/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7260057]

>Orthodox Christianity is a way of life in which there is a profound and direct relationship between dogma and praxis, faith and life. This unity of faith and life means that the reality of the eternal truth lies in their experimental power, rather than in their codification into a set of ideological constructs.

>Truth is beheld; it is not understood intellectually. God is seen; He is not examined theoretically. Beauty is perceived; it is not speculated about abstractly.

How do you get into this as opposed to being Christian from reason and "the will to believe"? How does one "see" God, as described here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaWnGqNZb9c

[Anonymous No.7260073]

i once beheld god as i stared crosseyed at the grain swirls of a wooden dildo that was protruding from a man's anus into my mouth

[Anonymous No.7260079]

>>7260057
People believe for differen't reasons. I'm not as much into mysticism as I am into Aquinas/Descartes with a bit of existentialism so I can't tell you.
I guess it's more about personal experience and prayer as opposed to reading and reserch.

[Anonymous No.7260083]

Just abstain from symbols and symbology, be compassionate indiscrimenentally, and work extra hard. Then you'll realize God as Is.

[Anonymous No.7260115]

>>7260079
Isn't existentialism inherent to Orthodoxy?

>The human being, as an existential reality, can be a person only when living in freedom. Only in conditions in which the full range of possibilities is open to our free and conscious choice are we able to transform our temporal reality and our selves into the image of the divine Kingdom. Our humanity is realized through the free act of relationship with others. Personhood is a free act of communion that makes heterogeneity and uniqueness fundamental aspects of our reality.--Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (the two quotes in the OP are his also).

See also

>he Danish Lutheran philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, widely considered the father of existentialism, expressed (pseudonymously as John Climacus) in Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments an approach to God which holds that the Father's hypostasis (existence) has logical primacy over his ousia (essence or substance). Hence the teaching that the core of existentialist philosophy can be understood as the maxim, "existence before essence." This has caused many Western observers to see Eastern Orthodox Christian theology as existentialistic (since the Essence–Energies distinction also somewhat holds the view).[35] This also accounts for other existentialistic works such as Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground. In the case of Dostoevsky, his existentialist outlook would have drawn from his Russian Orthodox faith, but there is no record of Dostoevsky (and the Eastern Orthodox church in general) being exposed to or influenced by Kierkegaard's philosophical works.

[Anonymous No.7260123]

>>7260115
You answer your own questions.
>but there is no record of Dostoevsky (and the Eastern Orthodox church in general) being exposed to or influenced by Kierkegaard's philosophical works.

Only if you redefine existentialism broadly enough that you aren't talking about what people think of as existentialism.

[Anonymous No.7260147]

>>7260123
Er, what? Are you defining existentialism as "influenced by Kierkegaard"?

[Anonymous No.7261416]

bump

[Anonymous No.7261455]

>>7260057
You'll find the same/similar things in Catholicism (especially Eastern Catholicism).

I'm not sure if you can be a Christian purely from reason, it seems to be that you need to take the leap to faith at some point.

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"

[Anonymous No.7261462]

>mfw a filthy protestant was too busy confusing himself with silly hermeneutic concepts to realize the true beauty and intent of God

[Anonymous No.7261475]

>>7260057
>Is this Chalcedonian heresy better than other Chalcedonian heresies?
For the Westerner EO is to Christianity what Tibetan Buddhism is to Buddhism. It's the neat mystical version with weird writing and shit but dank aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.7261487]

>>7260079
>Descartes
>Aquinas
Pick one

[Anonymous No.7261491]

>>7261487
you realize descartes was a Christian who attempted to prove God? he was also an admirer of Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.7261552]

>>7261475
Can't argue with these aesthetics tbh

[Anonymous No.7261569]

>>7260147
Are you defining it as "Making claims about the relationship between existence and essence?" Because that really doesn't seem to tell us anything about pre-19th century modes of addressing Being or God. Why bother calling Eastern Orthodoxy a form of existentialism when, by this standard, most forms of religion are existential? Are you willing to say that every Orthodox believer is an existentialist? Do you think they'd all consent to that name?

[Anonymous No.7261609]

>>7261475
>le west = logic and le east = mysticism meme

[Anonymous No.7261650]

>>7261475
>It's the neat mystical version with weird writing and shit but dank aesthetics.
This is a really stupid sentence because the same description applies to Catholicism.
>St. Thomas Aquinas' theology
>Not 'weird writing and shit'
>Literally any Catholic cathedral
>Not 'dank aesthetics'
You can talk about the superiority of Orthodox aesthetics to Catholic aesthetics when the Orthodox have retaken Constantinople and turned the Hagia Sophia back into a church.

[Anonymous No.7261794]

>>7260057
Video is kind of lame. 50% of the argument is based on the idea of a multi-verse. The other 50% is simply saying "there are things you cannot comprehend"

[Anonymous No.7261797]

>>7261569
Since their Ecumenical Patriarch says Orthodox Christianity is inherently existential, yeah, I would.

[Anonymous No.7261843]

>>7261650
>>St. Thomas Aquinas' theology
>>Not 'weird writing and shit'
spotted the pleb
>when the Orthodox have retaken Constantinople and turned the Hagia Sophia back into a church.
even if that happened, the Patriarch of Constantinople will be well settled in full communion with the Holy See

[Anonymous No.7261846]

>>7261843
>mfw the Third Council of Nicea is coming

Protestants are going to be so fucked when all the Apostolic Churches unite.

[Anonymous No.7261853]

>>7261846
Pretty impossible in my opinion. The schism has existed for almost 1000 years and I don't think it can ever be mended. There is too big of a difference between east and west now.

[Anonymous No.7261866]

>>7261846
>when all the Apostolic Churches unite.
not really, primus inter pares is one hell of a mess

[Anonymous No.7261874]

>>7261853
Just to give you an idea the Catholic church has spoken ex cathedra (literally to be treated as if Jesus himself came down from heaven and said it) that Mary was immaculately convinced and ascended to heaven.

Orthodox deny this. How the fuck would you reconcile this? If the Catholics say they are wrong it means their God is a liar.

How about the role of the Pope? Orthodox do not think he has the executive power (including the Ex cathedra talk). If the Catholics agree to this, it would ruin the credibility of the church.

[Anonymous No.7261875]

>>7261843
>spotted the pleb
I'm Catholic, I'm not saying he's wrong. It's rational mysticism, but it's still mysticism, and if you don't think anything about Catholic dogma is a little bit strange, you misunderstand the purpose of mystery.
>even if that happened, the Patriarch of Constantinople will be well settled in full communion with the Holy See
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.

[Thomas No.7261886]

>>7261853
I'm not hopeful about it mending soon, but you'd have to be blind not to see that in the past few decades, the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have taken massive steps toward reconciliation. They've lifted the anathemas on each other, that was huge, and the Catholic Church has said all Orthodox are saved and that Orthodox theology and Catholic theology are "complementary". In 1995, the Pope said the Church has "two lungs" in reference to West and East--that's is unprecedented since the schism, and is speaking of the Churches in terms of equality. Bartholomew attended the inauguration of Pope Francis, that is the first time the Bishop of Constantinople attended the inauguration of the Bishop of Rome since before the schism.

That the Pope's power is the only issue is excellently highlighted by the Orthodox Church was close to gaining full communion with Anglicans right up until Anglicans started ordaining women. Certainly, if they could get that far with Anglicans, they can with the Catholic Church

[Thomas No.7261892]

>>7261874
If Catholics and Lutherans can reconcile over their works/faith issue as a mere "misunderstanding" (which they have), I'm sure something similar could happen here.

[Anonymous No.7261901]

>>7261892
Tbh, historically, the papacy has been a bigger wedge between denominations than any other doctrinal issue. The faith/works conflict may have been something Catholics and Lutherans could settle, but the Church of England (to name just one body) was explicitly founded on an anti-papist platform, and many Protestants think that every pope is the Antichrist.

I mean, it's the 21st century so that might not be a big deal, but I'm not so sure it wouldn't be.

[Anonymous No.7261915]

>>7261875
>It's rational mysticism, but it's still mysticism
i think you should define what you mean with mysticism first

>>7261886
>the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have taken massive steps toward reconciliation.
you mean good ol' Bart has been more ecumenical, some Orthodox dont like where he is going, and they can make him lose the Primus inter pares status

[Anonymous No.7261918]

>>7261915
Mysticism is theory or practice relating to the supernatural.

[Anonymous No.7261930]

>>7261552
sauce on pic

[Anonymous No.7261937]

>>7261892
The problem is that the Catholic side cannot say they misunderstood things without destroying their crediability.

If they say that the ex Cathedra statements were mistakes it means God himself made mistakes. If they say that the seat of Peter does not have special power it also means that their ex cathedra was wrong.

The only way to reconcile it would be if the Orthodox conceded every argument (and there by stopped being Orthodox entirely)

[Anonymous No.7261956]

>>7261918
well that isnt what is meant by mysticism in the traditional sense. It is nurturing the soul and experiencing the divine through prayer, asceticism, etc.

Both approaches (reason/mystic) are essential (the two lungs of the Church), but the Orthodox have had (as far as i know) an unjustified aversion to the Scholastic method of theology.

>>7261937
>(and there by stopped being Orthodox entirely)
well, historically, theyve been unorthodox plenty of times.
But accepting papal infallibility isnt stripping away their identity, just look at the Eastern Catholics, theyve kept their own rites and traditions and represent the rich heritage of the East.

[Thomas No.7261994]

>>7261937
Well, the Church inserted the Filioque without saying that the first Council of Nicea was wrong for not having it.

Anyway, you seriously underestimate the capacity for clergy to lawyer the heck out of doctrine when they need to. Just look at hwat Cardinal Newman did, before he converted: he revived things like the idea of Purgatory by saying, "Anglican doctrine says the Church of England utterly rejects the Romish doctrine of Purgatory--therefore the doctrine of Purgatory is sound, it is only the ROMISH Doctrine of Purgatory we reject".

[Anonymous No.7262022]

>>7261994
I seriously wonder about what the full extend of layering in weird rules could be.

For example could you lawyer in the idea that Buddah and Jesus were the same person? Just as an example, could you go that far if there was demand for it?

[Anonymous No.7262028]

>>7261918
So all of religion? I always felt mysticism had a bit more of a specific definition.

[Anonymous No.7262035]

>>7261552
Whoa, Half-Life 2 Lost Coast.

[Anonymous No.7262049]

>>7262022
>>7262022
i dont think it can go to those limits (but hey, there's non theistic Christianity now)

anyways, opposition to "popery" is mostly founded on political reasons. Now that the Orthodox dont have Constantinople, there isnt any reason to put it or its Patriarch on par with Rome.

[Anonymous No.7262061]

>>7261491
>and failed

[Anonymous No.7262075]

>>7262022
>Buddah
This triggers me every time.

[Anonymous No.7262153]

>>7262049
The Orthodox Patriarch is only on par with Rome while Rome is not in communion with the Orthodox Church. They recognize the Pope would be first among equals if the Pope converted. But what they consider "first among equals" is WAAAAAAAY different than what Roman Catholics do. They consider it meaning equal power.

[Anonymous No.7262164]

>>7262153
Why the hell would the Orthodox want to give the pope more power? You have the Russian Orthodox in charge of Russia, that's good, that's self-rule.

Why would they want to get their self-rule cucked by bending a knee to Rome? It's spitting in the face of your own nation.

[Anonymous No.7262200]

>>7262164
They don't. They do want the Bishop of Rome to be first among equals, because he was historically and they consider that part of sacred tradition. But that position has no power than any other bishop, and bishops in the Russian Orthodox Church have even said so much with this Bishop of Constantinople, that he doesn't speak for the whole Church. To historically illustrate this point, the Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized both the Pope AND the Patriarch of Constantinople, along with his three predecessors (note that the succeeding Pope fully concurred with the decision of this council).

[Anonymous No.7262207]

>>7262200
When did the chair of Peter start to overstep it's bounds? I'm not religious myself but it's interesting history.

[Anonymous No.7262223]

>>7262207
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

[Anonymous No.7262280]

>>7262075
Why?

[Anonymous No.7263099]

>>7262207
when Jesus said "On this rock.." and made Peter the leader of the apostles