Mystic vs Reason

Why constrain yourself by churches like this.

>On the other hand the Western Roman tradition emphasizes logic, reasoning, classical philosophy, and other scholastic pursuits in approaching Christianity.
>They are much less "world denying" and for the most part reject mysticism in favor of the idea that creation is good and life is good and we ought to reasonably analyze things.

The Beguines would like a word with you

>When at that time I was in a state of terrible weariness, I saw a great eagle, flying towards me from the altar.
>And he said to me: "If you wish to become one, then prepare yourself."
>And I fell to my knees and my heart longed terribly to worship that One Thing in accordance with its true dignity, which is impossible--I know that, God knows that, to my great sadness and burden.
>And the eagle turned, saying, "Righteous and most powerful Lord, show now the powerful force of your Unity for the consummation with the Oneness of yourself."
>And he turned back and said to me, "He who has come, comes again, and wherever he never came, there he will not come."
-Hadewijch

>This is that Wayless Being which all fervent interior spirits have chosen above all things, that dark stillness in which all lovers lose their way.
> If we could prepare ourselves through virtue in the ways I have shown, we would at once strip ourselves of our bodies and flow into the wild waves of the Sea, from which no creature could ever draw us back.
-John of Ruysbroeck

Sad.

The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church contains both to their fullest. No other Church is needed.

>I am where I was before I was created: that place is purely God and God.
>There are neither angels nor saints, nor choir, nor this nor that. Many people speak of eight heavens and of nine choirs.
>They are not where I am.
>You should know that everything stated in such a way and presented to people in images is but an incitement to seek God.
>Realise that in God is nothing but God.
>You must also understand that no soul may come unto God before it has become God as it was before it was created.
>No one may come into the naked Godhead except the one who is naked as he was when he flowed out of God.
>The masters say that no one may enter here as long as he has any attachment to lower things, even if it is only as much as the tip of a needle can carry.
-The Sister Catherine Treatise (Anonymous)

Benedict, is that you?

Sup brah

I really need to update my image collection

And sleep, shortly

The only reason the Eastern Catholic Churches still exist is because some guys fought tooth and nail to keep them from being swallowed or annihilated by the RCC, and even so, effects are still being seen(the maronites are roman-rite lite after centuries of latinisation, even though they were their own eastern oriental mix).
In fact, one of the main origins of the Orthodox Church of America was formed from byz catholics that bishop Irish treated like crap(literally called their bishop a false priest and talked to immigration to deport their clergy back to Europe) and repeatedly tried to destroy them as an institution. So their bishop went "fuck it, call the russians up so we can negociate. We are going back with our guys"

Look, no one denies you guys had your mystics, but the fact is, the West has always loved their rationalistic theology more, and pre-ressourcement Catholic Church was really into scholasticism, sometimes absurdly so.

To give an example, one of the reasons the Council of Florence(which btw, needed approval by the Greek Synod to become valid for the East, just so you don't raise that issue) fell was because the Dominicans kept trying to turn it into a "LET ME SHOW U My 1337 L0GIC1NG SKILLZ" contest with the Palamists.

And it reached such absurd proportions, one of them, in attempting to prove he was in agreement with Gregory of Nissa, willfully logic'd his way into declaring trinitarian subordonalism correct.

Which made St. Mark of Ephesus conclude the latins were so full up their own scholasticism, they'd heresy anything into dogma.

>Regarding the Eastern Christian tradition of the Orthodox Church in Russia, Greece, the Middle East; and the Western Church esp. Roman Catholicism... Which is the "best" or rather, "most pleasing to God" way of approaching Christianity?

To live as Christ instructed, humbly, works and Faith, not religion rote, etc, but not make the Protestant mistake of Sola scripture/sola fide as Canon didn't exist until the fourth century AD, and Protestants changed even that. Orthodoxy is closest to this. Read Justin Martyr, St. Anthony the Great, St John Chrysostom, etc... the Church Fathers. Best way to start is find you local Orthodox Priest or Monk/Monastic and talk with them.

>The Eastern tradition puts more of an emphasis on mysticism, asceticism, and sometimes an almost Gnostic view of the world.
The Alexandrine "school" was more mystical than the Antiochian one, which tended to be more literal. Of course, it goes much deeper than this and you should study on your own to discover this. Orthodoxy is anything but Gnostic, we do not think that only certain people know the "truth" of Christ, or any of that. Gnosticism is one of the many heresies that the Church has had to overcome over the millennia.

>Where the spiritual goods are regarded as wholly important and one ought to, at least to some degree, deny oneself the apparent physical world in order to achieve Godliness.
To achieve Theosis, closeness with God. We will never see Him or understand Him, but we can come close to His Grace and be filled with the Holy Spirit, as were the OT prophets and Saints of this Age.
(cont.)

>Where the spiritual goods are regarded as wholly important and one ought to, at least to some degree, deny oneself the apparent physical world in order to achieve Godliness.
Fasting, Praying, Worship, Good Works, obeying God's laws, are all part of becoming closer to God, as said by Christ. However, they are tools to this end, which the end is Salvation, which ultimately comes through Christ and the time of judgement. There is no such thing as "once saved always saved".

>On the other hand the Western Roman tradition emphasizes logic, reasoning, classical philosophy, and other scholastic pursuits in approaching Christianity. They are much less "world denying" and for the most part reject mysticism in favor of the idea that creation is good and life is good and we ought to reasonably analyze things.
The Roman Catholic Church, which was part of the Prthodox Church until 1054AD when they split from the Church, took St Augustine's legalistic works and view of Christ and God a bit too much. It's too legalistic. Christ specifically warns against this as it leads to the same mistake Jews made. "God is whatever you see Him as, as long as you keep his laws". Christ is against this, as it shuts out God in reality. If this were the case, then it would be illegal to heal infirmity on the Sabbath, as Christ was accused of by the Pharisees.
This isn't even touching the Roman Catholic deviance from Orthodoxy such as Papal Supremacy, Eucharistic Adoration (Idol worship), The Virgin Mary being sinless (as Great as she is, she is still human and with sin, but was the most pleasing to God as she is without blame, as were her parents).

>So which do you think is the better way of approaching Christianity?

I say Orthodoxy, but you should read the Church Fathers, talk to an all paths of Priests and compare them (but I still say Orthodoxy after all this, as it is what I did), and study. However, there is a difference between being a Christian and religion.

bumpo

1. How on earth is Orthodoxy "almost Gnostic"? You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Orthodox theology actually seems to celebrate the material world more than any other Tradition I've encountered.

2. Characterizing "The East" as some kind of mystical, Desert Fathers-tier ascetic tradition where everyone spends all day worshiping and avoids worldly things is just not accurate.

Likewise, Latin Christians are not generally Spock-tier, wine sipping rationalists who spend all day reading Aristotle.

This post reeks of misinformation and absolute memery.

t. Catechumen at an Orthodox Church

Reminder if you are dont think reason can help to understand god according the the Catholics you are a heretic.

Their obsession with reason led to protestants and atheism.

>The Eastern tradition puts more of an emphasis on mysticism, asceticism, and sometimes an almost Gnostic view of the world.

>almost Gnostic view

Absolutely not, the rest is just stereotyping

>On the other hand the Western Roman tradition emphasizes logic, reasoning, classical philosophy, and other scholastic pursuits in approaching Christianity. They are much less "world denying" and for the most part reject mysticism in favor of the idea that creation is good and life is good and we ought to reasonably analyze things.

Again, no. The Latin Church does not reject mysticism at all. The greatest scholastic philosophers will be the first to tell you that reason has its limits. Latin Catholicism is full of mystics and ascetics, think of St. Hildegard von Bingen, St. John of the Cross, or St. Cuthbert.

The Russian Orthodox Church to which I belong, is too luxorious, even in a country like mine, Argentina, where the Orthodox population doesn't go over five thousand, with most being first generation immigrants, priests drive BMWs. My bishop is quite humble and uses the bus, but he's Australian. Among the Russian Orthodox there was a divison between hesychast christians and luxurious christians. The Old Believers are the luxurious christians who extinguishes hesychasm.
Christianity is not something to approach through reason; through mysticism we can try to understand it the way it's intended. It's a guide to come closer to God, and we mustn't be arrogant to pretend to understand the reasoning of God, for he is responsible for what's written in the Bible.
Catholicism's scholastic approach pretends to get how God thinks, and this is not what it's expected from us.
The problem with Orthodoxy today is the luxurious churches we have. One things Catholics are better at than us is building plain, humble churches. We brag of our liturgies that engage all five senses, but this goes at the expense of our humility. The Greek Church went through similar corruption when it was under Ottoman rule. Bishops weren't truly faithful and just fought for the Patriarchate for power.
The Orthodox way is more engaging. Most Orthodox are truly faithful, but the Church has a problem with humility, and we take the Church as truly Heaven on Earth, so this is a grave situation.
Catholic faith is spread worldwide, but the majority of catholics aren't engaged with the faith, and the Papal structure is also very flawed.
In conclusion, the Orthodox way is the better way to approach the Bible.

explain you

>Christianity
>logic

Wew.