Was he right about the aerial toll houses?

Was he right about the aerial toll houses?

Attached: Fr. Seraphim Rose.jpg (1175x1600, 222.99K)

Other urls found in this thread:

orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_pomaz.aspx
orthodoxroad.com/downloads/References-for-Toll-Houses.pdf
orthochristian.com/106801.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No

Saint Antony? Of course.

Rhis. Tollhouse theology isn't new.

winny no

probably

Yes. I dont buy the gnosticism claims and Orthodoxy needs a little fear every now and then.

That kind of atrocious attitude is one of the prime reason why people are leaving the church. We need love of God, not fear caused by some gn*stic garbage revived by some ameritard.

On the internet, no one knows you're a toll house demon.

Isn't some monastery currently producing some massive tome on toll houses? When that comes out I'll look into the subject.

But the point is are the larpers misunderstanding Fr. Rose or was his exposition flawed and naturally leading to a literal and material interpretation?

Whats wrong with Perennialism?

whether it was a bad explanation of not, we have the consensus patrum for a reason- you can't base everything from one point of view. larpers need to understand that before they read one article online and make a decision off that lol

No, the point is that rose and his fanboys are acting like larpers.

orthodoxroad.com/downloads/References-for-Toll-Houses.pdf

People can't get the respecting Fr. Seraphim for his ascetic struggles but not accepting all his opinions thing. I went on a trip with some ethnics and a russiphile in which we stayed two or three nights at St. Hermans and it was such a bizarre experience. I was literally told before hand by the guy I knew that I couldn't talk about the tollhouses, but once we got there everyone else did and it was pretty concerning stuff. Weird views were expressed in which seemingly confession didn't remove all confessed and unconfessed sins, even when all sins that could be remembered were confessed. While I accept that there are well developed beliefs in regard to tollhouses it seems like so many tollhousers themselves have no idea what their talking about. I met a guy at the monastery that was planning on being "baptized" as he had been accepted into the church through chrismation, I had met his friend a few days before at St. Anthony's so I think I know where that idea came from. There's a weird vibe there about Fr. Seraphim and seemingly acting like his canonization is innevitable and theres a lowkey conspiracy keeping it from happening. All that being said though the monks up there are great people, and in regards to rebaptisms I talked to their priest and he was very opposed, so I'll give him some credit there. I think the weirdness in a sense revolves around the monastery, but I don't know how guilty, in a sense, the monastery itself is, but I also think people should be a little less reliant on a somewhat recently schismatic monastery accepted into a different jurisdiction because they couldn't get right with their parent jurisdiction. Their bishops is pretty cool too. Didn't really get to talk to him but he was a good looking dude. Also they have a cool doggo

It gos both ways, when I've explained my views, more based off of a Justin Martyr demons attack at your death and less on space ethiopian shacks, I've had people complaining for me not accepting the Orthodox teaching on the matter.

If anything Fr. Seraphims books lend themselves well towards missunderstanding.

In the context of my post about Fr. Rose nothing is wrong with perennialism, only that he wrote like a very narrow Orthodox exclusivist in one book but that was not his actual view.
It's possible he had doubts and wasn't sure on the issue, though. I'm not saying he was dishonest, only contradictory.

I believe however there is a problem with perennialism, I will try to explain it in detail now since this issue resurface often in many threads.
I am referring to the teachings of Guénon, Schuon, Burckhardt, Pallis, Valsan and Coomaraswamy. I will not address Evola, since, unlike the others, he had a strong antichristian prejudice and this is obviously unnaceptable.

-The idea of Primordial/perennial tradition
The main claim of perennialism/guenonian traditionalism is that there is a core spiritual tradition from the beginning of humanity and that all religions are adaptation of it, created by inspired prophets to preserve truth in different ways to different people and cultures in history. Basically google Sanatana Dharma in Hinduism and that's where it is from.
This implies that all religions are equally true and equivalent.
The only thing we can accept as Christians is that existed a certain primordial knowledge of God, but it was lost in idolatry and superstition after the Babel tower. Certain wise men like Socrates or Zoroaster were able to learn a certain amount of truth, but this can never be equal to the religion revealed from God.
Christianity is above other religions, the nice things in other religions are at best incomplete fragments or prefigurations of Christian truths written by their wise men.

-The content of this perennial religion
Basically Advaita Vedanta, the most abstract and less pagan of hindu doctrines.
This imply, for example, that Shiva and Krishna are equally acceptable as forms and interpretation of the same divine as Christ is. That politheism is just a way of seeing divine energies, different but not less true than monotheism.
The final goal of man is to reach union into the divine in an impersonal way: to become a drop of water into the ocean.
God as a personal being with a will is accepted but as a lesser truth, God in itself is pure Being outside of being.

-Esotericism/Essotericism
This part about the impersonal absolute is usually part of the most advanced and reserved systems, as opposed to the devotion for God, intended for average people.
Since Sufi muslims and Hindus, among others, show traces of this distinction the perennialists try desperately to project it upon christianity.
Since Christian theology obviously do not teach these things they are lead to believe Christianity was esoteric but turned into a mass religion and there are some unknown groups inside it still teaching the esoteric doctrine to those who are qualified.
Among these groups the authors of the Graal cycle, the knights templar, Rosicrucians and freemasons. Unfortunately all these group are dead or were corrupted (like the freemasons).
This would imply Christ had a secret teachings that was unwritten; the revelation would thus split in two different doctrines and so would the hierarchy because it follows that an esoteric initatic hierarchy must exist, separated from that of bishops.

-Hermeneutics
They constantly try to read Christianity in light of other traditions.
They do not read Christian scriptures or the saints in light of Christianity itself but they project hindu or muslim ideas on it.
For example the esoteric/essoteric split is from the muslims, it is unknown in Christianity but they project it.

-The fruits of perennialism
Since they believed all religions are equally true and equivalent, and since Christianity has no more initiatic esoteric groups to be used to reach union into the Absolute, the perennialists left Christianity, all of them.
The great majority of them became sufi muslims.
I don't need to explain why this is wrong.

-Sacraments
Ever since the imaginary moment when Christianity turned essoteric the sacraments have no value. To the perennialist they were once initatic rituals but now they no longer give initiation into the mysteries.
Not all of them agree on this, the main issue is that they constantly minimize and ignore the core of Christianity because they are too interested into molding it to fit with their Hindu/Sufi theories.
The death and resurrection of Christ is not really that important to them, only the fact that Christianity is compatible with the doctrines of Sanatana Dharma and sufi mysticism.

Nothing more cancerous than lukewarm cradledoxes. Not only do they doom themselves, but they also give a bad image to our Church.

I really hate when perennialists try to make the story of the grail into some great esoteric mystery. I've spent a very long time reading all of the original grail stories and about the lives of their authors and I can tell you it's all nonsense. The first grail romance, by Chretien de Troyes, was an allegory about the conflict between what the world expects from you and what God expects from you. Percival is told not ask so many questions because it makes him look like an idiot. However he takes this too literally and begins to think that means he can never ask questions. So he remains silent when the Fisher King shows him the procession of the bleeding lance and the grail(which was originally a type of tray containing sacramental bread, not a chalice.) Later it turns out that the one thing he needed to do to heal the Fisher King's wound was to ask about the lance and the grail. Chretien died before he could finish the story, so everyone and his brother set out to come up with an ending to it. Wolfram von Eschenbach turned the grail into a magical stone on which inscriptions of commands from God would appear and could also cause food to magically appear, which is why it was called the grail. He also turned the lance into a poison tipped lance that was the source of the Fisher King's pain. Around the same time Robert de Boron turned the grail into the chalice Christ used at the Last Supper and he turned the bleeding lance into the spear used pierce Jesus's side at the Crucifixion. Later on the writers of the Vulgate and Post Vulgate cycles would run with Robert de Boron's interpretation and throw in the addition of the character Galahad, an almost Christ-like figure and the illegitimate son of Lancelot(who is a whole other can of worms I won't get into right now.) Malory based is writings off the Vulgate and Post Vulgate cycles and as a result that's the version of the grail story most of us are familiar with. The perennialists like Evola try to claim that there is a deeper pagan truth to the story that obfuscated by the Christian writers of these stories but there is no real evidence of that. The closest pagan analogue to the story of the grail, Peredur son of Efrawg, doesn't have a grail at all but rather a man's severed head who later turns out to the be the head of Peredur's cousin, which completely alters the way you could read into the symbolism of the story.

I read Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future and i can definitely see some reflection of his influence by Perennialism although its only superficial and the book doesn't deviate from orthodoxy, i say this as a catholic.

Im not a expert on the Perennial Philosophy but wasnt Jean Borella and Rama Coomaraswamy Christian perennialists, I mean sure they're a minority among the exponents but it suggest that Christianity isn't entirely devoid of worth (in their view).

orthochristian.com/106801.html
This is for you lad

"The main claim of perennialism/guenonian traditionalism is that there is a core spiritual tradition from the beginning of humanity and that all religions are adaptation of it, created by inspired prophets to preserve truth in different ways to different people and cultures in history. Basically google Sanatana Dharma in Hinduism and that's where it is from."

Yes he says this core spiritual tradition is Christianity?

I'm not sure about this, but i'm reading his life and works atm and even though i'm only half way through he was fighting against this. In his other books as well he fought against "Super Correctness". I understand you aren't shitting on him but i think you have serverly misunderstood what a lot of things he was writing meant.

The idea that the Core Spiritual tradition is Christianity is biliblical as well, unless you believe in Evolution.

Joseph de Maistre was also a big influence on the Traditionalist school of thought, even though he wasn't a part of it.

No, you need to lay off the retarded blogspots.
I know that site. Its trash

Not an argument

Attached: 20180612_012553.png (260x260, 123.73K)

Rama Coomaraswamy was a sedevacantist. And likely believed Christianity was just one among many traditions.
Jean Borella is an exception, but he wrote in depth on what is not acceptable from a Christian point of view. The point on 'hermeneutics' I wrote is from Borella.

I read only von Eschenbach and Chretien de Troyes. To me the meaning of the Graal is exactly the opposite of what the esotericists or the paganophile say it is.
The Graal cycle is a christian legend, it is helpful, beautiful, inspiring but it is a legend. Treating it as an esoteric, inner and superior meaning of the christian doctrine, in a sense means to prefer this supposedly esoteric legend to the real revelation of Jesus from the supposedly essoteric Gospels. As if the esoteric depth of Christianity is a celtic legends and not the life of Jesus.

The perennialis thesis suggest that the Graal is the primordial perennial tradition since Adam was its first owner. When Christ creates his religion that for the perennialists is just one among many, he uses the Graal at the last supper to symbolize he is creating a true adaptation of the original religion. After being used at the supper to say "this is my blood" the Graal is later used by Joseph of Arimatea to collect the physical blood of Jesus after his death.
However Christ do not merely receive the Graal, he also gives the Graal its content. Saying the Graal is primordial tradition and Christianity is part of it is wrong. Because Christ is also the blood inside the Graal, that was empty before.
The symbol would be that the primordial cup of Adam receives the blood of the new alliance between God and man, this interpretation would put Christianity above all other traditions, who just possess a partial truth corrupted after the Babel tower. As to say, before Christ the various religions on Earth had just fragments of the original knowledge of God of Adam because their cup was empty, but Christ fills the cup so Christianity is not merely another adaptation of the primordial tradition but the real restoration of Adam.

Joseph of Arimatea, who bring the Graal to Britain, is not the symbol of an initatic hierarchy separated from that of the bishops. He is the symbol of the Church that gift the Graal to the celts, purifying their pagan tradition and fulfilling what was good in it, throught the blood of Christ of the new alliance.
Joseph receives the Graal from John the Apostle, there are no two different hierarchies.

The remarks about the Patriarchate of Constantinople gave me this impression. I believe his book was needed in this era of confusion, dialogue at all costs and syncretism, but it's like he went to far in the opposite direction in certain parts of the book.

No, he was a crazy gnostic who came to orthodoxy as a larper after going to college studying buddhism and taoism and other relevant to hippy interests fields of religion.

Attached: brainlettttt.jpg (800x450, 40.52K)

redpill me on sister vassa

also kallistos ware

The public faces of liberal Orthodoxy along with others like Aristotle Papanikolaou and Rod Dreyer.

Imagine how disgusting that unkempt beard smells.
And no he was not right. Tollhouse is redundant we already get tempted and judged in this life. It's not biblical and sounds like Asian superstition

Rejection of tollhouses is completely reactionary. People just don't like that it sounds kind of like purgatory.

Interesting breakdown. Thanks.