/lit/ - Literature

Sufis and Hindus maintain that the Essence of God can be known, so does a few Christians. What’s your answer to that?

>>14712263
They're wrong, what else do you want me to say?

>>14712282
Albeit the ones who say it are the perfected saints and sages.

>>14712263
>"But, it is replied, if you are ignorant of the essence, you are ignorant of Himself. Retort, If you say that you know His essence, you are ignorant of Himself. A man who has been bitten by a mad dog, and sees a dog in a dish, does not really see any more than is seen by people in good health; he is to be pitied because he thinks he sees what he does not see. Do not then admire him for his announcement, but pity him for his insanity. Recognise that the voice is the voice of mockers, when they say, if you are ignorant of the essence of God, you worship what you do not know. I do know that He exists; what His essence is, I look at as beyond intelligence. How then am I saved? Through faith. It is faith sufficient to know that God exists, without knowing what He is; and He is a rewarder of them that seek Him. Hebrews 11:6 So knowledge of the divine essence involves perception of His incomprehensibility, and the object of our worship is not that of which we comprehend the essence, but of which we comprehend that the essence exists."
BTFO by St. Basil

>>14712421
Memes aside, I’m actually interested in the gulf between Christian Theology and other religions Metaphysics. Any books or writings on that? It’s a formidable and interesting topic. Now, it must be made clear that most of other religions maintain, too, that the Essence is not to be comprehended, but, at the same time, that it can be known, partially and veiledly so.

>>14712245
> not Guenon(pbuh)

>>14712421
How is this not standard aphophaticism?

>>14712456
Aristotle East and West
God, History and Dialectic

>>14712485
It's not, there is no argument being made there that has any weight against the claim that God can be directly know and experienced in spiritual realization, that poster seems to have the mistaken notion that God's ineffability makes such a thing impossible but in the traditions where one can come to directly experience God like Sufism and Hinduism they often already regard God as ineffable which is only transcended in spiritual realization and not before. It's sad that Orthodox posters seem to often see eastern thought as a threat because it is Eastern Orthodoxy that would seem to offer the most interesting opportunities out of all Christianity for comparison and mutual learning as for example in the book on Eastern Orthodox thought and Taoism "Christ the Eternal Tao"

>>14712245
>RETROACTIVELY!

You mean prospectively you drooling retard.

>>14712619
Yes, God can be know through spiritual experiences, which is something hesychasts would agree. That question is if his Essence can be known.

>>14712660
The energies are known, but are the hypostases? Evidently, if we are to read the Trinity with Platonic, they are indeed known. And we would be but attached sentimentally to Christian Theology if were not to do so.

>>14712919
>The energies are known, but are the hypostases?
The energies are, in a sense, enhypostatic in that they persist wherever they are sent such that the divine is immanently present. This is why some people say that Orthodoxy is qualified panentheism.

>>14712969
This is compatible with all true metaphysics. Only Catholic- corrupt, we must admit- rational theology polemicizes with it, with their loved, obfuscated term “pantheism”.

>theology

*solves christian theology*

>>14713036
*wrong pick, sorry

>>14712263
>>14712619
>>14712660
God can only be known insofar as he is not what he is ''in himself'', that would be to say insofar as he is enhypostatized; but there is no experience of God's innermost abyss (precisely because it transcends everything, all categories of reason).

>>14712919
>>14712969
The Divine Intellect carries its excellence, perfection, illumination from the Unities that come from The One. They are not causally separated much less essentially, though they differ in the degree of participation in The One (the lesser, the less the degree). So in a way The One, God, is essentially immanent as well?

>>14713098
Are you an Orthodox? That’s a interesting response. I’m honestly curious, thought; what would your rebuttal be towards those who claim to have “known” God’s abyss? For an obvious exemple, Eckhart.

>>14713123
No I'm not.
>Eckhart
What specifically from him? That sounds strange since Eckhart as far as I know depicts strong non-dualism in his writings.

>>14712421
>A man who has been bitten by a mad dog, and sees a dog in a dish, does not really see any more than is seen by people in good health
What did he mean by this?

>>14713156
A Platonist? Eckhart basically states that there’s a God beyond God- that’s, His Essence, and claims that’s possible to know it; nay, he goes as far as to claim, in a way, identity with this Essence.

>>14713156
>>14713123
Why do people with limited theological understanding keep memeing eckhart? Controversy and obscurity are poor heuristics for discovering truth.

>>14712456
Why do I have the feeling that you've read almost no sacred texts of any religion?

>>14713188
Christian Platonist I'd say. But well, there is indeed ''identification'' since there is nothing besides That.

>>14713203
care to share something actually valuable in this thread?

>>14713203
Have I committed a mistake in my interpretation of him? If so, divulge on it. Until then, you are but a Catholic trying to interpret his texts in a way to defend his complete orthodoxy with Roman Dogmatic teachings.

>>14713208
I sense that you are projecting, dear stranger.

>>14713224
My contribution to the thread is hopefully to discourage any more people from taking up heterodox interpretations of a questionably orthodox Catholic theologian. It seems deeply imprudent to bring him into conversations of essential disagreement between Rome and Constantinople.

>>14713242
Why would I deny that I am Catholic, and certainly my primary intent is to prevent the further spread of heterodoxy, if by no other means than signifying clearly that such ideas cannot be called Catholic. Tell me, when you first read Eckhart, did you consider yourself Catholic?

>>14713281
>>14713281
Eckhart teachings are clearly unorthodox, in a way. And, yes, I did.
To be clear, I’m not saying he’s a heretic, but that his teachings clearly stretch beyond dogma and are in conflict with it.

>>14713274
Because I mentioned his nondualistic ''perspective''? The point of disagreement was not regarding ''Rome and Constantinople'', did you follow the entire conversation which led to his mentioning?

>>14713304
Literal heresy:
>Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Which is automatic excommunication:
>Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

You readily admit also that by reading Eckhart, against the recommendation of competent authority and disregarding the still-standing condemnations against his work, you have left the orthodox faith. I am quite certain also that I have warned you in the past about Eckhart for precisely this reason. Even if he was not in error, it is very easy to interpret him in such a way so as to be in error. If you do not yet assent to this understanding of his teaching, but only hold it in curious consideration, then know you are at the very edge of what is tolerable. If you already assent to them, then your soul is in mortal danger. For the sake of your own soul and others, please desist.

>>14713331
The thread is about Palamas, who is primarily opposed by Basil. This is a great and longstanding disagreement between pre-eminent theologians of East and West. Your unorthodox interpretation of Eckhart hardly seems relevant, when the entire debate hinges on whether it is Gregory or Basil who presents true orthodoxy.

>>14713358
>The thread is about Palamas, who is primarily opposed by Basil.
Dude, what? Basil taught the E/E distinction.
>"The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach."

>>14713343
Is Eckhart in “obstinate denial or obstinate doubt“ about Catholic dogma? Highly Debatable. Unless you can cite where goes directly against a dogma of the Church, or “doubts” it, he’s not an heretic.
As himself said “Heresy is a matter of the will.”

>>14713384
Also, weren’t the condemnations against his work lifted?

>>14713384
>>14713391
Notice, I have not called Eckhart a heretic, nor have I called his work heretical. But, his work never received an imprimatur, and at his death there remained some 50 condemnations of statements purported to be in his work. Those condemnations have not been lifted. The only debate is whether the work does in fact contain those condemned positions. You say here (>>14713304) that his views are unorthodox, which is to say they are heterodox, which is to say they are against dogma, which is to say they are heretical. I do not know if they are, but you believe they are, and you seem to believe that understanding which you describe as unorthodox. You blatantly say they are in conflict with dogma. I'm not talking about his soul, but yours.

>>14713358
unorthodox interpretation for my pointing of his obvious nondualism? I wasn't discussing Palamas nor Basil. Obtuse.

>>14713430
>I wasn't discussign Palams nor Basil
Exactly. The thread is clearly about Palamas. Why are you talking about Eckhart?

>>14713427
Indeed, from my point of view, they stretch beyond dogma. Now, whether that man was an heretic or not, I would not and could not claim and have no interest in it. Furthermore, I’m not a Catholic, Sir. I thank you for your interest in the health of my soul, but that is beyond conflicts of Catholic dogma, thankfully.

>>14713374
I do not think it is reasonable to equivocate Energies and Operations. Palams held that Peter and the other Apostles directly witnessed the uncreated light on Mount Tabor. To my understanding, Catholicism still holds that this is not possible.

>>14713452
Did you not say you once called yourself catholic(>>14713281)? Now you say you are not. But Baptism cannot be undone. You acknowledge that by reading Eckhart you interpreted him as having unorthodox views which contributed to your apostasy. It is then highly disengenious to continue to speak about Eckhart as though you are a merely indifferent party who still wonders at the legitimacy of the opinion you received by reading him. It would seem that you clearly intend to lead faithful Catholics away from Orthodoxy by first presenting Eckhart as safe, and then by presenting your understanding of him as true.

>>14713441
Because another anon mentioned him in our parallel conversation. What is your problem?

>>14712245
>retroactively
>subsequent

retard

>>14713469
This (>>14713468, >>14713452, >>14713427, >>14713391, >>14713384, >>14713343, >>14713304, >>14713281, >>14713242, >>14713203) is my problem. While I have no power over the thoughts of others, and there is little I can do to change the minds of those who have set themselves against the Catholic faith, I do have an obligation as a Catholic to help safeguard the faith of my brethren. There has been a very intentional presence of one or several readers of Eckhart who has very deliberately been trying to lure unsuspecting Catholic posters into apostasy. It may not seem serious to you, but it's very serious to me.

>>14713494
Ok I understand. But I think you already know that neither I nor the other anon to which I was talking are Catholics. I believe that Platonism is the télos of Intellectual Revelation and that Christ came to fulfill the Revelation of Faith. Both direct to the unique and same God because both stand upon Truth.

>>14713494
Albeit I must admit that in my view, the True Church is the Orthodox Catholic Church, I've no intention in diverging your brethren from the Roman Church, and the discussion that sprouted on this thread stemmed from mere intellectual curiosity. With this board not being a Roman Catholic one, I do hope that outsiders' opinions on Catholic dogma and authors are allowed.
As for Christians with interest in eventually reading Eckhart, you are right: I solemnly declare that his teachings are highly unorthodox, and potentially heretical- which does not mean that they are not right- and therefore one must thread at his own risk, with the danger of being eventually in discordance with Roman Catholic dogma.

>>14713520
Alright, but as you can see from the comments I linked, the other Anon is clearly trying to position his understanding of Eckhart as possibly Catholic so as to induce Catholics into accepting it as plausible. The other Anon, who is self-admittedly an apostate, is literally trying to lure Catholics into apostasy. While it saddens me that you accept such unorthodox ideas, they are clearly unorthodox and no Catholic could accept them without knowing what they were doing. If I cannot convince people into Faith, I would at least like to create a clear distinction between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. As I see it, any attempt to blur those lines can only be understood as diabolic.

>>14713547
If they're unorthodox, that means they are untrue. That is a dogma of the Catholic faith. That's what dogma means. I have no authority over you, and I cannot prohibit you from posting. But likewise, I need not tolerate your position. Charity to the person requires intolerance to false ideas, engaged with prudence. This is not the first time Eckhart has been positioned so as to introduce unorthodox ideas as orthodox. Given that I obviously have no power to edit this board, I find it strange that you appeal to permission. Likewise, you have no authority to declare Eckhart orthodox or unorthodox. Which turns again to my point--regardless of Eckhart himself, your use of Eckhart seems deliberately positions so as to make unorthodox ideas appear more palatable. Once again, you write as though there is a territory of thought between unorthodoxy and heresy, as though one may be unorthodox, but not heretical. This is impossible. Heterodoxy is heresy.

>>14713571
Sir, I truly have no intention to "lure Catholics into apostasy" and am saddened that you interpreted my statements as having any intention behind them but to discuss an Author that had interesting metaphysical views.

>>14713618
I'm using "unorthodox" in the sense of "innovative" or "unusual". That perhaps is enough to end our quarrel.

>>14713635
If you have no intention to convince Catholics of error, then why do you continue to write as though Eckhart is "merely an Author with interesting ideas." You say yourself you were once Catholic, and you are no longer because of your reading of Eckhart. You certainly don't speak of him so that he goes unread; no, you can only speak of him expecting others to have already read him, or hoping that they will read him. Further, you do not speak of him as though there is question over his meaning, but as though his meaning is certain and his meaning is as you give it. So, you only speak of Eckhart so that those who have not read him do read him, and so that those who have read him agree with your interpretation. As you admit, your interpretation means apostasy. You believe your position true; certainly, like all men, you would have all others believe the truth if it were possible. And certainly, you could not convince a Catholic if you presented your ideas as heretical. It is only by describing them as "curious" or "interesting" or "uncertain" that you could have him consider it with any seriousness. To the man who is not Catholic, it hardly matters what Eckhart's relationship to the Catholic faith is, and frankly it would probably be better if he was described as heretical, for generally only the orthodox Catholic likes orthodox Catholicism. Why do you present your ideas as though they may be compatible with the Catholic faith when you know by reason and by your own experience that they are not? How can you defend this as anything else but a snare for the unsuspecting? What other purpose could it serve?

>>14713673
It isn't, because we're clearly discussing dogma, in which unorthodox has a clear and distinct meaning. In fact, the very origin of those meanings of unorthodox comes from Catholic apostates (or later apostates of Anglicanism), and they have only taken on positive connotation by the general resentment against the authority of the Catholic faith. If you knew from the beginning that my purpose was being clear about orthodoxy and heterodoxy, why would you use unorthodox in an unorthodox and unclear manner?

>>14713430
shut the FUCK up guenonfag

>>14713706
>If you have no intention to convince Catholics of error, then why do you continue to write as though Eckhart is "merely an Author with interesting ideas."

To an outsider, Eckhart is a very interesting author, in my meek opinion.

> You say yourself you were once Catholic, and you are no longer because of your reading of Eckhart.

Nay. I'm no longer for dozens of reasons, neither of which has anything to do with Eckhart.

>You certainly don't speak of him so that he goes unread; no, you can only speak of him expecting others to have already read him, or hoping that they will read him.

I've no will that others should read him, but was only using him as an example in discussing an idea with an anon.

>Why do you present your ideas as though they may be compatible with the Catholic faith when you know by reason and by your own experience that they are not?

I haven't presented them as compatible with the Catholic faith, but neither have I said they are not- for I must, indeed, not forget that I'm speaking about my interpretation of his ideas, as you have rightly pointed out. I have, indeed, refused in calling him an heretic, for that pertains for Catholics to do so, not me. I have, I believe, pointed out, too, that his teachings are potentially in conflict with the Church dogma, depending on your interpretation of them; but, I have, too, sustained that his statements do not deny Catholic dogma: for they do not! directly, that is. Now if you think his teachings implicitly go against the Catholic doctrine, you should tell us, for you are the one that should be interested in defending it.

If you think Eckhart is an heretic and you wish to defend your brethren against his thought, just quote from one of his books and explain what about it is in conflict with Roman teaching. Once done, there will be no need to replying against my posts, nor any faithful Catholics will be interested in them.

>boohoo don't talk about non-dualism you might go to hell!!!
cringe

>>14713036

Calvinism basically made Christianity and theology meaningless, he essentially created a nihilistic deism with an angry God

>>14713790
this
>>14713788
go back to your containment thread, guenonfag

>>14713724
You must pardon me for that, but I'm not accustomed with debating such ideas, or in debating at all, I must be honest, and English is not my forte.

Speaking of Palamas, Jay Dyer is going to debate Stefan Molymeme tonight, lol.

>>14713788
Catholicism isn't dualistic.

>>14713817
What’s Jay Dryer deal? He’s an Orthodox Christian, apparently fascinated with rational theology, that writes books about Masonic symbolism on Hollywood films? And apparently loves a debate more than prayer- apologies for saying that, Lord.

>>14713780
But you recognize yourself as an apostate, and your own ideas as heretical. As I have said, I cannot say if Ekchart is heretical; I have not the authority. You, however, continue to make use of shifting lines of discussion. First, you portray your ideas of Eckhart as correct, and as the singular interpretation. Second, you say your position is unorthodox and in conflict with dogma, but might not be heretical. Third, you defend the confusion by questioning the whether Eckhart is a condemned heretic. Fourth, after recognize your position as heretical and identifying it as the position of Eckhart, you say you cannot call Eckhart a heretic. I know this isn't the first time you've done this. You are taking an extremely deceptive line of argumentation. It's not what Eckhart says that I'm worried about, but what you say.

>>14713916
>>14713916
>>14713916
>>14713916
>>14713916
I do not, in particular, identify myself as an apostate. And I’ve not, Sir, ever, maintained that Eckhart’s teachings as “correct”. They may be valid for outsiders, but, again, are possibly in conflict with Catholic dogma. Yes: Eckhart’s teachings are unusual, but not necessarily heretic- which is something only those with the necessity credencies can claim. I’ve never claimed my view as a heretic, for I’ve not stated my view, but only used an interpretation of Eckhart’s idea to question another anon on an issue.
Eckhart was never condemned as an heretic, although his works were condemned- phrases of it, it seems. Do not forget that recent Popes spoke in his favor, going so far as to quote the man.

>>14713916
do not, in particular, identify myself as an apostate. And I’ve not, Sir, ever, maintained that Eckhart’s teachings as “correct”. They may be valid for outsiders, but, again, are possibly in conflict with Catholic dogma. Yes: Eckhart’s teachings are unusual, but not necessarily heretic- which is something only those with the necessity credencies can claim. I’ve never claimed my view as heretic, for I’ve not stated my view, but only used my interpretation of an Eckhart’s idea to question another anon on an issue.
Eckhart was never condemned as an heretic, although his works were condemned- phrases of it, it seems. Do not forget that recent Popes spoke in his favor, going so far as to quote the man. Here’s my view, again: I solemnly declare that, for a Roman Catholic, his teachings are highly unusual, and potentially heretical- which does not mean that they are not metaphysically sound- and therefore one must thread at his own risk, with the danger of falling eventually in discordance with Roman Catholic dogma.

>>14714013
Why are you being so deceitful? You said you were once Catholic, and now are not. That is, by definition, apostasy. Now you bring it the allusion to Papal approval to further cloud the issue. You acknowledge that your interpretation of Ekchart contradicts Church dogma. All contradictions of Church dogma (that fall short of denial of all dogmas) are by definition heretical. You have also positioned this interpretation as true, and only recently began describing it as "only an interpretation." Further, if an idea is heretical and deals with metaphysics, then by definition the metaphysics are unsound, particular if they contradict dogmas with metaphysical consequences.

Lastly, and most importantly, I care not whether your ideas are Eckhart's ideas. Your ideas are in contradiction with Catholic dogma, and yet you present them as potentially valid for Catholics. At no point have you even quoted Eckhart. You only use his name as a cover to cast doubt about the validity of your own ideas.

>>14714100
Why are you being so deceitful?
>I’m not. I don’t identify myself as an apostate, in particular. Since, furthermore, I was never confirmed.
>You acknowledge that your interpretation of Ekchart contradicts Church dogma.
I’ve not.
>You have also positioned this interpretation as true, and only recently began describing it as "only an interpretation."
I’ve not. I do, indeed, believe my interpretation to be faithful, but have never stated that that’s the case, or tried to impose it on someone as apodictic true.
>Further, if an idea is heretical and deals with metaphysics, then by definition the metaphysics are unsound, particular if they contradict dogmas with metaphysical consequences.
They are unsound for a faithful Catholic, but that doesn’t mean it’s not sound for those with no allegiance to a dogma and need to comply to it. I’ve no intention in reducing metaphysics to what’s Catholic Dogma.
>Lastly, and most importantly, I care not whether your ideas are Eckhart's ideas...
I disagree. I’ve haven’t stated any ideas that I may hold, but only stated what seems to me clearly Eckhart’s thought, without quoting him; which I could do, if you so wish, although it would take me a while. You could call it a interpretation- and it’s, as I admitted- but I doubt that anyone without a need to compromise towards dogma would interpret it otherwise. I could be wrong.

>>14714100
>Why are you being so deceitful?
I’m not. I don’t identify myself as an apostate, in particular. Since, furthermore, I was never confirmed.
>You acknowledge that your interpretation of Ekchart contradicts Church dogma.
I’ve not.
>You have also positioned this interpretation as true, and only recently began describing it as "only an interpretation."
I’ve not. I do, indeed, believe my interpretation to be faithful, but have never stated that that’s the case, or tried to impose it on someone as apodictic true.
>Further, if an idea is heretical and deals with metaphysics, then by definition the metaphysics are unsound, particular if they contradict dogmas with metaphysical consequences.
They may be unsound for a faithful Catholic, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean it’s not sound for those with no allegiance to a dogma and need to comply to it. I’ve no intention in reducing metaphysics to what’s Catholic Dogma.
>Lastly, and most importantly, I care not whether your ideas are Eckhart's ideas...
I disagree. I’ve haven’t stated any ideas that I may hold, but only stated what seems to me clearly Eckhart’s thought, without quoting him; which I could do, if you so wish, although it would take me a while. You could call it a interpretation- and it’s!, as I admitted- but I doubt that anyone without a need to compromise towards dogma would interpret it otherwise. I could be wrong; possibly am.

>>14714100
>Why are you being so deceitful?
I’m not. I don’t identify myself as an apostate, in particular. Since, furthermore, I was never confirmed.
>You acknowledge that your interpretation of Ekchart contradicts Church dogma.
I’ve not.
>You have also positioned this interpretation as true, and only recently began describing it as "only an interpretation."
I’ve not. I do, indeed, believe my interpretation to be faithful, but have never stated that that’s the case, or tried to impose it on someone as apodictic truth.
>Further, if an idea is heretical and deals with metaphysics, then by definition the metaphysics are unsound, particular if they contradict dogmas with metaphysical consequences.
They may be unsound for a faithful Catholic, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean it’s not sound for those with no allegiance to a dogma and need to comply to it. I’ve no intention in reducing metaphysics to what’s Catholic Dogma.
>Lastly, and most importantly, I care not whether your ideas are Eckhart's ideas...
I disagree. I’ve haven’t stated any ideas that I may hold, but only stated what seems to me clearly Eckhart’s thought, without quoting him; which I could do, if you so wish, although it would take me a while. You could call it a interpretation- and it’s!, as I admitted- but I doubt that anyone without a need to compromise towards dogma would interpret it otherwise. I could be wrong; possibly am.

>>14713208
Not the one you're replying to, but how should I read the sacred texts of the different religions?

>>14714393
I mean without sticking to litteralism and dogma

>>14713877
He is a pop author who is Orthodox who kinda rides it as part of his identity. He has a lot of positions that are acceptable for Orthodox but not required and some things that are kinda a stretch to say the least.

>>14715481
Interesting. Which are the views? Apokatastasis, etc?

>>14715481
Theologians like Peter Bouteneff, John Zizoulas, Athanasius Yevtich and Alexander Schmemann are way more representative to say the least.

>>14715514

Some of his claims about creation are a bit very US influenced and tapping into the US zeitgeist. Some of his apokatasis also come to mind.He is getting very close the version of it is that is anathema. In particular the version where God overrides a persons will to save him. This is ignoring some of the conspiracy stuff too. Which is not part of the religion. He combines things together and makes them a package deal.

>>14715514
>Apokatastasis
Nah, he constantly rails against Origenists.

A lot of Normiedox don't like him because he believes in YEC and is "mean" to Catholics.

>>14715564
YEC?
Are there still Origenists in the Church? I guess that with the discussions around the validity of the anathemas against him, is probable that they have come back; is that the case?

>>14715555
What are his claims on creation?

>>14715585
young earth creationism

>>14715585
>Are there still Origenists in the Church?
Unfortunately

>>14715588

It is young earth creationism but he rejects every other position very strongly and transforms the issue of creation from theologoumena.

>>14715638

Basically he takes what it is possible to believe and treats it like dogma such as christology.

>>14715555
>He combines things together and makes them a package deal.
Yeah, as someone very into his explanations of Palamism and transcendental arguments, the intimate grouping of these things with hardcore YEC, Rockefeller depopulation conspiracy, and Masonic symbolism in Mario games is a bit off putting

>>14715613
Can you cite any examples of Origenists in the Church? I’m interested.

>>14715666
What do you mean by Christology? And why the photo of this book?

>>14715711

David Bentley Hart is the loudest. There are not many. His early works like The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? and the The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth are ok .

>>14715715

Christology just refers to the nature of Christ or the will of christ. Anything dealing with the hypostatic property. It is an example of dogma or something that is key to the faith. These things also act as hermeneutic principles as well. The book was just something to break up the monotonous lack of images.

>>14715723
But Hart’s Origenism envolves anything more than his belief in the Apokastatasis? Surely he doesn’t belief the world to be the “creation” of Adam’s fall?

>>14715638
Basically:
>Death is unnatural
>The Fall was cosmic in scope (all of creation became subject to death and corruption)
>If evolution is true then death is natural
>If death is natural then God is the author of death
>God can't be the author of death because it's heretical

>>14715734
Do you recommend this book? >>14715638
Does it deal with Genesis interpretation?

>>14715742
meant to quote
>>14715588

>>14715739
My understanding of him is that he does not believe in that. Just the return of 'all in all' at a metaphysical level that is experienced the same.

>>14715734
Orthodox Christology is appealing. I’ve a few questions. Is the nous in man equated with Christ in a way? I’ve heard Evagrius do it. I imagine that’s an unusual view.

>>14715742

A little more simplistic and a bit more rough shod with the concept of death and the concept of world. For example he leaves out immaterial concepts from the fall. Kinda a very very narrow view of creation.

>>14715742
That looks pretty based to me. Not a coward such to let modern science dogmatic views to tower over his creed towards salvation.

>>14712245
"Theology is imagination." Spinoza

>>14715761
>Not a coward such to let modern science dogmatic views to tower over his creed towards salvation.
What does evolution have to do with salvation?

>>14715763
Perhaps, partially. But it’s based upon metaphysical truths. It’s a boat built by man for the salvation of the many. Not perfected, therefore. It’s economical.

>>14715745
It does but it deals with other stuff such as the Patristic hermeneutic itself. It is a good book Boutineff's book Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives is more directly about that though. It is a more academic theological text. Creation and the Patriarchal Histories: Orthodox Christian Reflections on the Book of Genesis by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon is ok but less so.

[SPOILER] Gay fucker bitch [/spoiler]

>>14715766
>>14715761
Evolution is against Orthodox doctrine.
Orthodox doctrine exists to lead you towards salvation.
Why would you compromise with the doctrine that’s meant to save you, the one the most faith you’ve in, the better, for a dogma of the modern world- which, we might add, is the world of antichrist himself?

>>14715754
To be honest with you , I am not sure about Evagirus. I can't say for certain. The nous or image is sorta like a spiritual organ and unifying principle. It is held to reflect the plenitude of the Incarnation.

>>14715794
>Evolution is against Orthodox doctrine.
I don't think I've ever seen an actual priest say this. Maybe that it's problematic or untrue but I don't think any would make such a strong claim as you do.

>>14715812
Any writings on it?

>>14715813
The only Orthodox writer or priest I’ve ever seen say that evolution is dogmatically opposed to the Orthodox Faith is Fr Seraphim Rose. I deeply respect him and understand his reasons, though I think he gives evolution far too much credit in the establishment of nihilism especially in a world where Calvinism, Liberalism and rationalism exist.

>>14715817
I would recommend the Defication in Christ by Nellas of which there is an image above. Justin Popovic's God and the God-Man is also good. I can't think of anything directly dealing with the nous. The theology of the image and the likeness is everywhere though.

>>14715813
You know it’s. I congratulate Dyer for not being a coward and giving acquiescence to profane science in exchange for the doctrine of the Church, the knowledge of the saints and the authority of the revelations.
Furthermore, apart from being a flawed and contested theory, a working myth at best, it carries with itself materialistic presuppositions which no faithful could sincerely accept.

>>14715831
Does he even say that explicitly? I know his book on the subject was heavily edited by Hiermonk Damascene (not claiming dishonestly) and I think there is speculation it may make stronger claims than he would have intended

>>14715835
The claim that it reflects the plenitude of Incarnation is interesting. Anything on that?

>>14715839
Sorry but are you ASL? Why do you make so many mistakes in writing?

>>14715745
>Does it deal with Genesis interpretation?
St. Basil affirms six day creation in his Hexaemeron. For something more in depth, Fr. Seraphim Rose's tome on Genesis is edifying.

>>14715854
English is truly not my language, but which mistakes have you perceived, stranger?

>>14715855
Okay but that's not what I asked, I'm familiar with both those books

>>14715855
Six days in a an atemporal state of being itself without any of the concepts or predications that make up our experiences now. Read Boutineff it is academic quality from a priest and theologian.

>>14715884
This is an actually a big deal because this pissed the actual historical gnostics off royally. They held that the the perfect aeons could not be damaged in such a way.

>>14715913
What?

>>14715916
Basically gnostics believed that there were things called aeons. They were perfect ideas like the platonic forms that were good in themselves. Damaged material versions existed as a parallel. The Christians by rejecting the idea of the aeon having even ideas be damaged because they instantiate in some sense in the actual world in time angered them a great deal. It was of the more better points of contention they had. Ireneaus of Lyons alludes to this. Good translated versions capture this issue really well.

>>14715942
I meant bitter points of contention. Forgive the grammar.

Could anyone answer me in the place of this anon >>14715854
and inform me on the alleged mistakes that I’ve committed in my writing, so I may correct the possible lapses in the future? I thank whomever may be kind enough to answer.

>>14715884
Okay, but in the case of St. Basil it's a literal, historical six days.

>>14712245
Holy based... Made the exact same thread today in my dream, not even kidding.

>>14715831
>he gives evolution far too much credit in the establishment of nihilism
>especially in a world where Calvinism, Liberalism and rationalism exist

Nope. Read René Guénon's picrelated, he retroactively BTFOs this position and shows how the three things you mentioned and evolutionism are cut from the same demonic hylic cloth.

>>14716162
I wonder if this is where Seraphim Rose got that idea from actually, since Guenon was his main influence.

>>14715481
>He has a lot of positions that are acceptable for Orthodox but not required
Example?

>>14715831
>Fr Seraphim Rose.
Fr. Seraphim's book has the support of dozens of clergymen including 2 or 3 American archbishops the dean of Holy Trinity Seminary, who uses it as a primary source in collecting the references the Holy Fathers make about creation/the fall/the possibility of evolution etc.

I'm always hearing american and greek normiedox tell me how only american converts from evangelicalism believe in YEC but every Russian and Serb clergyman I've met and every Athonite ive met all think evolution is horseshit

For all the people who say that evolution hasn't been condemned/ is a possible opinion etc, read what the newly glorified St. Joseph the Hesychast had to say on the matter

>>14716382
Alos, this book and the footnote endorsing Fr. Seraphim's book was written by Elder Ephraim of Arizona of blessed memory, who established 17 monasteries in North America and will certainly be glorified in the next few years. So don't tell me this isn't normative for real Orthodox Christians.

>>14713427
His disciples, Henry Suso was beatified is that not a implicit confirmation in his favour?

>>14716375
>but every Russian and Serb clergyman I've met and every Athonite ive met all think evolution is horseshit
This has been my experience too as a Russian.

>>14716382
>You will not be welcome here in my hut until you renounce that theory.
Holy based...

>>14712245
>*retroactively BTFOs all subsequent theology*
based.

>>14712245
Can I become an Orthodox following the Chalcedonian creed- its Dyophysitism- or do I have to give allegiance to Miaphysitism?

What do you lads think of Oriental Orthodoxy? It seems hidden from larpers compared to EO

Could one say that Theosis is the union of hypostases, as in the case of Jesus, but, in this case, effected by grace? Or is that anathema?

>retroactively
>retroactively
>retroactively
What the FUCK is wrong with you people? Everywhere I go on this godforsaken board I see this word used in this way. You would think on the fucking literature board people would be well-read enough that such a flagrant misuse of such a commonplace would not become a board-wide. The word you are looking for is PREEMPTIVELY, you goddamn retards.
>>14712643
>>14713472

>>14718553
They're Monophysites

>>14718572
I may be wrong but that looks to be similar to St. Maximus teachings

>>14718602
It's a meme you fucking outsider

>>14718553
>What do you lads think of Oriental Orthodoxy?
They're the original Protestants before it was cool.

Not based.

>>14718553
Retroactively refuted by the Council of Chalcedon

>>14718617
>>14718664
>>14718700

Oriental Orthodoxy seems less intertwined with statism and authoritarian regimes. As for monophysitism, I fail to see the evidence

>>14718756
>statism and authoritarian regimes

I, too, like Batushka.

>>14713046
Based

>>14718553
Roosh V. came to my church while he was on his speaking tour last year. He was surprised to see ethnic diversity there, saying that at his home church in D.C. it is only Armenians. He gave me the distinct impression that the Oriental Church is highly ethno-centric and you basically can't convert into it.

Fwiw. I just wanted to tell my e-celeb story.

>>14712263
>Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God

>>14720551
God according to his Energies, not His Essence

>Do you worship what you know or what you do not know? If I answer, I worship what I know, they immediately reply, What is the essence of the object of worship? Then, if I confess that I am ignorant of the essence, they turn on me again and say, So you worship you know not what. I answer that the word to know has many meanings. We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment; but not His very essence. The question is, therefore, only put for the sake of dispute. For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated. But God, he says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and His bestowal of rewards and punishments, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence? If they say, yes, let them not ask if we know the essence of God, but let them enquire of us whether we know God to be awful, or just, or merciful. These we confess that we know. If they say that essence is something distinct, let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity. For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.

Kallisto Ware lecture on Gregory Palamas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diizpNIUIqc&t=296s

It is important to remember that the Soviets imported fundamentalists and Christian revisionists to help ferret out Orthodox Christians. Some of the fundamentalism is a bypoduct of that and the globalization of Christianity. The proof texting via single patristic Fathers is also a product of that.

>>14721929
Doesn't matter what the Soviets did when the Orthodox Church in other parts of the world maintained consistency in teaching. Tell me one way in which the modern Russian Orthodox Church has borrowed from american fundies

Friendly reminder that there is no Orthodox Church. All of the Old Believers were exiled and died in the forest.

>>14721993
Friendly Reminder that there are Old Believers in communion with MP, and that just because a Russian Patriarch changed words in the liturgy, doesn't mean that the rest of the Church in other parts of the world apostatized. Priestless Old believers are low IQ, Edinoverie however, are based.

>>14721962

You are right they are consistent in teaching. Try reading Science and the Eastern Orthodox Church edited by Professor Daniel Buxhoeveden. It does a good break down of what happened and why. The argument is not that the creationism is prohibited. It is theologemna just accepting evolution is. The issue was that more people started to believe in young earth creationism like US does. Basically Soviet block countries would import jehovah's witnesses and fundamentalist as human rights concession but also to have people turn away from Orthodoxy. They would blast out the idea that Christians had to be fundies. They knew that the Orthodox were dominant in those countries numerically for historical reasons. It is not just the USSR but also for example the Bulgarian government and others trying to interfere with the Orthodox education process. There is even cases of it in Ethiopia with its communist government too.

>>14721929
Russia's whole history is comprised of various attempts being made to destroy their Orthodoxy whether it be by alien Western ideologies or invading armies. What's your point?

>>14722062
>It is theologemna just accepting evolution is
see >>14716382
Why do glorified saints refuse to even share a roof with evolutionists? Why does Fr. Seraphim's book get taught at Orthodox Seminaries? I am aware that there has not been a statement as to the dogma of creation or evolution but there is no way that someone can coherently affirm the words of the Fathers, which usefully are collected in Fr Seraphim's book with evolution.

>Why don't you draw from the writings of the holy Fathers and Orthodox theologians rather than heretics who aren't even Christian! A theory or viewpoint becomes fortified when it is confirmed by the Bible or by the holy Fathers of the Church.


>>14722073
True. That is why it is absurd that the other poster is supposing that promoting the same view of creation taught in detail by St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa is an attempt to subvert traditional Orthodoxy.

>>14722133
Citing a single church father doesn't mean much. The contemproary saint St. Porphyrios of Kafsokalivia believed in evolution as did St. Luke of Crimea. That also dosen't make evolution a necessary belief. They can teach him at a seminary. You can have some of the opinions he has. Boutineff even mentions contemporary positions and when saints like the Cappadocians are misued.

>>14722168
>A saint believed int evolution.
Can you prove that?

>>14722168
It's not a 'single church father' it's an entire book on the subject written by 2 of the Cappadocians that was never criticized or called into question by their contemporaries or later fathers.

Like you say though, a single Father's opinion isn't the be all and end all of the question. My primary question is how do you reconcile death before the fall, which is necessary for a standard darwinist model, with death being a result of Adam's transgression.

>>14722190

I think he is referring to Wounded by Love by St. Porphyrios. I can't comment about St. Luke of Crimea. I have had it recommended besides St. Seraphim of Sarov. One of the comments I remember was mentioned was that it mentions evolution.

>>14722190
>>14722190
He's pulling it out of his ass. St. Luke of Crimea, to be fair, didn't really understand evolution and didn't believe it was true science. He spoke positively of science which leads some people to assume that he believed in evolution by association.

>>14722216
Porphyrios believed in evolution? That’s a shame. I’m sure Sarov didn’t, of course.

>>14722229
>Darwinism, which declares that man, by means of evolution, has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead, has turned out to be merely a supposition, a hypothesis, which has become obsolete even for science. This hypothesis has been acknowledged as contradictory not only to the Bible, but to nature itself, which jealously strives to preserve the purity of each species, and knows of no transition even from a sparrow to a swallow. There are no known facts of a transition of an ape into a man

That is what St. Luke of Crimea said.

>>14722229
Shameful behavior, if true. It just goes to show how indoctrinated by materialism the modern west is.

>>14722194
Read Boutineff. He talks about what they are talking about in those their works. Try reading St. Maximos the Confessor for another look . If you want something contemporary try Gayle E. Woloschak’s The Compatibility of the Principles of Biological Evolution with Eastern Orthodoxy also comes to mind.

If you want a purely philosophical look at their metaphysics and how it connects to grounding anything at all try Theology as Revisionary Metaphysics: Essays on God and Creation by Robert W. Jenson. They are talking a whole different ball game then you are crediting them. Fr. Thomas Hopko has a whole podcast series on evolution too. There is a link to that below.

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/darwin_and_christianity_-_part_1


You don't have to stop being a young earth or much less an old earth creationist.

>>14722247
Is Boutineff a clergyman? Is he one of the holy Fathers? if not I have no need of him. The question of creation belongs to theology, not to science. I have no interest in any kind of scientific syncretism which you people love to push.

Show me where St Maximus supports evolution. don't just name drop a saint in defense of heresies. Show specifically where he supports it, or at least makes allowance for evolution.

I don't care about what essays Robert Jenson wrote, if he writes contrary to the established position of the Church, he is of no use.

>ancientfaith.com

>>14722247
Shameful behavior, my friend. Pushing despicable doctrines incompatible with dogma into the Church because of personal predilections towards a materialistic theory. Repent, please.

>>14722265
Boutineff is a priest actually. He teaches at a St. Vladmirs. Maxmius is important because he does exactly that. He seperates creation from science. As does Boutineff. The whole point is that the division exists and creation is not science it is theology. Maximus is also relevant because he like the Cappadocian is talking about state outside of existence in time when he talks about creation. The whole point is that there is no established position on science. There is one on creation and specifically the idea of existence here refering to everything occuring within time as being damaged at a metaphysical level.

>>14722237
St. Seraphim of Sarov speaks at length about the historicity of Adam and Eve and the fall. The saint clearly didn't believe in evolution, and it takes immense mental gymnastics to make it sound like he did.

>>14722282
Did death occur before Adam's transgression. If yes, you are wrong, if no how did Adam evolve?

>>14722282
Show me where St. Maximus does all this. I know you've read the scholarly papers which claim this but you have to show where St. Maximus has said these things.

>Cappadocian is talking about state outside of existence in time when he talks about creation

>Those who were too ignorant to rise to a knowledge of a God, could not allow that an intelligent cause presided at the birth of the Universe; a primary error that involved them in sad consequences. Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the origin of the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts, form, by their union, the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency to the strength of their mutual adhesion: a true spider's web woven by these writers who give to heaven, to earth, and to sea so weak an origin and so little consistency! It is because they knew not how to say In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

> Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency to the strength of their mutual adhesion

St. Basil refutes evolution in the 4th century

Adam did not evolve. Before the fall there was no such thing as change or time. Man (as totality) was in unity with being and with God. Waiting for the incarnation to occur as Maximos the Confessor says in the Ambigua. The logoi of all things reflected the Logos perfectly. When humanity fall into existence humans became created and such things as change were introduced. It is then when things began and history as we think of it occured. Concepts also appear then and no longer functioned as they should. We also can't know the nature of being itself at that time because we cannot know the essence of things. Even now we are limited.

I’d recommend the evolutionist fellow a little bit of Platonism, so he may cure his materialism.

>>14722300
>When humanity fall into existence humans became created and such things as change were introduced
ah origensim as if that hasn't been anathematized for 1600 years

>>14722307
The particualr persons did not fall. Only the image of man fell and was damaged. Origenism believes all souls exist before the fall.

>>14722311
>The particualr persons did not fall.
who teaches this?
>Origenism believes all souls exist before the fall.
yes but some later origenists taught that physical creation was a result of the fall, just as you said

>>14722300
>the prelapsarian state as uncreated immaterial stasis
Origen please stay dead

>>14722314
Maximos the Confessor

.>>14722314
No, that is not a feature of it. The later Origenists believed the fall created dyads of perfect forms with fallen material. The often kept the idea of discarded womb creation with Christ (a gnostic false one) as the perfect form of that.

>>14722318
>Maximos the Confessor
Where? Why do false teachers give names but not quotes or sources.
>No, that is not a feature of it. The later Origenists believed the fall created dyads of perfect forms with fallen material. The often kept the idea of discarded womb creation with Christ (a gnostic false one) as the perfect form of that.
Origenst Apocatastasis necessitates that the all things are restored to their static immaterial state just as you said
>When humanity fall into existence humans became created and such things as change were introduced

>>14722329
You are correct they go back to a single unity aganist their will. They believed all beings must be saved even they wanted not to be.

>>14722329
Ambiguum 7 is the place it starts. You can find it in the Paterlogia Gracae 91.1080a

>>14718756
I remember some Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox higher ups had a council in the 20th century and they found out that the only real difference between the Churches today was terminology, not teaching.
The split during Chalcedon was mostly socio-political and so holds no relevance for most people today.
Corruption is sadly in all churches, turning to Oriental Orthodoxy doesn't make it disappear, just keep in mind that even the highest forms of leadership in the Church are still just humans like you and me and aren't immune to sin and temptation. They are people who have taken on a heavy task.

>>14722345
Anon, I found Maximos teachings interesting. Never had heard about them before. Would you be willing to expound in his doctrine of the fall?

It is kinda a lot and this is a extremely gross simplification. I apologize for any loose words I write here that are bit off.

You kind have to understand his view of salvation and soteriology. Rather than place the dwelling of the soul in God at the end of linear time, he placed the end of time at the union of the soul and God. He gets this from gets this from (Ephesians 1:9-10) By love, in Jesus Christ, the fracturing of human nature is overcome, and harmony between God and man is established as well so that the union can occur. This also reverabates through all of existence itself.

According to the Confessor, it is only through love that man is shown to be truly in the image of God, for God is Love. For this reason before the fall humans had the image but not yet the likeness of Christ. Even had they not fallen they would have needed the incarnation to acquire the likeness of God and get forever closer to him and God. Further in these state they could contemplate all things and knew the way all being reflected God and the trinity. St. Maximus teaches that Adam and Eve were held together by qualities that are simple and without strife. Aka they existed in a different state of being that was outside of time. Whereas qualities that we grasp through concepts and experiences are always in tension and aganist each other in processes of becoming the prelapasiran was unity of being.It was not a static concept or form. Concepts work differently and reason functioned differently as well. Existence in time is an inverted unnatural order of that pre-lapsarian world. Likewise participation with Christ allows us to erupt back into being. Our suffering, for example, is a mockery of the reality we fall into and things are unrravelling at a metaphysical level because of the fall. A gross mockery of individuation that can be seen in the perfected likeness of Christ.

If you can try to get a copy of Maximos the Confessor by Andrew Louth. It is a good intro to him.

I apologize I am a bit sleepy and just came back from work. I should say that the individuation into conflicting objects and parts occured because of the fall. This is an inversion of the unity that awaits us in the likeness of Christ and even the prelapasrian state of being.

Here is a video by the foremost theologian, philosopher and translator of Maximos the Confessor. He is notoriously difficult to translate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbv6CqpVCu4

>evolution
Retroactively btfo by Rene Guenon.

is daddy jay dyer telling you to shill here or this there another reason palamiteposting has been so frequent recently? jay is a joke, got btfod by this crazy guy luc dauvin.

>>14722999
>jay dyer
He's an inconsequential pop-'theologian' YouTuber who's the 'Christian' version of angry Atheists arguing on the internet and calling it debating, what does he really have to do with anything related to the Church and one of it's most esteemed theologians?

>>14713174
It’s similar to the story in Indian traditions of someone who mistakes a coiled rope for a snake. It’s not like they’re literally seeing a snake—they’re just mistaking what they *do* see (the rope) for something they *don’t* see (a snake).

>>14723028
most of the palamiteposting is from teenagers who discovered jay dyer videos on yt

>>14723028
>>14723195
>4channel teenagers are being saved from heresy and degeneracy
Why is that such a bad thing?

>>14712245
https://discord.gg/hCjX58e

>>14713790
>angry God
t. Non-elect

>>14718602
Go away reddit midwit

>>14723370
fuck off jay

>>14723370
Those people just follow Jay, if tomorrow he would say he has chosen to become a hindu, the flock would follow.

>>14713706
Not him but it's a free fucking board
>you can't argue against other people's doctrines!! what if they agree with you!! My Church!!
Oh no is the inquisition going to get him?

>>14723710
People who follow Jay Dyer only found him because they were already interested in Orthodoxy. He's not exactly an e-celeb.

>>14723604
>>14723710
why is he so hated here? i've watched a couple of his videos to understand more about the basics of Orthodoxy and he seems fine.

>>14723780
Also, Orthodoxy could benefit from a "pop"-theologian. Dyer even has the blessing of a Metropolitan.

>>14723745
Then again I haven't read the rest of discussion so feel free to ignore this post.

>>14723788
him personally, he's an annoying eceleb. his thought is dishonest, likes to harp on "debate" and "discussion" as if those were meaningful, has a child's understanding of history, introduces his calvinist crap into apostolic christianity (presuppositionalism, treats church fathers like sola scriptura), into dumb conspiracies like "nazi super weapon pyramids of giza" and duginism. pic related, it was written by the man that mentored him in orthodoxy (now an apostate)

>>14723788
I don't actually hate him, I like his conspiracy content. But if I want to learn about orthodoxy I would rather watch some videos made by actual orthodox priests. And the thing about fans of content creators is that they tend to be annoying and sometimes cult like.
>>14723780
Fair enough, he is famous in niche circle of people, I found his videos while looking for videos about Spengler.

>>14723788
He is fine only catholics hate on him because he shit too much on them.

>>14723899
>I would rather watch some videos made by actual orthodox priests
What are some good channels by Orthodox priests?

>>14722534
so it makes sense to think of both adam and eve as androgynous in their prelapsarian condition like baader posited.
i'm aware that maximus critiqued the pre-conditioned existence of the individual human being; what did he say about it? what is before one is in the world?

>tfw everyone is too low iq and believe and actively discussion their illusions

>>14724083
Recently I have watched Father Spyridon, he dosen't go into philosohy or theology and his videos are bitesized, but I like his videos.

Could I as an Orthodox Christian maintain that man have a natural relation with the Logos, in the sense that Evagrius says it: “the leaven of the divinity who, in its goodness, has hidden itself in the unleavened lump of earth.”

>>14725299
DOnt know about orthodox christianity but it is clearly through the Intellect that man soars among divine intelligibles and attain/receives/identifies intellectual revelation

>>14724083
Fr. Deacon Ananias Sorem is an ancient philosophy professor but I guess he doesn't count because he's friends with and often does videos with Jay

bump

>>14725035
He focuses on the actual practice of faith. The actual lived Orthodox life. He is focusing on the most important stuff if anything by doing so.

Redpill me on the Old Believers, /lit/. Are they in communion with the Church Christ founded?

>>14728064
Old Rite are in communion with Eastern Orthodox. They have a liturgy like Old Believers. Old Believers themselves are not.

>>14728077
You would have to check the actual directory of Canonical Orthodox Bishops to check if they are or not.

Most Old Rite believe different things than Orthodoxy and some are not quite Christian anymore either. For example some believe the holy spirit is dead. Others have people who are pedophiles or reject for those adminstrative reasons. Many of them don't have priests and some don't believe in priests or sacraments anymore.

Some like the dyrniki believe you must pray through a hole in east part of your house.Some believe everyone must be a monk such as the Staropomortsy. Some are racists too but not the racism as seen in the US , different concepts of race they kinda put together.

>>14728108
Sounds interesting. Tell me more about the Old Rite, or where I can read about them.

There are also Western Rite Eastern Orthodoxy as well that people forget about.

>>14728178
Read Russia, Ritual, and Reform
The Liturgical Reforms of Nikon in the 17th Century by Paul Meyendorff. It discusses them with good citations.

I want to recommend Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy
Finding the Way to Christ in a Complicated Religious Landscape by Andrew Stephen Damick. It does a good job of describing Orthodox theological views in comparison to other theological views. Not finished with it yet though.