#535 in Religion & spirituality books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of The Three Ages of the Interior Life

Sentiment score: 2
Reddit mentions: 2

We found 2 Reddit mentions of The Three Ages of the Interior Life. Here are the top ones.

The Three Ages of the Interior Life
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
Specs:
Height8.5 Inches
Length5.51 Inches
Number of items1
Weight1.31 Pounds
Width1.05 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 2 comments on The Three Ages of the Interior Life:

u/SpydersWebbing ยท 8 pointsr/Catholicism

EDIT 2: u/valegrete attempted to talk some sense into me. I think he half succeeded? I hope? Whatever, here we go.

If you are Catholic and are shaken by the current stuff going on DO NOT JUMP SHIP TO THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. AS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN, I AM PUTTING THIS IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT. Bishops are idiots, like the rest of us. Their mistakes, unlike ours, are writ large, and while I've had quite a few nasty things to say about the Catholic hierarchy on here as of late, that is no excuse to tell someone else to jump ship. The Roman Catholic tradition is extremely rich. Get fed, focus on what you're doing, call out your bishop for being an idiot or heretic if you have to, persevere!

If you are needing an idea of where to start, I heartily recommend the following Roman Catholic works:

The Ways of Mental Prayer. I just flat out recommend this book to anybody who wants to learn to pray, regardless of which Church you're in. It's great.

The Three Ages of the Interior Life: This book is nuts. It's amazing. Read it. Consider it essential.

If, after reading those two giants of modern Roman Catholic theology, you are still dissatisfied, well, that's a different matter. But by that point that's a conversation I'm not going to be a part of, most likely. Regardless, do not despair.

I don't like the article. I think it's insulting and ill-informed. But I left the idea that it's easy to find Truth a very long time ago, out of necessity over a variety if circumstances that are best not gotten into here. The point is, if you're shaken by this, it's a call to deeper investigate the Faith, not a boot out the door. If, after praying about it and coming to the conclusion that God is calling you to the Orthodox Church, know that I sure wouldn't stop you. But do not leave because of all that is going on in Rome. You will never become what God made you to be if bishops determine your life like this, spiritual and otherwise. The rest of what's below are my thoughts on the article. I stand by them. I will continue to stand by them. I sure as hell don't like it. But do not take it as a sign that I want you to leave the Catholic Church. That would do us all a disservice.

ORIGINAL POST

As an Orthodox, I find the article laughable. Peter being the Prince of the Apostles is universally acclaimed and has never been a real issue. The man's entire article misses what Orthodoxy is so fundamentally that it walks into actual hysterics on my end.

EDIT 1: So, a lot of people asked for me to elucidate. Here we are. I do not begrudge the man for going Roman Catholic. I do not understand his heart and I do not know what God put there. I do not pretend to know those things. But what he's written here is just execrable and is an active stumbling block to unity, which I think God not only wants but demands. The world will suffer because of Catholic and Orthodoxy idiocy, and this man is contributing to it. My post will attempt to clear up three things: the point of Orthodoxy, how this point relates to the hierarchy, and thus why the Orthodox hierarchy the way it is. I do not pretend that modern Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't have problems, nor do I think his points about ecclesial unity are wholly without basis. But I do think he missed the point so widely as to make his comments profoundly unhelpful. And that does anger me.

  1. Orthodoxy is therapy first, with an eye toward theosis, becoming a God by grace and taking the whole of the cosmos into oneself, humanity's nature primarily. The idea of there being a perfect structure on is earth utterly irrelevant to this concept, because there is no ideal here on this earth, Church included (and especially). Man is seen as ill and in need of rehabilitation, with perfection in this life never being on the table.
  2. The hierarchy is seen closer to medical professionals, with councils and the canons thereof as to aiding in the healing and glorification process of the people more than anything. The bishop is the head doctor of his diocese, with the priests his assistant (operating under his license), and the deacons smoothing over many of the practical considerations in the ministry of healing that the Church must undertake.
  3. The idea of a Pope, therefore, as a supreme head of the Church is utter nonsense in Orthodox thinking. How can a man who does not know you aid in your healing? He can't. The bishop is as far as it can go in helping the people of that diocese heal, and spiritually speaking the bishop is the Peter of the diocese. Order in the , Church is seen as preferential but is secondary to making sure the bishops can take care of their flock first, on a personal basis. A lot of Catholic's issues (what is the teaching? How do I know for sure?) is simply not on an the typical Orthodox radar, because Orthodoxy is method first. And that method is incredibly clear and well put together.

    Now onto the actual article.

    Primacy is not the same as supremacy. Rome is prime. Yup. I said it. All you uberdox get over it. Rome has the right of final appeal, as the First Ecumenical Council teaches. But Rome's primacy does not mean the supremacy of Vatican I. He cannot shove things down everyone's throat, which is entirely what Vatican I was. No Father that was not a Pope taught the supremacy of Rome. It doesn't exist. Hell, you can't even get St. Jerome to agree to the idea that a bishop and a priest are actually different sacramentally, nevermind whether or not another bishop can be over another! The writer of the article misses how toxic that council was, and that nobody with a conscience would agree with how it was implemented (which included the Pope calling the Melkite Patriarch to sign the document and calling him troublesome for refusing to do so!) Rome can hold a primacy without Vatican I. And, honestly, with more than five minutes of looking at that miserable council, I can't in good conscience agree to it.

    The difference of focus in Orthodoxy means that clarity (or the lack thereof) is not an issue. You are there to heal. That is it. You are being drawn into the apophatic Trinity and the idea that there is clarity here in this life is something wholly alien to it. The circumstances for healing shift so greatly between people that saying "there is a universal rule" is something Orthodox are quite loathe to answer quickly (read: a few hundred years). How you heal is going to be different to another person's. It's just the way that it operates, and the writer misses that, egregiously so. By valuing clarity over healing I think a lot of harm is done. I also, personally, find it to be an immature wish for a world that frankly does not exist.

    The unity of the Orthodox is far greater than anything I've seen in the Catholic Church. There is no confusion about theosis, or liturgy. It does not exist in the endemic state that has always existed in the Catholic Church. And this is without someone trying to rule the roost. We agree because are there for healing, and certain principles heal everyone, with the rest of it necessarily needing to not be so clear.

    If you have any other questions I will update this post, as much as I can.
u/jz-dialectic ยท 1 pointr/Catholicism

I felt the same way after I first rediscovered my Catholic faith. I read a lot by the Carmelite mystics, and I even thought about the Carthusians. As I continued to discern my vocation, I eventually saw my attraction to those orders as God growing my interior life rather than a vocation (I'm now happily married with my first child on the way!). Before diving right into St. John of the Cross or St. Theresa of Avila, I recommend reading Fr. Thomas Dubay.

Or better yet, if you have some theology or philosophy background already, read Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange or Fr. Adolph Tanqueray.

Carthusians: http://transfiguration.chartreux.org/
Benedictines in Norcia: https://en.nursia.org/
More Benedictines (I think): https://clearcreekmonks.org/
Fire Within by Thomas Dubay https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Within-Teresa-Gospel-Prayer/dp/0898702631/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486491394&sr=8-1&keywords=thomas+dubay+fire+within
Three Ages of the Interior Life by Fr. Garrigou Lagrange https://www.amazon.com/Three-Ages-Interior-Life/dp/1492390976/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1486491194&sr=8-3&keywords=garrigou+lagrange
The Spiritual Life by Adolphe Tanquerey https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Life-Adolphe-Tanquerey/dp/0895556596
Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Night-Dover-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486426939/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486491335&sr=8-1&keywords=dark+night+of+the+soul
The Way of Perfection by St. Theresa of Avila https://www.amazon.com/Way-Perfection-Image-Classics/dp/0385065396