Why don't Catholics into The Ladder of Divine Ascent...

Why don't Catholics into The Ladder of Divine Ascent? The author is a celebtated saint among both the Catholics and the Orthodox, but it seems like the former virtually ignore his incredibly holy writings.

Other urls found in this thread:

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/the_rise_of_anthropological_pessimism_in_the_west_i
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/the_rise_of_anthropological_pessimism_in_the_west_ii
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/the_rise_of_anthropological_pessimism_iii
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/the_rise_of_anthropological_pessimism_iv
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/the_rise_of_anthropological_pessimism_v
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

because they know it's made up. Catholics aren't stupid

For whatever reason, the most influential Catholic spiritual writings tend to come from the Counter Reformation period or later these days. So John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, and so on. But generally speaking, Western Christians were influenced by stuff written originally in Latin and Eastern Christians by stuff in Greek and Syriac. So, despite the fact that they consider them saints, Eastern Christians don't really read Augustine or the Rule of Saint Benedict that often like Catholics do.

It's not a novel, it's a spiritual manual

No, but we definately read them more than Catholics read John of the Ladder.

Also, we arguably read Saint John Cassian more than Catholics, and he wrote in Latin. Also Catholics seemed to have no trouble going gaga over Aristotle down the road, even though they had to retranslate most of his work

And Catholics definitely read The Imitation of Christ more than Orthodox since it's post-schism. Things like Loyola (or Therese of Lisieux) come after that and draw on the Catholic interpretations of Augustine and Kempis. Aquinas comes after the split too, which tempers Augustine in the denomination. It's unusual for Orthodoxy to read most of what shaped the Catholic Church as a distinct entity, since, you know, they didn't want to be the same church.

I'm not so sure that's true. Full disclosure: all I know about Orthodoxy comes from people on the internet (I'm a Catholic), and internet Orthodox can be a bit weird sometimes. But at least these days, Catholics are really interested Eastern theology and spirituality, whereas the Orthodox I've interacted with tend to be skeptical of anything Western. I've even seen people call Augustine "the father of heresies." Definitely with you that Catholics could gain a lot from reading The Ladder of Divine Ascent and other ancient Christian texts. We have a tendency to rely heavily on modern writings.

The Catholic Church going gaga over Aristotle was directly tied to his works (and Avicenna and Averroes) being translated by other scholars into Latin though. St. John Cassian is kind of a weird case since there were allegations by some in the West that he was a semipelagian.

That's post schism, not comparable since John of the Ladder is not a post schism saint. I'm not asking why Catholics don't read Theophan the Recluse or Seraphim of Sarov.

Orthodox LARP'erz on the net might say that, but Orthodox saints continue to called him blessed to the present day, and so do practicing Orthodox. We only don't follow him where he conflicts with the other Fathers, but he himself says with most of that he is speculating and should be disregarded if he's wrong.

So I guess this is a thread for spiritual guidance books?

I'm a big fan of "Introduction to the Devout Life" by Saint Francis de Sales.

Good to know you guys appreciate Augustine. I think the LARPers tend to be overzealous recent converts from Protestantism who haven't fully gotten over their hatred of popery. Although I've been arguing against some of your points, overall I think you're right that generally Catholics are less in touch with the Patristic writers than our Orthodox brothers. Back in the 19th century, a version of Thomistic thought more or less became the Vatican-sanctioned theology of the Church. There has been a movement in the Catholic Church to change this recently (meaning since the 1950s), but old habits sometimes die hard.

Actually, even though they distort him, Protestant theology would fall apart without Saint Augustine. You might try listening to these

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/the_rise_of_anthropological_pessimism_in_the_west_i
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/the_rise_of_anthropological_pessimism_in_the_west_ii
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/the_rise_of_anthropological_pessimism_iii
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/the_rise_of_anthropological_pessimism_iv
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/the_rise_of_anthropological_pessimism_v

Catholics doctors of the Church, which Orthodoxy stops naming after three, are more important than mere saints. The text simply isn't important in comparison to other texts to understanding of the religion. That's why we don't have to read it for Lent, because our traditions for Lent are not the same as yours, having developed along a different tradition.

I might as well ask you why you're not reading as much Bede as Catholics, even though he's pre-schism too. Or why St Jerome isn't a doctor of the Church in orthodoxy too, even though he's pre-schism?

Jerome is a Holy Father for us. He's not a "doctor" because we don't have that as a distinct title, as Catholics do.

Bede is the primary, in fact only, source for the lives of many of our British and Irish saints, so is pretty crucial. Especially these days, as there is a growing renaissance of Anglo and Celtic Orthodoxy in the Church. That is, a revival of the icongraphy and theology and liturgical rites of the British Isles prior the conquest (which marks the end of Orthodoxy there for us). Pilgrimages to the British Isles are even increasing

We have Church Fathers and Church Doctors. They're different things. As far as I know, Orthodoxy shares Basil, Gregory, and John Chrysostom, but then just stopped using it to elevate works.

So for us, Aquinas would be as important as John Chrysostom, who is as important as Bede, across the whole Church. I'm guessing you don't consider Bede more important than John of the Ladder across the Church.

They aren't different for us. All Holy Fathers are doctors (teachers)

We don't consider Bede to have any writing like John, because he doesn't any more that John penned anything like Bede's argument on the proper dating of Pascha. John wrote a work on how to ascend to paradise in this life

But we don't believe in that, and don't emphasize that text because it's not important to use in the way Bede's or Aquinas' work is. Bede is more important to paschal practice than John of the Ladder, which is why he's a doctor of the Church and John is not.

For instance, Origen is pretty widely read and debated, pre-schism, but also in part heretical. He's a Church Father, but could never be a Doctor of the Church. He's not sainted, but still a Church Father.

>For whatever reason, the most influential Catholic spiritual writings tend to come from the Counter Reformation period or later these days. So John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, and so on.

It's not that they are more spiritually advanced than the desert fathers, it's that they are simply better writers - more clear, more systematic, more to-the-point, more accessible. The desert fathers write in strings of proverbs and parables that only a monastic has the time to really mull over and digest, whereas these writers you talk about write in clearly written, structured treatises which anyone can get an idea of without necessarily having to practice it much first.
What St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila did was give a kind of scholastic rigour, clarity, and structure to mystical theology.

How does that explain Hildegaard?

>Hildegaard
Not read her, but she is older.

Bede's method for calculating Pascha is Orthodox, though, not Catholics. Catholics don't use elements in the calculation


We don't have the term Church Father as distinct from Holy Father, which Origen certainly is not. If any Orthodox calls him a church father, it is in a secular, academic sense, not an eclesiastical one

Hildegaard was pretty much the biggest influence until the Protestants happened. She's some weird mystic shit.
The dates on some of those are sketchy for being Counter Reformation too, because I think Loyola is dead within ten years of the Council of Trent, and Theresa around that time too.

Probably what makes them clearer is the style of the time, because Protestants started using lots of references to the corporeal and shit and rethinking the unclean, so they mark a turn away from More's style which is closer to Luther's. More's dead before Trent, so something less corporeal being promoted when Luther could be confused with More's style is probably a protective measure against that.

Bede's argument however was for allegiance to Roman dates. It's what stopped the Irish or French churches from making their own calendar. The Roman calendar changed after that, and the Church moved with Rome through many different changes. What makes him important is it unites practice with Rome.

Catholics have a few unsainted Church Fathers, like Tertullian would be another one. You have to be sainted to be a Doctor of the Church, which recently caused a hiccough because the pope forgot about this and tried to make Hildegaard a Doctor, when her status was still one of a liturgical cult. The cult was extended to the whole of the Church to make her eligible, which is a bit of a fudge. Now she's a saint and Doctor, but you can't be the second without the first, while you can be a Church Father without anyone claiming you to be in heaven or to be non-heretical.

She's not nearly as popular, at least anymore. Not her writings at least, but her music is divine.

Personally, because I focus much more on philosophy and theology is a secondary interest which mostly comes up with with the big names (Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, John Henry Newman, Thomas Kempen) or theologian-philosopher authors like Augustine, Aquinas, Justin Martyr and so on. And as I study something other than philosophy or theology, I can't really read nearly as much of everything as I'd like.
As for why never this particular one, aside complete unfamiliarity, because I'm going through the fathers chronologically with a local edition of atm 12 volumes, having read the first three.

I think she's becoming more popular again. I don't know whether that's because of "muh female authors" or because of becoming a doctor of the Church in 2012, but her Physica has a better sales rank on bookdepository than Butler's Lives of Saints.

Uh, no. You haven't read Bede. His argument is that there is an objectively right way to calculate Pascha, and all other ways are objectively wrong. He brings in Rome as a supplement to show the way he is espousing (that he made lengthy and prior argument for) is correct, on the basis that Rome *is the most reliable witness of ancient tradition*. Not on the basis of merely saying, "Rome wills it."

You can't be a Father if you're not a sasint in Orthodoxy

Rome interprets it as Rome wills it in our tradition which is why he's elevated. For someone who has read Bede, you seem to be unaware of the threat of insular Christianity to Rome (and France). In the 5th C, these monasteries had been told to take care of themselves, and they did, which made them great sources of Church literature, but also highly idiosyncratic. Bede marks a return to the primacy of Rome. Since Orthodoxy disputes the primacy of Rome, obviously that isn't going to be emphasized in your tradition, but Bede saying the Roman calendars were more accurate is a massive game changer. Because insular Christianity had such strong scholarship, because their Latin was isolated, on most all traditions, they had something closer to the original than Rome.

They had an immense influence on calendars already (All Saints Day and All Souls day come from the pagan traditions that Ireland celebrated and Rome never managed to get those back out of the calendar). Bede's argument that Rome should (or even could) claw back Easter cohered the Church around Rome again.

Bede says Rome keeps the traditions of Saint Peter, and therefore is the see to look to here. He absolutely made no argument about following Roman dating because God put Rome in charge of determining Pascha dating. That "reading" of Bede is flat out mendacity, because he never so much as alludes to such an argument.

>Bede says Rome keeps the traditions of Saint Peter, and therefore is the see to look to here
Whereas that's mostly lies for Latin and according to Rome's decree in 411. Up until Bede, there's 200+ years where Rome had not been the Holy See, where traditions were better kept in part because the British Isles where isolated from Rome being sacked. Most of them regarded themselves as keeping the traditions of St Peter better than Rome, because Rome was in no position to rule.

Whether Bede made an error there is not my concern. The issue is what he understood as making Paschal calculation legitmate. Rome is invoked as the superlative witness of truth by Bede, not as a dictator of truth.

And that would be the Orthodox interpretation, because it wants to keep the idea of the calendar being right rather than the Roman See having the authority of St Peter.

Since this was a big part of the schism, we obviously have different interpretations of whether Rome is the authority of tradition, but Bede is not elevated to the same status within the Orthodox church either, nor for the same reasons. The Easter calculation matters to the practice of Easter in Orthodoxy in terms of when the feast falls, but the Easter calculation matters to the practice of Roman authority in the Roman Church.

No, that would be what Bede overtly says. Either you haven't read him, or you are intentionally lying, or you believe Rome has the power to interpret anything to mean anything.

You just called it an error when you pointed to the passage Rome points to. I know Orthodoxy doesn't believe in the primacy of Rome, since that was a large part of the schism, but to think that Rome would suddenly stop thinking that is the moment it reclaimed power and not use it as a justification of its continuing authority on tradition is just madness.

That's *why* we're a separate Church, because we do believe Rome is the keeper of traditions of St Peter. If we didn't believe in that, the schism would be half as likely to have ever happened. We would still be unified and the Roman Church would not rest papal infalibility on the continuing traditions of St Peter resting in Rome.

I might as well say that Orthodoxy was lying about having reasons for leavened bread. I don't agree with the reasons but I can at least acknowledge they exist and base themselves in a differing interpretation rather than the bullshit you're throwing up. You're basically saying the Roman Church didn't know why it was splitting from Orthodoxy: both sides had differing interpretations but saying that the other interpretation couldn't exist when you call it an error in Bede because it supports that interpretation is just intellectual dishonesty.

I didn't call it an error, you did.

This is what the Orthodox believe

>Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her

>Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates

The Unity of the Catholic Church [A.D. 251], by Saint Cyprian

>I didn't call it an error, you did.
>Whether Bede made an error there is not my concern.
You're the one who brought it up as an error. You can ctrl+f the thread, but you introduced it. Bede does say Rome keeps the traditions of St Peter, which Rome still says, and Orthodoxy disagrees with.
Orthodoxy agrees with other parts of Bede, and practices those still. It does not agree with Bede when Bede says that Rome continues the traditions of St Peter any more or on other topics, but Rome does agree with Bede that Rome continues the traditions of St Peter. We don't agree with his interpretation of Easter any more, but we do still agree with the part that Orthodoxy has since dropped.

Catholicism has papal infallibility in faith and morals only when the Pope is swathed in the emblems of the Petrine supremacy of Rome in St Peter's basilica and when, "in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

You seem to think that, by being Orthodox, you can speak for Catholics, much like the Roman Church claims it can speak for all Christians. Which is proof that they are different religions and churches, though they do both claim Peter was really their guy. I really don't think you're going to re-cohere the Church through that method any more than that would work from the other side. You might as well claim that Catholics celebrate Easter the same day as Orthodox, since obviously we must have the same interpretation of the same source, so the Roman Church could not work to a different calendar, any more than the Orthodox Church could have a different interpretation of the supremacy of Rome.

I said "error" in place of your ireverent term, "lies", in reference to Bede. Whether or not it is an error is not pertinent, but the idea of Bede intentionally lying in his work is out of the question and sacrilege to even entertain.

The idea that Rome today keeps the ancient traditions is obviously false, since they don't even keep to the Roman trasditions of Bede's time. That Rome was, until the Filioque, the most traditional and reliable See, no Orthodox will dispute, since only Pope Honorius was anethamatized, whereas many more Patriarchs in the east were.

>Whether or not it is an error is not pertinent, but the idea of Bede intentionally lying in his work is out of the question and sacrilege to even entertain.
In Orthodoxy, yes, maybe. However, it's basic historical fact that Rome dissolved its seat for 200 some years, and then reclaimed it at Bede. It could not have Petrine traditions while it was being sacked. It could not maintain power over England, and it's the return of missionaries from Rome which fuels Bede's entire involvement with the Paschal question. Bede's assertion that Rome has authority descending from Peter marks the return of the Holy See to Rome, but to say it's a consistent tradition that was there for the 200 years before is just wrong.

That's why Catholics elevate Bede, because it's the return of power to Rome. Meanwhile, Rome and France's Latin changed, from lack of Church direction. It became Church Latin, changing pronunciation, while on the British Isles the traditional Latin that had been present in Rome before 410 was preserved in isolation. That is how we can tell the difference between Church Latin, and what came to be considered Classical Latin, because the original form was preserved in the British Isles.

Many of the books which were lost in Rome were preserved in the British Isles. Rome could not function as a See or authority during that time because it could not even control its own small territory. It explicitly said to Churches elsewhere that it could not function as an authority and that these Churches should look to themselves as the continuation of tradition. If it had the authority to give that order, which the Church considered it did, then it dissolve its authority until the point it reclaimed it. It reclaims it at Bede from the Catholic perspective, because that's the point where Rome can start to exert power again.

Bede is right in saying that Petrine authority is in Rome from that point on from a Catholic viewpoint. But Bede himself would not say that Rome had maintained authority during the time it officially divested it.

Please. Stop speculating on what Bede would or would not say, and just read him. Because this is getting obtuse.

Now that we have that out of the way, I still can't see where you're going with this. That Bede is elevated more among Catholics than Orthodox because Catholics read in him support for a doctrine Orthodox don't hold, and that Catholics ignoring John's writings is analogous? This is a weak analogy on two counts

1. Bede's writings are hardly ignored by us, in fact "Bede" made the shortlist for my baptismal name. He is cherished as a vital chronicler of the lives of saints (all are on our calendar), a witness to Orthodox Pascha (since Rome is not his main argument there, he adds it at the end), and a witness to the Nativity Fast (which unlike Catholics, we still keep).

2. John of the Ladder hardly wrote about uniquely Orthodox doctrine, he wrote a *practical* work on spiritual transformation.

I'm not speculating. St Columbanus had been trying to contact Gregory for years in order to sort out the calendar problem and got no response. That's how shitty contact with Rome was. Since there was no resolution from Rome there's a build up of 60 years of Synods before Bede actually gets the Roman standard through, during which Ireland, England, Scotland, and France all operate on different calendars and denounce those who do not as heretics. Rome is not at all in charge at that point.

This idea that you know more about insular Christianity from solely reading Bede under a very strict Orthodox interpretation, which removes a lot of what Bede says and what his motivations and context is, does not convince me that you have read and comprehended the text beyond a very dogmatic interpretation which does not apply to either history or Catholicism.

You're simply refusing to believe those aspects of the Roman Church formation are relevant to the formation of the Roman Church, because it's not relevant to the Orthodox Church. I've already given you reasons why John of the Ladder is not an important text, nor and important interpretation to a different religion, and I've tried to be rather ecumenical about it, allowing for differences in interpretation. You on the other hand seem to want the Roman Church to have the same interpretation and interests as the Orthodox Church, which is not just fucking retarded and wrong, it's disrespectful. It doesn't convince me you're very high up the ladder at all to not have the humility to understand Orthodox interpretations will differ with the Roman Church and that those differences form the basis of the schism.

You're basically complaining that Catholics don't act like Orthodox, to which, since you've been such a bitch when I have taken pains to be kind, I say thank fucking Christ because your religion is obviously blind if you are an example. You're really desperate for Catholics to believe the same things about what's relevant to our religion should be those of a different church, and I honestly think you have no idea how arrogant or insane that is. John of Ladder is uniquely Orthodox, because nobody fucking else thinks it's fucking relevant, and if it turns you into a deaf cunt like you, nobody should.

My Church does not teach any particular interpretation of Bede. The only reason we're arguing here is that you haven't read him.

My Church does not believe that sacred truth is relative. This position--being ecumenical, you called it--only makes us suspicious.

Please do not ever, ever, ever--especially not on the Lord's Day--mix God's most holy and fearful name with such foul talk ever again. That is beyond sacrilege, it is outright blasphemy.

I would guess the whole doctor of the church has more to do with it, Benedict was a Hildegard shill.

Lad you got btfo so hard by the other dude

Whatever it is, it's not worth profane talk.

Your thickness is extreme and the other user obviously got mad because of it. Next time don't be so thick.

This was so petty and pointless. Here, from Bede

>Colman said, "The Easter which I keep, I received from my elders, who sent me hither as bishop; all our forefathers, men beloved of God, are known to have celebrated it after the same manner; and that it may not seem to any contemptible and worthy to be rejected, it is the same which the blessed John the Evangelist, the disciple specially beloved of our Lord, with all the churches over which he presided, is recorded to have celebrated."’ When he had said thus much, and more to the like effect, the king commanded Agilbert to make known the manner of his observance and to show whence it was derived, and on what authority he followed it. Agilbert answered, "I beseech you, let my disciple, the priest Wilfrid, speak in my stead; because we both concur with the other followers of the ecclesiastical tradition that are here present, and he can better and more clearly explain our opinion in the English language, than I can by an interpreter."

Cont

>Please do not ever, ever, ever--especially not on the Lord's Day--mix God's most holy and fearful name with such foul talk ever again. That is beyond sacrilege, it is outright blasphemy.

Do you know what website you're on?

>Then Wilfrid, being ordered by the king to speak, began thus:— "The Easter which we keep, we saw celebrated by all at Rome, where the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, lived, taught, suffered, and were buried; we saw the same done by all in Italy and in Gaul, when we travelled through those countries for the purpose of study and prayer. We found it observed in Africa, Asia, Egypt, Greece, and all the world, wherever the Church of Christ is spread abroad, among divers nations and tongues, at one and the same time; save only among these and their accomplices in obstinacy, I mean the Picts and the Britons, who foolishly, in these two remote islands of the ocean, and only in part even of them, strive to oppose all the rest of the world."
Cont

When he had so said, Colman answered, "It is strange that you choose to call our efforts foolish, wherein we follow the example of so great an Apostle, who was thought worthy to lean on our Lord’s bosom, when all the world knows him to have lived most wisely." Wilfrid replied, " Far be it from us to charge John with folly, for he literally observed the precepts of the Mosaic Law, whilst the Church was still Jewish in many points, and the Apostles, lest they should give cause of offence to the Jews who, were among the Gentiles, were not able at once to cast off all the observances of the Law which had been instituted by God, in the same way as it is necessary that all who come to the faith should forsake the idols which were invented by devils. For this reason it was, that Paul circumcised Timothy, that he offered sacrifice in the temple, that he shaved his head with Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth;for no other advantage than to avoid giving offence to the Jews. Hence it was, that James said to the same Paul, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the Law." " And yet, at this time, when the light of the Gospel is spreading throughout the world, it is needless, nay, it is not lawful, for the faithful either to be circumcised, or to offer up to God sacrifices of flesh

Cont

>. So John, according to the custom of the Law, began the celebration of the feast of Easter, on the fourteenth day of the first month, in the evening, not regarding whether the same happened on a Saturday, or any other week-day. But when Peter preached at Rome, being mindful that our Lord arose from the dead, and gave to the world the hope of resurrection, on the first day of the week, he perceived that Easter ought to be kept after this manner: he always awaited the rising of the moon on the fourteenth day of the first month in the evening, according to the custom and precepts of the Law, even as John did. And when that came, if the Lord’s day, then called the first day of the week, was the next day, he began that very evening to celebrate Easter, as we all do at the present time. But if the Lord’s day did not fall the next morning after the fourteenth moon, but on the sixteenth, or the seventeenth, or any other moon till the twenty-first, he waited for that, and on the Saturday before, in the evening, began to observe the holy solemnity of Easter. Thus it came to pass, that Easter Sunday was only kept from the fifteenth moon to the twenty-first. Nor does this evangelical and apostolic tradition abolish the Law, but rather fulfil it; the command being to keep the passover from the fourteenth moon of the first month in the evening to the twenty-first moon of the same month in the evening; which observance all the successors of the blessed John in Asia, since his death, and all the Church throughout the world, have since followed; and that this is the true Easter, and the only one to be celebrated by the faithful, was not newly decreed by the council of Nicaea, but only confirmed afresh; as the history of the Church informs us.
Cont

>"Thus it is plain, that you, Colman, neither follow the example of John, as you imagine, nor that of Peter, whose tradition you oppose with full knowledge, and that you neither agree with the Law nor the Gospel in the keeping of your Easter. For John, keeping the Paschal time according to the decree of the Mosaic Law, had no regard to the first day of the week, which you do not practise, seeing that you celebrate Easter only on the first day after the Sabbath. Peter celebrated Easter Sunday between the fifteenth and the twenty-first moon, which you do not practise, seeing that you observe Easter Sunday from the fourteenth to the twentieth moon; so that you often begin Easter on the thirteenth moon in the evening, whereof neither the Law made any mention, nor did our Lord, the Author and Giver of the Gospel, on that day either eat the old passover in the evening, or deliver the Sacraments of the New Testament, to be celebrated by the Church, in memory of His Passion, but on the fourteenth. Besides, in your celebration of Easter, you utterly exclude the twenty-first moon, which the Law ordered to be specially observed. Thus, as I have said before, you agree neither with John nor Peter, nor with the Law, nor the Gospel, in the celebration of the greatest festival."

I think this puts the matter to rest

He didn't bring God's name into the discussion--you did. That's not blasphemy; to qualify a set of personal insults--well deserved, I might add, in light of your obtuseness--as blasphemous and "more than sacrilege"--now that's some nerve, to say the least.

Not that I think it is true, but if Sacred Truth were to be relative, what would it be compared to? What would be the factor that would change it?

"Christ" is God's name.

The self

That was the only thing left to do after he got btfo

since he was thanking Christ for not making him a dick, I'm pretty sure that's praise, not in vain.

Even devils know God and they tremble, and you seem to lack all humility or awe to not be the least bit shook by your behaviour. What could have been a pretty based thread about both religions got absolutely fucked by your pig headedness, and I think you probably made the book more unpopular by your association with it. You're not a good advertisement, m8.

#
Is this the renowned Catholic casuistry I've heard so much about? It sounds like the sort of reasoning the devil himself uses in the Gospel.

Holy shit, I thought you felt some shame for being a dick and bad example of your faith and deleted a post made in haste and anger, but you actually just wanted to repost it with a spelling correction.

I'm not in fear of any man, no. Having humility about dogmatic matters is not a virtue if it means accepting compromise and relativism and outright lying. I have to accept Catholic's baldfaced lies about what a saint said, or else I am not meek enough? No, damn that noise, there is nothing Patristic or Apostolic about that. You can denegrate me petsonally all day long, but I will not be fine with lying about sacred matters, or about coupling God's name with filth, nor will I ever for the sake of being "reasonable".

Dude, you're the one who brought up Bede and papal authority. You can't then be butthurt that Catholics for hundreds of years have been using it as part of their history. That's some fundie shit that ignores reality. If you want to be like that, could you try not to bring Orthodoxy into it?

No, I'm not. I brought up neither Bede nor Papal authority

You brought it them up as linked in the way that the Catholic agreed with
>Bede says Rome keeps the traditions of Saint Peter, and therefore is the see to look to here
And Bede does say that. That Rome is the Apostolic See, and those who don't follow it sin.

It's not hard to see how Catholics have that interpretation. It's painful to see you drag Orthodoxy through the mud by your association, because accepting that Catholics differ if not holding up Catholicism as truth, so much as the reality of the situation. You're like one of those who cheers on the monks for sweeping out the manger in preparation for Christ's birth by bashing other monks with their brooms. I do not see Christ looking favourably upon that; it's a twisted love.

"is not holding up" rather than "if not holding up"

No, I didn't, it went like this.

A: Well we might not read John, but you don't read Bede [ironic, since B has read Bede, whereas A has not], since his Paschal calculation is not important for you.

B: Actually it is more relevant for us, since we still use it, you don't

A: Well the point is he said it is valid because of Rome, so he is important in establishing Papal authority, which you don't accept.

B: Bede's argument is that Rome is the most reliable source of tradition, an argument that would hardly justify Rome knowingly breaking from over a thousand years of tradition.

A: Then Bede is a liar cuz Rome is not reliable in this regard

B: Whether not he erred is beside the point; the point is his argument can't support Rome changing the Paschal calculation

A: So he erred?

B: Irrelevant

A: Bede's argument was Rome had the authority to choose the date.

B: Uh, no, his argument was that Rome was the keeper of ancient tradition

A: an Orthodox reading

B: no, that's just what he says [see posted excerpts]

Etc

>It's not hard to see how Catholics have that interpretation
It's im fact impossible if you bother to look at the text, which I posted for you. I tried to steer away from debating that, however, and get back to topic by just pointing out the weakness of the analogy

He didn't call Bede a liar. He said history and Bede did not support the idea that Rome had power until Bede.

That's why Bede recorded the disagreement of Colman. I don't think Colman was lying either when he said that he followed John; I think he believed that and in debate had his apostolic tradition questioned. I think you misinterpret things because your mind is not open because it looks like you are the only one ITT interpreting it that way. You're strawmanning him even after he politely clarified repeatedly.
I have looked at the text. It's Book III Chapter XXV of Bede's Ecclesiastic History of the English People if anyone else would like to look at it. It is not hard to see how Catholics interpret it as a win for Roman authority. I don't know why you are threatened by that interpretation or why you feel the need for Catholics to interpret it differently. They believe a lot of shit we don't, and I don't think you of all people will convert them tbph.

You don't think the Patriarch of all Western Europe had any canonical authority?

Bede also hardly developed the idea of Rome as the most dependable See in terms of doctrine, that was a common idea since ancient times, all Bede did was use it more. Up until the Filioque, Rome was considered the gold standard of orthodoxy by both the East and West.

>. It is not hard to see how Catholics interpret it as a win for Roman authority
Not in terms of Rome speaking for tradition. But since Roman Pascha has been changed, Rome, in the context of that argument, is no longer authoritative. You simply commend it as an historical step, a political tool whose form was useful but whose substance is unimportant.

That is, if Romans elevate Bede, it is only as a man who served his purpose, but whose writings today are only of historical value, but largely obsolete as a source of doctrinal study. In this sense, we actually elevate Bede more than Catholics, because his doctrinal arguments are still edifying for us

>You don't think the Patriarch of all Western Europe had any canonical authority?
Certainly not for most of those communities in that chapter. If he did, there would have been no need for the debate. It's clearly mentioned that they believed they were following the apostolic tradition. As I said, I don't think Colman was lying when he said he was following John.

user mentions that saints before that could not even get a canonical response from Rome.

It is as user says, Ronan being educated in the Roman tradition and returning to England brought those churches back to Roman authority. Bede wrote the history in order to stop such things happening again and explain the debates to future monks. Rome was not considered the gold standard before as Colman argues it was not the standard.

>Not in terms of Rome speaking for tradition. But since Roman Pascha has been changed, Rome, in the context of that argument, is no longer authoritative.
Are you trying to say because Rome changed its mind and the rest of the Catholics listened, that does not demonstrate Rome's domination over Roman thought since? I think you're clutching at straws at this point to not be wrong about a religion you don't practise. user did illustrate it as the historical and political moment that power returned to Rome, and he's not wrong.

It really isn't strange that Romans, who continue to believe in a Roman Pope, see that as a big moment for their churches, as user explained.

It should not take this many posts to get you to begrudgingly understand what Catholicanon was saying to you. They value it because they still value a Roman pope.

They have different doctrines to us, so it's not strange they don't use the same calendar when what they got out of that moment is something different to what Orthodox Churches do.

Colman wasn't following John, John celebrated Pascha on the Jewish Passover (Pascha is, after all, just Greek for Pesach). That was raised as a crucial point in the excerpts: if Colman advocated celebrating Pascha on Passover, he could claim Apostolic tradition, but he isn't, he is using as derivative but different method of dating that John, since he always celebrates on Sunday, whereas John did not move the celebration to Sunday if Pesach fell on another day.

Colman's opinion is an outlier, not at all representative of the norm. That he uses a different method calculating Pascha that the rest of the Church from West to East (which is stressed from the start), demonstrates this; what is being confronted is an aberration, not a norm. Orthodox are taught to this day that Rome was the gold standard until the Filioque, and there is plenty of record of this.

Saying Rome has de facto power to change Pascha dating today, is quite distinct from saying Rome's de facto power is justified by Bede's argument for the Roman dating of Pascha. The argument stems from Rome's considerable authority as a witness to Apostolic tradition, not from having dogmatic authority to choose and change the method of dating.

>Colman wasn't following John
I said I don't think he was lying. I think he believed that. It took Roman missionaries to convince him otherwise. Sure, he's mistaken, but I don't think that means he lied or could have known better. There was no way for him to know he was wrong, because, as user explained, he was cut off from Roman teaching.

I'm fairly certain that Roman Catholics do believe that debate established Rome's authority. I think they believe that because Rome had Peter, that any tradition that comes from the Roman Pope becomes a tradition of apostolic authority, whether or not it follows what Peter said or what the apostles actually did. [I could be wrong, but that is the impression I get]. I see no reason why they would praise Bede for BTFO of their traditions, because that would be as odd as someone Orthodox praising Bede for solidifying Roman papal rule as the continuation of apostolic tradition. The reasons they like Bede is because they read it as "What The Pope says goes", which is not how Orthodoxy regards tradition. At this point I'm wondering whether you can appreciate they're not the same religion.

I suppose it is similar to how Islam does not regard Jesus as the saviour, but as a minor prophet compared with Mohammed. They have to take out or call heretical all the times Jesus called himself Son of God, or interpret it some other way, or some shit, but it would be dumb to say they don't or can't believe that because of all the evidence Orthodoxy has about Jesus. It simply won't work and they won't see Jesus as Christians interpret him, despite Jesus clearly saying he was not a prophet but God. They aren't going to believe He is one in essence and undivided with God, because that's not what their religion believes.

Colman knew he didn't use John's method, but a derivative. He saw that as following John. He argued against Petrine dating anyhow, and when he was ruled against, he rejected the ruling.

>. I think they believe that because Rome had Peter, that any tradition that comes from the Roman Pope becomes a tradition of apostolic authority, whether or not it follows what Peter said or what the apostles actually did.
Please actually read the excerpts I posted

Muslims reject the NT and have their own version where Jesus wasn't crucified, so not really comparable.

The excerpts are not about what modern Catholics believe, or even Catholics in 1054 believe.

I think he wasn't lying when he said he was following John. I think that's what his impression of following John was. For him to be lying, he would have to think that was heresy before someone else instructed him otherwise. I genuinely think he thought it wasn't heresy.

Our sources are not just the NT. I don't think the Roman Catholics believe Luke made the first icons, which is why they don't have them. I don't think they interpret the Bible the same way, because I think they use that too to justify the Roman pope. You seem to not understand that when presented with the same facts that people will have different interpretations, even though this thread is clearly an example of that. Muslims heard of Jesus and interpret him not as the Jesus of any Christian Church would, not Roman nor Orthodox Catholics, nor Protestants, would. Protestants do accept the NT [their version of it at least] and they have no apostolic tradition that I can see. It's very much the same thing; people get different meanings out of the same thing, and while you might not agree with the interpretation, it does not mean they don't have that interpretation.

>The excerpts are not about what modern Catholics believe, or even Catholics in 1054 believe.
Yeah, there certainly is a discrepency.

No one said Colman was lying about his sentiment, but that his method is derivative of John's, not the same as John's. Colman knew this but still considered it following John, and refused to change even after being shown his error.

I'm sure there are plenty of intreptations of the truth, but if your intrepretation of Christianity has been consistently witnessed since ancient times, it is not Apostolic. Paul said if even an angel teaches something different than the Apostles did, let him be anathema. And if you say your intrepretation was the original one, but lost, that is saying the Spirit of Truth Christ sent to watch over the Church, fell asleep on the job.

>if your intrepretation of Christianity has been consistently witnessed since ancient times, it is not Apostolic.
I assume you mean "has not been". That is what Orthodoxy affirms, but Roman Catholics aren't Orthodox. They think we break with tradition as much as we think they do.

has *not been consistently

So? Do they intrepret John of the Ladder differently?

Catholics think doctrine develops over time

I'm fairly certain they don't celebrate him for the Fourth Sunday in the forty days before Easter. Judging by the thread, he's a near nobody to them.
That might explain why they focus on different writers and events and calendars and traditions

But doesn't really explain why he's a nobody

Their Easter traditions are different, as are their focus in writers and their other traditions. They obviously don't care about him as much as what they do focus on, though I don't know what that is. If it weren't in our Great Lent, I don't know if we would place the same emphasis. I think they don't place the same emphasis on hesychasm either though they probably know the words.

No one in this thread is aware that they're subjecting their Spirit to Materialist dialectic by focusing on History, an emergent Darwinian model of Mind and nothing more.

John of the Ladder was pretty solidly known prior to the establishment of his Lenten commemoration. He also doesn't cover hesychasm much until the end, and actually thinks mysticism is a waste of time except for the very advanced who have become numb to pride.

What I'm saying is that they might never have had those things as a large part of their practice. His part has become larger in Orthodoxy, but I don't think he was ever a big deal for Roman Catholics.

I don't think a writer in England would come up with The Idiot or discuss it in terms of Orthodoxy as well as a Russian, but that's fairly common in Russian Orthodox. They probably focus on different saints that fit in their view of history better.

Looking up the fourth Sunday in Lent on the Roman Calendar, apparently it's their day to have rejoicing and remember the miracle of the loaves and fishes, so it's like a break from Lenten asceticism.

There is a different between not being big, and being a total nobody.

The Idiot was written hundreds of years after the schism, so not comparable.

I prefer this Johannes Climacus desu

I'm saying a book which dealt with things like holy fools and hesychasm would never occur to someone not under Orthodoxy, and I think that's because he's never been important to them any more than any other early saint they don't make a big deal of. I'm unsure why you think he should be important to them, except he's important to us. I don't think Roman tradition has as many holy fools and that's probably because that wasn't important to them either.

What of the Roman Catholic part of the schism from Orthodox practice makes you believe he was important to them in 1054?

Kiekegaard is terrible and can't grasp the corporate nature of Christianity, he butchers it in trying to make it some narcissistic, purely individualistic affair.

They certainly don't neglect the writings of other early saints.

Gregory the Great was a big fan of John.

Gregory the Great isn't a schism leader for the Romans.

What other saints are they reading? Do they fit better with their ideology? What about the schism would make you think they liked John at the schism?

Correct. Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman illustrates this, but his argument is against the protestants, because nobody really cared about Orthodoxy around that time.

It's the logical conclusion of Protestantism, give him kudos for at least being consistent.

The Cloud of Unknowing

The question is why the Latins stopped regarding him as they moved toward schism, and still don't to this day. His writings aren't exactly pedestrian.