Through a glass, really, really darkly

[Lost4words]

God is not a book, i agree. I think Sola Scripture people actually believe He is.

 

[zippy2006]

God is not a book, i agree. I think Sola Scripture people actually believe He is.

 

[Silmarien]

I have more Eastern familiarity with Buddhism than Taoism or Sufism, but what works are you familiar with? Rumi and the Tao Te Ching seem to be the standards. Were you reading primary or secondary sources?

I only read the Tao-Te-Ching, and that was back in high school, so my impression of what Taoism is might be completely off-base. We did have a segment on Sufism when I took a class on Islam in college, though, so I've read some of the primary sources. Rumi, Rabi'a Basri, Al-Hallaj, and Farid ud-Din Attar. The one work that has really stayed with me is Attar's Conference of the Birds. It's a beautiful metaphor for the religious life in general.

I do need to read more Christian mysticism--I had meant to a while back, and then got pushed towards metaphysics and philosophy of mind instead. I was trying to read St. John of the Cross a while back, but that 16th century Spanish was kind of intimidating. I'm thinking of grabbing some contemporary Carmelite stuff as well. (I don't know if you read any Spanish, but I'm eyeing this one. Can't find a translated version.)

If it's any consolation I would say that such disorientation is normal and healthy. Are you familiar with C.S. Lewis' "It's alive!" metaphor related to the pantheism-theism transition? It's found in his book Miracles. God is without a doubt the most frustrating part of theism. I am reminded of Eli's words, "It is the Lord; let him do what seems good to him" (1 Samuel 3:18).

Ahahaha, I had not heard that metaphor before, but it really is just perfect. Though I think "it's awake!" would work also.

But yeah, theism is not something I can wrap my head around most of the time for precisely this reason. That's why I regularly slip off to idealism instead.

Thanks, this definitely counts as "greater depth"! The Wager tends to strengthen with study and I much prefer the longer reading of it in the context of the Pensees rather than the clipped version that gets passed about. I also gravitated towards that 'powerful mixture of contradictions' which Chesterton describes so well.

You're going to have to tell me about your own intellectual conversion one of these days too, you know.

And Chesterton is lovely.

Natural theology runs deep and as you've probably found it far transcends apologetics. The depth makes it inaccessible to most, such as those who might say, "You've been here nearly two years and haven't found salvation yet?" It is especially appealing insofar as it retains value even in the midst of skepticism, but it doubtless leads to more substantial considerations.

Oh, yes. Absolutely. What I find really intriguing is the way that it trains you in how to think about these things--I remember flipping out over pink unicorns and Anselm's ontological argument back in my first year in college, totally oblivious to all the concepts at play. Now that I've been moving more in a Platonic direction, it's that angle that once made no sense at all that has started to interest me more.

I'm not particularly into apologism, except in favor of metaphysics in general, but it can be very frustrating to see people go round and round in circles when this stuff is just out of reach. I try to push people away from scientific naturalism, but even that's almost impossible.

This weekend I have access to my books and you've convinced me to dig up Plato's dialogues!

Enjoy them! And I'm going to need to get my act together and reread the Republic.

What do you have in mind when you say, "the practical side of things"?

I mean faith as lived in general. There are non-religious Platonists out there, and I'm not sure how they do it. The Academy is dead and gone, and there are no spiritualist circles that are fitting for genuine Platonic thought, since most New Age stuff is on the hedonistic side. I think people in this category might just flock with Catholics.

And then there is the Christianity issue. If you don't understand it, you can walk away from it, but if you actually see it, then it just sits there. Challenging you. I've become somewhat intrigued by the fascination that it draws from certain non-Christians (Wittgenstein, above all), but I don't know what to do with it. Keeping it at arm's length feels like indecision, but if I get too close, things spin out of control.

Yes, I believe that was the first interview and was first published in German in 1996. Also, the article on Derrida and your 'practicality' conundrum obliquely called to mind one of my favorite encyclicals, Ratzinger's Spe Salvi.

Ooh, that looks interesting! I'll take a look.

 

[zippy2006]

I only read the Tao-Te-Ching, and that was back in high school, so my impression of what Taoism is might be completely off-base. We did have a segment on Sufism when I took a class on Islam in college, though, so I've read some of the primary sources. Rumi, Rabi'a Basri, Al-Hallaj, and Farid ud-Din Attar. The one work that has really stayed with me is Attar's Conference of the Birds. It's a beautiful metaphor for the religious life in general.

Okay thanks, I was just curious. You have read more than I have in that area. I have heard of the Conference of the Birds and I will keep that in mind. I'm actually currently interested in comparative mysticism but I don't want to cast my net too wide.

I do need to read more Christian mysticism--I had meant to a while back, and then got pushed towards metaphysics and philosophy of mind instead. I was trying to read St. John of the Cross a while back, but that 16th century Spanish was kind of intimidating. I'm thinking of grabbing some contemporary Carmelite stuff as well. (I don't know if you read any Spanish, but I'm eyeing this one. Can't find a translated version.)

John is intimidating, and I am only reading translations! The contemporary Carmelite option seems like a good idea, and I have heard good things about Rodriguez (though my Spanish is too rusty for something like that). I too want to pick up a mysticism thread that got left off. I was thinking about picking up John Ruusbroec, but I also rediscovered a survey on my shelf by McGinn that can offer some helpful tastes before ordering the main course.

Ahahaha, I had not heard that metaphor before, but it really is just perfect. Though I think "it's awake!" would work also.

I really like the image, but you need Lewis' hand to deliver it. I dug up the quote for you:

Men are reluctant to pass over from the notion of an abstract and negative deity to the living God. I do not wonder. Here lies the deepest tap-root of Pantheism and of the objection to traditional imagery. It was hated not, at bottom, because it pictured Him as a man but because it pictured Him as a king, or even as warrior. The Pantheist’s God does nothing, demands nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will not pursue you. There is no danger that at any time heaven and earth should flee away at His glance. If He were the truth, then we could really say that all the Christian images of kingship were a historical accident of which our religion ought to be cleansed. It is with a shock that we discover them to be indispensable. You have had a shock like that before, in connection with smaller matters--when the line pulls at your hand, when something breathes beside you in the darkness. So here; the shock comes at the precise moment when the thrill of life is communicated to us along the clue we have been following. It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. ‘Look out!’ we cry, ‘it’s alive’. And therefore this is the very point at which so many draw back--I would have done so myself if I could--and proceed no further with Christianity. An ‘impersonal God’--well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads--better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap--best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband--that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (‘Man’s search for God!’) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us?

So it is a sort of Rubicon. One goes across; or not. But if one does, there is no manner of security against miracles. One may be in for anything.

-C.S. Lewis, Miracles, 149-50​

But yeah, theism is not something I can wrap my head around most of the time for precisely this reason. That's why I regularly slip off to idealism instead.

As long as you realize you're slipping off into something else you should be fine.

You're going to have to tell me about your own intellectual conversion one of these days too, you know.

Perhaps if you press me at some point I will oblige, but the wonderful details you are able to provide would probably escape me after nearly a decade.

Oh, yes. Absolutely. What I find really intriguing is the way that it trains you in how to think about these things--I remember flipping out over pink unicorns and Anselm's ontological argument back in my first year in college, totally oblivious to all the concepts at play. Now that I've been moving more in a Platonic direction, it's that angle that once made no sense at all that has started to interest me more.

Yes, it does train the mind in a certain way. There is actually an ongoing debate among Thomists about the order in which the sciences ought to be learned. Natural theology and theology have always been placed later in that ordering but the fact tends to get obscured in today's university systems.

You have a keen mind and at first glance I thought it was molded by Thomism - but perhaps I overestimated that influence. Marcus Plested gives one of my favorite quotes about Thomas, which incidentally comes from a Byzantine emperor, John VI Kantakuzene, "I bring before you the witness of Thomas, teacher among the Latins, who breathes syllogisms rather than air, and against whom it would not be right for you to object."

I'm not particularly into apologism, except in favor of metaphysics in general, but it can be very frustrating to see people go round and round in circles when this stuff is just out of reach. I try to push people away from scientific naturalism, but even that's almost impossible.

Nowadays I agree, though I'm sure I've tried my hand in that arena more than you have. But as I recently mentioned to gaara, you do have a knack for it.

And then there is the Christianity issue. If you don't understand it, you can walk away from it, but if you actually see it, then it just sits there. Challenging you. I've become somewhat intrigued by the fascination that it draws from certain non-Christians (Wittgenstein, above all), but I don't know what to do with it. Keeping it at arm's length feels like indecision, but if I get too close, things spin out of control.

Yes. (Know of my prayers)

So how often do you attend the Episcopalian church?

 

[Silmarien]

I really like the image, but you need Lewis' hand to deliver it. I dug up the quote for you:

Men are reluctant to pass over from the notion of an abstract and negative deity to the living God. I do not wonder. Here lies the deepest tap-root of Pantheism and of the objection to traditional imagery. It was hated not, at bottom, because it pictured Him as a man but because it pictured Him as a king, or even as warrior. The Pantheist’s God does nothing, demands nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will not pursue you. There is no danger that at any time heaven and earth should flee away at His glance. If He were the truth, then we could really say that all the Christian images of kingship were a historical accident of which our religion ought to be cleansed. It is with a shock that we discover them to be indispensable. You have had a shock like that before, in connection with smaller matters--when the line pulls at your hand, when something breathes beside you in the darkness. So here; the shock comes at the precise moment when the thrill of life is communicated to us along the clue we have been following. It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. ‘Look out!’ we cry, ‘it’s alive’. And therefore this is the very point at which so many draw back--I would have done so myself if I could--and proceed no further with Christianity. An ‘impersonal God’--well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads--better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap--best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband--that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (‘Man’s search for God!’) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us?

So it is a sort of Rubicon. One goes across; or not. But if one does, there is no manner of security against miracles. One may be in for anything.

-C.S. Lewis, Miracles, 149-50

Ooof, that is actually a fantastic quote. Also a really interesting one, since the hostility that you find in certain circles towards the concept of a personal rather than impersonal God is definitely intriguing. You have the Einsteins of the world who want to write off the former as naive, and while they probably have a more anthropomorphic personal God in mind, I think the issue of miracles is at least as important. At least it is for me, and I've got one foot in theism and the other in pantheism--theism has got a lot more going for it, but 21st century reason really does just rebel.

Actually, another C.S. Lewis quote that I've been thinking about recently:

Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which Christianity looks very improbable; but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods “where they get off,” you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith.

I have felt very much like a creature dithering to and fro for the past year and a half, and now that I stop to think about it a bit, it's really because reason is kind of at war with itself here. My reason cannot currently accept miracles, but it also cannot fully accept anything except classical theism, which directly implies the possibility of miracles, and thus... paradox! And so I unconsciously go hunting for alternatives, but unless you go on an eliminative campaign, they tend to turn into classical theism anyway, and the vicious cycle continues.

And then Christianity makes it even more difficult, since I've had a couple really powerful Arguments from Beauty sprung on me, but everything about it really does just fly in the face of reason. (Though according to Kierkegaard, that's the fact that it offends reason is a requirement for faith!)

You have a keen mind and at first glance I thought it was molded by Thomism - but perhaps I overestimated that influence.

No, it was initially molded by Nietzsche and Sartre (perhaps unfortunately), but has definitely been remolded by Thomism to a significant degree. I needed a strong, empirical rationalism to overcome the pressure to conform to naturalism, and Thomism certainly fits the bill there. I've moved away from viewing naturalism as a paradigm worth taking seriously, though, except insofar as it remains a sort of cognitive default, which means I have less use for an Aristotelian empiricism than I used to.

Of course, the price of mostly killing naturalism is that now my more skeptical moods swing in the other direction and leave me doubting that the physical universe has any genuine reality, so the Aristotelianism tends to kick in again when I move too far towards idealism.

Yes. (Know of my prayers)

So how often do you attend the Episcopalian church?

Oh, I went almost weekly, though we had an interim priest who has now left, so I'm not sure what I'm going to do going forward. The former priest was actually pretty perfect for me--Catholic, turned agnostic, who eventually got led back to faith. Great combination of biblical scholarship and a genuine evangelistic spirit, so I found a lot of his sermons very helpful in reminding me why I was there at all. Especially when I was off reading Plotinus instead.

But now we have no priest, and I have no idea how long that is going to last. I'll probably be spending more time with the Orthodox instead in the foreseeable future. Which may be useful, but may also be the opposite of useful. (Love the Liturgy, love the theology, but I have been finding that it's actually too medieval in its approach to really speak to me.)

(I am off to Rome on Sunday, by the way, so if I don't get around to replying again for a couple weeks, that is why.)

 

[zippy2006]

Ooof, that is actually a fantastic quote. Also a really interesting one, since the hostility that you find in certain circles towards the concept of a personal rather than impersonal God is definitely intriguing. You have the Einsteins of the world who want to write off the former as naive, and while they probably have a more anthropomorphic personal God in mind, I think the issue of miracles is at least as important. At least it is for me, and I've got one foot in theism and the other in pantheism--theism has got a lot more going for it, but 21st century reason really does just rebel.

It does rebel. Our entire epistemic foundation seems to preclude miracles.

Actually, another C.S. Lewis quote that I've been thinking about recently:

Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which Christianity looks very improbable; but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods “where they get off,” you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith.

Very nice! He is so earthy and accurate. I should probably pick up something by him again. The only thing I brought back from my library is The Weight of Glory.

I have felt very much like a creature dithering to and fro for the past year and a half, and now that I stop to think about it a bit, it's really because reason is kind of at war with itself here. My reason cannot currently accept miracles, but it also cannot fully accept anything except classical theism, which directly implies the possibility of miracles, and thus... paradox! And so I unconsciously go hunting for alternatives, but unless you go on an eliminative campaign, they tend to turn into classical theism anyway, and the vicious cycle continues.

I strongly sympathize, particularly prior to my conversion. I'm trying to remember what authors are helpful on this topic. Lewis is certainly one of them, and you can always read responses to David Hume's argument against miracles (e.g. Feser). A graduate level seminar on philosophy of religion was also helpful to me insofar as I was able to see the issues dissected and argued with seriousness and precision. Basically once you become practically acquainted with the large holes in philosophical systems that deny miracles significant barriers start to disintegrate. It's obvious that you have already picked up this scent. Yet even within theism where the possibility of miracles is admitted there is still plenty of diversity regarding their nature, frequency, etc.

And then Christianity makes it even more difficult, since I've had a couple really powerful Arguments from Beauty sprung on me, but everything about it really does just fly in the face of reason. (Though according to Kierkegaard, that's the fact that it offends reason is a requirement for faith!)

Why does it fly in the face of reason?

No, it was initially molded by Nietzsche and Sartre (perhaps unfortunately),...

I'm not so sure. "Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Of course, the price of mostly killing naturalism is that now my more skeptical moods swing in the other direction and leave me doubting that the physical universe has any genuine reality, so the Aristotelianism tends to kick in again when I move too far towards idealism.

Haha!

Oh, I went almost weekly, though we had an interim priest who has now left, so I'm not sure what I'm going to do going forward. The former priest was actually pretty perfect for me--Catholic, turned agnostic, who eventually got led back to faith. Great combination of biblical scholarship and a genuine evangelistic spirit, so I found a lot of his sermons very helpful in reminding me why I was there at all. Especially when I was off reading Plotinus instead.

But now we have no priest, and I have no idea how long that is going to last. I'll probably be spending more time with the Orthodox instead in the foreseeable future. Which may be useful, but may also be the opposite of useful. (Love the Liturgy, love the theology, but I have been finding that it's actually too medieval in its approach to really speak to me.)

He sounds like a good priest. Don't forget about the Eastern Catholic Churches (sometimes called Eastern Catholic Rites). It might be a happy medium, as the 'medievalness' receives healthy attenuation.

(I am off to Rome on Sunday, by the way, so if I don't get around to replying again for a couple weeks, that is why.)

See, I would be happy for you if I weren't so jealous. Enjoy your trip and don't give a thought to CF for a few weeks. It will also give me a nice break from the forum, at least so long as Anastasia doesn't break the bank with another three-post reply.

 

[Silmarien]

I strongly sympathize, particularly prior to my conversion. I'm trying to remember what authors are helpful on this topic. Lewis is certainly one of them, and you can always read responses to David Hume's argument against miracles (e.g. Feser). A graduate level seminar on philosophy of religion was also helpful to me insofar as I was able to see the issues dissected and argued with seriousness and precision. Basically once you become practically acquainted with the large holes in philosophical systems that deny miracles significant barriers start to disintegrate. It's obvious that you have already picked up this scent. Yet even within theism where the possibility of miracles is admitted there is still plenty of diversity regarding their nature, frequency, etc.

Yes, I wouldn't really say that miracles are an intellectual problem for me. If you're going to reject a necessitarian view of the laws of nature and instead view them as being sustained in being, then there's no reason to deny the possibility of miracles. (Unless you've got some theological objection to them, but I'm not sure what that would even look like, haha.)

My problems are two-fold, though. First and most importantly, there's a difference between saying that miracles are theoretically possible and pointing to any particular alleged miracle and arguing that it was in fact a miracle and not 1) sensory deception of one form or another, or 2) the result of some currently unknown law of nature. Could Christianity be true? I don't have too many serious concerns about its theology, but it hinges on whether one specific miracle claim actually pans out, and given how widespread magic and miracles were in antiquity, that's a pretty big question mark.

Which leads into my second problem, that being... if naturalism is wrong, just how wrong is it? Was the magic and miracles in antiquity the result of ignorance and superstition, or is this something that once existed and no longer does? (Or does it still exist!?) I feel like there is a lot of hubris attached to the modern rejection of miracles, but if you're going to move away from that and wonder whether experiences of the supernatural are actually grounded in reality, just how deep does the rabbit hole go?

Why does it fly in the face of reason?

Primarily because of the Incarnation. It's obviously an enormous claim, both historically and metaphysically. Do we have good historical reason to believe this particular miracle actually happened? Assuming for argument's sake that we do, how can a person be simultaneously fully human and fully God?

See, I would be happy for you if I weren't so jealous. Enjoy your trip and don't give a thought to CF for a few weeks. It will also give me a nice break from the forum, at least so long as Anastasia doesn't break the bank with another three-post reply.

Haha, thank you! And wow, that is a very interesting thread! Hopefully Anastasia does come back with another 3 post response for you, hahaha.

(And bringing things in from the other thread, since I think we're beyond being relevant to the initial post now.)

Thanks so much for that link. It's tricky though because I'm not sure the Aristotelian form-matter distinction even counts as property dualism. Perhaps Thomistic anthropology is simply too obscure for "Orthodox Contemporary Philosophy of Mind." I'm not sure if you're familiar with Alfred North Whitehead, but a Lutheran friend of mine really likes him and we've had some interesting conversations. He definitely brings a Platonic and Aristotelian mindset to contemporary problems.

By name, yes, but I haven't really looked into any of his work. (Process theology makes me a little nervous, but perhaps I have the wrong impression of it.)

I would not consider Aristotelian hylomorphism to be property dualism either. That review did explicitly place Aristotle on the "radical" side of things, but I don't know where Aquinas would be, given the way he transforms the concept so that the soul as form can be separated from the body. That's looking more dualistic again.

I will say that my main obstacle to Thomism related to free will and predestination, and I see that you've had similar issues in conversations with Quid est Veritas?. I only mention this so that it doesn't take you off guard.

Not specifically concerning Thomism, since I know little about how it approaches free will except that it's a form of compatibilism, but yeah, we've discussed free will in the context of theism vs. pantheism a little bit. I'm not sure that I'd consider it an issue except insofar as I worry that any philosophy that writes the experience of free will off as illusory is engaging in simplifications. This is my major issue with nondualism--in some senses I prefer it to genuine theism, but whether you resort to maya or to evolutionary handwaving, you're pretending that whatever doesn't fit your metaphysics doesn't exist.

I was for a while considering some form of compatibilism, and I am in some ways closer to that than to a pure libertarianism, but in the end my Sartrean roots won out. (That said, I don't think that we're perfectly free, but I do think that freedom is the essential divine property... which might ultimately shove me into voluntaristic waters. I will need to get around to reading Scotus myself at some point.)

And now I'm off. Ciao ciao.

 

[zippy2006]

I'll be away for the next couple of weeks so won't be responding for a while (and if I do, someone please yell at me)

I'll put a reply on ice so as not to tempt you.

And now I'm off. Ciao ciao.

 

[Silmarien]

I'll put a reply on ice so as not to tempt you.

I fail at staying away. But today I learned that the best way to skip the line at the Vatican museum is to go during the papal audience. No line to skip!

There's also a French bookstore here I was hoping would have some of Maritain's works, but unfortunately not so much. I did grab a biography, though! Could have grabbed some Ratzinger also but I'm not masochistic enough to read it in French if that's not the original.

 

[zippy2006]

I fail at staying away.

Me too.

But today I learned that the best way to skip the line at the Vatican museum is to go during the papal audience. No line to skip!

You've definitely got the "sly as serpents" half down!

There's also a French bookstore here I was hoping would have some of Maritain's works, but unfortunately not so much. I did grab a biography, though! Could have grabbed some Ratzinger also but I'm not masochistic enough to read it in French if that's not the original.

A biography of who? That's interesting that they have Ratzinger but not Maritain at the French bookstore. I honestly have no idea what you might find at a Catholic, French bookstore in Rome. Hopefully nothing too scandalous.

It's funny - I just finished my reply to your post in this thread a few minutes ago (though I did not publish it). When I saw that you replied in the same thread I was somewhat perplexed.

Anywho... SCRAM!

 

[Silmarien]

Haha, I can manage short, contentless posts when exhausted from traipsing back and forth across the city. It's multiquoting that just doesn't work on the phone. And long posts in general, because I cannot handle phone typing.

There's a biography of the Maritains called Les mendiants du ciel. It's won some prizes, so hopefully is worth the purchase. (And hopefully it won't go with the rest of my French Catholic books on the "never read" shelf now...)

This bookstore was technically not a Catholic one, just a French one in Rome, so I was hoping that would be close enough. (Actually I did go to a Catholic store in France last year and they had to order Pascal for me, go figure! Unfortunately I didn't know about Maritain then.)

 

[zippy2006]

Haha, I can manage short, contentless posts when exhausted from traipsing back and forth across the city.

Now I think it's great that you're off traipsing across the Eternal City and all, but have you given any consideration to the evils that have been allowed to infest NY in your absence? I mean, Roger Federer lost in the 4th round on Monday, and I'm sure other bad things have happened too.

There's a biography of the Maritains called Les mendiants du ciel. It's won some prizes, so hopefully is worth the purchase. (And hopefully it won't go with the rest of my French Catholic books on the "never read" shelf now...)

Their story is intriguing and one that I've always wanted to know more about.

 

[Silmarien]

Haha, it has been a long time since my presence in New York meant anything at the US Open. Though come to think of it, it's been a while now since I last was in New York during the Open, so maybe it all is my fault.

The traipsing has moved further south to the Amalfi Coast now! And I have to report to you that the churches in the south of Italy are actually tasteful and beautiful and not the result of a millennium's worth of merchant princes trying to outdo each other like in the north. (That is my brother's theory for why Italian churches are so over the top with the ornamentation.)

[Edit] I spoke too soon. The church in Pompeii was pretty intense. And we walked in right before a Hail Mary service started, so that was a surprise.

 

[zippy2006]

Haha, it has been a long time since my presence in New York meant anything at the US Open. Though come to think of it, it's been a while now since I last was in New York during the Open, so maybe it all is my fault.

Well it sounds like you've done better than I have, but I would like to make it at least once before Federer, Nadal, Serena et al. retire.

The traipsing has moved further south to the Amalfi Coast now!

Did you manage to stop in Naples? I have never been to Europe but I have a number of friends with Neapolitan roots so I am familiar--and impressed--with at least the food and music of that culture.

And I have to report to you that the churches in the south of Italy are actually tasteful and beautiful and not the result of a millennium's worth of merchant princes trying to outdo each other like in the north. (That is my brother's theory for why Italian churches are so over the top with the ornamentation.)

[Edit] I spoke too soon. The church in Pompeii was pretty intense. And we walked in right before a Hail Mary service started, so that was a surprise.

Your brother's theory seems promising! In fact I think I've heard that idea before. God is very unscrupulous when it comes to beauty. But does the over-the-top-ness even hold a candle to Orthodox churches? I remember one outside of Galilee that made me dizzy.

"Hail Mary service"? We call that a "rosary," Silmarien.

(...Couldn't resist. In actuality I assume you were referring to a Marian procession, a votive Mass, or some specifically Italian piety. )

 

[Silmarien]

Well it sounds like you've done better than I have, but I would like to make it at least once before Federer, Nadal, Serena et al. retire.



Did you manage to stop in Naples? I have never been to Europe but I have a number of friends with Neapolitan roots so I am familiar--and impressed--with at least the food and music of that culture.



Your brother's theory seems promising! In fact I think I've heard that idea before. God is very unscrupulous when it comes to beauty. But does the over-the-top-ness even hold a candle to Orthodox churches? I remember one outside of Galilee that made me dizzy.

"Hail Mary service"? We call that a "rosary," Silmarien.

(...Couldn't resist. In actuality I assume you were referring to a Marian procession, a votive Mass, or some specifically Italian piety. )

Haha, I know basically nothing about the ritualistic side of Catholicism, and what I do know is strictly European, since I've never actually attended any service in English (aside from a memorial type thing back in high school). This was the church in question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine_of_the_Virgin_of_the_Rosary_of_Pompei

So basically as Marian as it gets. (Actually, interesting story about the guy who restored it in the 19th century--former Satanist and all.)

As for Catholic vs. Orthodox over the topness--I'm not sure yet, though we'll be getting to Greece in a couple days and will be checking out that cathedral they have in Patras. The Orthodox back home have told me that the churches in Greece are every bit as dripping in gold as the ones in Italy, so I expect the worst. (They also told me that I can totally walk into a service in Greece without worrying about getting bombarded in Greek afterwards, so... uh, we'll see if I work up the courage for that. I'm still traumatized from the time the Catholics in France asked me if I wanted to participate in the Eucharist in some sense or another. )

We skipped Naples, actually--I was thinking of visiting it last year and was warned against it, so we based ourselves in Salerno instead. And dropped by Caserta today, which is where the crazy Napolitano palace is. It's actually pretty interesting being in the nearby places, since I hear nothing in the streets but Italian and nobody switches to English permanently on me even when I'm clearly struggling with the language. Even in the palace, there were very few non-Italians, which surprised me, since it was a major royal palace!

As for the US Open, I've never managed to go either. Just technically been in the same state where it was taking place.

And sorry for responding to everything backwards. The horror of no multi quote function, haha. Unless it exists on the phone version and I don't know about it...

 

[FireDragon76]

You know, I have thought about this and maybe you could see this from a Lutheran perspective. You were given a gift in baptism and raised as a Christian. You do not have to make a decision for God, God has already made a decision for you. You are under no obligation to do anything but live as a decent human being and attend a church that you feel called to (if any).

 

[Silmarien]

You know, I have thought about this and maybe you could see this from a Lutheran perspective. You were given a gift in baptism and raised as a Christian. You do not have to make a decision for God, God has already made a decision for you. You are under no obligation to do anything but live as a decent human being and attend a church that you feel called to (if any).

Yeah, I think there's something to that, since the whole idea of being saved by specific correct beliefs strikes me as odd, but I do think I'm obligated to do more--I'm drawn to the darker side of philosophy, and when left unchecked, we tend to go completely mad. But it has been checked now, and specifically by a handful of Christian writers, which I find pretty interesting.

It's a very strange sort of in between position--I realized yesterday while wandering Roman ruins that it's become impossible to see that break between the B.C. and A.D. era as arbitrary now. They seem like different realities entirely, in a way that other cultural divisions do not. Crazy cognitive dissonance going on.

 

[zippy2006]

Haha, I know basically nothing about the ritualistic side of Catholicism, and what I do know is strictly European, since I've never actually attended any service in English (aside from a memorial type thing back in high school).

Ha, fair enough, though if you've been to Episcopal services then you have a general idea.

This was the church in question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine_of_the_Virgin_of_the_Rosary_of_Pompei

So basically as Marian as it gets. (Actually, interesting story about the guy who restored it in the 19th century--former Satanist and all.)

Oh, interesting. I am familiar with that painting but I didn't know where it was. A Satanist and a lawyer!

As for Catholic vs. Orthodox over the topness--I'm not sure yet, though we'll be getting to Greece in a couple days and will be checking out that cathedral they have in Patras. The Orthodox back home have told me that the churches in Greece are every bit as dripping in gold as the ones in Italy, so I expect the worst. (They also told me that I can totally walk into a service in Greece without worrying about getting bombarded in Greek afterwards, so... uh, we'll see if I work up the courage for that...

Let me know what you find. You should definitely go to an Orthodox liturgy if you will be in Greece. "When in Rome," right? (Except I wouldn't say that unless you want to seriously insult them. ) If you've ever tried to learn a dance in the midst of a group of people who already know it the experience will be familiar to you. ...not that I mean to compare the Divine Liturgy to the Macarena.

I'm still traumatized from the time the Catholics in France asked me if I wanted to participate in the Eucharist in some sense or another. )

Oh dear! Catholicism in France strikes me as this weird polarity where you can either get it 100-proof or water-weak, but not much in-between, though you would have to confirm that for me. Did they want you to receive a blessing, or what?

We skipped Naples, actually--I was thinking of visiting it last year and was warned against it, so we based ourselves in Salerno instead. And dropped by Caserta today, which is where the crazy Napolitano palace is. It's actually pretty interesting being in the nearby places, since I hear nothing in the streets but Italian and nobody switches to English permanently on me even when I'm clearly struggling with the language. Even in the palace, there were very few non-Italians, which surprised me, since it was a major royal palace!

Naples may well be dangerous and/or sketchy. That would actually make some sense given the stories I've heard. It sounds like you're off the beaten trail, at least to some extent. How is your Italian? I was chatting with a priest the other day and he was telling me that most curial officials in Rome speak ecclesial Italian which is a far cry from authentic Italian. Rome is certainly a crossroads for languages, especially in religious houses, but you seem to have escaped the heavy tourism for now.

And sorry for responding to everything backwards. The horror of no multi quote function, haha. Unless it exists on the phone version and I don't know about it...

No worries. I'm more incensed that you're responding at all!

(Feel free to chop down the length if you like)

 

[No Swansong]

Happy Birthday and welcome to CF friend. You may also want to check into the Oriental Orthodox forum.

 

[Silmarien]

Ha, fair enough, though if you've been to Episcopal services then you have a general idea.



Oh, interesting. I am familiar with that painting but I didn't know where it was. A Satanist and a lawyer!



Let me know what you find. You should definitely go to an Orthodox liturgy if you will be in Greece. "When in Rome," right? (Except I wouldn't say that unless you want to seriously insult them. ) If you've ever tried to learn a dance in the midst of a group of people who already know it the experience will be familiar to you. ...not that I mean to compare the Divine Liturgy to the Macarena.



Oh dear! Catholicism in France strikes me as this weird polarity where you can either get it 100-proof or water-weak, but not much in-between, though you would have to confirm that for me. Did they want you to receive a blessing, or what?



Naples may well be dangerous and/or sketchy. That would actually make some sense given the stories I've heard. It sounds like you're off the beaten trail, at least to some extent. How is your Italian? I was chatting with a priest the other day and he was telling me that most curial officials in Rome speak ecclesial Italian which is a far cry from authentic Italian. Rome is certainly a crossroads for languages, especially in religious houses, but you seem to have escaped the heavy tourism for now.



No worries. I'm more incensed that you're responding at all!

(Feel free to chop down the length if you like)

Haha, well, I do have downtime. Especially when I pick stupid hours for trains and end up stuck in the station for hours with nothing to do but wait. Like right now. And I like the whole pseudo-backpacking trip, but it gets exhausting really quickly. I say I'll never do it again, and then I always change my mind and have to remember why I said I'd never do it again in the first place. One more city in Italy, where at least I have a friend I can let take charge, assuming she hasn't gallivanted off for the day, and then it's on to Greece. (Where I only speak about 20 words of Greek, so we'll see how well that works out. You're supposed to be able to get by in English in these countries, but that doesn't always work out.)

My Italian is not great. I can handle the grammar because it's similar to French, and I can muddle my way through a conversation, but whenever I tend to automatically switch to Spanish whenever I'm surprised. I would not be able to tell if someone were speaking a different dialect, though--I don't have anywhere near the listening comprehension skills for that. That's odd about ecclesial Italian, though. Do curial officials not come from all over Italy? I wouldn't expect them to have their very own special dialect. But Italy is a bit weird linguistically, so who knows.

Re: French Catholicism, I honestly am not sure what was going on. I had sat down before the service began, and some woman approached me and asked me in bullet fast French if I wanted to... something... with the Eucharist. I assume it was bringing up the gifts or something along those lines, but she realized I wasn't French and moved on. I got the impression that she was asking me to do something ritualistic, but I didn't know enough about Catholic ritual to have the context to figure out what she was talking about. It was a very deer in headlights moment, haha.

I only went to two services in France... that one in a more traditional looking church, and then a more modernist thing. I remember at least one of them having a very Social Gospel feel--not in a bad way, but the sermon was definitely about topical issues like unemployment. I have trouble figuring out where different churches are on the spectrum, though, since I don't have much context to go by. (Amusingly, we stumbled across what looked like an Evangelical service last night... doors wide open, hands held high, music blasting, even though the church itself was as typically Italian as any. Unless charismatic Catholicism looks like that too?)

I actually think the Episcopal services are closer to Orthodox ones than to Catholic ones, in substance if not form. The liturgy looks more Catholic, but the prayers themselves and the way the ceremony is ordered seems to be ripped out of Orthodoxy. At least there's a number of similarities I've noticed between both liturgies, but perhaps American Catholicism matches up to them more than European Catholicism seemed to.