Conversation between the protestants and the orthodox catholics
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:43:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Conversation between the protestants and the orthodox catholics
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Conversation between the protestants and the orthodox catholics  (Read 2089 times)
Georg Ebner
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 408
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2022, 02:24:26 AM »

As far as classical learning goes, it just was not as valued in the East, even by those who were well-educated. St. Gregory Palamas knew Plato and Aristotle, but the main thrust of his response to Barlaam in the Triads was that it is better to study the Fathers and learn the spiritual life than it is to learn science. Orthodox today still value classical learning for the education of children; there is an Orthodox classical school near me and I recently read a story about another one that opened in Pennsylvania. So I would not say that the Greeks were totally ignored in the East, but in spiritual terms we tend to read them more through the Fathers who knew them (and I have more examples I could give than just St. Gregory Palamas, if you are interested), because they baptized their wisdom.
As You have - contrary to me - knowledge of the eastern Fathers i want to ask You a question: The de facto faithless theologicans at the public universities here usually do, as if the Fathers were alltogether so narrow-minded to believe in inSpiration in a rather strict sense (verbally aso.). Just ORIGENES being "critical". But apart from e.g. the still useful 4tiers-scheme of EUSEBIUS/Caesarea (or His perfect critics of Revelation) i have never found a Father claiming this - have You? Surely They believed in the HOLY SPIRIT leading or being the Church, but inspiring the different scriptures of the Bible?
As far as i know the rationalists of Scholasticism were the first ones to debate the exact extent of inSpiration (and even THOMAS/Aquino's The HOLY SPIRIT as auctor and the human writers as instrumenta is not as clear as it appears at first glance).

     I've seen that the Church Fathers are pretty uniform in considering the Bible to be fully inspired. The important thing to understand is that they did not generally follow a dialectic of literal vs. figurative; in the patristic understanding there is always a spiritual sense, but invoking that is not meant to cast doubt on the literal reading; rather those are things that exist side by side. You have some instances of Church Fathers reading passages in a deliberately non-literal fashion, like St. Gregory of Nyssa suggesting that God did not actually kill all of the firstborns of Egypt. But the concept that it's not fully inspired would still be quite alien to him.
But does Your example of the allegorical sense of St.GREGOR/N. (or the Alexandrine School in general) not absolutely prove my thesis?: The Church - and thus the Bible - being [fulfilled by] The HOLY SPIRIT - yes; but not lecturing, that the scriptures were dictated by HIM mechanistically to human marionettes.
By the way: Interestingly the Tridentinum taught, too, that the imPression of THE SON on HIS human audience was another possible origin. (Quasi all bioGraphers forget unfortunately, that one's fame in later times is part of that person's personality, just like its shadow.)

     I think you are quite right here. Synergy between the works of God and man are key to building the Church. That is why St. Paul says "we are labourers together with God" (1 Cor. 3:9). The Son of God unified His divinity to a human nature, that humanity could be redeemed and adopted into sonship of the most high God. This understanding is key to how we see the interaction between humanity and the divine; the saints (and this includes those who wrote scripture) do God's will, not because they are mere tools of God, but because they are attuned to the will of God and their hearts seek Him.
Well, something like the quoted St.PAUL (or St.JOHN's cooperatores veritatis) is nowadays often abused.
In fact a homo religiosus is neither a willless marionette, nor a cold technician. Let us just look at poets: RIMBAUD or MALLARME were only capable to achieve anything, when They put aside Their boundless poetoLogy of THE SPIRIT leading Their pencil; on the other side it's ridiculous, when the cold classicists mean, that poetry is nothing else than capable technics of free men (in that case MARLOWE, for example, would have been a better poet than SHAKESPEARE...).
A homo spiritualis is someone, who gets overwhelmed by the Graces and reacts afterwards in a settled condition (not cold, but cool).

     What you describe is very similar to the Orthodox concept of "dispassion", which is not about being devoid of passions, but rather not being controlled by them. Human artistry and creativity have value, but they should be used in service of God. I recently have been reading "Death to the World", which is a punk zine about Orthodox content. It's very interesting, because it shows how the punk ethos lines up quite well with Orthodox ideas about the world. And indeed the saints have a certain honesty and reality about them, much like was always the goal of the punks. I've never been very interested in punk, but it demonstrates that people can come to Christ from unlikely places, and that it is not necessary for that process to wipe out our individuality.
That "dispassion" sounds terribly like the ataraxia of the awful Stoa - but GOD-given geniality in prophecy/poetry/painting/... is a beatific "mania" (PLATO)! Just, that even the romantics express it afterwards in their works, not during their adventures; the classics are the ideal combination of hot romanticism (content) and cold classicism (form), which is caused by a remaining selfAwareness.
Your "should be used in service of God" can also be understood either in a very correct way or not: On the one hand we have still the gnostical/anthropotheistical "EnLightenment", which claims, that art should lecture or entertain mankind (as the new pseudoGOD) - but that results only in worthless AgitProp or shallow vanity; since romantics we could know, that l'art pour l'art! On the other hand the aestheticists forgot, that the Musae are independent from the homo, but that the pulchrum is not independent from the bonum and the verum and their common origin.
Those "punks" are not more than the worthless endProduct of a self-idolizing society, which is at its very end. What began ~1000 years ago not without some glamour, will have ended with such scum.
"The modern do not hope, but take refuge in utopical fictions; do not believe, but take refuge in idiotic systems; do not love, but take refuge in holdless sentimentalism." (GOMEZ DAVILA)


     From what I understand, the Stoics sought to wipe out emotion, and therein lies their problem. I am reminded of a certain Stoic philosopher who heard his son had died, and reasoned that he should not be sad because his son was a mortal man and he knew that he would die someday. Sorrow over the loss of your loved ones is something that should be respected and cherished, but it should not overtake you and lead you to act in ungodly ways.

     Likewise, I agree that attempts at didactic art are generally worthless. This is the basic reason that most Christian movies and television shows are terrible; they try to push a message and the art suffers as a result. The relationship between art and God, much like any work, should be organic and follow naturally from a legitimate personal commitment rather than forced into place as part of a rigid, wooden framework.

     Indeed, the punk movement as a whole was nihilistic and self-destructive, and the men behind Death to the World freely acknowledge as much. Until they found Christ, they wasted themselves in a meaningless rejection of a shallow and materialistic society. Orthodox Christianity was significant to them because it gave shape and purpose to their rebellion, and gave them something legitimate to strive for. The world today is founded in false dialectics, which have the effect of distracting us from what really matters and encourages us to waste our energy on foolish and empty things. To legitimately follow Christ requires us to learn to ignore these false dialectics and focus on what matters more than anything.
Ad mortem: We must fail, because on the one hand "Only GOD is worth thinking about." (PLATO), on the other hand "Our speaking is trivial, as it cannot be permanently about death.": Another's mastery and our own misery would each require our unlimited attention. Living is nothing else than dying, because all ob-jects destroy the entelechia of a freshBorn. As a conSequence of having lived together with "brother death" a reflective person can indeed not be overwhelmed by him. Although we know, that "the most natural thing on earth" is not natural, but in some way our fault. The music of MOZART (all of it, not just His Requiem) is unreached in that aspect, i would say.

Ad artem:  Non-westRomanCatholics can often not understand spirits like MONTAIGNE, DESCARTES, SHAKESPEARE, WINCKELMANN, HAMANN (or once more MOZART, also BRUCKNER) for their bigotry despite their obvious frivoltry (and vice versa). Even more irritating, that it were not only few exceptional spirits, but the cath. nations in general: the French, Italians, West&South-Germans and even the infamously "severe" Spaniards with their inClination to distance themselves shamefully from their belived faith (cf. CERVANTES, GRACIAN). What those nonUnderstanders do not take into account is the original sin!
Does anyone, who is seriously preaching (like our protestants), believe in it? (GOMEZ DAVILA: "It would be interesting to research, whether any sermon has not resulted in murder.") Or any self-declared "Christian artist"? Really?? Really???
You know, of course, what catholic means: It includes all ways of GOD to man, thus also all real art is per se catholic. But at the same time for the explained reason no "catholic art" exists!

     It's true that there is something deeply personal about art, including the art of speaking. Original sin clouds how we understand, and human intellect struggles to comprehend that which is holy. What one writes or thinks or creates is apprehended imperfectly by another. Growing closer to God enables us to understand more deeply the truth that is spoken, but there are limits to how far we can go on this side of the veil. I often wish the Christian West had placed more emphasis on this aspect of the Fall; perhaps it might have been possible to avoid the Enlightenment and its consequences! Nevertheless, it is useless to fret over what has happened, because God in His wisdom permitted it to happen that way.

     Interestingly, I am friends with a seminarian's wife who is also a fan of Gomez Davila. I need to start reading him, because I can tell he is a very interesting writer.
Despite it is claimed, that i would be "very severe" and critical (especially on conTemporaries), i can absolutely recommend GOMEZ DAVILA! He will have been this era's huge giant among dwarfs.
3.000 of over 10.000 "scholia" were translated into English and can be read free at charge here:

http://don-colacho.blogspot.co.at
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 11 queries.