philosophy, which unironically reduces God to an impersonal, deistic, and naturalistic entity if you follow his theology to the very end. How can an immutable being create? Aquinas has no answer for that except for faith, and the world was saved from this existential crisis thanks to Aquinas's abstruseness. Despite his brilliance, Aquinas went to his deathbed praying for salvation in case everything he wrote was wrong, and for the Church to burn his works. You're waaaay too caught up in petty dogmatic disputes (to the point of embracing the dogma of a literal Protestant, a sedevacantist lol) to understand the stakes of the debate. Take a step back, zoom out, and try to see what Palamas is doing before you criticize him for being a "carnal polytheist" or whatever rubbish you misconstrue him as.
>>20654783
God's essence lies in the eternal realm. God's energies lie within his creation. If you're not sure what "essence" and "energies" mean, then don't fret, since they're linguistic artifacts. Essence is a Latin neologism originating Cicero's translation of Aristotle's "ousia", meaning "being". Energies is Greek for "work", "movement", "activity", i.e. "becoming."

Obviously, while we can't shoot for knowledge of God's essence (who the hell can besides God Himself... remember God always had to reveal himself through some kind of mediating disguise in the Bible), we can try to discern his activity in the world. Obviously, that comes from His revelation and everything tangentially related to it. If you believe that God willingly chose to create the world out of his own love, sculpting man in his image, then that's all you need. If you try to reason beyond the "firmament", e.g. reifying or rejecting the essence-energies distinction, trying to resolve or pinpoint the trinity, etc., you will be left completely lost. Theology ends up taking a Kantian turn once you reach this level. Maybe studying Lurianic kabbalah might be more fruitful, since it deals with similar themes, but I don't know how much one must rely on Rabbinic Judaism (I've heard of kabbalists turning to Christ at the end of their journey, but this seems rare).

[Anonymous No.20657465]

>>20657417
>Despite his brilliance, Aquinas went to his deathbed praying for salvation in case everything he wrote was wrong, and for the Church to burn his works.

You see, I can't take anything you write seriously because this is such a bad faith, tendentious reading of Aquinas's "all straw" remark.

[Anonymous No.20657471]

>>20657465
>because this is such a bad faith, tendentious reading of Aquinas's "all straw" remark.
Wasn't referring to that comment but rather to his Last Rites. Perhaps you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses lest I stop taking you seriously.

[Anonymous No.20657559]

>>20657471
The fact remains that he never asked for his works to be burned.

[Anonymous No.20657562]

>>20657417
>which unironically reduces God to an impersonal, deistic, and naturalistic entity if you follow his theology to the very end
this statement is suspect, therefore ignored.
> Aquinas has no answer for that except for faith
I've only read portions of the Summa (and Aquinas' works generally) so I don't know if you're lying or not. Given that Schismatic Ortodox are disposed to deception and lying in my experience, I will have to doubt this statement also and whether the specific question you mention was even addressed by Aquinas or not.
>embracing the dogma of a literal Protestant, a sedevacantist lol
sedevacantists are absolutely NOT Protestants you liar (again, with the Ortodox habit of lying). they view the defective Popes as materially valid, but formally illegitimate on account of manifest heresy, which is in accordance with the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law and Church History. See pic-related.
>try to see what Palamas is doing before you criticize him for being a "carnal polytheist"
Whatever Palamas was doing is manifestly heretical and polytheistic though. This is very difficult to deny if you've listened to the arguments presented in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d07mgLoOW8g)) above.

[Anonymous No.20657575]

>>20657559
Given what you know about the culture of the 13th century Church, why do you think St. Aquinas was willing to submit everything he did to the scrutiny of the Church? Why did he think his salvation was in danger? What would have happened if his worst fears were realized and the Church decided that his work (which he conducted largely in secrecy during a ban on Aristotle) was unsuitable? He didn’t have all the answers, and as I described earlier, his work reduced God to something that is hardly God at all, hence his trepidation and willingness to destroy everything he did.

[Anonymous No.20657581]

>>20657562
I don’t know why you keep calling me an Orthodox. I’m Catholic. And before you call me a:
>HERETIC
Let it be known that I’m merely following in the footsteps of St. Aquinas by privately speculating on matters counter to accepted Church doctrine of the time, provided that I begin with the Bible, end with the Bible, accept the Trinity, accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, defer to Church unity in conduct, and consult with the entirety of the prior tradition. I don’t feel the need to justify myself to somebody egotistical enough to start a new secessionist movement over superficial differences.

[Anonymous No.20657624]

>>20657581
>secessionist movement
I bet you think that the end of RoevWade is the complete end of women's rights too. Get a grip dude. And it's not about "justifiying" yourself to anyone, no matter how "egotistical" (this is complete projection imo, as you come off as something of an asshat in your writing), but about confronting the manifest heresy and falseness of certain beliefs that dress themselves as Christian when they are anything but Christian when, to use your own words,
>taken to the very end

[Anonymous No.20657646]

>>20657575
>Why did he think his salvation was in danger?
He didn't. Nor did he go to his deathbed "praying for salvation in case everything he wrote was wrong."

His last words, which are well documented, are as set forth in the attached. Gilson and other reputable theologians report the same, as does the Protestant theologian Norman Geisler.

[Anonymous No.20657656]

>>20657624
What book are those pages re Bernanos from? Looks interesting.

[Anonymous No.20657677]

>>20657656
>(1960). Bernanos: his Political thought and Prophecy
by Thomas Molnar

[Anonymous No.20657685]

>>20657624
>I bet you think that the end of RoevWade is the complete end of women's rights too
Nah. And I don't believe in "rights", by the way, except perhaps "the right to know God." I follow in the footsteps of St. Aquinas by thinking that both sides are retarded extremists who don't understand what they're fighting for. You'd be surprised to realize that the idea that "life begins at conception" is a thoroughly modern approach, in contrast to what St. Augustine and St. Aquinas wrote on the matter. Not that they justified abortion, but they clearly didn't believe that ensoulment happened at conception. See, this is what happens when you idolize "Tradition" without comprehending its spirit. Classic sedevacantist thinking.
>as you come off as something of an asshat in your writing),
I'm a bit dismissive because of your unwillingness to consider my arguments as I've written them in good faith, to throw unnecessary ad hominems without realizing their irony, and to debate by proxy instead of being accountable for things you fervently believe. You're willing to be vile over matters that you hardly understand.
>>20657646
You didn't post his Last Rites. You posted an anecdote about him four months before he died. Again, I've made the distinction between the two events repeatedly, yet you continue to ignore it. Why are you refusing to be precise?

[Anonymous No.20657688]

>>20657677
>Bernanos: his Political thought and Prophecy
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.20657706]

>>20657688
PS: Is there a pdf out there on the net? I'm coming up empty.

[Anonymous No.20657742]

>>20657685
you sound like you are just really butthurt dude. relax.
you have to admit that the Sedevacantists really make a good presentation in refuting the so-called Orthodoxy of the "Orthodox."
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d07mgLoOW8g))
The fact that their arguments seem to frustrate you makes me scratch my head. You cannot even protest one point against the heresy of Hesychasm (and "Orthodoxy" more generally). If this were really so 'meaningless' to you then I'd think you'd have made some means of attack, but even that is too much for you (besides mocking them for being ebil seccesionary sedevacantists).
>>20657706
https://archive.org/details/bernanoshispolit0000unse
you can borrow it if you make an account

[Anonymous No.20657744]

>>20657685
That's not an "anecdote". It's part of the record of Aquinas's life, as well documented as any facts we have about the man.

> Again, I've made the distinction between the two events repeatedly, yet you continue to ignore it. Why are you refusing to be precise?
Provide documentation for your spurious claims about Aquinas.

Specifically, document your false claims that Aquinas:
(1) went to his deathbed "praying for salvation in case everything he wrote was wrong."
(2) Thought his salvation was in danger.
(3) Asked the Church to burn his works.

Each of these claims is false.

[Anonymous No.20657746]

>>20657742
thanks.

[Anonymous No.20657792]

>>20657744
>The fact that their arguments seem to frustrate you makes me scratch my head.
I haven't watched the video except taking a brief skim. And I see no reason to continue watching, since it seems to deify St. Aquinas while condemn St. Palamas, even though both thinkers are flawed in their own ways. Point being, I've seen this kind of thinking before, and I've learned that it's not fruitful. I'm not going to spend hours of my time watching everything somebody throws at me, especially if I have a good intuition that it's a waste of time. If you've watched the video and understood it, then surely you could recapitulate its main arguments, no?
>You cannot even protest one point against the heresy of Hesychasm (and "Orthodoxy" more generally).
I've already refuted the idea that Hesychasm has anything to do with naive realism, acceptance of sensuousness as knowledge of God, antinomianism (e.g. all is permissible), etc. All you do is repeat meaningless shibboleths like
>ITS CARNAL
>ITS POLYTHEISTIC
Without further explanation. As I explained earlier, it's clearly not carnal because it has nothing to do with sensuousness as a description of God's energies (which you'd understand if you knew about the term's philosophical history and basic epistemology), and it's only "polytheistic" if you grasp terms like "essence" so vaguely as to also condemn the trinity as polytheism (which it is not).
>for being ebil seccesionary sedevacantists)
I mock sedevacantists because they're following Martin Luther in spirit.
>the church leadership is bad!
>I have some questions over liturgy, theology, etc., that IN MY BELIEF are closer to Christ's original teachings
>this is so pressing that I'm willing to detonate the community, instead of waiting out the turbulent storms of the time and reforming the church from within
>I'm attached to the letter of the law, yet ignore its spirit (e.g. idolizing Latin Mass even though it's merely 500 years old and in itself was created as a response to contemporary problems in its own time... just like the novus ordo)
Don't worry, the Church will still be around long after you're gone. Sedevacantists will dissipate into the mists, return to the fold, or realize what they're doing and become Protestants.

Point being, it appears that you don't understand what you're talking about, you don't understand what it's at stake, and to compound my frustration, you refuse to engage with me in good faith using your own words. Instead, you hide behind proxies who themselves probably hold views that you'd find reprehensible today (e.g. St. Aquinas and the status of ensoulment). Because of these facts, it has been thoroughly unproductive to converse with you, yet you're still willing to argue. Just humor me here, argue in terms of your own understanding, and we can stop the cat-fighting and maybe have a mutually beneficial discussion. I'm willing to change my mind. That's how I became a Catholic. Are you?

[Anonymous No.20657805]

>>20657742
>The fact that their arguments seem to frustrate you makes me scratch my head.
I haven't watched the video except taking a brief skim. And I see no reason to continue watching, since it seems to deify St. Aquinas while condemn St. Palamas, even though both thinkers are flawed in their own ways. Point being, I've seen this kind of thinking before, and I've learned that it's not fruitful. I'm not going to spend hours of my time watching everything somebody throws at me, especially if I have a good intuition that it's a waste of time. If you've watched the video and understood it, then surely you could recapitulate its main arguments, no?
>You cannot even protest one point against the heresy of Hesychasm (and "Orthodoxy" more generally).
I've already refuted the idea that Hesychasm has anything to do with naive realism, acceptance of sensuousness as knowledge of God, antinomianism (e.g. all is permissible), etc. All you do is repeat meaningless shibboleths like
>ITS CARNAL
>ITS POLYTHEISTIC
Without further explanation. As I explained earlier, it's clearly not carnal because it has nothing to do with sensuousness as a description of God's energies (which you'd understand if you knew about the term's philosophical history and basic epistemology), and it's only "polytheistic" if you grasp terms like "essence" so vaguely as to also condemn the trinity as polytheism (which it is not).
>for being ebil seccesionary sedevacantists)
I mock sedevacantists because they're following Martin Luther in spirit.
>the church leadership is bad!
>I have some questions over liturgy, theology, etc., that IN MY BELIEF are closer to Christ's original teachings
>this is so pressing that I'm willing to detonate the community, instead of waiting out the turbulent storms of the time and reforming the church from within
>I'm attached to the letter of the law, yet ignore its spirit (e.g. idolizing Latin Mass even though it's merely 500 years old and in itself was created as a response to contemporary problems in its own time... just like the novus ordo)
Don't worry, the Church will still be around long after you're gone. Sedevacantists will dissipate into the mists, return to the fold, or realize what they're doing and become Protestants.

Point being, it appears that you don't understand what you're talking about, you don't understand what it's at stake, and to compound my frustration, you refuse to engage with me in good faith using your own words. Instead, you hide behind proxies who themselves probably hold views that you'd find reprehensible today (e.g. St. Aquinas and the status of ensoulment). Because of these facts, it has been thoroughly unproductive to converse with you, yet you're still willing to argue. Just humor me here, argue in terms of your own understanding, and we can stop the cat-fighting and maybe have a mutually beneficial discussion. I'm willing to change my mind. That's how I became a Catholic. Are you?

[Anonymous No.20657817]

>>20638523
>Aristotle as synthesized by St. Augustine
Aristotle didn't become particularly important for theology until Aquinas and Augustine was literally a Platonist.

[Anonymous No.20657826]

>>20652666
Why wasn't Eriugena seemingly a bigger deal? Hell I don't even think there are any definitive editions of his writings even today, just different fragments and shit.

[Anonymous No.20657841]

>>20657792
Most of what you wrote is wrong.
>That's how I became a Catholic.
So, you're a convert to Novus Ordo Catholicism (N.O.-Catholicism) are you? How could I have not guessed this earlier!? You sound so much like a Non-Catholic sometimes that I couldn't believe at first (and am still suspicious desu) that you were really a Catholic and not just claiming to be one to "troll" me. Everything makes sense now.

[Anonymous No.20657843]

>>20657744
>>20657744
>That's not an "anecdote". It's part of the record of Aquinas's life, as well documented as any facts we have about the man.
Yes, the anecdote is part of the record. I didn't mean to question its validity, I think it's true that St. Aquinas said that. It's also not part of his last rites. You keep conflating the two events even though they happened months apart and under vastly different contexts.
>Provide documentation for your spurious claims about Aquinas.
I assume you don't know much about the recovery of Aristotle, the unity of the intellect controversy, and the fact that St. Aquinas studied and tried to salvage Aristotle despite a Papal ban on Aristotle's works. Basically, St. Aquinas was a secret heretic his entire life, and his work faced the risk of being anathematized by the Church. Only in 1277, 3 years after his death, did the Church rehabilitate Aristotelian thinking through a careful, line-by-line analysis of what was salvageable (e.g. the metaphysics) and what was incompatible with the Bible, largely thanks to St. Aquinas's work. But anyway, I've attached a screenshot.

p. 292-293. You can find the book on libgen. And the quote comes up as the first result on Google search.

Torrell, Jean-Pierre (2005). Saint Thomas Aquinas (Rev. ed.). Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.

[Anonymous No.20657849]

>>20657841
>Most of what you wrote is wrong.
>can't provide any argument whatsoever (probably thinks that St. Aquinas
Should I quote what St. Augustine and St. Aquinas had to say on ensoulment? I'd love to see you condemn them as heretics too.
>You sound so much like a Non-Catholic sometimes that I couldn't believe at first (and am still suspicious desu) that you were really a Catholic and not just claiming to be one to "troll" me. Everything makes sense now.
What the hell does Catholicism even mean to you? Just admit it. You're a Pr*t. A mini Martin Luther.

[Anonymous No.20657886]

>>20657841
>N.O.-Catholicism
>idolizes a mass that's only 500 years old
I bet you don't even realize that the Catholic Bible was corrupted by Jews a long time ago too. Look up the Masoretic texts, or the differences between the Greek Septuagint vs. the Vulgate Bible's Old Testament.

Point being, poor naive St. Jerome thought that Rabbinic Jews had access to a better Old Testament than the Church Fathers, that somehow Hebrew was better than Koine Greek and Aramaic. Instead, he ended up "grandfathering in" a Genesis genealogy that Jews edited in order to deny the divinity of Christ (by conflating Shem with Melchezidek). The Greek Septuagint's timeline makes no such distinctions and was proven to be more authentic to the original Old Testament with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rabbinic Jews edited their copies of the tanakh so they could reject him. And then St. Jerome consulted THEM to replace the Greek Septuagint. We still bear the consequences to this day, since Jews can point to western Bibles and say "look goy, we have good reasons to deny Christ," even though it was their ancestors who inserted the corruption in the first place.

[Anonymous No.20657911]

>>20657849
I know more about my religion than you think, silly.
I couldn't be Protestant even if I tried desu. Stop being so thorny breh.

[Anonymous No.20657924]

>>20657886
>idolizes a mass that's only 500 years old
this is patently false. the Roman Rite has a much longer history than that. read Adrian Fortescue's "The Mass: A Study of the Roman LIturgy", if you really want to impress me with your knowledge of the Roman Rite.
> Look up the Masoretic texts
I'll look into it

[Anonymous No.20657937]

>>20657911
You know what I’m talking about, right? You’re not just blustering again about things you’re unfamiliar with again, right?

[Anonymous No.20657980]

>>20657843

Pic: He submitted his work to the judgment of the Church. Of course. What Catholic theologian would not? I have not disputed this specific claim of yours.

>Last Rites

You keep mentioning this. Nothing he said at that point supports the claims of yours which I am disputing.

Note that his remark about "error" in the screenshot is a conditional statement, preceded by "if"; he is not admitted error; he is saying **if** he erred, it was through ignorance, etc.

>anecdote
Anecdote implies a casual story. The account of Aquinas's words is in the nature of testimony, not a mere anecdote. This may be merely a quibble, but I think A's "straw" remark is sufficiently well documented that rises to the level of something more than an anecdote.

>Aquinas was a secret heretic
Okay. You are way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaay far out in left field with this one. This is pure speculation, and not imho remotely plausible speculation.

>Only in 1277, 3 years after his death, did the Church rehabilitate Aristotelian thinking through a careful, line-by-line analysis of what was salvageable
This is a completely separate issue. I'm well aware of these facts, but they have nothing to do with the claims you made you Aquinas.

I note that I have looked at the Torrell. I reviewed it before posting >>20657744 to confirm I had not forgotten any relevant facts.

It seems to me the horse here is dead. Seeing your further remarks, I don't think you were writing in bad faith, and I retract that and apologize for accusing you of that. With that said, I do nonetheless disagree with you, but it seems to me that we've hashed through these rather small potatoes as much as they're worth being hashed.

[Anonymous No.20658032]

>>20639613
secret teachings are contrary to the spirit of the gospels. the whole point of christianity is WYSIWYG

[Anonymous No.20658133]

>>20657980
>You keep mentioning this.
Because it was a different event from the straw comments and it shows the gravity of his work.
>Nothing he said at that point supports the claims of yours which I am disputing.
Suppose he were wrong (which he believes were a distinct possibility, given his experiences and the fact that he studied banned works). What would have happened to his writings?
>Okay. You are way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaay far out in left field with this one. This is pure speculation, and not imho remotely plausible speculation.
What makes somebody a heretic?
>I'm well aware of these facts,
Then I don't get how you don't get the gravity of St. Aquinas's life's work. He was rehabilitating a Pagan philosopher whose work was seen as completely antithetical to Biblical teachings and correspondingly banned, burned, etc. as a result.
>It seems to me the horse here is dead. Seeing your further remarks, I don't think you were writing in bad faith, and I retract that and apologize for accusing you of that.
Thank you. I appreciate that. On my part, I think I was presumptuous in describing that St. Aquinas wanted his works burned. Because he clearly wasn't certain about that. But I do think he was willing to have his work burned if he felt it was wrong, that the anxiety of his salvation plagued him, and that he felt it was largely out of his hands. Then again, if he had a mysterious mystical experience, why would he doubt what he had written? There's plenty of unknowns to speculate about here, and I think it points towards St. Aquinas's work remaining largely incomplete, if it's even possible to complete what he was doing through reason alone (I suspect not). This is where I turn to Orthodox theologians like St. Palamas. Kant's distinction between ontotheology and cosmotheology is a good way of appreciating the difference between St. Aquinas and St. Palamas.
>With that said, I do nonetheless disagree with you, but it seems to me that we've hashed through these rather small potatoes as much as they're worth being hashed.
If, at the very least, I've successfully communicated to you that there's more to St. Aquinas than meets the eye, then I'm happy. Tradition is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire. Too often, we take the work of the saints for granted without realizing the spiritual struggles they went through. And that frustrates me, because we end up worshiping the letter of the law while losing its spirit.