Thread 40824636

Twelve Apostles Edition!

Christian Esotericism is the inner and/or mystical aspect of the Christian Religion, it includes:
>Christian Gnosis (Clement of Alexandria)
>Desert Fathers Spirituality (Evagrius Ponticus)
>Catholic Contemplative Tradition (Bonaventure)
>Hesychasm (Gregory Palamas)
>Chivalry (Wolfram von Eschenbach)
>Christian Alchemy (George Ripley)
>Rhineland Mysticism (Meister Eckhart)
>Christian Cabala (Johannes Reuchlin)
>Paracelsianism (Paracelsus)
>Rosicrucianism (Robert Fludd)
>Christian theosophy (Jakob Böhme)
>Martinism (Louise Claude de Saint-Martin)
>Swedenborgianism (Swedenborg)
>Magical Idealism (Novalis)
>Romanticism (Baader)
>Anthroposophy (Rudolf Steiner)
>Sophiology (Sergei Bulgakov)
>Christian Hermeticism (Valentin Tomberg)
>Fourth Way (Boris Mouravieff)
>Christian Traditionalism (Jean Borella)
>Divine Love (James Padgett)
And much more, so let's continue to talk about it!

>Resources (WIP)
https://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.htm
https://jacobboehmeonline.com/
https://archive.org/details/awakening-to-divine-wisdom-christian-initiation-into-three-worl-nodrm_202202/mode/1up
https://janelead.org/resources.html
https://archive.org/details/bookofcontemplat00unde/
https://archive.org/details/rudolf-steiner-book-collection/
https://swedenborg.com/bookstore/free-ebooks-downloads/
https://www.gornahoor.net/?page_id=47
https://archive.org/details/meditations-on-the-tarot/
https://files.catbox.moe/8n4061.djvu (Meditations on the Tarot)
https://eliasartista.substack.com/
https://passtheword.org
https://catenabible.com/mt/1

>>40824636 (OP)
Previous thread >>40768929

>>40824636 (OP)
Videos on Gnosis, its various types (SPG, UPG & VPG) and Gnosticism:

https://youtu.be/0F7knBtLsNs
https://youtu.be/260L-DEZVQ0
https://youtu.be/diHf_Tup6tE

>>40824636 (OP)
https://youtu.be/DZrGIIIBhNg

>>40824636 (OP)
Steiner time
https://spiritualscienceinsights.com/steiner-gospel-of-john/

Bump

bump

Rethinking my view of Christian universalism
Finally found someone to have a conversation with about it, and a lot of my interpretations of verses that I thought supported it were wrong. But that being said, it still seems like it's rather ambiguous.

>>40830153
What do you mean about christian universalism?

>>40830153
I just recently had a conversation with a scholar, who informed me, in no uncertain terms, that the Sheep in John 10 have no relation to "students" or "followers" or anything of the sort, and kind of treated me like I was the crazy one for thinking so. Be careful who you allow to interpret texts for you.

>>40830775
The idea that hell is temporary and eventually everyone will be restored and forgiven of sin by Jesus
>>40830783
Yeah, it was just a casual conversation between me and another Christian, and she kinda surprised me on some things. Like for some reason I never realized that acts 3:21 could potentially be read as *only* all the things spoken of by the prophets would be destroyed, and utter separation/destruction of unbelievers is mentioned just a couple of verses later

>>40830792
>The idea that hell is temporary and eventually everyone will be restored and forgiven of sin by Jesus
What if i told you that Apokatastasis is true?
John Scotus Eriugena explains it best

>>40830850
I would need an exposition of scriptures to believe it. Not philosophical or moral etc arguments for it.
I want to believe it and I still lean very slightly in support of it, but it doesn't seem as clear as I thought.

>>40830857
Why is it not as clear now?

>>40830859
Because many of the scriptures in support of it seem ambiguous, and there's some scriptures that seem to point to some people never being saved, like acts 3:25 and the second death of revelations.

>>40830864
It's Actually acts 3:23

>>40830850
For sure it's true.

>>40824636 (OP)
William Blake was a prophet

>>40824636 (OP)
Have you guys been keeping up with the South West Believers Conference?

>>40830864
Scripture and reason have to agree, so while i do understand why you're seeking it in scripture, it's best to have a combined approach with proper interpretation and proper reasoning
>>40831430
Stemming from Augustine, Heaven and Hell are created but above our world, our world is finite, and God is eternal, Heaven and Hell being in-between they're neither finite nor eternal
Sounds weird but Augustine explains his in his commentary on Saint Paul's Ascent to the third Heaven in the Bible
>>40831768
Not a Prophet, they have covenants, we aren't Montanists
William Blake was a visionary, a mystic, whatever you like to call him, so he continues in the tradition from the Essenes who had apocalyptic visions and kept hidden the names of Angels, to people like William Law in England who was a theosopher

>>40831789
It's live now
https://youtu.be/puUHK7ahyLo

>>40832049
Finally some quality theology

Bump

In tribulation immediately draw near to God with confidence, and you will receive strength, enlightenment, and instruction.

St. John of the Cross

>>40834528
A true Saint

>>40824636 (OP)
Anyone read this?

Can you recommend me a good book that's quick to read? Doesn't have to be any specific faith. Preferably old. Emerald tablets are too extensive. Prayers of Mani on my list.

>>40836812
The Didache

>>40836930
Nor give over-confidence to your soul. Thanks.

>>40836930
Any specific quotes you wanna share?

>>40836940
I read it a long time ago because I was interested in the early church, but I just remember it being short

>>40836985
What else do you feel interested in in the spiritual religious realm?

>>40836671
Looks based.

>>40836671
Nope, but this is a topic that i am very familiar with, the book looks interesting
>>40836812
You can read the Epistle of Eugnostos in 5 minutes
>>40837439
Some idiot probably made that list!

Bump

Remove the letter A from the name Abel and you get a very famous god who was worshiped throughout Mesopotamia

TubalCain aka TuvalCain = (tu)Volcanoo - also (tu)Balcain -(revers) - Cannibal

The name Cain means spear
Mot in the Ugaritic cycle held a spear
Vritra held a spear

For some strange reason (even if we ignore other coincidences) Pontius Pilate is deciphered as Sea Spear(Moth and Vritra were connected with the sea)

because b can be read both ways. vaal - baal, bel - vel(vil), babylon-vavylon
Word bull and volk(also vol - bull. Volkolak) in Slavic languages are also connected with this (the Etruscans directly connected wolves with some wolf-like gods from underground connected with blacksmithing and knowledge. They are also possibly telkhines)

>>40840295
also Lycaon (Apollo also turned into a wolf and was known as Lyceus(Lyceus hm). Perhaps Xolotl, Anubis, is also coonected with this)

Perhaps the wolfish appearance is a curse of the Cainites

>>40840295
Lol ya a big brain in the sky wrote words dude. Thats actually the full story and is not really worth thinking about. Look I can also write words “hangniggershangemallniggerniggernigger” it means “peace and tranquility will come to you if you reply back to me with a heartfelt thank you and well wishes”.

>>40840326
A lot has been written about (tu)valcain and volcanoo. They are really connected. It's the same Hephaestus. He is also revered by Masons.

>>40840337
Dude a big brain in the sky even wrote all the languages. Even the symbols are sexual gaslighting. Binary is a 1 and a 0 which is a penis and a vagina hole symbol. He is very immature. Also he is kinda a gay rapist dude who slaughters us like hes making a movie.

Pray for world and I brothers

>>40841568
What

Bump

>>40843077
>I hate Christians because what they did to the Jews
>what did they do to the Jews?
>hey buddy you are being antisemitic, want to go to jail?

>>40826149
>>40826154
reminds me of the AMORC bedtime stories vinyl lol

>>40806292
Is "Cabala" really the best category to put the Monas under? If not, what we call it?

>>40845661
The Monas Hieroglyphica is John Dee's own attempt at a universal symbol, like how YHShVH was Reuchlin's universal name, and he considers any form of mystical speculations on number as Cabala, as was common at the time
Cabala isn't "repackaged Jewish Kabbalah for Christians" it's its own tradition, with its own sources and own primary texts

>>40845800
Thanks you.

>>40845874
No problem mate

did everyone from the /catholic/ general over at /lit/ move here?

>>408472466

Made one

>>40847299
Not sure what happened there
>>40847246

>>40847126
rule #1 of /tradcath/ general: don't talk about /tradcath/ general
rule #2 of /tradcath/ general: when you smell a poo it means a jeet is nearby and you must stfu until it goes away; look up when it's midnight to sunrise in India, those times are probably safe

>>40848558
>when you smell a poo it means a jeet is nearby and you must stfu until it goes away; look up when it's midnight to sunrise in India, those times are probably safe
rofl. does this general get spammed by them?

>>40848656
>does this general get spammed by them?
no but better safe than sorry

>>40848940
grim

>>40830153
I think everyone will be offered salvation and the humble will accept it while the proud will reject it.

You will be judged , Jesus will show you all the times in your life he reached out and you turned away. Show you all he did for you despite this, Explain the weight of your sin. Then offer 1 final time the free gift of grace. Now if you are humble enough to accept it you can receive this grace, but if your pride prevents you then he is not going to force you to be with him.

Bump

>>40847304
St. Augustine:
Mens corresponds to the Father.
Intellectus corresponds to the Son.
Volitio corresponds to the Holy Ghost.
He says that in these three powers the human soul is made in the image of the Blessed Trinity. The Son proceeds from the Father by way of understanding (He is His Wisdom) and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son by way of love (He is their unity).

https://pansophers.com/martinism-vs-gnosticism/
https://pansophers.com/golden-dawn-review-christosophia/

>>40851661
is that black pepper? reminds me of Johnny Cash (himself a Christian, to the point where he visited Jerusalem and also wrote a novel about St. Paul) saying that whenever smoking marijuana makes him grow paranoid, he pops a black pepper in his mouth and cracks it (chews on it)

Thoughts on the Holy Spirit being the feminine aspect of God? Spirit in Hebrew and Aramaic would be feminine and in Greek it's gender neutral.

>>40824636 (OP)
New post
https://eliasartista.substack.com/p/the-father-of-lies

>>40852412
This is heresiology not esotericism.

>>40840318
Are there any recent printings of this? It's a very hard to find book.
btw where do you guys buy your books from?

orthodoxy has a ton of lesser-known cults, like sedevecantist equivalent, batshit cults, messy patriarchate\jurisdictions, etc...I've been collecting photos of such "dubious orthodox", they feel comfy for some weird reason.

>>40853205
I know there's ROCOR, Moscow patriarchate, then I knew :greece, rumania, serbia, etc all have their own groups AND several old calendarist sects...in russia there are the, even more extremist "true orthodox" which are more like home-aloners??

>>40853205
>>40853224
Very cool. Old Believers are great also.

>>40852411
Isn't it interesting that Kingdom, in Greek, is also feminine? If the Kingdom of "Israel" is the Bride of God, and God is a Father, and to be Married is to be One Flesh...

>>40852695
Yes but I am doing these posts to explain elements of those heresies that also reoccur in Christian Esotericism as they derive from it

>>40824636 (OP)
Anon's thoughts on Meister Eckhart sermon 52?

>>40853650
the 1952 one?

>>40824636 (OP)
Pretty lukewarm Catholic here, how do I get better at practicing and avoiding intrusive doubts that try to lead me astray to other faiths?

>>40854489
>lead me astray to other faiths
example?

>>40854516
Quietistic ones like Buddhism or certain variants of Daoism

>>40854524
buddhism is a way of life, not a religion

>>40854540
NTA but I'm pretty sure it's a religion
ritual makes a religion, not spirituality

>>40852411
The Holy Spirit was interpreted in Syriac Christianity as Christ's "Mother" or "Sister" and there was the tradition of seeing the Wisdom of the OT as the Old Testament
>>40853358
The Kingdom/Israel is the Church
>>40854489
Study them, study Catholicism, with time and enough research on both you will make your decision
>>40854540
>buddhism is a religion, not a religion

>>40854556
as long as you practice buddha's teaching which are in accordance to the scriptures, you should be good. you can easily avoid metaphysical stuff and focus on the human aspect like kindness, compassion, self restraint etc

>>40854578
>>buddhism is a religion, not a religion
but religion romanticizes and incorporates metaphysics. "way of life" does not inherently have to.

>>40854581
so there are no buddhist monks, dressed in a certain way, temples, rituals etc.
you sound like a buddhist calvinist lol

>>40854591
Buddhism romanticizes and incorporates metaphics
>"way of life" does not inherently have to.
Any way of life seeks the good, and to justify the seeking of the good has to give it an objective existence outside of subjective experience, which is metaphics

>>40854623
of course there are but like i said, you avoid the metaphysical stuff like rituals etc

>>40854629
>has to give it an objective existence outside of subjective experience
i dont have to give it an objective existence.

>>40854650
>i dont have to give it an objective existence.
Ok then tell me, why are things like loyalty, truthfulness and justice good, and tricking, envying and malice bad?

>>40830792
I thought the Bible says thar hell isn't for eternity but the soul is destroyed and ceases to exist afterward

>>40854690
loyalty is not always good. further, loyalty and justice are subjective.

>tricking, envying and malice bad
evolutionarily bad. cause death and destruction.

>>40854712
>subjective
>evolutionarily bad.
Is that an authority? If my tribe succeded through tricking and malice and that way spread and became dominant, wouldn't that mean those things are evolutionarily good?

>>40854738
>wouldn't that mean those things are evolutionarily good?
not always. tribes which are prone to deceit, violence are also likely to experience intra societal deceit and violence

>>40854489
You have to pray for understanding, then do what you can to learn the faith. Study the Catechism, the Fathers and Doctors, and especially the lives of the saints. Also the daily rosary is a very powerful devotion.

>>40854623
These are later developments. Buddha's first disciples were solitary ascetics. It's better compared to the ancient Hellenic Mysteries, including their subsequent popularization and fall into decadence. It's evident from the disputes between the early Jesuit missionaries and the Chinese Buddhists that the dhamma had already become a dead letter to them by then.

>>40854650
>just avoid what the most devoted buddhists do
at least Christians / Jews / Muslims are not hypocritical

>>40854769
>These are later developments. Buddha's first disciples were solitary ascetics. It's better compared to the ancient Hellenic Mysteries, including their subsequent popularization and fall into decadence. It's evident from the disputes between the early Jesuit missionaries and the Chinese Buddhists that the dhamma had already become a dead letter to them by then.
stop talking about what you have no idea about

if you've said "Buddha's first disciples were solitary ascetics and then the teachings got corrupted" it would have been enough

>>40854768
I will ask again, is it an authority
Or better yet, is truth good?

>>40854798
>Or better yet, is truth good?
>is it better to tell the truth to ss guards that im housing a thousand jews
OR
>is it better to lie and say im unaware, thus saving a thousand innocent humans
you tell me

>>40854796
What did I get wrong?

>>40854810
False dilemma, i can tell the ss guards about my jews and then they jump out and kill them
This is not the point, is truth by itself good? If it is, is it better than falsehood?

>>40854837
its not a false dilemma. you cant just pick and choose what fits your narrative

>then they jump out and kill them
that wasnt the point

>is truth by itself good? If it is, is it better than falsehood?
see >>40854810
>>is it better to tell the truth to ss guards that im housing a thousand jews
>OR
>>is it better to lie and say im unaware, thus saving a thousand innocent humans

>>40854848
So for you it depends
Ok, let's use your examples , you either tell the truth and they die, or you lie and they live
Whichever you choose, why would you choose it?

>>40854858
>Whichever you choose, why would you choose it?
the latter because it makes me happy to see others happy

>>40854868
Alright, let's say i choose the former, not because i want to tell the truth or anything, I just want to see them dead, it brings me joy
Who made the right decision?

>>40854875
according to hitler, you made the right decision

>>40854706
>the soul is destroyed and ceases to exist afterward
Where are you getting that from?

>>40854880
Tell me who's right and why please

>>40854902
i just said -> >>40854880

>>40854905
So is Hitler an authority for you?
Please don't be evasive, can you give me an objective reason for why my and your decision aren't equally valid?
If you can't don't worry about it, I'll just move on to my point then

>>40854917
>can you give me an objective reason for why my and your decision aren't equally valid?
there is no objective reason. it's subjective since both us of feel joy. how is there an objective conclusion to this?

>>40854917
>So is Hitler an authority for you?
if i was a german living in 1940s germany, yes. if i was a chinese living in 1940s china, no.

>>40854935
So it's arbitrary
>>40854929
This then brings me to >>40854629 where without any objective good, no supposed way of like makes sense, it's all arbitrary and subjective, following the eightfold path is equal to mass genocide for "enlightenment"
Who knows, maybe Hideki Tojo is a Bodhisattva now?
So you need an objective good

>>40854962
>following the eightfold path is equal to mass genocide for "enlightenment"
illogical conflation

>>40854997
Show my why it isn't

>>40855011
you need to show how they are equivalent since burden of proof lies on you

>>40855015
Things are either objectively good and bad, or only subjectively, if the former is the case, what is good is clear, if the latter is the case, it's arbitrary, my good is your bad and vice versa
The eightfold path is meant to be a path to achieving a specific goal, this goal is said to be good and desireable, but the method is dependant on if it itself is good or not, and since in a world where goodness is subjective, that would make them arbitrary in that world, and equivalent to something like mass genocide as an extreme example
Who can tell me that mass genocide won't give me the subjective experience i need to achieve nirvana?

>>40855055
>Who can tell me that mass genocide won't give me the subjective experience i need to achieve nirvana?
strawman.
the eightfold path mentions absolutely nothing about mass genocide

>reads posts
>scrolls up to OP
>scrolls down again
yep it's a street shitter invasion

>>40855058
>strawman
Unrelated
>the eightfold path mentions absolutely nothing about mass genocide
Yes it doesn't, i don't claim it does, what i am claiming is that, in a world without objective morality, where everything is subjective, it doesn't matter if you do the eightfold path or not, it doesn't matter if you cause mass genocide or not, because of that, they're equivalent, the only one who says one is better than the other is my subjective opinion

>>40855079
okay i concede

>>40855079
but i still refuse to believe there's objective goodness. if what you're telling me is true, then every godless universe is devoid of intelligent human life

>>40855108
*despite being identical to our universe in every law, shape, forms etc

>>40855079
and that also leads me to another problem with your argument. if there are infinite number of godless universes, universes which lack objective morality, will ALL of them be devoid of intelligent life?

>>40855092
>>40855108
>>40855114
>>40855127
Now you want to get into an other discussion we can do that, but i have never claimed there to be any multiplicity of godless universes

>>40855136
so how would you know we arent in a godless universe?

>>40855066
If that's true, they're being called to the gospel. God is sending them here

>>40855184
NTA but the AWOO's are a pretty good evidence
that being said
AWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>40855186
they believe in reincarnation though so we can reject them by the time we (whites, africans, non-streetshitting asians and latinos... especially cute latinas!) get our shit together

>>40855201
Aw anon be nice (And less downbad)

>>40855184
Because my worldview makes me believe in objective morality, and that objective morality has to come from God
If you want feel free to ask more and i will explain everything in detail, but not now, after some hours

>>40855206
I am a Catholic and that means that I can afford the luxury of not being nice... because there will come a Catholic that will be nice and help you
I am just

>>40855209
>my worldview
but you wouldnt know if your worldview has or does not have a God. this would be equivalent to the goldilocks principle/platos cave. maybe you just so happen to be in a godless universe where you see a shadow of objective morality?

>>40853650
>When the soul gives herself to the knowledge of the very truth, to
the onefold power in which God is known, then the soul is called a
light. And God too is light, and when the divine light is flooding the
soul, then the soul becomes united with God like a light with light.
Then that is called a light of faith, and that is a divine virtue. And
where the soul is unable to go with her senses and powers, there faith
carries her.

>>40855240
and in such a godless universe, you cannot conclusively prove or disprove objective morality simply because you as a human cannot see 'outside' of our plane of existence.

>>40855240
>but you wouldnt know if your worldview has or does not have a God
I know because my worldview is dependant on there being one
>maybe you just so happen to be in a godless universe where you see a shadow of objective morality?
If there is an objective morality then my universe is dependant on it, doesn't matter how "far away" from it it is

>>40855251
But like I said, you wouldn’t know. Therefore, on what basis can you conclusively and objectively say your universe is dependent on objective morality?

>>40855282
Reason
The indepth explanation shall come later, for now I have to go

The average state of the general is getting to be a bit much, what even is the conversation happening here right now.

This general is top cringe and a contradiction by itself.

This is the best general on 4chan, hands down, despite the occasional retarded arguers. Thanks to all who keep it alive.

>>40826168

Anything inbred and hideous is scary enough.
//

DESTROY. DESTROY. DESTROY. NON-STOP!!! !!!

This general needs more heresy. The future is Buddhist/Gnostic Christian/Taoist syncretism.

>>40855441
This guy is supposed to be a theologian too. The modern state of Israel is illegitimate because God Himself expelled the Jews from the Holy Land. It is illegitimate because it is a secularist republic. These are points on which traditional Christians and Jews agree, although the Jews will not admit that God expelled them because of the crime of deicide. He thinks that Israel might be a legitimate state if it did not commit "atrocities." Genocide is not an atrocity, it is God's punishment of a nation's sins. The modern world hates genocide because it wants to go on living forever free from the consequences of its own actions. Today the Palestinians face those consequences, but tomorrow the Jewish nation will pay dearly for its perfidy. Wars and revolutions will consume the world, and then a great chastisement from heaven will put an end to this global technological Babel.
Esoteric angle: the world is the soul. The wars and revolutions are the many changing things that it knows. The chastisement from heaven is the agnosia, the destruction of false knowledge.

bump

>>40855282
Are you still here?

>>40824636 (OP)
Read them in this order, contains a lot of truth
1. https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/36931222/#36931222
2. https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/36976168/#36976168
3. https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37023268/#37023268
4. https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37093515/#37093515
5. https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37134196/#37134196
6. https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37237392/#37237392
7. https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37333243/#37333243

Bump

Any book recomendations

>>40861618
Depends what you are looking for

>>40861698
Mainly books on working with Angels, like sumoning them and talking to them.

>>40858330
yes

an example of dubious orthodox group..from Ecuador ,the flag. but they operate in Latam too.
many such people "collect ordinations" transfer between churches, create new autocephalous or patriarch groups, etc
IS there sacramental validity behind "non roman" catholics? like those ISM guys? are they all invalid schismatics\scammers?

>>40864164
There is

>>40856126
>Today the Palestinians face those consequences
The consequences of what? Not accepting Christ? if that is your requirement for being perfidious then why is God enacting punishment on them specifically? Not interested in political discussions btw, just want to know your reasoning

>>40861938
Can you look into saint veneration?

>>40865524
Absolutely.

>>40824636 (OP)

Heresy. None of that shit is official Roman Catholic practice, all of it is schizo retarded shit.

Praying for you.

>>40867091
Even Saint Bonaventure?

>>40854489
It means your Christianity is lacking something. Ask yourself what element of those other faiths is attractive to you. There's a high likelihood you can find it in a Christian context as well, but you're just unaware of it. If it's Buddhism and Daoism, maybe you should read the Christian mystics (both Eastern and Western) and discover contemplative prayer.

>>40867050
Not him but go ahead and post a book on it

>>40824636 (OP)
>>Christian Gnosis (Clement of Alexandria)
Gnostic nonsense in a toga, hard pass.

>>Desert Fathers Spirituality (Evagrius Ponticus)
Asceticism’s fine, but this smells like proto-hippie self-obsession.

>>Catholic Contemplative Tradition (Bonaventure)
Bonaventure’s solid, but his flowery mysticism’s a bit too "I’m in love with my own soul" for my taste.

>>Hesychasm (Gregory Palamas)
Cool aesthetics, but it’s just repackaged Eastern mysticism with a cross slapped on.

>>Chivalry (Wolfram von Eschenbach)
Chivalry’s noble, but this is pure larping.

>>Christian Alchemy (George Ripley)
Ripley’s just a wizard wannabe cloaking his nonsense in Christian jargon.

>>Rhineland Mysticism (Meister Eckhart)
Eckhart’s “God and I are one” shtick is a slippery slope to pantheism.

>>Christian Cabala (Johannes Reuchlin)
Reuchlin’s playing with occult fire and calling it theology. Nope.

>>Paracelsianism (Paracelsus)
His “Christian” alchemy’s just pagan quackery in a fancy hat.

>>Rosicrucianism (Robert Fludd)
Freemasons with extra Jesus sprinkles. Hard no.

>>Christian theosophy (Jakob Böhme)
Pure squizo drivel.

>>Martinism (Louise Claude de Saint-Martin)
Not even close.

>>Swedenborgianism (Swedenborg)
Straight-up Protestant fever dream.

>>Magical Idealism (Novalis)
Romanticism with a Christian filter, no substance.

>>Romanticism (Baader)
Catholicism Lite for artsy types, feels like a Pinterest board.

>>Anthroposophy (Rudolf Steiner)
Waldorf school nonsense with a Christian veneer.

>>Sophiology (Sergei Bulgakov)
Smells like goddess worship in disguise.

>>Christian Hermeticism (Valentin Tomberg)
Tomberg’s tarot-card Christianity is occult nonsense dressed up as mysticism.

>>Fourth Way (Boris Mouravieff)
Gurdjieff’s cult with extra Bible quotes. Total scam.

>>Christian Traditionalism (Jean Borella)
Guénon but with a rosary. Meh.

>>Divine Love (James Padgett)
Padgett’s “messages from Jesus” are spiritist garbage.

>>40867272
Are you a Christian Salafi or something? You're going against Church traditions and undermining people like Saint Bonaventure to defend the Church

>>40867272
>Eckhart’s “God and I are one” shtick is a slippery slope to pantheism.
Well said. Eckhart is way overrated.

>>40867272
>Eckhart’s “God and I are one” shtick is a slippery slope to pantheism.
Yeah man I wonder where he could have gotten such a crazy notion.
>The Father and I are one.
>The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one

>After the secrets of the unbeliever’s heart are disclosed, that person will bow down before God and worship, declaring, “God is really among you.”
>When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.
The slope is so slippery it slid all the way backwards in time.

>>40865561
All nations have turned away from God.
>>40867091
Some of it is official Roman Catholic practice, but the point stands that this general is mainly an excuse for Christians, mainly Catholics and Lutherans, to dabble in occultism, which has nothing to do with authentic and fully orthodox Christian esoterism. That is completely underground by the way. You simply will not find anything more than the faintest traces of it on the internet.
>>40867640
Cf. "In agro dominico," Mar 27, 1329, Denzinger 501 ff. Seventeen propositions are condemned as heretical. However "pantheism" is a red herring, and it is hard to say whether the people who use the term so imprecisely to accuse any theology or metaphysics that emphasizes the divine immanence whether they are poorly educated or arguing in bad faith. Most likely it is a combination of both.

>>40867789
>Cf. "In agro dominico," Mar 27, 1329, Denzinger 501 ff. Seventeen propositions are condemned as heretical.
Is Mar 27, 1329 before or after the publication of John and Paul?

Where's the Rasta?

>>40867805
To Catholics the decision is promulgated with the same authority as that by which Sts. John and Paul wrote, not that there is a contradiction, but you are missing the point because you did not read the edict which contains the propositions that were condemned. The concern was clearly the material formulation of the ideas he was getting at, which as you rightly point out are scriptural. The Catholic Church never excommunicated Eckhart for heresy by the way.

>>40867896
>Catholics
Ok

>>40867607
Eckhart was more a philosopher than a mystic, influenced heavily by Neoplatonism and Aristotelian logic.

Eckhart’s so-called mysticism is an abstract, elite metaphysics dressed in spiritual terms — not genuine mystical experience.

>>40867908
"Mystical experience" is something that William James made up, it is not a category with which mysticism itself has ever been concerned.

>>40867908
Eckhart should be understood not as a mystic but as a radical metaphysician, deeply indebted to Neoplatonism and Aristotelian dialectics. His so-called “mysticism” is an abstraction masquerading as spirituality.

No concrete mystical experience: Eckhart speaks not of divine union as an experienced reality, but as a logical deduction. This makes his “mysticism” intellectually dry, elitist, and speculative. Eckhart is heavily tilted toward the speculative, drawing on Neoplatonic abstractions rather than concrete religious experience (like Teresa of Ávila or Bonaventure).

Identity collapse: His claim that the soul and God become “one” is ontologically incoherent — it erases difference without explaining how distinction can survive in unity.

Confused metaphysical language: Eckhart's use of concepts like being, nothingness, and ground (grunt) lack analytic precision. It’s slippery language, used more for rhetorical effect than clarity. His writings are deliberately paradoxical — this creates confusion between metaphor and metaphysics.

Eckhart is neither a mystic nor a prophet, but a late medieval scholastic philosopher trying to rewrite metaphysics under a mystical guise.

>>40867972
Kurt Flasch is in a league of his own when it comes to piercing the mystique around Eckhart and giving him a rigorous philosophical takedown. He cuts through centuries of spiritual romanticism and hagiography.

Rather than treating Eckhart as a timeless mystic (or New Age prophet), Flasch situates him firmly in the 13th–14th century Dominican intellectual tradition, influenced by Albert the Great, Aquinas, Proclus, Plotinus, Avicenna, and Pseudo-Dionysius.

He exposes how Eckhart hijacks Christian theology to smuggle in a metaphysical system rooted in Neoplatonic emanationism, but without accountability to logical consistency or doctrinal coherence.

He demolishes the "East-meets-West" appropriation. Flasch goes after modern readers — especially Zen interpreters and perennialists — who anachronistically project non-dualism, Buddhism, or Jungian archetypes into Eckhart. He’s not hostile to Buddhism — he’s hostile to bad historical method and philosophical sloppiness.

He draws a line between mysticism and metaphysics. Flasch makes the crucial distinction that most Eckart fanboys don't: the difference between language that seeks experience and language that claims ontological truth.

Eckhart's mystical language is not about ecstasy or encounter — it’s a coded metaphysical claim that the intellect can logically arrive at identity with God. But that identity is never demonstrated, never experienced, and never defended coherently. It’s just asserted — dressed up in poetic paradox.

>>40867972
>>40867978
>em dashes
Thanks ChatGPT

>>40867996
Even ChatGPT knows what's up.

>>40868007
Disgusting.

>>40868010
Not even a little bit.

Eckhart’s mysticism is fake mysticism.

>>40868022
Eckhart doesn't even claim to be a mystic. In his own estimation he is only a simple preacher. His theology is based on the "mystical theology" in the Corpus Dionysiacum (via Albertus Magnus), but that is not "mysticism" either. Its author intends "mystical" in the same way that St. Paul uses the term, i.e. in relation to the ancient Mysteries. That is, it represents an initiatic tradition present from the earliest days of the Church, cf. the two books on the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies.
ChatGPT was not prompted to check whether any of Eckhart's sources are considered official Catholic theology. They all are. He is just a theologian. You'll get a more clearly explicated version of the same ideas in Thomas Aquinas. The "unio mystica" is a part of dogmatic theology; it has nothing to do with "mysticism." Never did.

>>40868067
Eckhart doesn’t just borrow Neoplatonic ideas, he essentially repackages Christian doctrine in a Neoplatonic framework.

Eckhart’s notion of God’s "ground" (Gund) is straight from Neoplatonic philosophy: an ineffable, impersonal, transcendent "One" beyond being and attributes. This is not the personal, triune God of Christianity but a metaphysical abstraction.

The blurring of Creator and creation, which is a hallmark of Neoplatonism, sneaks into Eckhart’s work. His language about the "birth of God in the soul" and the soul’s unity with God resembles the Neoplatonic idea of the soul’s return to the One.

This Neoplatonic smuggling is precisely why Eckhart’s teachings were viewed with suspicion and some condemned. He erased clear doctrinal boundaries between God’s essence and created beings. This as a major theological fault line. Eckhart’s Neoplatonic mysticism wasn’t a harmless borrowing; it was a radical reinterpretation.

Eckhart’s project destabilizes the Christian God as a personal, relational being, replacing Him with a philosophical "ground" or "one-ness." This shift is far from innocent theological creativity; it fundamentally alters the Christian understanding of God, salvation, and the soul’s relationship to God.

Eckhart’s theology is a Neoplatonic Trojan horse inside Christianity. It cloaks itself in Christian language but carries ideas that undermine core Christian truths.

TLDR: He smuggled Neoplatonism into Christian theology under the guise of orthodox mysticism, destabilizing the personal, triune God with an impersonal "ground" that verges on pantheism. That’s why the Church condemned parts of his thought.

>>40868193
>Eckhart’s notion of God’s "ground" (Gund) is straight from Neoplatonic philosophy: an ineffable, impersonal, transcendent "One" beyond being and attributes.
Thus, then, the divine Bartholomew says that Theology is much and least, and the Gospel broad and great, and on the other hand concise. He seems to me to have comprehended this supernaturally, that the good Cause of all is both of much utterance, and at the same time of briefest utterance and without utterance; as having neither utterance nor conception, because It is superessentially exalted above all, and manifested without veil and in truth, to those alone who pass through both all things consecrated and pure, and ascend above every ascent of holy summits, and leave behind all divine lights and sounds, and heavenly words, and enter into the gloom, where really is, as the Oracles say, He Who is beyond all.

Dionysius, Mystical Theology, 1.3

If you want to know why the Church condemned parts of Eckhart's thought, the reasoning is published and easy to understand, and I cited it above. It has nothing to do with these ridiculous and vague sophistical assertions about "smuggling" and so on.

I will not devote further space to this topic.

>>40868193
>His language about the "birth of God in the soul" and the soul’s unity with God resembles the Neoplatonic idea of the soul’s return to the One.
Wow, I wonder where he got this crazy idea.
>My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,
>For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I am speaking about Christ and the church.

There is no Christianity that is not Neoplatonic.

>>40868247
>Wow, I wonder where he got this crazy idea.
This kind of smug quip ignores centuries of careful doctrinal distinction.

Yes, Paul uses imagery of Christ being formed in the believer, and Ephesians discusses union between Christ and the Church. But those are soteriological and covenantal metaphors, not metaphysical identity claims.

>There is no Christianity that is not Neoplatonic.
This is the linchpin fallacy.

Multiple streams fed early and medieval Christian thought: (1) Aristotelianism (especially via Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, and Islamic thinkers), (2) stoicism and rhetoric (especially in Augustine’s early work), (3) Biblical Semitic theology (e.g. Irenaeus, Tertullian), and (4) a powerful anti-Neoplatonic strain in the Franciscan tradition (Bonaventure, Duns Scotus).

Even where Neoplatonism influenced theology (e.g., with Augustine or Pseudo-Dionysius), it was always subordinated to revelation. Christianity rejected the key metaphysical principles of Neoplatonism.

For example, Christianity teaches resurrection of the body, rather than reabsorption of the soul into the One.

Even Eckhart, at his most provocative, never teaches that the soul dissolves into the One. That would be condemned (and in fact was, in part, by the papal bull In agro dominico, 1329).

Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen: none of these foundational thinkers operated from Neoplatonic assumptions. Irenaeus wrote decades before Plotinus was even born.

Aquinas: deliberately corrects Platonist errors through Aristotelian realism. He accepts some abstraction, but grounds all knowledge in sense perception, not inward contemplation of the One.

The Condemnation of 219 Propositions (1277): Medieval Paris explicitly rejects Neoplatonic determinism and cosmology. Christian orthodoxy distanced itself from Neoplatonic metaphysics for a reason.

>>40868225
You lean heavily on a dense Pseudo-Dionysian quote to justify Eckhart’s language about God’s ineffability and beyond-being nature.

Although Eckhart uses Dionysian and Neoplatonic language, his interpretation goes far beyond Pseudo-Dionysius’s carefully guarded mystical theology. Pseudo-Dionysius speaks of God’s transcendence but always within a framework that preserves the distinction between God and creation. Eckhart, by contrast, often obliterates that distinction in his talk of the divine "ground" in the soul, leading to a form of metaphysical monism or pantheism the Church rejected.

Thus, simply quoting Dionysius does not salvage Eckhart’s views; Eckhart distorts or radicalizes Pseudo-Dionysius.

Eckhart’s method was precisely to "smuggle" heterodox ideas in subtle mystical phrasing, relying on ambiguous language and complex paradoxes that can be easily misunderstood or misused. The "smuggling" charge is a serious accusation grounded in how Eckhart’s language operated in practice.

>>40868365
>This kind of smug quip ignores centuries of careful doctrinal distinction.
And by "careful doctrinal distinction," you mean "cultural posturing." There is an assumption that, for some reason, Christianity should not be influenced by anything but the "correct" prior philosophy. But Paul, Deutero-Paul(s), John and most other NT authors were extremely Hellenized Jews with significant philosophical education that were rereading the LXX through Platonism/Stoicism etc. That later authors would feel embarrassed about this is of no concern to the original context, no matter how fancy the hat and the chair that justifies it.

> But those are soteriological and covenantal metaphors, not metaphysical identity claims.
Sure seems metaphysical to me, when John is saying things like believers are given the same kind of oneness with Jesus as Jesus has with the Father. Or is Jesus only metaphorically one with the Father?

>>40868543
You're conflating relational unity with ontological identity.

When Jesus prays: "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us", He is clearly speaking of relational unity, not metaphysical fusion.

Jesus is not suggesting believers are ontologically absorbed into the divine essence. He’s praying for unity in will, love, and purpose. This is a consistent Johannine theme (cf. John 13:34–35, 15:12, 17:23).

This is not about humans becoming metaphysically identical to God. It’s about believers being unified in love and purpose, as the Father and Son are. There is no language of shared essence (οὐσία) or nature being communicated or transferred.

It's a false analogy to imply that Jesus' oneness with the Father is equal to our oneness with Christ.

The argument assumes univocity where Scripture consistently teaches analogy or participation.

Jesus and the Father are one in a unique, intra-Trinitarian sense. John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." That statement got Him nearly stoned for blasphemy. The Greek there (ἕν ἐσμεν) is neuter, indicating unity of essence, not simply will.

When applied to believers (e.g., John 17), Jesus does not use that same neuter form to indicate shared essence, nor does He speak in Trinitarian categories. The unity between Father and Son is eternal, essential, and ontological. The unity between Christ and believers is covenantal, redemptive, and participatory.

>>40868610
That sure is a long list of assertions derived from later theological developments, that are not actually within John itself, like the Trinity. In John itself, we instead have affirmations of unity, like Vine and Branches. Again, that later authors would become embarrassed by this over time is of no bearing on the original context of the text.

>>40868543
Forget it anon, your respondent hasn't engaged with any primary texts, is just recapitulating some third rate scholar's slop. Maybe it's Flasch himself! What an honor.
I'm reminded of what Faivre wrote in the introduction to Access to Western Esotericism, that the majority of literature in the field is obvious and utter garbage. Its state is not appreciably improved since he wrote, but despite this even the term "neoplatonism" is outdated, at best it could refer to the school of Marsilio Ficino and his own interpretation of certain late antique Platonists. In practice it is only a conveniently ambiguous word to which any would be heresiologist can associate whichever notions and thinkers he wishes to smear. Silence is golden

>>40868543
>Paul, Deutero-Paul(s), John and most other NT authors were extremely Hellenized Jews
False. The NT authors were Jewish second-temple monotheists, not closet Platonists. They lived in a Greco-Roman world, yes, but being in a Hellenistic context is not the same as being philosophically Hellenized.

Paul was educated in rabbinic Judaism under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), not the Academy of Plato. When Paul addresses Greek philosophers in Acts 17, he corrects them, he doesn’t affirm them.

John's "Logos" in John 1 is not a rehashed Stoic Logos. It is a Jewish reinterpretation, intentionally polemical against both Hellenism and heretical Judaism (see Philo’s misuse of Logos). The Logos became flesh, not cosmic reason drifting in the æther.

The NT authors engaged Hellenistic thought, but they subverted and reoriented it through the Jewish apocalyptic and covenantal lens. That’s not cultural posturing, it’s revelatory reinterpretation.

No serious theologian claims Christianity was sealed off from cultural influence. The claim is that Christian doctrine makes careful distinctions to preserve divine revelation from being distorted by external categories.

Calling doctrinal distinction "cultural posturing" is a lazy anachronism. It flattens the entire patristic, conciliar, and exegetical tradition into a cartoon of insecure philosophers in robes. In fact, the Fathers rejected Neoplatonism when it conflicted with Scripture. This is why Plotinus was never canonized.

Christianity and Neoplatonism are mutually exclusive systems. At most, Christianity uses some tools of Neoplatonic vocabulary. However, the content is repurposed, baptized, and transformed.

>>40868543
>No matter how fancy the hat and the chair that justifies it...
This is not an argument. It’s a snide dismissal of 2,000 years of theological work because it doesn’t fit your cynically postmodern frame.

You want to collapse Christianity into Neoplatonism because you prefer mystical monism to revealed theism. But Christianity, from its earliest creeds to its most refined dogmas, maintains a radical Creator-creature distinction.

The Church Fathers engaged philosophy not as slaves to culture, but as guardians of the apostolic faith. They didn’t baptize Plato. They exorcised him.

>>40868635
You bring up John 15:5 ("I am the vine; you are the branches") to suggest some kind of metaphysical unity between Christ and believers.

But that metaphor explicitly preserves the distinction between Christ and His disciples: "Apart from me, you can do nothing."

A vine and a branch are connected, yes, but they’re not the same thing. The metaphor is about dependence and life-giving union, not identity. The branch receives life from the vine; it does not become the vine.

To use this metaphor to imply ontological fusion is to abuse the metaphor. The entire point is derivative participation, not identity of essence.

If you want to say that reading "unity but not identity" into John 17 is a later imposition, you have to deal with the grammar, syntax, and Greek forms used in John. You didn’t respond to that, because you can’t.

>>40868693
>Jewish second-temple monotheists, not closet Platonists. They lived in a Greco-Roman world, yes, but being in a Hellenistic context is not the same as being philosophically Hellenized.
Okay, then it is really quite strange Paul would routinely allude to Platonic writings and metaphors, such as the infamous Race.

>(Acts 22:3), Acts 17
Acts is a second century work of propaganda that routinely contradicts the actual letters of Paul, so...great?

>a Jewish reinterpretation
A Hellenized Jewish reinterpretation of a Greek idea, because in Greco-Roman period Judaism there was constant cross-talk and cultural mixing. You yourself admit it, only to instantly assume it Can't Really Matter, because of...

>Christian doctrine makes careful distinctions to preserve divine revelation from being distorted by external categories.
...cultural posturing.

The "Church Fathers" are twicefold a later development quite separate from John and Paul's context (who themselves are also existing within separate contexts). Even "Church Father" is a category that gets mostly arbitrarily assigned by authors even later than the people in question, and in that inconsistently. Origin wasn't a heretic until someone decided he was long after, so it wasn't like at the time there were The Church Fathers who Correctly Decide Things vs The Heretics Who Don't Know. All of that is retroactive.

>>40868704
If someone tells me the sky is green, I don't care how long they have been saying it. Paul says God will be All in All, and he does not turn around and instantly soften it for the benefit of authors living centuries later who will arbitrarily decide the Distinction Really Matters. I note the influence of Plato on Paul because it is evident from his texts.

>>40868679
You're right, but my tone is corrective against >>40867272. It is intellectually honest to acknowledge philosophical debts, and truth is of upmost importance. At least for the record. Practically, yeah, I speak to a wall.

>>40868738
You're abusing the term participation, which by definition is not derivative. It actually implies identity, even in Aquinas. But for him it is explicitly esse and not essentia that participates in, therefore is identical to God. Imputing "identity of essence" to your opponent's propositions is a mere straw man.
A vine and a branch are related as accident to substance. The vine inheres in the branch. They are one and the same ens per se. That's "Aristotelian realism"

The trouble with Christian esotericism continues to be that every step towards anything interesting or valuable is a step toward heresy in the eyes of the consensus.

>>40868738
>A vine and a branch are connected, yes, but they’re not the same thing. The metaphor is about dependence and life-giving union, not identity. The branch receives life from the vine; it does not become the vine.
There is no fruit without the vine.
There is no vine without the fruit.
The Two are One.

>>40868774
That is a feature, not a bug.

>>40868774 (part 2)
I'm not one of the participants in the ongoing debate btw. I'm just here to be passive aggressive.

>>40868774
If you want to get anything done, you have to throw out the Hat and the Chair and go back to the Assembly. In the Assembly, there are disagreements over a mystery, whereas with the Hat and the Chair there is only the enforcement of completely artificial boundaries built on sand.

If someone isn't calling you a heretic, you are nowhere near the Truth.

>>40868785
Btw, the greatest esotericist of the period in question is not Meister Eckhart, it is Dante Alighieri. He perfectly concealed it beneath an entirely Catholic exoterism. This is how it's actually done in practice, and not for the sake of evading persecution but because the official liturgical and doctrinal formulae were designed that way by Christ and the Apostles who founded the exoteric and esoteric traditions together.

>>40868818
Do you know of any good books or articles on Dante's esotericism?

>>40868786
>If someone isn't calling you a heretic, you are nowhere near the Truth.
The biggest difficulty I see with this attitude is that it seems to suggest that God would have allowed the majority of the church to be misled for centuries. And aversion to that possibility leads to extraordinary inertia: unwillingness to ever substantially go against tradition or to accept a truly esoteric layer to Christianity. So any reasonable heretic needs a good response to this concern. Why do you think God would allow it?

>>40868863
https://sufipathoflove.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/1925-the-esoterism-of-dante.pdf

>>40868976
>So any reasonable heretic needs a good response to this concern. Why do you think God would allow it?
The things people tend to let divide them are different forms of stamp collecting, in the grand scheme of things. I say this is a spear, you say this is a snake, the elephant laughs until it watches us kill each other, but nobody is really listening. A lot of the things people think are Really Important Life and Death Distinctions are, genuinely, no more important than console wars.

Personally, I think God "allows" everything, in that there is nothing that happens that is not the intersection of free will and natural law. Hands do not come out of clouds to wag a finger at naughty children, instead, all humans must come to terms with their situation and place in the world by learning to listen.

What are some methods to combat lust?

>>40869199
When temptations to lust arise, say a short prayer, even just the Holy Name of Jesus, and then calmly turn your attention to something pure. Respect the weakness of the flesh and do not fight the temptation head on. Even if the temptations persist, and even if you fall, persevere in this and do not get discouraged. The only way to lose is to give up.

>>40867691
I love how these people aren't self aware at all
>>40867789
>That is completely underground by the way. You simply will not find anything more than the faintest traces of it on the internet.
Yes Jewish and Islamic Esoterism is easily available through books and videos and various studies, but Christian Esoterism is this super mysterious thing no one ever heard of and there is nearly no information on it online
>>40868067
Yes what we call Mysticism is something non existent in Christian history until very recently, in reality what we consider Mysticism was in the 17th Century denounced as Enthusiasm, this Enthusiasm is what Rene Guenon called Mysticism, but authentic Mysticism is Initiatory
>>40868193
Wallahi Eckhart continued the tradition of Eriugena and Dionysius the Areopagite, there is nothing in Eckhart that is as radical as Saint Gregory of Nyssa's teaching on the unity of the Essence of God, Man and the World.
>>40868247
Christianity influenced Neoplatonism as Christianity began in a Middle Platonic environment
>>40868365
The Aristotelianism of Christianity is that of the Theologia Aristotelis and Liber de Causis, so the Enneads of Plotinus and Elements of Theology of Proclus, Stoicism originates from Platonism
Christianity is the union of Greek Philosophical traditions and Hebrew religious traditions
>powerful anti-Neoplatonic strain in the Franciscan tradition (Bonaventure
The opposite is the case

>>40870374

>>40868469
Mate the ground of the soul in Eckhart is the innermost part of the soul in Augustine
>>40868679
What Faivre said is still true today, also Neoplatonism is a better term than Late Platonism really, as Late Platonism implies Platonism to have ended with them
>>40868693
Yes the theology of the NT is unique, and the authors were Late Second Temple Jews, but there is still an influence like how Ignatius of Antioch and Pope Clement use stoic terminology, but the purpose of which is different from what the Pagans did
>>40868704
Yes what's good in Plato is good, what isn't just isn't, but while there is a distinction between God and creation, they are also united, as creation being dependant on God makes it non-existent compared to God as existence or being, and our Logoi, our Form/Idea is united to the Logos and in it, while distinct from it
>>40868764
Yes Paul quotes Greek poetry which is religious in nature, and Judea was heavily hellenized and the traditions began to mix, like with Chaemeron's stoic interpretation of his Egyptian religion, or Hermeticism in general
>>40868774
>interesting
If you are Catholic or Orthodox you can just find it in the Church Fathers and Doctors
>>40868818
Dante is from the 14th Century, Eckhart's generation is Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure
And honestly for a 14th Century figure there's Berthold of Moosburg
>>40868863
Guenon's work

>>40870374
>Yes Jewish and Islamic Esoterism is easily available through books and videos and various studies, but Christian Esoterism is this super mysterious thing no one ever heard of and there is nearly no information on it online
Books and videos are useless by themselves, as you well know. What you find about Jewish and Islamic esoterism online are thus likewise faint traces. Even primary sources really offer an etic perspective to the profane. What is essential is the gift. The accessibility of a given initiatic teaching in a given milieu depends upon the presence of individuals qualified to receive instruction. Modernity is precisely a condition under which such individuals become exceedingly rare, so it is no surprise that in Christendom, the very womb of modernity, begins the retreat of the Brothers of the Rose-Cross to the East.

There is one more important consideration that makes the situation in the West unique, namely the presence of the Holy Eucharist. We may draw an analogy to the Tantras, in which certain disciplines of the left hand path, those in which a human teacher is most indispensible, are reserved to viryas; but divyas do not need them. Likewise in Islamic esoterism there is the silsilah of the Order, but there is also that of Khidr.

>>40848558
>>40847126
>>40848656
>>40848940
>>40848951
what a coincidence, today is the day (according to the traditional calendar) of Saint Cajetan
I remember some cold March morning when /tradcath/ hit the bump limit and I had to made a new thread... as each /tradcath/ thread had a "theme," I went out of my way and by some convoluted logic thought that Saint Cajetan would be perfect

at the end of the day there were only four or five persons posting, most of them shouting at me because I had no idea what the catechism prescribes lol... yet it motivated me to go to church almost daily, for a month, starting shortly before Lent and ending when 4chan was hacked... which coincided with Pope Nothingburger the First getting elected
after that /tradcath/ was banned

>>40867607
Panentheism =/= pantheism
That anon is a dishonest actor

>>40872296
The pious affectation, the pseudointellectual buzzword soup tailored to impress the unlearned, and a secret third thing that one can just smell are all very familiar to the noticer
>>40871710
Prevost hacked 4chan to kill /tradcath/

>>40867908
Eckhart at the very least had a glimpse of gnosis. He wasn't just an intellectual.

>>40872604
>When I was in the ground, in the essence, in the stream and source of the Godhead, there was no God and no creature. But when I withdrew, then God was there. This is how it is: God is all and in all. He is indivisible and wholly simple; in Him there is no distinction
t. sermon 56

>Then I am what I was, then I neither wax nor wane,
for then I am an unmoved cause that moves all things.
t. sermon 87

That's spoken from direct experience.

>>40868818
What about Johannes Tauler? Or whoever wrote Theologia Germanica. Undeniably full of holy wisdom.

>>40872296
Panentheism is vague. One of the biggest issues with panentheism is that proponents often struggle to precisely pin down what it is, especially compared to classical theism, open theism, or pantheism.

Demarcation attempts fail. Contemporary efforts to differentiate panentheism from other theistic models are such that none of these attempts provide a clear, coherent boundary.

Panentheism remains too vague and insufficiently distinguished from other theological models. It would be interesting to see proponents give a more precise conception of how exactly the cosmos is "in" God without that collapsing into pantheism or being indistinguishable from classical theism.

>>40873256
>Panentheism is vague.
I take it to mean that the Cosmos is a simulacrum contained in and hosted by the macrocosmic Mind, but that God transcends both.

>>40870377
>Mate the ground of the soul in Eckhart is the innermost part of the soul in Augustine
At first glance, there might appear to be a conceptual similarity. Both deal with the interior depths of the soul in relation to God. But a closer look reveals significant theological, metaphysical, and mystical differences.

Augustine's "innermost part" (Latin: intimior intimo meo, "closer to me than I am to myself") refers to a psychological and spiritual interiority, where the human encounters God through memory, intellect, and will. It’s part of his Trinitarian anthropology, especially in De Trinitate.

Eckhart’s "ground of the soul" (Middle High German: grunt or grund) is not just a deep psychological layer. It is an ontological principle that is uncreated, eternal, and identical in some sense to the divine essence. In Eckhart, the ground is beyond faculties and even beyond being itself.

Augustine’s innermost part is created and graced, whereas Eckhart’s ground is uncreated and divine.

Augustine insists on a radical Creator/creature distinction. Even in the deepest recesses of the soul, God remains other, even though He dwells within the soul.

Eckhart flirts with non-duality. In the ground of the soul, the distinction between God and soul collapses, at least temporarily or mystically. The soul doesn’t just participate in God, It is divine at its ground.

Eckhart describes a mystical identity between God and soul in the ground. Augustine never goes that far.

The ground of the soul in Eckhart is not the same as the innermost part of the soul in Augustine. While both employ inward language and affirm God’s indwelling presence, Eckhart’s view is metaphysically radical, aiming at identity with God, whereas Augustine’s view maintains a creator/creature distinction.

To equate the two flattens critical differences in their metaphysics, theology, and mystical experience.

>>40868775
>There is no fruit without the vine
True. This is what Jesus says: "I am the vine; you are the branches...apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5). Branches must stay connected to the vine to bear fruit. No issue here.

>There is no vine without the fruit.
False. The vine can and does exist without fruit-bearing branches. In fact, John 15:2 directly teaches that unfruitful branches are cut off and the vine continues just fine.

Jesus (the vine) does not depend on the branches for His own existence or identity. He is ontologically independent. His life is not contingent on ours.

The vine precedes the fruit. The fruit does not sustain the vine. To say otherwise flips the entire biblical metaphor on its head.

>The Two are One
Mystical nonsense (in this context). This blurs the clear distinction Jesus makes. He doesn’t say "I am the branches" or "You are the vine." He says: "I am the vine, you are the branches."

This is a relationship of union, not identity. The metaphor illustrates dependency, not equivalence or nonduality.

You're using mystical-sounding language to obscure a very straightforward metaphor. He is the source. We are the recipients. Connection is necessary. Identity is not implied.

If the vine and the branches were literally "one" in essence or identity, then there would be no need for pruning.

>>40871423
Yes yes we know, all those things are doxa when we look for episteme, using the Platonic definitions, but still what is available in written form shows a Christian Esoterism and it's lineage, the Angelic Brethren of Gichtel existed until just a few years ago when the last Gichtelians died from old age
The Sacraments are Christian Initiations, we have to think of them as Virtual and of Christianity as akin to Shia Islam, not Sunni Islam with its clear divide between Sharia and Tariqah, getting Initiated by Al-Kidhr is all fine and well but that's not an option for the majority, that's why we have Monastic Orders, and yes they're esoteric and not mystical, what Guenon calls Mysticism was known as Enthusiasm and the Church was always against that.
>>40873303
The innermost part of the soul was equated with the Grund of Eckhart and the Gemüt, and seen as the Active Intellect/Agent Intellect in Late Medieval thought, which is the cause of the soul and one with God as God is the uncaused who reveals himself as a multiplicity of causes (Proclus)
I don't care about their differences, I am not a secular scholar of Medieval theology, what matters to me are the truth contained in their work, and two truths don't contradict eachother
If you want we can talk about how this is connected to Maximus the Confessor's Logoi and Gregory of Nyssa's Essence/Energy distinction

>>40873476
>The Sacraments are Christian Initiations, we have to think of them as Virtual and of Christianity as akin to Shia Islam, not Sunni Islam with its clear divide between Sharia and Tariqah, getting Initiated by Al-Kidhr is all fine and well but that's not an option for the majority, that's why we have Monastic Orders, and yes they're esoteric and not mystical, what Guenon calls Mysticism was known as Enthusiasm and the Church was always against that.
Virtual initiation is something different from the sacraments but can be superimposed on them in certain cases. Note carefully what St. Dionysius says in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: "Nor did the inspired Hierarchs transmit these things, in conceptions clear to the commonality of worshippers, but in sacred symbols. For it is not every one that is hallowed; nor, as the Oracles affirm, does knowledge belong to all." Wherefore initiation pertains to the transmission of the spiritual influence necessary to understand that which the sacraments present to the faithful under a symbolic veil.
No one is initiated by Khidr, his silsilah refers to initiation directly by God: "There they found a servant of Ours, to whom We had granted mercy from Us and enlightened with knowledge of Our Own" (18:65). And quite obviously, in esoteric matters, there is never any option for the majority whatsoever.
What is at issue (and most essential of all) is effective realization, not virtual initiation, occasioned by a divine touch or word, often during Holy Communion for a soul already on the unitive way (cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, Three Ages of the Interior Life, Part 5, Chapter 55; Interior Castle, Seventh Mansion, Chapter 2).
Not all monastic orders, nor even all the contemplative orders, are esoteric in any sense. The renunciation required of the initiate is interior, and the Evangelical Counsels as practiced in monasticism are but outward symbols of this.

Can someone enlighten me? What is it with the Orthodox Church and pushing Mary as akin to Jesus?

The idea of Jesus' virginal birth is still hotly debated to this day and yet they managed to conjure up the whole Immaculate Conception to be about Mary as well, which is ridiculous because it was a special thing about Jesus. They even canonized both her conception *and* her birth, so she gets another day to be celebrated compared to her child who was actually the MC of this whole religion.

Then I was reading about the account of the funeral for Mary who was buried together with the apostles, but Thomas who was not able to attend arrived there 3 days later and then Mary's body was not there.

What is their goal by doing these kinds of things?

>>40868775
They make one unit together, much like a computer is a sum of its parts. But the functions are still separate, and the parts are still identifiably different.
To be One you must be indistinguishable one from another in a seamless way that its not easy to achieve by just anyone.

Anyway, I'm just here to tell some of you (again) a revelation that I hope sticks.

The spiritual, divine consciousness Mary does not exist. Nor does any of those female goddesses.

You have failed to manifest her...because she doesn't exist so you cannot manifest her. She is a non entity. She would have been a regular ordinary NPC.

So giving her all manner of symbolism of other entities that are actually valid does NOT mean she will ever exist nor can she be conjured.

You've done enough damage. Trust me.

>>40874549
>Virtual initiation is something different from the sacraments but can be superimposed on them in certain cases. Note carefully what St. Dionysius says in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: "Nor did the inspired Hierarchs transmit these things, in conceptions clear to the commonality of worshippers, but in sacred symbols. For it is not every one that is hallowed; nor, as the Oracles affirm, does knowledge belong to all." Wherefore initiation pertains to the transmission of the spiritual influence necessary to understand that which the sacraments present to the faithful under a symbolic veil.
Even in the time of Paracelsus the Sacraments were seen as the rebirth of the believer, his perfection and divination
>No one is initiated by Khidr, his silsilah refers to initiation directly by God: "There they found a servant of Ours, to whom We had granted mercy from Us and enlightened with knowledge of Our Own" (18:65). And quite obviously, in esoteric matters, there is never any option for the majority whatsoever.
No one os initiated by Allah directly, in Islam he corresponds through meditators, that's why Avicenna speaks of the Agent Intellect as the Angel Gabriel
>What is at issue (and most essential of all) is effective realization, not virtual initiation, occasioned by a divine touch or word, often during Holy Communion for a soul already on the unitive way (cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, Three Ages of the Interior Life, Part 5, Chapter 55; Interior Castle, Seventh Mansion, Chapter 2).
Not all monastic orders, nor even all the contemplative orders, are esoteric in any sense. The renunciation required of the initiate is interior, and the Evangelical Counsels as practiced in monasticism are but outward symbols of this.
Christians are Initiated through the Sacraments and attain an effective Initiation through the Monastic Orders, yes the vows are Initiatory by themselves, but the effective Initiation is attained through the work taught in the Orders.

>>40876310
>Even in the time of Paracelsus the Sacraments were seen as the rebirth of the believer, his perfection and divination
Initiation is not the same thing as birth to the life of grace. In baptism the soul undergoes a change of state from mortal sin to sanctifying grace. With initiation there is no change in the state of the soul at all, rather the consciousness transcends identification with the human substance altogether. Yes, sanctifying grace is the reflection of this transcendence in the human state, but no, they are not the same idea.
It's not as though it's completely incorrect to use the term initiation in a broader sense, since after all everything in the religious domain is an application of initiatic principles, but the nuance is important to aspirants who aren't satisfied to study this in a bookish fashion, just because it pertains to the very nature of the work. But this is ultimately something that you have to see for yourself. We shouldn't debate it interminably.

>>40824636 (OP)
>Christian Gnosis
>Christian Alchemy
>Christian Cabala
>Rosicrucianism
>Martinism
>Christian Hermeticism
You have some decent stuff in that list, but you need to stop trying to put the "Christian stamp" on everything...

"Christian" has unfortunately come to embody a whole freight train of baggage beyond the teachings of Jesus, and further human progress is going to require leaving the partisan labeling behind, I think.

>>40876386
You are confusing things, Confession is the removal of mortal sin, Baptism is the birth of the inner body, that's why it's a rebirth, and the Eucharist is it's nourishment
Also when we take Dante into account, the circles of Hell are the states of mortal sin, the mountain of Purgatory is composed of the steps to the summit of the mortal states, that's why at the top Eden is located at, Paradise then are the super-mundane states, as Guenon also explains, and it just so happens that Dante corresponds Purgatory to the Vices and Paradise to the Virtues, which brings to mind the Monasticism of Pope Gregory, who speaks of fighting the vices and practicing the virtues to attain the Gifts of the Holy Spirit

>>40876440
>You are confusing things, Confession is the removal of mortal sin, Baptism is the birth of the inner body, that's why it's a rebirth, and the Eucharist is it's nourishment
Confession is the second plank after shipwreck. Baptism is the first. Review the Catechism!
>as Guenon also explains
Please actually read Guenon's explanation, linked above. See Chapter 6, pp. 42 ff.: "this descent [into the Underworld] is on the one hand like a recapitulation of the states that logically precede the human state, that have determined its particular conditions, and that must also partake in the 'transformation' to be accomplished; on the other hand, the descent allows the manifestation, according to certain modalities, of the possibilities of an inferior order that the being still carries in an undeveloped state, and that must be exhausted before it can attain the realization of the higher states." He is referring to the vichaya vasanas of ahamkara, i.e. the *effects* of mortal sin, viz. darkness of intellect, weakness of will, and inclination to evil.

>>40876462
Yes ok?

>>40876507
Look anon, I'm not trying to win le internet debate, I want you to understand my position more than I want you to agree. When LCL was Grand Master of the Fraternity of the Paraclete, he forbade the initiates from debating this topic and dissolved the Fraternity when they would not obey. If there's a specific difficulty I will try to explain, otherwise I think we should let it be. We ought to be seeking the answer through the work instead, that's the practical implication anyway. I came to my conclusion from experience, but that doesn't mean that I can see every side of the matter.

can sophiology really be classed as christian esotericism? its just a different theological position.

>>40877146
It's esoteric because it upsets the heresiologists like >>40875808.

>>40877186
that is not a valid reason but whatever

>>40876396
there are non-Christian kinds of Gnosis and Hermetism etc. yet this thread is concerned with their Christian versions
you are like somebody going to a Cathedral and starts complaining "it's a decent building but why does it have Christian?"

>>40877543
>you are like somebody going to a Cathedral and starts complaining "it's a decent building but why does it have Christian?"
Its more like I'm arriving to look upon all the positives that could attribute some root or link to Christian philosophy and Jesus's principle of "Universal Human Brotherhood", and I'm asking:
>Bruh... why did you make universal brotherhood into a flag?
At a certain point, committing to that "kingdom" metaphor starts to drag you down a bit...

>>40824636 (OP)
>11 v 1 is not the same as 12

>>40873476
Eckhart's apophatic mysticism, Maximus’s Logos doctrine, and the Neoplatonic Proclean schema operate within different metaphysical systems. Any harmony among them must be argued, not assumed.

Truths may not contradict in the abstract, but claims can, and do. You can’t unify incompatible systems just by vaguely declaring they’re "deep down the same."

Maximus’s Logoi refer to the divine rational principles implanted in creation, grounded in Christology, which is totally different from Eckhart’s impersonal "ground."

Gregory’s Essence/Energy distinction was developed later in Palamism, rooted in Orthodox theology, not Eckhartian mysticism.

No actual argument is being made here. It's just mystical name-dropping, like shaking a bag of philosophers and theologians and assuming whatever comes out must agree.

This is theology-as-aesthetic.

You're collapsing wildly different concepts: mystical, rational, metaphysical, and theological, into each other without justification. The Grund isn't the Active Intellect, Proclus isn't Eckhart, and quoting the Cappadocians doesn't retroactively harmonize contradictions between Neoplatonic emanation and Christian creation. If you're not interested in clarifying distinctions, you're not engaging in theology or philosophy. You're just dressing up vibes as metaphysics.

>>40873272
>I take it to mean that the Cosmos is a simulacrum contained in and hosted by the macrocosmic Mind, but that God transcends both.
This is peak metaphysical vagueness dressed up in simulation-theory.

Your statement is supposed to be a definition of panentheism. But it's essentially: "The world is in a cosmic Mind, but God is not that Mind. God transcends the Mind and the world."

This actually sounds like classical theism, or even a form of emanationism, not panentheism.

If God transcends both cosmos and Mind, and is not ontologically continuous with them, then there is no remaining "in-ness" to define panentheism.

>>40870374
>The opposite is the case.
In other words, the Franciscan tradition was not anti-Neoplatonic, but presumably even more Neoplatonic than other strands of Christian thought?

Bonaventure already modifies Neoplatonism significantly under Christian doctrine. And Duns Scotus systematically rejects its metaphysical foundations: univocity of being, voluntarism over necessity, radical individuation, and rejection of emanation. Scotus doesn't just tweak Neoplatonism, he executes it. The Franciscan tradition was one of the first serious theological alternatives to Neoplatonic metaphysics in the Christian West. So no, the opposite isn’t the case.

>>40845240
he already explained. the jews were persecuted during the crusades and even though estimations of deaths arent as high as initially thought they are in the multiple tens of thousands. the dude holds a grudge.

>>40867907
On this stone Peter will build his church.

>>40867789
where should catholics discuss christianity then in a forum with free speech as much as 4chan?

>>40867091
go start a roman catholic thread.

>>40867347
>undermining
Saints undermine each other all the time. Look at Peter and Paul's disagreements and later reconciliation.

>>40880261
>muh crusades, mommy told me every day!
don't worry they'll deserve what's coming for them
>>40877760
are you having a stroke or just a schizo meltdown? seek help

>>40879281
>>40879377
>systems
>systems
>systematically
Typical undergraduate brainrot to presume that any of the thinkers name dropped in these posts had anything like a "system"
Really does read like a bunch of arrogant college students measuring their theoretical apparatus itt
>>40880433
>where should catholics discuss christianity then in a forum with free speech as much as 4chan?
Go to church, unironically

>>40881107
>are you having a stroke or just a schizo meltdown? seek help
Bro, you are on /x/, and its embarrassing for nobody but yourself if you can't hang.

If you're not getting it, pass to somebody with more brains, if that's available.

>>40876396
>>40877760
>>40881423
Isn't it a rhetorical question? OP's orientation is highly polemical, hence the flag. He's actually pushing his own brand of ecumenical dogma. He's afraid of two things:
1. Surrendering opinions and personal judgments, slaying the demon of dialectics, which feels like it might be the same as denying your faith, especially if that faith really is just an opinion and not something supernatural, and which furthermore implies being regarded as a simpleton and a fool
2. Resignatio ad infernum

>>40881122
>Systems make by brain hurt, so they're BAD
But that's wrong, you idiot. Goodness in the material plane grows from "subtlization" of natural coarseness, and for humans, that means systems.

>>40881772
Wrong, systems make brain feel good, mathematics are connatural to rational intellect, that's why humans (especially westernized humans) get addicted to them. There is nothing subtle about them. I don't expect (You) to understand

>>40881788
>Wrong, systems make brain feel good
Wrong. They result in real, measurable positive effects, and it is YOUR WAY that focuses entirely on what makes your idiotic brain feel good.

If you had a system to help you THINK, you wouldn't fall into this kind of basic-bitch projection of your own sinfulness.

>>40881834
Ain't nuffin measurable about God or the soul, my nigga. What's a theology again?

>>40881839
I'm not talking about the soul. I'm talking about the material and the objective GOOD that's been done by systems.

Now, if we ARE talking about the soul, then you're a fucking idiot there too, because WE NEED SYSTEMS FOR THAT TOO, its just that the systems for developing our own souls are going to be bespoke to ourselves individually.

That's the big limitation of religion as a "public education" tool, btw.

>>40881871
>I'm not talking about the soul
You may be in the wrong thread.
>WE NEED SYSTEMS FOR THAT TOO
First we need to calm down, then we can begin to investigate whether a system for knowing the soul is necessary or even possible. Hint: first you must provide a syllogistic demonstration of the principle of non-contradiction, one that does not beg the question

>>40879281
Wallahi they all (besides Proclus) shared a Christian worldview dependant on Scripture and Philosophy, and they read eachother and the ones before them, saw themselves as continuing what was before them and later authors synthesized the ones before themselves into their thought
>Maximus’s Logoi refer to the divine rational principles implanted in creation, grounded in Christology, which is totally different from Eckhart’s impersonal "ground."
The Logoi are the Henads of Proclus which are always the Platonic Forms, and Eriugena identifies them with efficient causes, so your Logoi is your cause, later Berthold of Moosburg in his commentary on Proclus identifies these causes with the Eckhartian Grund and the Gemüt of his followers.
>Gregory’s Essence/Energy distinction was developed later in Palamism, rooted in Orthodox theology, not Eckhartian mysticism.
He was read in the West and his teaching on the distinction between the Essence of something and its Energies reappears in Eriugena
>This is theology-as-aesthetic
I have to keep things short due to the nature of 4chan, if you like we can argue one topic at a time to go really indepth
Just so you know, all of Philosophy just happens to be later Philosophers attempts at reconciling Plato with Aristotle
>>40879377
It sounds like you just consider Neoplatonism to be specifically Late Antique Pagan Platonism, Plotinus and Iamblichus, whereas for me Neoplatonism is also the continuation of the tradition in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, so for me Augustine, Boethius, Eriugena, the Victorines, the Chartrians and the Franciscans are all Neoplatonists because they continue those traditions
>>40881476
>OP's orientation is highly polemical
What does OP believe?

>>40824636 (OP)
New thread >>40881984

>>40881965
>What does OP believe?
OP knows best, I did post for OP's benefit, he will excuse the stridency