/lit/ - Literature

>>20406029
> Saint Faustina's Diary
If you want one on one talks between Jesus and a Saint, look no further. Includes phenomena such as ecstasies, seeing things nobody else could have seen, bilocation, and prophetic sayings to her.

I got into a fight a few years ago with an Orthodox friend of mine who said Saint Teresa’s mysticism amounts to female sexual stimulation or something like that. He ended up kicking the shit out of me but he doesn’t say those things in front of me anymore.

>>20406029
>St. Louis de Montfort
Is considered the forefront of Marian devotional theology. It's babies first Marian theologist and the last stages of it as well. Discusses other mystics in his writings, Such as "Secrets of the Rosary" and "Marian Devotion".

And I could go on and on with other Mystics, but wouldn't you want to look into reading the Bible first, then reading the Councils, then reading the Church doctors, before heading into the mystics?

>>20406029
Pseudo-Dionysius
The Cloud of Unknowing
Heinrich Seuse
Valentin Tomberg

>>20406062
>He ended up kicking the shit out of me but he doesn’t say those things in front of me anymore
I love male relationships so much

Eriugena
Marguerite Porete
Machtilde of Magdeburg
Hadewij of Antwerp
Jacob Boehme

>>20406078
Bump for tomberg. This guy needs to blow up on this board.

William of Ockam
John of Ruusbroec
Duns Scotus
Henri-Frederic Amiel
Novalis
Origen

>>20406062
Kek the orthodox do have good mystics though. St Symeon the New is great.

>>20406089
Based slav was right. Empowered by holy mysticism he beat your shit and emasculated you. You're lucky he wasn't a homo or you would have been buttraped.

Hildegard von Bingen
Meister Eckhart
Bernard of Clairvaux

>>20406078
>Valentin Tomberg
>>20406123
I have his Meditations On The Tarot, its so huge tho

>>20406171
It is pretty huge, but each of the letters is pretty self-contained, so it’s easy to take breaks and keep coming back to it.

>>20406189
Should i read the letters in order or is there any you recommend to start with?

>>20406202
You can read them in order or not. The Hermit is particularly good.

>>20406202
>>20406206
I disagree, there's definitely a progression of sorts from the first letters to later ones. The Magician should certainly be read first, it lays down the groundwork and prescribes several "best practices".

>>20406236
I suppose that’s fair. The Hermit is still great though, even out of sequence

>>20406029
A short list of what I like:
>St Paul of the Cross
>The Cloud of Unknowing by anon
>William Law
>St Saraphim of Savrov
>Philokalia, several authors
>Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan
>The Mirror of Simple Souls, Marguerite Porete
>Sayings of the Desert Fathers, anon

>>20406029
Read the Philokalia

>>20406123
>Tomberg
Just another new-ager. Wrote meditations on the symbology of Tarot cards; seemingly unaware that Tarot is a 16th century Italian card game for gambling, but played with 72 cartes. There is no symbolism in Tarot, even the 21 name-cartes are just named after sacred ideas, because they were recognizable to the largely Catholic playerbase.

>>20406029
Dante and Meister Eckhart

>>20406420
Filtered

>>20406420
he directly addresses that in the book, which yoi clearly haven't even skimmed

>>20406062
In as much as Teresa of Avila was just importing her people's mystical tradition of Kabbalah into Catholicism... Okay sure? But why? Because of the stuff about Jesus dicking her? That's literally what every single Catholic female mystic ever has said.

>>20406503
>Every single female catholic mystic ever
Do the orthodox even have any female mystics? I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Maybe they’re just reacting against a feminine spirituality

>>20406062
shameful you should have put the dear of God into the schismatic

>>20406078
>Pseudo-Dionysius
Really this
totally underappreciated in the west

>>20406576
Orthos aren't really big on serious feminine participation in their clerical side in general. They don't have nuns either, do they? And they're not very big on Mary like Catholics are.

>>20406029
I cannot recommend Dr. Ernst Schertel enough

Catherine's Dialogue is so far on a level of Ultra Kino that if any of you ever actually read it you will never forget it

>>20406142
Love how Eckhart said that Jesus' love bleeds out of him

>>20406773
They do have nuns and they're big on mary.
But where catholics have a separation between monk orders and the church this distinction doesn't exist in eastern orthodoxy.

>>20406817
they even have Sophia

>>20406773
They certainly do have nuns, I am just not aware of any that have made big contributions to their theological tradition

>>20406029
CORRECTION: **NOTABLE CATHOLIC MYSTIC WRITERS

>>20406968
Looks like that’s what you’re getting anyway, anon

>>20406123
>>20406420
Tomberg wasn't really trying to say that the tarot has any explicit magical properties or anything, he's just more looking at it as a series of symbolic images that show the authority of the world and in turn can reveal allegories about man's interactions with God.

He's also not New Age because he immediately starts the book by saying that any esotericism in his thought shouldn't make someone feel better than the rest of society, even though most new-age bullshit butters the reader up on becoming initiated into muh sekrit club

>>20406420
t. didnt read lol

What does /lit/ think of The Flowing Light of the Godhead?

>>20406576

There are countless female ascetics, Saints, and eldresses. None of them experience this blasphemous pornographic idea of a "feminine spirituality", since true spirituality is the same for all people, since God is the same for all people. If people have different "styles" of experiences, they're not having experiences of the same God.

There are no shortage of miracle-working female Saints in Orthodoxy - Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg comes to mind, as well as the various Abbesses recorded in Russia's Catacomb Saints, like Abbess Antonina https://russiascatacombsaints.blogspot.com/2010/12/29-abbess-antonina.html

None of the recordings of Orthodox female Saints have any notice of a separate "feminine spirituality" or the pornographic and sensual post-schism wackiness of Teresa of Avila or Marie Alacoque. Compare their lives to the pre-schism female Saints, like St. Mary of Egypt. It's night and day.

>>20406938

The biggest contributions that Nuns tend to make to the theological tradition, is adding another Saint to heaven, and leaving behind another witness to Christ's promise of deification to his followers. Leaving behind a body of writings is something secondary to the actual theological tradition of deification, and continuing the true worship of God.

Writing rational refutations is a male thing, like an intellectual war front. Women are unsuited to this type of mental combat, like how they are unsuited to physical combat. There are no female warrior Saints, because of this - but there are countless mother Saints, both spiritual mothers as nuns and as actual mothers, as mothers of Saints, like St. Augustine's mother, St. Monica, or the Virgin Mary.

>>20406029

Thomas Merton at some point was a Roman Catholic, but at a later point apostatised. Here's a reading of Eugene Rose's letter (prior to becoming Fr. Seraphim Rose to Thomas Merton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPlxSlHoDTs

>>20406104
What is the definitive print edition of Eriugena? He's a figure who gets brought up but there seems to be very little of his actual work available to readily read at least in English. Bessarion is the same way.

>>20407022
What do you think about Therese of Lisieux, anon?

>>20407022
> Writing rational refutations is a male thing
Chud, nobody here is talking about “rational refutations,” whatever that means. The thread is about mystic writing, and western women were pretty good at it

>>20407022
>Writing rational refutations is a male thing, like an intellectual war front. Women are unsuited to this type of mental combat, like how they are unsuited to physical combat.
your incel is showing larper

>>20406796
yes - it is a profound guide to the spiritual life as a whole.

>>20407052

Haven't heard of her, so I wouldn't be able to say anything without just giving my impressions based on brief googling.

>>20407100

>The thread is about mystic writing

If you simply didn't know that much "mystic writing" is in exposition of church doctrine, refutation of heresies, and contains refutations, then you should read more of the Church Fathers, and scripture.

>Chud

Have you ever seen that episode of South Park where the ski instructor starts calling Stan Marsh, Stan DARSH as if the person saying it thinks it sounds insulting, but it lands completely flat? That's the exact same energy that saying "Chud" gives off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EqipRH_itA

>>20407022
>the pornographic and sensual post-schism wackiness of Teresa of Avila or Marie Alacoque

What rubbish. Have you not read the Song of Solomon? And do you not understand the husband is a type of Christ, and the wife Christ's disciple?

Or do you also dismiss that text as pornographic and sensual?

>>20407271
Check out her book "Story of a Soul." It's fairly short.

>>20407022
> true spirituality is the same for all people
>writing rational refutations is a male thing, like and intellectual war front. Women are unsuited to this type of mental combat

>>20407292

Irrelevant. Song of Solomon doesn't say anything even remotely as insane as into wearing God's foreskin is a wedding ring, cutting out your heart to swap it with God's heart, carving God's name into your breasts, getting a literal physical sexual orgasm from God, or bloodletting after encountering God (which was a Frankish folk-romantic practise to do after you have had sex with your lover).

The Church Fathers are unanimous that passionate, material sex is a condescension to our fallen, animal state, and that Adam & Eve did not have this passion or faculty. All first-millenium reports of spiritual ecstasy, like St. Paul had, were sober and spiritual in nature. Only after the schism, and only in the west, did purely sensual elements like God-induced orgasm come into play, or even stigmata, which was completely unheard of in the 1st millenium.

If the first millenium Saints had pure, spiritual joy from God as a direct result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, why on earth would God bestow a lower form of animalistic pleasure, like an orgasm to his Saints, only after a great schism, and only to female Saints? It makes no sense at all.

>>20407326

Writing rational refutations is not a spiritual thing in and of itself, just like how armed combat is not a spiritual thing in and of itself. They are acts proper to the created human nature, which can be utilised for spiritual ends, but they are purely worldly activities, relevant to the temporary conditions of this fallen world. Utilising your natural, created gifts for spiritual ends is the universal dimension of this - what those natural created gifts are, is not universal, and outside of the realm of spirituality in and of itself.

This is a very simple truth. Otherwise, you'd have to say that people who are not gifted in worldly ways, are less spiritually capable than people who are gifted in worldly ways - but this is not true, and many of the most spiritually gifted people have been the least mentally or physically gifted, and there are many accounts of holy elders and eldresses who have been given supernatural gifts due to patiently enduring debilitating illnesses that rob them of their natural gifts.

>>20407346
Don’t waste your time, anon. It’s pointless.

>>20406127
>William of Ockam
Lmao. The person who single handedly destroyed the West. Without this bastard there is no Protestant rebellion, no Enlightenment, no French revolution, no liberalism.

>>20407022
>>20407022
>>20407346
Please stop lying about St. Teresa. Her "pornographic" mystical episode, she describes as follows:
>“In his hands, I saw a great golden spear, and at the iron tip there appeared to be a point of fire. This he plunged into my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he pulled it out I felt that he took them with it, and left me utterly consumed by the great love of God. The pain was so severe that it made me utter several moans. The sweetness caused by this intense pain is so extreme that one cannot possibly wish it to cease, nor is one's soul content with anything but God. This is not a physical but a spiritual pain, though the body has some share in it—even a considerable share.”

To describe this as "pornographic" is wholly deceitful, and such an interpretation is indicative of an unclean mind.

Besides, someone can only describe their mystical experiences with metaphors and analogies and symbols. It's impossible for them to directly translate it into day-to-day language, because such experiences are not a day-to-day phenomenon. So if someone uses orgasmic imagery to describe their ecstasy during a mystical experience, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. After all, God created the orgasm, he created human sexuality, and he even celebrates it in the Song of Solomon.

I hate talking to Orthodox, especially online, because we Catholics have nothing but respect for your traditions and rites, though we disagree with you, whereas you seem to hold this childish hatred for us. To me, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are like two parents who have gotten divorced. Are we, the children of these parents, now to hate each other, because some of us stayed with mother and the others went with father?

>>20408925
>>“In his hands, I saw a great golden spear, and at the iron tip there appeared to be a point of fire. This he plunged into my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he pulled it out I felt that he took them with it, and left me utterly consumed by the great love of God. The pain was so severe that it made me utter several moans. The sweetness caused by this intense pain is so extreme that one cannot possibly wish it to cease, nor is one's soul content with anything but God. This is not a physical but a spiritual pain, though the body has some share in it—even a considerable share.”
Sexual repression is one of the most obvious things to read in the writings of the uber religious, but this passage seems to have been produced by a Woman who was forced into celibacy as a child and whose mind was swimming with the genetic memory of human copulation that she had absolutely no way to make sense of.

Essentially, I suppose, today she would be a whore idolizing the penis; as her account is entirely sexual and her spirituality - whatever that means - is fixated entirely upon the act of her own penetration by a large and overpowering man.

>To describe this as "pornographic" is wholly deceitful, and such an interpretation is indicative of an unclean mind.
no, it's well demonstrated science.

>Besides, someone can only describe their mystical experiences with metaphors and analogies and symbols.
because the "experience" is based on nothing in reality and so cannot be relayed or reported upon using descriptive language for things in reality without inadvertently realizing that one is actually describing a thing in reality and not a magic.

>you orthodox
>whereas you seem to hold this childish hatred for us.
i'm not roman orthodox but even I recognize the catholic church has always been an obvious barbaric heresy based upon the misunderstanding of paul, via the heresy of marcion, and also various other key legal technical and logistic points on the running and operation of the imperial roman church.

>>20407330
daily reminder that most monks and nuns were forced into monastic life to disinherit them under the legal system of the day; they were always looking to play jokes on the institution that held them captive and play mind games on their captors in this kind of way,

to be able to say something totally perverse which the clergy would be forced to interpret, knowingly, as totally purist.

>>20408982
> Sexual repression is one of the most obvious things to read in the writings of the uber religious
Yet you recommended Mary of Egypt, a woman so guilt-ridden over having had le s*x that she spent the rest of her life as a naked hermit in the desert and didn’t interact with another human being till the day she died?

>>20409035
daily reminder that's false

>>20409077
>Yet you recommended Mary of Egypt, a woman so guilt-ridden over having had le s*x that she spent the rest of her life as a naked hermit in the desert a
No i didn't - i just jumped into the thread, I'm somebody else,

But that's cute as well, you know, it's the same sort of thing; placing such a high value on the act of something basic and integral to living creatures and developing a crisis complex over the thing.

If you ask me I think St. Hildegarde, I think it was, was the best saint of teenage girls sexuality; where she tells her parents to fuck off because god alone is her family. I'd love to carry her away.

>>20409084
ok I'll concede that it's only true about those in monasteries who were partly literate due to noble birth, whilst the others were paupers left on the doorstep and were probably grateful to be able to sleep under a roof.

It depends on time and place for the context, yes yes, but overall this is how it was.

>>20408925

>Spiritual pain
>Entrails ripped out by a spear

This kind of actual sensuality and sadomasochism is literally not found in the experiences of God of any pre-schism Saint, or Old Testament prophet. Even the ones who report the most exalted states of ecstasy, including types like St Symeon the New Theologian, or the Egyptian Fathers, none of them reported any physical pain in direct experiences of God. This is literally spiritual sado-masochism. If you compare this to any first-millenium Saint's experiences, this obviously demonic.

You know what else is demonic? Stigmata. It has never happened until after the schism, and only in the Roman Catholic church. If RCs have the same spirituality as the 1st millenium Church, why did this change?

> After all, God created the orgasm, he created human sexuality, and he even celebrates it in the Song of Solomon.

Yes, and it should stay in the realm of human, fleshly sexuality. No-one in the scriptures, or in the first millenium of the Church, has ever described an actual experience of God as something sexual. Only literal degenerate tranny coomers interpet having "eros for God" as sexual, when eros in that context means desiring to be present with God.

>To me, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are like two parents who have gotten divorced. Are we, the children of these parents, now to hate each other, because some of us stayed with mother and the others went with father?

Have you literally never had a psychotic ex, who tried to pretend like nothing happened, and tried to get back together with you? Who, whenever you tried to get them to see their mistakes, just says platitudes like "We both made mistakes, we're just miscommunicating, we're talking at cross purposes but really saying the same thing, I'm sorry for making logistical errors" to avoid responsibility for ever doing anything wrong? It's obvious that a psycho ex who is talking like that, has literally no intentions whatsoever of looking at themselves, and their history, or even YOU and your history, to discover who was actually in the wrong, and who needs to own up to their mistakes, and repent of them. If they risked actually trying to hold you accountable, it would be obvious they have literally nothing on you - and it's themselves that are to blame.

Those types of psycho exes will gaslight the shit out of you to try get back to you, and the only way to stay safe from them is to ignore them with all due prejudice.

Frankly, I respect the RCs that outright call Orthodox heretics more than your "desperate ex" group that try to honey-talk their way into a false reunion. At least they have enough principles to believe they are exclusively correct, even if they are wrong. Saul, fanatical for a false truth can become Paul - but nothing can help Pilate, who doesn't care if there is truth.

>>20409127
>This kind of actual sensuality and sadomasochism is literally not found in the experiences of God of any pre-schism Saint, or Old Testament prophet. Even the ones who report the most exalted states of ecstasy, including types like St Symeon the New Theologian, or the Egyptian Fathers, none of them reported any physical pain in direct experiences of God. This is literally spiritual sado-masochism. If you compare this to any first-millenium Saint's experiences, this obviously demonic.
>You know what else is demonic? Stigmata. It has never happened until after the schism, and only in the Roman Catholic church. If RCs have the same spirituality as the 1st millenium Church, why did this change?
this is hilarious,

You forget that sado-masochism was integral to Christianity with the invention of Martyrdom, and the general notion that "suffering is good", slaves obey thy masters, etc.

Hair-shirts and so on, walking barefoot for no reason but to feel pain; this was always part of the inclination of the zealot - self-abasement for crimes real or imagined 'or' just to get fame.

>>20409139

Are you retarded? Asceticism and undergoing voluntary suffering and self-denial to disdain the things of this life =/= The direct experience of the uncreated God.

The first is voluntary suffering of the created person. The second is the direct experience of the uncreated God. They are not even remotely close identical things, and impossible to mistake for each other.

Besides, of you actually read any accounts of martyrdoms, you'd also know that in many cases of the martyrdoms the Saints undergoing martyrdom experienced no pain during so. This is consistent with accounts of Orthodox Saints feeling no cold when they are outside in the snow - but in fact being completely warm, like the Shamordino Nuns martyred under the Soviets, who survived being forced to kneel outside in a blizzard, without protective clothing.

>>20409127
St Sebby was pre-schism tho

>>20409176
>in many cases of the martyrdoms the Saints undergoing martyrdom experienced no pain
And what? The human body can be trained to tolerate extremes, it's called endurance and it's not magical; the conflation of these things is the error of the early christians who were obsessed with fasting because they were enraptured by the science of a thing that they didn't understand and tried to make sense of with primitive concepts. Or by the same logic the Roman Army or the Spartan Army were all magical beings because they were trained to ignore pain and deprivation of food and water.

>Are you retarded? Asceticism and undergoing voluntary suffering and self-denial to disdain the things of this life =/= The direct experience of the uncreated God.
Yeah exactly, except you add jewish copper age monkey laws to the science and philosophy and come out with mental illness from having physical and material science tethered to the strange backwards religions.

> The second is the direct experience of the uncreated God.
>uncreated
so you're a gnostic i guess, ok.

I don't know why you want to ignore the demonstrable facts of voluntarily pain and the pursuit of pain as being considered pious. The act of undertaking a pilgrimage or a hajj is largely undertaken to force the body into extreme states of deprivation and to endure it and then conflate the endurance with it being a third party god or magical entity bestowing a blessing rather than a fundamental reality of the body itself.

>>20409176
for context: it's known that people living miserable lives tend to seek out great escapes of that life by suicide or tend to engage in self harm to show signs of their inner distress, or for sympathy beggars were known to mutilate themselves, and so on.

It's not really a shock to find that people living in terrible societies do these things to themselves.

>>20409300

>atheism

Why are you even posting ITT? You're an atheist. Nothing you say matters here.

>>20409365
>You're an atheist. Nothing you say matters here.
lol ok idolator, way to claim that your specific variety of heathen death cult has a monopoly on the concept of divinity.

actually i think .. technically .. 'your' religion would be classed as devil worship as you deny the material creation in favor of the words of mortals 'and' you call Gods most demonstrably divine Masterwork; the natural sexual appetite of the human body, an evil thing. you homosexual priest, you.

>>20409127
> described an actual experience of God as something sexual
Song of Solomon can be read typologically as describing the relationship between Christ and his Church. There, much Romantic and sensual imagery is used. Nothing I see in St. Teresa's experience directly implies sex anyway. That's just a dirty-minded interpretation. As I said before, mystical experiences are of such a quality that they cannot be described without metaphor, allegory, and symbolism. Besides, it's simply not true that there is only one uniform mystical experience. The mystical experience of St. John when he wrote the Apocalypse and saw all sorts of dragons and wars is radically different to that of St. Paul, who only saw a 'blinding light.'

>this obviously demonic.
Really? Have you read any of St. Teresa's writings? Do demons write things like pic related?

>Frankly, I respect the RCs that outright call Orthodox heretics more than your "desperate ex" group that try to honey-talk their way into a false reunion
The "desperate ex" Catholics are right. We do not have any substantial theological disagreements, apart from the Papacy. Some will say that Divine Simplicity vs Palamism is a major theological dispute, but there are Orthodox such as David Bentley Hart who accept Divine Simplicity and Catholics (mostly in the Byzantine rite) who lean towards Palamism. Pope John Paul II for example expressed admiration for Palamism and Hesychasm. Both positions are acceptable in both churches. Then there is the filioque -- but the disagreement on that is more semantic than anything else. So again, our only major disagreement is the papacy.

>Only literal degenerate tranny coomers
You seem to have a Gnostic view of sexuality. Sexuality isn't inherently bad; only the perversion of sexuality is bad. Eating isn't inherently bad, but if you eat shit you are perverting the act of eating, so you are doing something bad. It's the same thing.

>>20409509
>Really? Have you read any of St. Teresa's writings? Do demons write things like pic related?
HONESTLY?? YES. That's the kind of mentality of any person, ESPECIALLY any christian, who has lived an evil shitty life of the worst possible kind and then pretended that they're not culpable for all their evil deeds because"they accepted jesus into (their) life".

That truly is the devils work right there, and god help y if you think people who espouse such things aren't the worst human beings around you - most likely to do the worst of crimes and think nothing of it - for miles and miles.

>>20409509
>As I said before, mystical experiences are of such a quality that they cannot be described without metaphor, allegory, and symbolism.
as i replied to you earlier, refuting this point,
>because the "experience" is based on nothing in reality and so cannot be relayed or reported upon using descriptive language for things in reality without inadvertently realizing that one is actually describing a thing in reality and not a magic.

just saying.

closing your eyes to gods creation of logic and reality is the first step into hell, sebaste.

>>20406029
Edith Stein

>>20409840
>Stein

>>20409565
Oh come on. It doesn't sound demonic at all to me. You're trying to find something wrong with it so you're projecting this stereotype you have of a specific type of person and pretending this is what the quote is refering to. It's a bit of a reach, don't you think? You are describing some haughty and shameless person who uses God as an excuse. In my opinion, I can find nothing that indicates such a thing in it. What St. Theresa is describing seems to me to be demonic thoughts of self-doubts and despair which are but perversions of humility and serve to drive you away from God, not bring you closer. Thoughts that beset the truly humble, who set out on such mysticism, for it has been repeatedly observed that the demons will flock to men only when they seriously undertake their devotion.

>>20406062
He's a pleb. The mystical experience is the ultimate sexual stimulation.

Sor Juana.

Eleven quotes from Edith Stein:

1.”And when night comes, and you look back over the day and see how fragmentary everything has been, and how much you planned that has gone undone, and all the reasons you have to be embarrassed and ashamed: just take everything exactly as it is, put it in God’s hands and leave it with Him.”

2. “Only the person blinded by the passion of controversy could deny that woman in soul and body is created for a particular purpose…woman is destined to be wife and mother. Both physically and spiritually, she is endowed for this purpose.”

3. “Do not accept anything as the truth if it lacks love. And do not accept anything as love is it lacks the truth. One without the other is a destructive lie.”

4. “Women naturally seeks to embrace that which is living, personal and whole. To cherish, guard, protect, nourish and advance growth is her natural maternal yearning.”

5. “Each woman who lives in the light of eternity can fulfill her vocation no matter if it is in marriage, in a religious order or in a worldly profession.”

6. “Let go of your plans. The first hour of your morning belongs to God.Tackle the day’s work that He charges you with and He will give you the power to accomplish it.”

7. “The world doesn’t need what women have, it needs what women are.”

8. “One cannot desire freedom from the Cross when one is especially chosen for the Cross.”

9. “The woman’s soul is fashioned as a shelter in which other souls may unfold.”

10. “The love of Christ knows no limits. It never ends; it does not shrink from ugliness and filth.”

11. “If anyone comes to me, I want to lead them to Him.”

I was not aware that she was a mystic?

>>20409583
I’m just saying you should be careful about ascribing the demonic to people like St. Teresa who dedicated their life to serving Jesus. Read the prayers she wrote: demons do not write such things. Christ said you will not be forgiven for blaspheming the Holy Ghost, when the Pharisees accused him of being demon possessed.
By the way, the Bible itself uses sexual symbolism when describing how the Holy Ghost “came upon Mary” and “overshadowed her” and this caused Christ to be born in her womb. The Bible is using human metaphors for conception even though we know that’s not how it actually happened. So again, there’s nothing inherently wrong with sexuality being used as a metaphor or symbol for mysticism, not to mention the fact that St. Teresa’s mysticism wasn’t sexual unless you interpret it in a dirty minded fashion.

>>20410128
Based Teresa defender

>>20410049
>it has been repeatedly observed that the demons will flock to men only when they seriously undertake their devotion.
yeah,
AKA consequences of the past actions which they've refused to acknowledge or even apologize for. This is the only type of person I've ever seen who makes that complaint - and they're usually talking about being shunned by people who dislike them for the things they've done "in their past" - as if they don't even realize the hubris of what they're doing; rubbing salt into the wounds, by playing the hollow piety act.

"when the devil reminds you of your past" sounds exactly like something a Woman would say, and the "laughter," to laugh in the face of people with grievances against you; it's pure delusion coming from a position of deep unrepentant real-world vice which is being sought to evade consequence from in the arms of gullible white knight church-goers.

i don't think it's a reach at all, it's verbatim what she's saying and thinking - could you imagine any other position that would cause you to say what she said? and who would the 'devil' be in that instance in the first place? it's even a tacit accusation that the claimant seeking for redress of wrongs is a 'witch', and that's exactly the era she was living in.

In case you failed to notice this is exactly the type of person who's attracted to the church because they 'are' a "sinner," and fear the consequences of their own actions. Actual virtue is an unknown to these types; as a disposition of 'actual' goodness does not result in being disliked by anybody.

>>20410128
>ascribing the demonic to people like St. Teresa
I don't believe in such things in the first place, but it's her who is ascribing 'the demonic' to anybody who criticizes her for her deeds.

In every real-world sense of false accusers and 'real evil' presenting iself as supreme innocence then you could say that her or this mentality, rather, is what the 'devil' is when you find people sayin and instigating such things.

Witch trials aside, the false accusation of a woman is commonplace and most men cannot seem wrap their brains around what is obviously happening in front of them in such scenarios.

>>20410128
>unless you interpret it in a dirty minded fashion.
nonsense. The Lord sees all. If I were her abbot I'd have her walk the naked walk of shame and beat her bottom with a cane until she confessed. Then I'd make an altar boy out of her, if you know what i mean.

meh, church was better when we could prostitute the nuns. rip temple of venus.

>>20410153
>AKA consequences of the past actions which they've refused to acknowledge or even apologize for. This is the only type of person I've ever seen who makes that complaint - and they're usually talking about being shunned by people who dislike them for the things they've done "in their past" - as if they don't even realize the hubris of what they're doing; rubbing salt into the wounds, by playing the hollow piety act.
Again, you're projecting something else unto this that was not the original intent. This fact was pointed out already by Desert Fathers.
"when the devil reminds you of your past" sounds exactly like something a Woman would say, and the "laughter," to laugh in the face of people with grievances against you; it's pure delusion coming from a position of deep unrepentant real-world vice which is being sought to evade consequence from in the arms of gullible white knight church-goers.
She is speaking of laughing in the face of the devil, not people, because of the comedy of the epitome of sin accusing you of unworthiness.
i don't think it's a reach at all, it's verbatim what she's saying and thinking - could you imagine any other position that would cause you to say what she said? and who would the 'devil' be in that instance in the first place? it's even a tacit accusation that the claimant seeking for redress of wrongs is a 'witch', and that's exactly the era she was living in.
I don't think you understand the context. The Devil interacts with you in countless ways. Mainly, he implants sinful temptations and thoughts into you. She is not calling other people the devil, she is calling those sinful parts of her mind the workings of the devil.
>In case you failed to notice this is exactly the type of person who's attracted to the church because they 'are' a "sinner," and fear the consequences of their own actions. Actual virtue is an unknown to these types; as a disposition of 'actual' goodness does not result in being disliked by anybody.
There is no mention of being disliked by anybody, only disliked by yourself. She is speaking of self-hatred here, of feelings of despair and unworthiness in regards to God's grace, which is certainly sinful for who are you to question God? It's a way of rejecting God, don't confuse it with genuine humility.

>>20410128
>hen describing how the Holy Ghost “came upon Mary” and “overshadowed her” and this caused Christ to be born in her womb. The Bible is using human metaphors for conception even though we know that’s not how it actually happened.
WHAAAAAAAT
DOTH YE DOUBT THE WORD OF GOD??!!?

>>20408925
Jesus wept, anon. I believe women, and I believe Teresa had an erotic mystical experience

>>20409084
Orthodox nunneries were detention centers for the relatives of murdered emperors or co-conspirators who needed to be sent away

>>20410203
>accusing you of unworthiness.
she's talking as a Woman about judgment of her 'as' a Woman. This is a common common common thing.

You're using the phrase 'projecting' a lot but I'm reading what she's actually saying and noticing massive stark parallels between everybody else who has or would say the same thing; whereas you seem intent on projecting some 'otherworldly' meaning into it.

>She is speaking of self-hatred here, of feelings of despair and unworthiness in regards to God's grace, which is certainly sinful for who are you to question God?
>self-hatred
This is someone speaking with a guilty conscience; again if a person had done no wrong or made amends for the wrong they had done, then they wouldn't be fostering unbearable guilt over anything - a virtuous person would never say these things; tey would never pretend that a critique was possessed by the devil, they would never laugh at somebody with a grievance, etc., this is evil and stupid behavior coupled with low cunning reliant on the onlooker taking the speakers side simply because the speaker was a Woman.

This is the dynamic itself.

>She is speaking of laughing in the face of the devil, not people,
She's already equated her idea of what the devil is with people who remind her "of her past", and remind her that she's guilty of XYZ. To her, someone who "reminds her of her past" is the devil.

Is that the Devil? No. If anything at all that's called Justice that she's trying to push away.

Again a person who had done nothing wrong would never feel this way; it's entirely the narrative of a guilty conscience which is caught in the act of deflection of criticism.

albeit centuries later ha

>deflection of criticism.
and knowing most common Women it'd be the most mild egotistical nothing-criticism you could even imagine. Based upon what color shoes she wore one day.

>>20410134
>Based Teresa defender
you misphrased
>lowly base degraded white knight cuck-cage wearing pussy sucking pederast white-frocked sycophant

>>20410232
is there a way you think to go back in time and take a job in such a place? I wouldn't mind hanging out with Princesses and Widows and hosing them down in their prison cells.

>>20410280
Closest you can get is probably watching "women in prison" exploitation genre films while reading Byzantine history

>>20410280
WITH BYZANTINE FLAMETHROWERS HAHAHAHA

>>20410266
she's talking as a Woman about judgment of her 'as' a Woman. This is a common common common thing.
No she's not. She's talking as a mystic.
>You're using the phrase 'projecting' a lot but I'm reading what she's actually saying and noticing massive stark parallels between everybody else who has or would say the same thing; whereas you seem intent on projecting some 'otherworldly' meaning into it.
I am applying a framework of Christianity, specifically the belief in demonic influence over the mind: that sinful thoughts and temptations are demonic in origin. If you view it this way, what she's saying becomes very clear. Without this context I can understand how you would interpret her as calling other people the devil, but that is not what she is doing. She's not battling the devil as personified in other individuals in her wordly life, as those who accuse. No, she is battling the devil in a more indirect way, inside her own mind. The devil and God are engaged in a battle over your soul, and to be able to direct yourself towards God, it is necessary to identify the devil in your mind.
>She's already equated her idea of what the devil is with people who remind her "of her past", and remind her that she's guilty of XYZ. To her, someone who "reminds her of her past" is the devil.
Again, no she hasn't. It is you who is making this equation. All she said was "when the devil reminds you of your past". This does not refer to other people coming up and reminding you of a certain past thing, it refers to you suddenly remembering some sin, on your own, as a result of the devil.
>Again a person who had done nothing wrong would never feel this way; it's entirely the narrative of a guilty conscience which is caught in the act of deflection of criticism.
To feel that you are blameless and perfect is a terrible pride, the chief among the sins, while its counterpart, humility, is chief among the virtues. A deep sense of humility has always been central for the saints. What is happening here is the devil perverts humility, which can manifest in justified self-doubt, into ungodly self-doubt that really doubts God by proxy.

>>20410266
wtf is wrong with you, anon? get help

>>20410294

>>20410320
>>20410319
i'msorry man I've made my point beautifully already and you're just in denial over the obvious.

I can't take your poor formated text reply a second time.

>. All she said was "when the devil reminds you of your past". This does not refer to other people coming up and reminding you of a certain past thing, it refers to you suddenly remembering some sin, on your own, as a result of the devil.
so she was talking about something different other than the million other people you can walk up to in the street and hear this exact same blame/deflection from, yeah, right. gotcha.

don't believe a word of it. But I will say that sexless monks may have lacked worldy experience to put two and two together and notice this obvious thing, but you have no such excuse but false pretense at innocence yourself.

now i'm wondering what evil crimes you're running from in your own past, anon.. because people don't make such excuses from a clean conscience.

>>20410266
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
[7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
[8] And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
[9] And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
[10] When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
[11] She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

>>20410324
Finally a religion I feel roped in by

>>20410319
>To feel that you are blameless and perfect is a terrible pride, the chief among the sins, while its counterpart, humility, is chief among the virtues. A deep sense of humility has always been central for the saints. What is happening here is the devil perverts humility, which can manifest in justified self-doubt, into ungodly self-doubt that really doubts God by proxy.
This is a nonsense.

If a person has done wrong then they have done wrong; the notion of holding up people who were broken enough to commit great crimes in the first place; valuing them over someone who had done no wrong, is one of the strangest aspects of this 'confessional religion'.

Some people are raised better or are just are better mentality than to spend their entire life as a fucking animal, anon. And as one such person I find it disgusting to be preached at by people who have done terrible things and shrugged it off because they bothered to show up a church one day.

>No, she is battling the devil in a more indirect way, inside her own mind. The devil and God are engaged in a battle over your soul, and to be able to direct yourself towards God, it is necessary to identify the devil in your mind.
YES. I agree with this. And it says to me that if a person is (doing the thigns I already mentioned) that they're far from having attained a good and amicable disposition where they can not be vindictive or fear over their past; by saying such deflective things in the first place it demonstrates to me that she was not of such a disposition at all.

>. All she said was "when the devil reminds you of your past". This does not refer to other people coming up and reminding you of a certain past thing, it refers to you suddenly remembering some sin, on your own, as a result of the devil.
No, anon. If you did something that you feel guilty of then YOU did it, you weren't possessed by anybody. This is ultimate deflection and evasion of blame which is the very opposite of contrition in any court setting.

Either way you cut it.

yes another poster who belongs in a mental asylum

>>20410340
that's more a comment on the shit society of Judea than anything else to be honest; if he'd said this in a civilized place he would've been buried under a whole heap of rocks.

>>20410392
who? The religious guy preaching schizophrenia as a positive thing, or the guy refuting everything he says?

>>20410423
You

>>20410436
lol see, that was dishonest. You had no reply to anything I said but look, before I leave you, think about how you were just forced to actually attempt deception; to sin, in order to try to dparage the logical points that were made. Then ask yourself how likely it is that your position can be anywhere near that of Virtue (or 'God') if you have to sin to defend this religion of yours.

You wouldn't desire to be complicit in lies and deception to honor the memory of a dead idol, out of some misplaced form of pride, against that of actual Virtue; which surely you realize any God wants of you, if you were on the right track.

duh.

see ya later.

>>20410373
[1/2]
You're not the same anon, right? The previous poster said he wasn't going to post any more and I don't know why he would change his mind on that.
>If a person has done wrong then they have done wrong; the notion of holding up people who were broken enough to commit great crimes in the first place; valuing them over someone who had done no wrong, is one of the strangest aspects of this 'confessional religion'.
>Done no wrong.
No one is perfect, anon. The only sinless man who ever lived was Jesus Christ. Perhaps you can even get somewhat close to it, but moral perfection is not possible in this life. This is the point of humility.
You seem preoccupied with notions of great crimes. Who mentioned such a thing? A sin mustn't be something committed against other people.
>Some people are raised better or are just are better mentality than to spend their entire life as a fucking animal, anon. And as one such person I find it disgusting to be preached at by people who have done terrible things and shrugged it off because they bothered to show up a church one day.
We're not speaking about living life as an animal. I don't know where you're getting this idea. Even a saint who gives all his possessions to the poor and treats every man as if he were himself, would have sins, and would have sinned in the past, and could be targeted by the devil like what is described by Saint Theresa. If you truly have done some great evil, repentance takes fervent contrition and a profound and deep sense of regret and shame. If you shrug it off, that means you do not truly regret it. Attending mass won't help you in that case.
YES. I agree with this. And it says to me that if a person is (doing the thigns I already mentioned) that they're far from having attained a good and amicable disposition where they can not be vindictive or fear over their past; by saying such deflective things in the first place it demonstrates to me that she was not of such a disposition at all.
Where do you get the idea that Theresa did something evil? Is there something I'm not aware of? Anyway, you're reading way too much into a short paragraph. She is not saying you should have no lingering shame and hatred of a sin you have committed in the past, but simply to ignore the devil's attempts at making you rebuke God's gifts to you.

>>20410373
>>20410504
>No, anon. If you did something that you feel guilty of then YOU did it, you weren't possessed by anybody. This is ultimate deflection and evasion of blame which is the very opposite of contrition in any court setting.
She is not speaking of possession here. Again, you are repeatedly misrepresenting in your own mind what she is trying to say, and I don't understand why you are so adamant that just this saint, for whatever reason, is supposed to say what you want her to. She is, I repeat, refering to the devil reminding you of pasts misdoings to create a neurotic sense of unworthiness: "Oh woe, I am so unworthy! I have sinned against my own body! I am a wretch, a damnable creature, utterly contemptable. I do not deserve You, Lord, leave me! I hate myself, abandon me to Hell where I belong. Though You have chosen me, You are mistaken. I cannot accept Your Will for me." And so on, and so forth, repeat ad nauseam. This is ungodly because it doubts God.

Really, I do not think I can make this any clearer. I don't see the point in continuing this, unless there is something else you want to know. I don't want to derail the thread anymore. I was very high quality.