Loup, I'm not Orthodox (as we've discussed), but I increasingly feel your Christianity is not unlike my Christianity. And feeling a camaraderie in faith is a good thing.
“In this post-metaphysical and post-creedal existential situation — I even find myself wanting to say post-dogmatic”
What are you even doing at this point? I believe in Jesus Christ. Incarnate of the virgin. Died and rose again. Those are creedal statements. Those are dogmas. What sort of memory are you talking about when it makes you think you are beyond those things?
Adolescent? Every saint in the history of the Church affirmed these things in faith. You can have your doddering “memory,” but I suspect it will not carry you an inch away from where you started.
I don’t mean to offend, but I don’t find anything impressive or insightful about these ideas.
It sounds like you are in a place where the “massive metaphysical certainties” that are no longer certain for me are still operative for you. In my opinion, those certainties are ghosts, in the sense that they can haunt us, but they are no longer the structure of our culture, and they never will be again: there will be no RETVRN. Those who hold them without admitting into themselves, without really hearing, the godforsakenness of the world that we actually inhabit, are not going to be the faithful remnant justified at the end of time: they are going to be a small cult that either dies or manages to survive as an ossified remnant, like many other such small cults.
The question is how to hear the question put to faith by modernity, and respond in a way that shows a pathway of faith through modernity, within modernity, in its own depths. If faith is true, there must be such a pathway. In the end, that will be the pathway by which faith lives rather than merely enduring in a living death.
If that's not of interest to you or if you think it's simply nonsense, we probably diverge in our attitude enough that it's not worth your while to read what I write, which of course is fine.
But what is the question put to faith by modernity? And how deep is it? Maybe it's because I live in a small town, but no one strikes me as struggling with anything particularly modern or new. Yes, marijuana shops and shallow media, but this is still the same vice of intemperance. Yes, people are caught up in their own minds and wants, but this is the same pride and egoism as ever.
Some things are more difficult and perhaps some things are less difficult, but I don't see what question modernity is asking that requires a revolutionary answer. I mentioned the saints of all ages because they themselves saw revolutionary changes. The fall of the Roman Empire. The discovery of the New World. Industrialization. Communism and the Atomic Bomb. Which of these is the turning point that made sainthood different than it ever was? Which one made faith impossible?
Perhaps I'm just missing whatever the question is that modernity puts. Indeed, there is no RETVRN, but we live where find ourselves, faith and all. Yes, the world and culture are godforsaken, sure, but when has the world been otherwise?
And yes, God forbid that faith (or "massive metaphysical certainties" if that's what you want to call the birth or death of Our Lord) ever cease to be operative in my life! If modernity could promise a single thing better than faith and its promises, I'd consider it... but... it isn't looking too hot.
It's a weighty word, tradition. I wish we approached religious tradition like we do tradition in the arts: as a source of inspiration and of the very forms--which, yes, change over time--without which you can't do the thing at all.
I unfortunately found this difficult to read past a couple paragraphs. Several hundred other interesting and engaging articles await my attention in my Saved for Later list. An AI might give you some useful feedback.
Loup, I'm not Orthodox (as we've discussed), but I increasingly feel your Christianity is not unlike my Christianity. And feeling a camaraderie in faith is a good thing.
It is indeed and this is wonderful to hear!
Love this.
“In this post-metaphysical and post-creedal existential situation — I even find myself wanting to say post-dogmatic”
What are you even doing at this point? I believe in Jesus Christ. Incarnate of the virgin. Died and rose again. Those are creedal statements. Those are dogmas. What sort of memory are you talking about when it makes you think you are beyond those things?
Adolescent? Every saint in the history of the Church affirmed these things in faith. You can have your doddering “memory,” but I suspect it will not carry you an inch away from where you started.
I don’t mean to offend, but I don’t find anything impressive or insightful about these ideas.
It sounds like you are in a place where the “massive metaphysical certainties” that are no longer certain for me are still operative for you. In my opinion, those certainties are ghosts, in the sense that they can haunt us, but they are no longer the structure of our culture, and they never will be again: there will be no RETVRN. Those who hold them without admitting into themselves, without really hearing, the godforsakenness of the world that we actually inhabit, are not going to be the faithful remnant justified at the end of time: they are going to be a small cult that either dies or manages to survive as an ossified remnant, like many other such small cults.
The question is how to hear the question put to faith by modernity, and respond in a way that shows a pathway of faith through modernity, within modernity, in its own depths. If faith is true, there must be such a pathway. In the end, that will be the pathway by which faith lives rather than merely enduring in a living death.
If that's not of interest to you or if you think it's simply nonsense, we probably diverge in our attitude enough that it's not worth your while to read what I write, which of course is fine.
But what is the question put to faith by modernity? And how deep is it? Maybe it's because I live in a small town, but no one strikes me as struggling with anything particularly modern or new. Yes, marijuana shops and shallow media, but this is still the same vice of intemperance. Yes, people are caught up in their own minds and wants, but this is the same pride and egoism as ever.
Some things are more difficult and perhaps some things are less difficult, but I don't see what question modernity is asking that requires a revolutionary answer. I mentioned the saints of all ages because they themselves saw revolutionary changes. The fall of the Roman Empire. The discovery of the New World. Industrialization. Communism and the Atomic Bomb. Which of these is the turning point that made sainthood different than it ever was? Which one made faith impossible?
Perhaps I'm just missing whatever the question is that modernity puts. Indeed, there is no RETVRN, but we live where find ourselves, faith and all. Yes, the world and culture are godforsaken, sure, but when has the world been otherwise?
And yes, God forbid that faith (or "massive metaphysical certainties" if that's what you want to call the birth or death of Our Lord) ever cease to be operative in my life! If modernity could promise a single thing better than faith and its promises, I'd consider it... but... it isn't looking too hot.
It's a weighty word, tradition. I wish we approached religious tradition like we do tradition in the arts: as a source of inspiration and of the very forms--which, yes, change over time--without which you can't do the thing at all.
This would be good!
Your footnote made me feel seen.
ahahaha excellent
I unfortunately found this difficult to read past a couple paragraphs. Several hundred other interesting and engaging articles await my attention in my Saved for Later list. An AI might give you some useful feedback.
You should probably just use AI to summarize them all, and then doomscroll. Godspeed.
Good reply