/lit/ - Literature

>>15322989
Catholics don't understand Aquinas, very few people do.

>>15322989
>
Nah, its apretty legit, internally coherent system. You can respect the theory of something will disliking the praxis of some of those who also somewhat subscribe to it.
Makes sense tho, despite popular thought, the church stays up to date on a lot of philosophical developments and has some pretty rigorous stuff on such topics.

>>15323014
I think Catholicism has just broken at the seams intellectually and I'm not comfortable with the way they've basically tossed Aquinas in the trash for... nothing really in replacement. The way their system is structured where previous thought cannot be in error while they change their ways of thinking leads to some really weird cognitively dissonant modes of thought that is legalistic and kinda out there imo.

I was impressed with Feser's contemporary defense of Aquinas and the way he showed how criticisms of A-T were predicated on types of thinking that came after, missed the point, and created its own problems which were then attributed to A-T. Taken as a whole, it makes me feel comfortable with discarding a lot of the subsequent Western philosophical canon in favor of A-T. But I'm not clear on what the rebuttal would be to Feser. Such criticisms are almost exclusively focused on the God proofs, which aren't as important to me as Aquinas taken as a whole

>>15323064
I can sympathize with that. You comment of changing dogma and it’s deleterious effects especially. As a history major I have tracked some developments in the church, and how generational things shift in the higher acedemic there. They will largely be Hegelian, than transition to something else, the. Something else. I mean, it’s respectable from a purely intellectual lense of curiosity, but on lower, more practical every day matters and people, it’s caused the whole system to be confused and people accusing the church of just being stupid and spouting bull shit when the exact opisite problem is happening. It’s not that the church isnt open enough with its learnings, but that it isn’t as well defined at the theoretical dogma that can be used as a status quo for those who haven’t spent their lives studying metaphysics.

Read Peter Kreeft's Practical Theology: Spiritual Direction from St. Thomas Aquinas after Feser, you wont regret it.

Aquinas recanted most of it towards the end of his life

>>15323064
Thomism was never universally accepted and it wasn't the Church's official stance, there was always debate about it. The church didn't "toss out" anything, there are plenty of Thomist philosophers today, it's always been an inconsistent organisation.

>>15323477
No he didn't. He just stated that it was all somewhat pointless in comparison to the direct mystical experience he had.

>>15323505
Thomism/Scholasticism actually was the official position of the Church for many centuries, practically since Aquinas. Aquinas was the only philosopher who was a mandatory part of seminary education by papal fiat; it's even possible the decree that teaching Thomism reached the level of infallibility.

Although there are Thomists philosophers today, they have zero influence in the magisterium. That died with JPII, and even that was a stretch. The fact was that the entire hierarchy rebelled against Thomism, declaring that Thomism may be great, but they were not the Thomist Church, but the Catholic Church, and Catholicism was ultimately broader than Thomism.

I'm not sure that's true though. I think the hierarchy was rebelling in an I Hate My Dad kind of way. One can't be a Catholic without being a Thomist, at least according to the Church's rules. But the hierarchy and the current magisterium don't give a shit

>>15323544
You're right, it seems I've been misled. Thanks for the correction.

>>15323064
There are some neuroscientists who think Aquinas got cognition right too. And some physicists who think Aquinas solves the problems of quantum physics.

>>15323544

>Thomism/Scholasticism actually was the official position of the Church for many centuries,
> One can't be a Catholic without being a Thomist, at least according to the Church's rules.

I don't believe Aquinas ever became dogma. You can be a Catholic while being Augustinian. Like Pope Benedict. It's just difficult to be anti-Thomist and Catholic because he's so central. Still not dogma though.

>>15323445
Etienne Gilson is excellent.

>>15324510
Ressourcement isn't about rejecting aquinas lmao, read up on the Theology of the Body's grounding in his ontology.

What does it mean to be Thomist? What's the key doctrine that would distinguish it from other positions?

>>15324588
Basically, it involves accepting that things are, that they are good, that God is prime mover, in an ongoing manner, and a moderate realism of human knowledge.

Why are so many people LARPing as Catholics these days? The phenomenon is wider than just Catholicism though. It seems like the dominance of consumer capitalism, where people fabricate their identities based on what they buy, read, and profess, now even extends into the realms of philosophy, morality, and ethics. Thereby, men on a messageboard for Chinese cartoons chase new and novel consistent belief systems in the hopes it will distinguish them, as a kind of shortcut to recognition or intelligence.

>>15324597
what happens with free will in the thomist system?
what if I think that there are things that are bad?

>>15324609
what if I just like reading and exploring belief systems but don't care about recognition or intelligence?

>>15322989
Alasdair MacIntyre was a marxist who reasoned himself into thomism. I think Whose Justice? Which Rationality? or Three Rival Versions of Moral Inquiry might make for a good next step if you want to dig a little deeper.

>>15323064
The recent magisterium is still grounded in thomism, just not exclusively so. Maybe skim Lumen Fidei or Fides et Ratio.

>>15324615
Free will is a faculty given to man, and for whatever reason(this is a mystery) God allows man to choose imperfect goods by virtue of His justice. You can accept that there are bad things, as man's choice in original sin is a fundamental tear in creation, but you need to see evil as privation and distinct form how things are essentially.

>>15324625
You should identity your real endgame and instead live by the pursuit of truth instead of sampling different fashionable or counter-cultural belief systems.

>>15324790
>You should identity your real endgame and instead live by the pursuit of truth instead of sampling different fashionable or counter-cultural belief systems.

>>15322989
Aquinas leads to Zeus, not Jesus. Just like Aristotle before him. Catholics will never understand that.

>>15324510
>There are some neuroscientists who think Aquinas got cognition right too. And some physicists who think Aquinas solves the problems of quantum physics.
Names?

>>15324510
>neuroscientists who think Aquinas got cognition right
Makes me disregard Aquinas, if anything.

>>15324851
Aristotle led to a shadow of Christ with his limited knowledge.
Aquinas led straight to the false islamic "Allah".

>>15324609
catholic since birth baby

>>15324851
mfw I get to coom all over my sister

Literally larps as if he is proving like angels and shit what a fucking retard

>>15324851
Not even Aristotle thought this.

>>15323064
>The developing movement received fierce criticisms in the late 1940s and 1950s. A first attack was made by the influential Dominican[4] theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange in a polemical 1946 article in the journal Angelicum.[5] While the theologians of the movement generally preferred to call their movement a ressourcement, based on their return to original patristic thought, Garrigou-Lagrange claimed that they did not "return to the sources" but deviated from the long-standing theological tradition of the Catholic Church, thus creating a "new theology" all their own which, he argued, was essentially Modernism in disguise). Although another writer, Pietro Parente, had used the term "teologia nuova" in 1942, it was from Garrigou-Lagrange's article that the label entered into widespread use. [a]
>In his essay in Angelicum, Garrigou-Lagrange quotes Henri Bouillard as saying, "The ideas employed by St. Thomas are simply Aristotelian notions applied to theology ... By renouncing the Aristotelian system, modern thought abandoned the ideas, design and dialectical opposites which only made sense as functions of that system." Thus, Garrigou-Lagrange asks, "How then can the reader evade the conclusion, namely that, since it is no longer current, the theology of St. Thomas is a false theology? ... Further, how can 'an unchanging truth' maintain itself if the two notions united by the verb to be, are essentially variable or changeable?"
>Subsequently, many of these criticisms of the ideas involved in the nouvelle théologie were developed by Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Humani generis. These are, for example, rejecting the traditional dogmatic formulations that emerged throughout church history as a result of scholastic theology, re-interpreting Catholic dogma in a way that was inconsistent with tradition, falling into the error of dogmatic relativism and criticizing biblical texts in a way that deviated from the principles of biblical hermeneutics outlined by his predecessors (principally Leo XIII). Pius XII warned that the movement approached the error of modernism, a heresy vehemently condemned by Pius X in 1907.

Nouvelle théologie was a mistake.

>>15324857
Walter Freeman and Wolfgang Smith, respectively.

>>15324959
t. never read Aquinas

>>15324790
Wtf does this even mean

>>15324609
>WHY ARE THERE CATHOLICS!?
>THIS IS CAPITALISM FAULT

>>15322989
Yes you're wrong read Saint John of Damascus or Maximus the Confessor. Both much better theologians

>>15322989
Next read Alasdair MacIntyre, starting with After Virtue. He devotes a number of chapters to discussing Aristotle and his successors, and basically, while the Aristotelian framework of the virtues is correct, it cannot be accepted precisely as formulated by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

>>15322989
it cant explain the Trinity and it leads to dumb monisum

Why yes, I do reject the filioque, what gave it away?

>>15323544
>Thomism/Scholasticism actually was the official position of the Church for many centuries, practically since Aquinas.
This is a relativelly new development from traditionalists and neothomists which started less than two hundred years ago and can be pinpointed, for example, to Pope Leo XIII claiming him to be Doctor Communis. This is not to say that Thomas Aquinas did not have a pivotal position within the development of catholic theology (to the point where the Summa Theologiae was placed in the altar together with Holy Scripture during the Council of Trent), but rather that his positions were always controversial and rarely as universely accepted as it is stated. In fact, during its day, St Bonaventure was a contender of thomism, and thomist theses suffered an actual condemnation by bishops. Of course, it wasn't a papal condemnation, but that at least shows its historical status. Later towards modernity, molinism and the theology of Duns Scotus were also important opponents.
This is a common practice within the Catholic Church - to retroactively downplay any important figures who opposed doctrines later defined as heresy. But you just can't say thomism is "the universal doctrine of the church passed down since the apostles translated into philosophy" without encountering at least some historical contradictions arguing for that.

>>15325552
t. never read Aquinas

>>15325162
Ty anon
I'm currently hesitating to convert to Catholicism... I'm reading The Last Superstition by Feser and it's very interesting.
It's a good thing people like him, William Lane Craig, Alexander Pruss, etc, do the work.
But I still hesitate

>>15324894
Cringe

>>15324894
Based

bump

>>15322998
How to obtain the redpill on Aquinas?

>>15327225
read him. all the pills you could want are there.

Additional suggested readings:
St. augustine, Confessions
Plotinus, Enneads
Aristotle, Physics, Metaphysics
Maimonides, Guide

Mega bonus points: anselm, proslogion

>>15327775
>(((Maimonides)))
>Plotinus
>Aristotle
>read these pagans and a kike who murdered Christ to understand Christianity

what did he mean by this?

>>15327962
I don't have to tell you that you are a retard. You already know.

>>15325524
>>15324647
didn't macintyre eventually renounce that theory though?

With no real schooling in our aptitude for philosophy, I couldn't follow Aquinas, although I've always been very interested in his ideas, especially his rational proofs of the existence of God. Fr. Copleston's book was immensely helpful. His writing style is clear and elegant. He avoids technical philosophical jargon whenever possible and illustrates difficult concepts with everyday, real life examples. He also does a thorough job of comparing and contrasting Aquinas and his major influence, Aristotle. On occasion Copleston remarks on how Aquinas differs from Kant and other more contemporary thinkers; I wish there had been a little more of that as well, but I imagine his multi-volume History of Philosophy covers all that in detail. I think this book is a fantastic place to start for anyone interested in Aquinas and Middle Ages philosophy in general.

>>15325440
He's responding to someone who "likes" Thomism but hates the Catholic Church. Learn to read.

>>15329290
Barron is pretty good as well.

>>15325371
It means he's mad that people want to talk about Aquinas because he is a "free thinker" conditioned to absolutely hate anything that isn't the latest skeptical regress nihilistic garbage system that leads nowhere and influences no one.

Because that's how you "pursue truth" according to his jewish/marxist professor.

>>15325832
Don't do it. Catholicism is a broken religion. It will make your life hell. Just take a peak at Catholic Answers to see the mental gymnastics, thought policing, and nastiness these people exude in order to preserve their unbroken traditions and unerring teaching that are actually extremely contradictory and uncertain and the worse it gets the more intensely these freaks insist EVERYTHING IS FINE

>>15330717
Well, thats going to happen to any question answer form anon.

>>15329328
How does that mean a person isn't a free thinker or is trying to assume an identity? That makes no fucking sense. The poster was bitching bout people identifying as Catholics, yet this is someone who is interested in Thomism while not wanting to join a church. DURRRRRR

>>15330725
I used to be a Catholic and I can promise you that they are all partisan, nasty, and aggressive in real life too. It's the climate of constant change that leads to these sharp lines in the sand.

It's the fact that the Baltimore Catechism and the CCC have nothing in common but are both supposed to contain infallible teachings.

How can anyone live like that? Constantly having to tell yourself contradictory statements are both saying the same thing and are both true. It's postmodernism.

Based and Chestertonpilled.

>>15330728
>free thinker
*tips fedora*
Ten years ago euphoric young adult men clung to atheism to shore up their inability to construct a coherent sense of self, now in some recesses of the internet it's some bastardisation of Thomism. The obsessive pursuit of ideas, their wielding and juxtaposition, far from culminating in a genuine faith or conviction, becomes nothing more than an attempt to cobble together some authentic personal identity, subjecting ideas and finally truth itself to commodity fetishism.

>>15330813
Are you a fucking retard? You seem so blingdly partisan that what you're saying doesn't even make sense. You're trying to pathologize an interest in Thomism in a meaningless way. The claim is so nonspecific it could be applied to ANY bit of philosophy ever written.

Fuck off retard.

>>15330813
projection: the post

>>15322989
You are on the right path, next take the Josef Pieper pill.

>>15331994
what angle does pieper approach him from?

>>15331892
>>15331904
>"Ten years ago..."
>The claim is so nonspecific
Why not try reading instead of lashing out at and mischaracterising innocuous musings?

The parts he ripped from Aristotle are good. When he starts rambling about Christ, logic goes out of the window.

Everything rests on the premise that Jesus performed miracles thus proving his divinity, when:
(1) Performing miracles doesn't prove you are the son of God
(2) There's no evidence he performed the miracles
(3) You would think a God that is so personal and is obsessed with humanity so as to make himself in the flesh would actually care to give us evidence of his existence more often

>>15332747
Aquinas relies on one hell of a psychological trick. If you never read Aristotle before him, you are absolutely astonished at the eloquence of his arguments and how he proves the necessity of a God, so then you take for granted when he starts talking about Jesus that it must also be true. If you read Aristotle before him, you realize that it's a rehash until he starts talking about Jesus and stops making any sense.

>>15328535
>(((I don't have to tell you that you are a retard. You already know.)))

>>15325162
Wolfgang Smith is seen as a joke in quantum physics.

>>15332747
>Performing miracles doesn't prove you are the son of God
only applies to weak miracles one could do with magic. nobody but God could multiply bread and raise the dead from their graves. this was all done publicly and not even the early anti-Christ jews denied this.
>evidence he performed the miracles
the Gospel.
>give us evidence of his existence more often
the Eucharist.

>>15332950
He's also a Guenonian perennialist...

>>15325162
also lol are you really going to use Walter Freeman, the guy infamous for lobotomising all his patients, as a reputable example? Ironic really, you'd have to be lobotomised to think those two are worth anything.

>>15324609
>larping commie tells other people they're larping

>>15332767
t. never read aquinas

Bump

>>15332937
Based. If people were more zealous in their beliefs when it came towards the jews we'd never be in this mess to begin with, perhaps we'd even save ourselves the headache of the whole industrial revolution and its consequence

>>15325674
The Church position of Official Thomism is largely a reaction to the events of 1848 and loss of the Papal States. Not that Aquinas wasn't and isn't an important figure, but for most of its history the Church has admitted an eclectic mix of positions. Not everyone has always been a Thomist.

>>15325832
Do it. The other anon is dumb. And if you don't like Catholic answers for whatever reason, check out reason and theology with Michael Lofton.

>>15324615
you could check out his work "de malo" on evil.

>>15335750
The Catholic Church is literally self contradicting. The death penalty is the easiest and most recent example. Pro-Death Penalty was the infallible position of the Church. Then Pope Francis amended the CCC to say that it was contrary to the Gospel. That is not possible, according to the Church's rules, and yet it happened anyway.

Why? Because by the Church's own rules, they are apparently a false Church.

And before you say there was no ex cathedra statement about the death penalty, that doesn't matter. It was an act of the ordinary, universal magisterium, which is infallible. The Church has put in every catechism since practically the 1100's that the executing criminals is the right of the state and that by doing so they are enacting God's vengeance.

This cannot be amended. The pope could make an earthly prudential judgment about it, saying it's better not to do it these days. Even that is questionable. However, by using the phrase "contrary to the Gospel", the Church has now committed heresy against itself. It is stating that the infallible church taught something contrary to the Gospel.

This is beyond debate. What's more, there are literally hundreds more examples just like this.

The Catholic Church is NOT what it claims to be, by its own logic.

Fuck the Church and fuck your rehashed substance ontology. Nerds are so desperate for alterity and transcendence they'll go to the fucking CATHOLIC CHURCH to feel something new. Fuck your pedophile """church""". Never forget the Cathars. Burn Muttmerica and the Vatican to the ground.

>>15332955
>the Gospel.
They were written decades after the facts, by people who had a stake in the outcome of the events described

>>15336269
It was the collection of oral traditions from various communities, and some of the oral traditions can be traced to more immediate dates.

Plus Paul's epistles were near contemporaneous

>>15324510
>And some physicists who think Aquinas solves the problems of quantum physics.
No there aren’t

>>15336257
Yeah that shows how shitty your beliefs and thoughts must be for people to turn to Catholicism huh

>>15335273
Well that's what I said, but you said it better and more concisely than me

>>15331996
Pieper interweaves examination of Aquinas's life, works, philosophy, and theology, making this short book a biography, explanation, and critical analysis at the same time. He carefully explores Aquinas's historical context, explaining the philosophical and theological temper of the time and how Aquinas was influenced by it--and eventually how he altered it forever. Pieper is extremely well-versed in the sources and it shows--he quotes liberally both from Aquinas's huge body of work and the works of other medieval philosophers--from contemporaries like Albertus Magnus or Siger of Brabant to philosophical forebears like Boethius and St. Augustine--not to mention modern scholars. Pieper writes skillfully, never letting his examination of, say, Aquinas's epistemology bog down, or his analysis overwhelm his emphasis on St. Thomas himself.

It's Pieper's portrait of Aquinas as a person that made this book especially valuable to me. Books on Aquinas tend to emphasize his intellectual output to the point of diminishing the human being behind it, so insights into Aquinas's character--his patience, intellectual voracity, dedication to God, and love and respect for ostensible enemies--were an outstanding feature.

Pieper's book is very good, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it to those just beginning to study Aquinas. It's a bit difficult in places and, as a series of university-level lectures, assumes a certain about of knowledge of the medieval philosophical world on the part of the reader. In other words, the title is right--it's a guide, a book for those who already know the territory if not the trail, rather than an introduction for absolute beginners. To those looking for a good starting point, I'd recommend Aquinas for Armchair Theologians, by Timothy Renick; Thomas Aquinas: A Very Short Introduction, by Fergus Kerr; or St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox, by G.K. Chesterton. All three are readable, insightful, and go a little further in meeting the reader halfway than Pieper's otherwise excellent book.

But if you've already been introduced and are looking for further material on Aquinas's life and thought, Pieper's book is a must-read.

They also let eastern churches venerate saints the western church considers heretics or schismatic. I have to leave Catholicism over this. Along with the first thousands years papal supremacy didn't exist. Theres no continuity. That's why you have things like vatican II. Orthodoxy seems to be correct.

>>15338268
His book on virtues is pretty good if you have very surface-level understanding of thomist physics/metaphysics.

>>15338302
>Along with the first thousands years papal supremacy didn't exist.
how do you understand Ireneus' affirmation of the supremacy of Rome in the second century?

>>15338268
great stuff, thank you!

Catholics often quote mine Ireneus and others. It's true, Rome is first. The other patriarchs were also "equal" to him. When things went wrong, bishops could appeal to Rome to make decisions. That doesn't mean the other patriarchs didn't have a say. Read the canons of the first 7 ecumenical council's. It seems to me the first millennium of the church corresponds closer to orthodoxy. Vatican I seems to be a give away. Why did it take 1800 years to establish papal infallibility. Also Catholics quote Matthew 16:18 while ignoring Matthew 18. He gave all the apostles the ability to bind and loose.

Canon 6 first council

"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

4th council canon 28 is the big one. It's very controversial, but certainly the most important in deciding the ecclesiology of the west and east.

>>15322989
Aristotelian logic implodes on itself, and with that, all its metaphysics is rendered null and void. If you're a Protestant, then read Luther's disputation against the Scholastics. The god of the philosophers is not the God of Abraham.

>>15336182
Take the sedevacantist pill.

How does Feser respond to the critique that scholasticism cannot justify its grounding concepts, like Aristotelian logic, knowledge from induction, the actual reality of species-concepts and genus-concepts, etc.?

I can never get neo-thomists to explain this to me. They say very vague general things like "the framework is right" or "it explains everything" but they never specifically say how the system is grounded, how its core concepts are grounded.

>>15336182
I actually agree with the statement on the ordinary magisterium, and when Francis
makes an infallible pronouncement on it that contradicts that, the church would be proven false. Let me know when that happens.
>>15338804
Shut up fag

>>15330813
>goes into a thomist thread
>posts one of the most influential anti-thomist anti-traditional catholics of all time

>>15338804
This doesn't work because you will never have a perpetual successor to Peter because you don't have a Roman Curia anymore. This is anathema.

The biggest argument against Catholicism is that it talks about Truth a whole lot but it really doesn't care very much to actually be truthful to people.
"Jesus is Truth!" meanwhile they'll lie about any part of their theology if it justifies their current political ambitions.
Even just the extremely minor patriotism in Mitt Brenender Sorge is totally contradictory to every single Catholic Priest's current public stance on migration and nationalism.

>>15323445
Peter Kreeft has to be one of the best Catholic writers alive.

>>15338758
>Aristotelian logic implodes on itself, and with that, all its metaphysics is rendered null and void.
No it doesn't. Prove it.

>If you're a Protestant, then read Luther's disputation against the Scholastics.
I'm not, but I'm open to this. However, I don't feel like reading it so please to summarize and if it sounds interesting I'll convert tomorrow.

>>15339459
>prove my logical system is self sufficient
>no you DISPROVE it

isn't the burden on you anon

>>15339073
>The biggest argument against Catholicism is that it talks about Truth a whole lot but it really doesn't care very much to actually be truthful to people.
>"Jesus is Truth!" meanwhile they'll lie about any part of their theology if it justifies their current political ambitions.
Extremely true. As a former Catholic, I completely agree. They are fucking sickening.

>>15338867
>I actually agree with the statement on the ordinary magisterium, and when Francis
> makes an infallible pronouncement on it that contradicts that, the church would be proven false. Let me know when that happens.
These are the mind games Catholics play with themselves. This poster is saying "Even though Pope Francis changed an infallible teaching, he only did so in a document that, while marketed as INFALLIBLE and the GUIDING DOCUMENT OF THE CHURCH *technically* isn't such a document and only appears that way, and so smart Catholics like me know to ignore this current teaching, except that it requires submission of the intellect, except I must refer to earlier catechisms, except this is also a development of doctrine?

... there is NO truth in the Catholic Church

>>15339530
Ok so you can't do it, but just posture that you can. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll let the Humeans and Deleuze cocksuckers know you stopped by :)

>>15338812
It's grounded on evidence. Basically, they believe that the presence of substances and essences is an evident thing. Metaphysics supposedly argues for this evidence and how it is necessary for any sort of intellectual understanding of the world, but pick any book on physics by thomists and they will say that if you are not willing to concede that things have an essence, they are unable to discuss with you, because this is a "self-evident claim". Mostly they point to the fact that unless there is a real substance to all things that informs particular matter to behave as this and such, there is no way to actually know reality. For them, any sort of nominalism is a direct attack to the human intellect and renders intellectual pursuit useless.

>>15339635
Isn't this any metaphysical framework, or even philosophy in general? There is nothing that does not have a self evident claim that underlies it because it "seem right".

>>15339576
reddit

>>15339580
jesus. i am not the person you were replying to, i was asking you a question. way to show your mastery of the subject, being a cunt instead of answering a simple question.

>>15339635
>they believe that the presence of substances and essences is an evident thing
can you point me in the direction of where they say this, at least an example of it?

i mean it's easy enough to be sympathetic that they're combating radical nominalism, but that doesn't mean you can believe in radically naive aristotelian substance metaphysics "just because." why not any other metaphysics, equally arbitrarily?

>>15324609
>y. As a history major I have tracked some developments in the church, and how generational things shift in the higher acedemic there. They will largely be Hegelian, than transition to something else, the. Something else. I mean, it’s respectable from a purely
This is true, but it's just as true of Marxism. And if you're interested in the history of western philosophy as a whole Aquinas is central

>>15323445
I question rational spirituality, it places too much emphasis on the mind and thinking

>>15339914
>And if you're interested in the history of western philosophy as a whole Aquinas is central
Nah

>>15323445
>>15331994
>>15339312
Ignatius Press is based and is one of the best publishers for Christian books.

>>15336182
Even Francis only declared it impermissible in scenarios that now apply, and not to all cases now and in the past. He's less than clear about it, but also not outright heretical.
>>15338812
>>15339807
The idea I've seen from Feser is that it's necessary for a consistent understanding of the world- that claims of knowledge without that taken on faith are ill-founded. I agree that more in-depth discussion of the reasons for these metaphysics needs more attention, but with the direction of popular philosophical discourse all the focus ends up on stupid "refutations" of the 5 ways. It's not really an arbitrary choice though- there's arguments for the principle of sufficient reason, non-reductionistic forms, and the necessity of final causes.

>>15322989
>Am I wrong for thinking this?
No, that's a very reasonable conclusion. Now become catholic and stop committing sins.

>>15323505
>The church didn't "toss out" anything

>>15322989
Aquinas was wrong about a bunch of stuff because he was a Catholic. The value of Summa is as a Summa. The New Testament itself is vastly more important to study directly, there's no point in reading commentaries until you can quote everything Jesus is said to have said from memory.

>>15340585
Old Testament: adulterers should be stoned
New Testament: But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God,
20th century: executing adulterers is somehow contrary to God's law
Also 20th century: seminarians graded on their sodomy skills

>>15340585
>Even Francis only declared it impermissible in scenarios that now apply, and not to all cases now and in the past. He's less than clear about it, but also not outright heretical.
No, he stated that it is wrong always and "contrary to the Gospel".

>>15341187
>No, that's a very reasonable conclusion. Now become catholic and stop committing sins.
No way to determine what is and isn't a sin in the Catholic Church at this time. It's too far gone into post modernism - and I mean that in its most literal sense: pastiche devoid of context. If it were as simple as following the Baltimore Catechism, that would be one thing. However, you cannot state that this is the case. There are too many "updates and amendments" to this document, which I'll remind you is infallible. So then there is no truth.

>>15341187
I'll propose the same issue I did in another Catholic thread. No one could respond and made snarky responses instead that made me feel confident I would never be a Catholic. Feel free to take a crack at it instead.

Per the Council of Trent and elsewhere, you are bound to tithe to your diocesan bishop and not withhold in ANY way (even in your most private of hearts) financial support under pain of anathema - even if such money is used for explicitly sinful/evil means.

Every single bishop in the US contributes a portion of their tithes/donations to the USCCB, which then contributes its money unapologetically and openly to the CCHD - a Catholic charity which OPEN ADMITS to FUNDING ABORTIONS. To aid in or support politically abortion in any way is an automatic excommunication.

Therefore, to be a Catholic in any capacity immediately subjects one to this contradiction and immediately renders one outside of the Church regardless.

By the Church's own rules and logic, being a Catholic is not possible. Therefore, it is not the true church

>>15336182
>>15338804
The full demonstration would take time, but to say that "Pro-Death Penalty was the infallible position of the Church" is false, his position is that it's not intrinsically immoral, but that's not the position of Pope Francis either, and that's why he was careful not to use the term (that's also how Bishops have applied it, especially Bishop Barron). All of his changes made it clear that it was a question of judging his morality in the present circumstances ("today" being very clear in the article of the catechism in question, not only our present means of punishment and incarceration but also our understanding of the limits of the rights of the State with regard to human dignity). The Pope has full authority to say whether it is admissible today or not.

There is no "infallible judgment" that it should be permitted merely by virtue of the fact that the State has the right to do so; on the contrary, tradition has always restricted the death penalty to absolute necessity in the circumstances. Pope St. Nicholas I wrote:

>>15342068
>"Nevertheless, far be it from your minds that you, who have acknowledged so pious a God and Lord, now judge so harshly, especially since it is more fitting that, just as hitherto you put people to death with ease, so from now on you should lead those whom you can not to death but to life. For the blessed apostle Paul, who was initially an abusive persecutor and breathed threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,Chapter XXII. Concerning those who take flight, when you set out for battle against the enemy, if compassion does not mercifully prevail, at least let the severity of the laws be tempered.Chapter XXIII. Concerning those who have been ordered to procede to battle against the enemy and treat the order to prepare [for war] with contempt, we recommend the same things.70 later sought mercy and, converted by a divine revelation, not only did not impose the death penalty on anyone but also wished to be anathema for the brethren71 and was prepared to spend and be spent most willingly for the souls of the faithful.7268 Cf.Eph. 6:5. 69 Eph.6:8-9. 70 Cf. Acts 9:1.71 Cf. Rom.9:3. 72 Cf.II Corinthians 12:15. In the same way, after you have been called by the election of God and 20illuminated by his light, you should no longer desire deaths but should without hesitation recall everyone to the life of the body as well as the soul, when any opportunity is found.73 And just as Christ led you back from the eternal death in which you were gripped, to eternal life, so you yourself should attempt to save not only the innocent, but also the guilty from the end of death, according to the saying of the most wise Solomon: Save those, who are led to death; and do not cease freeing those who are brought to their destruction."

>>15342074
I don't know where you read "against the gospel", the catechism doesn't say that anyway. But the death penalty can go against the Gospel (implied if applied today). I'll even go further by saying that the death penalty can be against the Gospel in the sense that it goes against Gospel perfection, in the same way as war. It is a situation that Christians do not desire, it is always an evil in the sense of misfortune, it is just not always immoral, in theory, if it is mandatory.
A century ago Catholic moral theology taught it well:

"If the time should ever come when the infliction of less severe penalties will suffice to punish crime and safeguard life and property, then capital punishment should be abolished, but that time does not seem to be at hand yet."

https://archive.org/details/MN5034ucmf_1/page/n209
But you can see that the anon who wrote this had already decided within himself that everything the Church would say would be heretical...

>>15342081
Not him, but let's say I agreed with that. Now take a crack at this: >>15342009

My argument: it is not possible to be Catholic because of this situation.

>>15324851
>>15332747
>>15332767
Please explain

>>15342096
I'm a little tired of answering all the sedevacantist calumnies, anon.

If you're sincere, do your research and see if it's enough to declare the Pope heretic (does he even know about it yet?).

Pro-tip: no

>>15342107
Right, I didn't think you could respond. This is not a sede talking point. This is an extremely practical application of being Catholic to the DAILY personal life of every Catholic. I love how quickly every one of you faggots deflect this. I'm curious how you're able to rationalize this as you go to church every week. Apparently you aren't.

I'm not even familiar with what a sede thinks. What an interesting slander. Is that how you get around this? By saying only the "bad guys" or "extremists" care about the church funding abortions?

Fucking pathetic. I fucking hate Catholics. Honestly this is a perfect illustration. You all resort to nastiness, name calling, and political slander as soon as you're confronted with an honest inquiry about honest issues.

Do you seriously fucking think that asking about the church funding abortions is a "bad faith" fucking "CALUMNY"?

Fuck you.

>>15342107
This has nothing to do with the pope or heresy or anything either. That is a red herring you inserted into the post in order to change the argument. But it has zero to do with papal heresy whatsoever.

>>15342141
The little incel got mad :(((
I will respond ur BS, patience

>>15339764
Well, yes. I guess some systems accept the idea of being provisional/convenient or state their axioms while conceding to their haziness or possible controversy. Some thomists simply use a quote of St. Thomas (that if an opponent does not agree on certain evident principles, you cannot discuss with him) to say "yall are crazy if you don't accept these x y z axioms".

>>15339807
Well, I say this both with regards to the book on thomist physics I'm currently reading (it's in spanish and printed by a small sspx editorial enterprise so... unless you live in Argentina you are not getting it) and the discussions with thomists I have seen and/or engaged in. Their relation to St. Thomas is one of devotion and a lot of them sincerely believe that a thomist education would solve a lot of social problems. In the current book I'm reading he straight out says: if somebody, after reading this reasoning and understanding it, cannot accept that the real substance in potency is the first thing that is evident to the intellect, I cannot discuss with him because they are crazy.

>>15342009
>>15342141
all you had to do was do a google search on CCHD, find it on wikipdia:
"CCHD is supported by an annual collection in U.S. Catholic parishes, and individual donations. Allegations that some CCHD-funded organizations were promoting abortion, contraception and radical politics, and that the CCHD was a force of internal corruption within the USCCB[2] were answered in 2010 with the Review and Renewal of CCHD,[3] which affirmed the core mission of CCHD and instituted controls to ensure that all CCHD-funded initiatives are consistent with Catholic mission and identity"
and indeed the record in [3] reveals that CCHD does not allow abortion:


" CCHD will be more clear and specific in all materials about the positions, activities and relationships not permitted by CCHD, because they conflict with fundamental Catholic teaching, (e.g. advocacy of abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, racism, as well as use of the death penalty, punitive measures toward immigrants)"
" Any CCHD funded group that subsequently and knowingly takes positions that contradict Catholic teaching in these areas (advocacy of abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, racism as well as use of the death penalty, punitive measures toward immigrants) will be cut off from any CCHD funding as soon as this violation of CCHD requirements is documented. "
http://www.usccb.org/upload/review-renewal-catholic-campaign-human-development-nov2010.pdf
Debunked in five minutes.
That's why I told you to do your own research if you're sincere...

Every time answering you is a waste of time you have already decided the heresy of the Church in your heart no matter what the evidence is

Thats my last response to you

>>15324510
>the problems of quantum physics
The vagueness of the formulation alone is enough to know I needn't bother verifying your claim.

>>15342627
Yes I am aware that the CCHD itself says this. However they have been caught time and time again violating this supposed belief

Most recently in 2018, but almost annually since their founding: proof https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/report-us-conference-catholic-bishops-donates-money-pro-abortion-groups

But thanks for again reminding me how arrogant and dismissive Catholics are. You all are a disgrace to Jesus with the way you cajole and bully and put down.

I'm serious. Even if you had an argument besides press releases from the people lying to you, your behavior makes me sick. Such a toxic group. Luckily you're making people flee so fast you won't exist next decade!

But... That was your last response to me. So you won't address the news story refuting the propaganda put out by CCHD itself....

>>15342150
>Catholic mocking someone by accusing them of not having sex
Why are Catholics a bunch of hypocrites and hair triggery retards bros?

>>15332950
explain why, but please dont toss somthing like ''because counter-initiatic group of physicists think so''

I just read Luther's Disputation against Scholastics plus a few other comments. He nails every problem with the Catholic church. He was right bros.

So... thinking about checking out Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. What do you think? NOT joining a liberal mainline church. But Luther seems legit...

>>15343707
Join us anytime! I know how nasty and mean spirited Catholics can be. We aren't like that. Welcome brother in Christ!

>>15343366
Kek Catholic church tricks simps into funding abortions. BASED

>>15343366
Why do Catholics like to murder babies bros

Become Lutheran if you are Catholic. Pope Francis said Luther was a hero.

>“The intention of Martin Luther 500 years ago was to renew the Church, not divide her,” the Pope said

Joined the renewed church not the broken evil church. Catholics are required to submit their will to ALL statements the pope makes. That includes go saying that Martin Luther was correct in his criticism of the church.

>>15343366
So we're supposed to believe you but not the organism in question? That's bad faith. There's nothing we can do about it.

on top of that, if you go to the Lepanto institute web site, the report is unavailable, and an accusation never equals a proof, when I see their 2015 article (by typing CCHD) you can't find anything except a person's ad hominem in the organization (and still without any proof that they finance abortion), in short, it's a load of crap until we have proofs that the money was used for that, regardless of what individuals think.

>>15343366
It's been the same accusations for years:
http://www.usccb.org/about/catholic-campaign-for-human-development/Who-We-Are/cchd-report-9-28-2011.cfm
But I imagine that in your witch-hunt logic the USCCB has no right to defend itself and lies if it does? why isn't there a trial if you are sure of yourself? frankly you have no sense of justice and it shows by your hysteria that you will believe anything and everything as long as it dirties the Church.

>>15343366
They'd already been caught lying on top of it:

"The greatest irony here is that the CIW is not currently a CCHD grantee at all. But, even if it were, CIW is not, as the critics assert, an organization that “participates in promotion of abortion” or gay marriage. Nor, based on the evidence the critics present, do the coalitions to which CIW belongs violate the norms set down by the CCHD report. “It’s guilt by association,” said McCarron of the FCC. It is actually something worse than that. On behalf of their own ideological agenda, Mr. Hichborn and Mr. Hudson have dragged the reputation of a group of people who are doing the Lord’s work through the mud. Mr. Hudson claims that the pro-abortion stance of CIW was “in black and white on their own website,” but it actually was not. The calumny of Hudson’s and Hichborn’s charges, however, is in black and white on their websites. Maybe when they collect the checks this attack brings in, they can print their charges in color. But, the charges will still be false.
"
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/mccarthyite-tactics-against-cchd

just because you do the same thing over and over again doesn't mean it's evidence.

>>15345806
You are citing the NCR, which is a pro abortion "Catholic" site. They are explicitly pro abortion. So it doesn't surprise they are running interference for their stealth pro abortion Catholic group.

Why do you think the accusation keeps coming up? Why do they need to defend themselves? Try posting an article from a real Catholic site first

>hurr the national Catholic reporter said it so it's true.
They had to have the name Catholic removed in one state because of their stance on abortion you absolute fucking retard. So the only evidence you have that CCHD isn't pro abortion is themselves and a pro abortion group.

Fucking kys

>>15338812
>how its core concepts are grounded

The core concepts of scholasticism are grounded on moderate philosophical realism. That's not a very hard case to make -- it's essentially the common-sense view of reality.

>>15345585
It's cute seeing you guys come out of the woodwork and pretend Lutherism isn't the most pozzed form of Christianity there is. Say hello to your lesbian bishop for me.

>>15343707
>>15344387
Do Lutherans really have any room to talk about Catholics being mean-spirited in arguemnts? Have you ever read Luther's letters?

>>15324609
>Why are so many people tired of nihilism? Why can't they live their miserable lives just like me?

>>15346626
Kek, no they haven't. I love it when I talk to Protestants about the Church, to which it ends with "Fuck you" or "I can sleep well knowing you'll die someday". They'll back this up with, "But Jesus cursed the Pharisees."

>>15346564
>>15346733
I'll pray for you. Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is the conservative one. No female pastors. We venerate Mary and believe something akin to consubstantiation. Limited cases for divorce based on the exception Christ himself made in Bible in his own words.

And hey, we don't have to deal with constant obsessing over gays and liberalizing the church. We're not overly political psychopaths obsessed with political worldly power.

I hope you find Christ one day and listen to your popes words about how valuable and important Lutheranism is. How special Martin Luther is and how much Catholics can learn from him. Your bishops believe in Lutheranism so much they even want to share communion.

Lutheranism is literally correct as a religion.

>>15347168
I would rather stay with the Church that Jesus Christ founded and promised to protect than jump into some rinky dink church in the south which is a fringe minority in its own denomination. No matter how "based" it is, it is not the universal Church. Just the very idea that the Catholic Church could be corrupted is contrary to Jesus' word.

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]--of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.”
-St. Optatus, “The Schism of the Donatists,” c. 367 A.D.

“They (the Novatian heretics) have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.'"
-St. Ambrose of Milan, “On Penance,” 388 A.D.

>>15347284
You've bought the propaganda. First of all if anything is the original church it would be orthodox or oriental or Assyrian. There is no historical basis for that claim. Moreover your claim about any protestant denomination belies a misunderstanding of what the church is to begin with. I reject your claim outright.

>>15347284
If it is Christ's church than explain every single papal heresy in this post, keeping in mind that if even one cannot be explained away, you are a false church

https://onepeterfive.com/lessons-church-history-papal-lapses/

>>15347300
>propaganda
I'm done with you, you can eat a dick. I studied for years before my conversion. I didn't become Catholic on a whim.

>>15347323
I don't have to explain anything to you. Peter himself sinned, so why wouldn't his successors as well?

>>15347284
The Catholic church now allows divorced and remarried to receive communion. The pope said this and allowed various bishops to do this. So given that they are in mortal sin and profaning the sacrament, please explain why this is ok with Jesus.

I mean the original church couldn't make such mistakes, right?

>>15347339
Wow so Christian! I can tell Christ has really changed you! If the pope can endorse heresy in his capacity as the infallible pope, what exactly does your church guarantee in terms of the truth? Does Christ will popes to lie to the faithful while claiming infallibility? Weird...

>>15347365
There is no such thing as an "infallible pope". You're a fool and you can stop with this holier than thou shit.

>>15347386
The pope isn't infallible? Congrats you're anathema per Vatican I. You must follow a series of rules to be accepted back into the church.

I'll pray that you start to act like a second Christ and don't rely on your priests for that task... you are truly doing the Lord a disservice

>>15347386
Without love... none of these things matter Anon... this is truly distressing to see a supposed Christian judge and use such language. Are you trying to go to hell?

>>15347339
>I STUDIED SOME BULLSHIT TO BE A CATHOLIC THAT MEANS IT'S CORRECT
is this the power of Thomistic thought?

>>15347339
In your studies did you learn that pope Francis said that Martin Luther was a brave man who changes your church for the better?

You have to listen to him so maybe it's time to listen to him about Lutherans rather than berate them like Satan would do.

As a Christian I'm ashamed of the way Catholics talk. If anyone has questions about nondenominational theology I'm here to chat... with love

Damn, Catholics are not good at debating, huh?

Read Martin d'arcy Thomas Aquinas
Chesterton recommends it for his philosophical view, d'arcy is massively underrated, his mind and heart of love is the best book I've ever read and summaries, fried, jung, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger and a load of theologians view on love

Also thoughts of Thomas Aquinas by Brian Davies is a good read for his theology

>>15347323
> heresy

I open the link

> immorality

Kys

>>15347339
>studied Catholicism for years
>can’t even btfo some random internet retard about it
wew what a waste

I don't know much about either but don't Lutheran and Calvin reject human reason being capable after the fall? Is that why you get so many liberals like schielermacher, Hegel and tillich in the Lutheran church? And why puritans are always moaping about not repenting enough as unlike Thom they can't know wether they have truly repented

>>15322989
>a complete framework that explains everything.
How can it do this?

>>15348230
Catholics say you have to truly feel sorry for your acts of repentance to be real. But anyone looking into his heart will know that there is never that simple, one usually(probably always) have feelings of self-preservation and pride etc, and therefore one can never be assured that one have truly done enough for it to be actual repentance and so salvation is always doubted.

Not even Christian but the Protestants are clearly right in that the ethics of Aristotle does not work with the biblical religion and it's idea of salvation.

>>15348382
I think Tom said an act of repentance is inspired by the holy spirit because it's a recognition of God's will which can only come from knowledge of God's will ( holy spirit) so penance can be recognised as absolution of sin, maybe not salvation as that only God knows, I think Aquinas thought God can grant a grace whilst knowing in the future one will apostize so without saving Grace, like how prophecy is a grace ect different types of Grace, but as the Lutheran can't have confidence in his act of repentance he can only emphasize his sincerity, I think.. of course both trust ultimately Christ absolves sin. I look at spurgeon saying you must repent with tears and am not sure what to think about it

>>15348382
Aquinas doesn't use Aristotle's ethics

>>15339635
>For them, any sort of nominalism is a direct attack to the human intellect and renders intellectual pursuit useless.

Nominalism ill-suits Catholicism and all forms of "orthodox" Protestantism.

See generally:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6802

> By denying that there is any basis in reality for universals that every human mind can grasp, nominalism moved knowledge away from objectivity and toward subjectivity and prepared the way for further radical propositions in the realms of theology It makes sense: If God's acts do not possess a logical, objective nature — as Ockham and his disciples taught — then they are merely the result of a groundless divine will unconcerned with what humans call "reason" or "logic." If that is the case, obviously man cannot use his reason or logic to determine what is just or unjust. Natural law, then, is simply nonsense.

>Ockham went so far as to say that the Incarnation had value only to the extent God gave it value; God could have redeemed mankind just as easily by becoming a stone, tree, or donkey. If there is no common, or universal, human nature, the Incarnation was not so much about the Logos taking on human nature as it was about God working as he wishes, in a manner unrelated to any sort of logic or reason.

>>15343707
>So... thinking about checking out Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

Read this article first:
>https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6802

And if you want a deeper dive, read one of the books cited in the article: Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism. Bouyer was a Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism. He knew Lutheranism specifically and Protestantism in general from the inside.

>>15346733

Nonetheless, when a Catholic is holding himself out as a Catholic, he should be courteous.

>>15347323
>If it is Christ's church than explain every single papal heresy in this post, keeping in mind that if even one cannot be explained away, you are a false church

A different anon responding.

The author of the article himself says:
>Catholicism is, has always been, and will always be stable, perennial, objectively knowable, a rock of certitude in a sea of chaos – despite the efforts of Satan and his dupes to change it.

That is to say, the various popes and historical details discussed in the article do *not* establish **any** "papal heresy" in the sense of an heretical ex cathedra teaching, i.e., within the scope of papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

>But let us look at numbers for a moment. This article has listed eleven immoral popes and ten popes who dabbled, to one degree or another, in heresy. There have been a total of 266 popes. If we do the math, we come out with 4.14% of the Successors of Peter who earned opprobrium for their moral behavior and 3.76% who deserve it for their dalliance with error. On the other hand, about 90 of the preconciliar popes are revered as saints or blesseds, which is 33.83%. We could debate about the numbers (have I been too lenient or too severe in my lists?), but is there anyone who fails to behold in these numbers the evident hand of Divine Providence? A monarchy of 266 incumbents lasting for 2,000 years that can boast failure and success rates like this is no mere human construct, operating by its own steam.

>These numbers teach us two lessons. First, we learn a sense of wonder and gratitude before the evident miracle of the papacy. We learn trust in a Divine Providence that guides the Holy Church of God throughout the tempests of ages and makes it outlast even the relatively few bad papacies we have suffered for our testing or for our sins. Second, we learn discernment and realism. On the one hand, the Lord has led the vast majority of his vicars along the way of truth so that we can know that our confidence is well placed in the barque of Peter, steered by the hand of Peter. Yet the Lord has also permitted a small number of his vicars to falter or fail so we will see that they are not automatically righteous, effortlessly wise in governance, or a direct mouthpiece of God in teaching. The popes must freely choose to cooperate with the grace of their office, or they, too, can go off the rails; they can do a better or worse job of shepherding the flock, and once in a while, they can be wolves. This happens rarely, but it does happen by God’s permissive will... The papal record is remarkable enough to testify to a well-nigh miraculous otherworldly power holding at bay the forces of darkness, lest the “gates of hell” prevail; but the record is speckled just enough to make us wary, keep us on our toes. The advice “be sober, be vigilant” applies not only to interactions with the world “out there,” but to our life in the Church.

>>15348841
He didn't understand Aquinas

Aquinas thought every act of creation is an act of love towards God knowingly or unknowingly, as every being acts in accordance with what it sees to be good which is it's perfection, it's perfection is of God which is his Will, even in sin we act in accordance with what we see to be good not evil, this isn't necessarily God's will but our own, God being responsible for our being is the cause of our being but not our actions, as they stem from the will which without perfect knowledge of the good ( God) chooses its own means, even the spirit cannot strictly absolve the imperfect will as grace perfects nature without absorbing it, leaving the opportunity to willingly sin again, Luther puts it

One ought rather to conclude: since erring man is able to love the creature it is impossible for him to love God.
Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.
To love God above all things by nature is a fictitious term, a chimera, as it were. This is contrary to common teaching.
Nor can we apply the reasoning of Scotus concerning the brave citizen who loves his country more than himself.

Love of God is God as the holy spirit impresses the will, the holy spirit is God's love of himself, Luther being a nominalist cannot allow himself to perceive a cause which is always present causing, God's mercy precedes his judgment as what he condemns he suffers

>>15347300
Churches with valid apostolic succession are the same Church, just in schism. Sacraments are recognized across the boundaries.
>>15347323
>>15347346
That contains no examples of popes teaching explicit heresy ex cathedra. Francis counseled prudence and mercy in the case of divorced and remarried couples, but he did not explicitly require that they be given the sacraments.
>>15347410
You're conflating two distinct senses of infallibility.
>>15347590
There's a difference between thinking the Reformation and Counter-reformation brought about some much-needed reforms and thinking Luther was free of error.

>>15322989
You must be really impressionable, I bet you feel this way about practically everything you read.

>>15322989
Unmoved mover is disproved by Hawking radiation. Things can, in fact, just show up in a vacuum. From there we can conclude that Aristotle, and by extent, Aquinas, were wrong.

>>15325584
your national church

>>15339929
the mind and soul work together. God as Logos works logically in all things, with ultimate purpose. Using the intellect to figure out things about spirituality isn't necessarily a bad thing. You might like the Interior Castle and Ascent of Mount Carmel

>>15349384
The fact that the causality of it is fuzzy is hardly a refutation of causaltity in general.
Although I'm open to the idea that the law of causality is more related to our way of knowing and conceptualizing reality, and that we can't necessarily determinate the existence of a first, transcendental unmoved mover from it, it's probably impossible to "disprove" causality. It's such a fundamental aspect of our conceptual mind's way of understanding reality that even if we did see first hand a seemingly "uncaused" event, we could not ever determine that it was uncaused, but rather accept that we do not know its cause.

>>15348968
>t. Well statistically they're more right than not
Tfw the papacy is a statistical estimation & optimisation strategy.

>>15349147
>That contains no examples of popes teaching explicit heresy ex cathedra
John XXIII, beatific vision plus an example of heresy taught ex cathedra

Now if Francis allows the sacrament to be desecrated, what is the point of a Pope? It is a dogmatic fact that taking communion in a state of mortal sin profanes the sacrament. That cannot be changed. You call it mercy as if that makes it ok. Not even the pope can permit profaning Jesus but that is what he did. He can make any justification for it he wants, but that is what, according to Catholic dogma, he is doing.

>>15349452
There’s nothing “fuzzy” about the derivation of Hawking radiation

>>15348968
If you were alive for those popes, you have an obligation to believe what they say as a Catholic. Even if it is not ex cathedra, which it sometimes is on that list, you are still being told by your authorities to believe a heresy. So is that ok in that case?

>>15349630
Aquinas isn't a scientific thesis, it's metaphysical retard. You can't disprove something that isn't about science with science.

>>15349642
>You can't disprove something that isn't about science with science.
Pure cope

>>15349630
How can one predict an uncaused thing? How can it have a statistical pattern without some sort of causing principle?
>>15349642
Stupid separation which has nothing to do with thomism. Neothomists like Mauritain sold out as if thomist physics could somehow be parallel to the empyrical sciences, but that is absolutely not on track with thomistic thinking. It's like saying that if evolution was proved, it wouldn't disprove young earth creationism.

>>15349623
Even that article admits John XXII never taught that ex cathedra, and infallibility in no way denies that popes can be in error to the point of sin.
In Francis' case, the reasoning is clearly laid out in Amoris Laetitia, it'll be a better source than a site devoting the first half of its argument to popes being sinful. The concerns are whether the eucharist should be denied to those who reject the teachings on divorce in good (albeit mistaken) conscience, led to it by a flawed society. It's more a prudential judgment of extreme situations than an affirmation that cohabitation outside of marriage (as those remarried after divorce are) can be acceptable. It also, I should note, does not forbid denying it in such cases.
I disagree with his reasoning in that instance, but I'd consider it a terrible error in prudential judgment of the situation rather than heresy.

>>15347168
Don't know if you'll look back at it, but I appreciate your kindness. Thank you anon.

>>15347386
Why do you reply the guy regarding kindness and act like a dick to him? You realize this is reflecting back on me, you, and the entire Catholic Church?

>NOOO THIS INSANE HERESY BY OUR SUPPOSED INFALLIBLE PASTOR WASNT EX CATHEDRA SO CATHOLICISM IS STILL TRUE
is this the only cope catholics are left with?

>>15349864
Yeah it's fucking sad. They have to run to their apologetics site for everything their popes say to make it somehow make sense and to see if it's actually legitimate and if so how.

And they they act like the hierarchy does a damn thing. They might as well be protestants with the way they can't trust anything and need to constantly justify all the silly bullshit that is said.


Remember a few months ago when the pope allowed and defended literal pachamama demon worship in the Vatican? Pepperidge farm remembers

>>15350200
remember two seconds ago when a samefag used reddit spacing?

>>15350211
This is even worse cope

>>15350235
>implying i'm coping
ok reddit tourist

>>15341323
>there's no point in reading commentaries until you can quote everything Jesus is said to have said from memory.
sounds like pharisism. What's the point of merely memorizing everything he said, if you don't apply it to life?

>>15339576
>As a former Catholic,
hello apostate.
>blah blah blah
you care more about topical politics than actual Christianity as theology you apply to your life. you miss what's truly important because of this.

>>15349864
200 popes, and one believed something erroneous but never officialized it? Time to bin the whole thing.
>>15350200
And the antipapists posted apologetics sites at >>15348841 and >>15347323, but that's apparently just a Catholic thing. The comment you're responding to referenced Amoris Laetitia directly.
And wasn't that an icon of Mary and not a demonic statue?

>>15350281
>And wasn't that an icon of Mary and not a demonic statue?
No. That was fake news cope and spin that even the Vatican denied later. But it's clear that you're so ill informed that you're not even worth talking to.

I'll repeat. The Vatican admitted to allowing demon worship. The pope called it pachamama by name. And this was so unimportant to you that you need an internet stranger to tell you.

Is this the level of retardation needed to be a Catholic?

>>15350302
>more reddit spacing
bruh

>>15350305
This is hilarious. Are you seriously in such massive denial about your religion that you're jumping on spacing as a way to not have to listen to perfectly valid and rational criticisms?

To put this in perspective, I just elaborated upon the fact that POPE FRANCIS EXPLICITLY AND BY NAME SANCTIONED DEMON WORSHIP IN THE VATICAN and your response is hurr hurr spacing.

You are straight up going to hell my man. You don't get to abandon reason and conscience like that. That is a sin against the first commandment and no "Catholic" should tolerate that. Yet here you are defending it. And your conscience is clear? Fucking disgusting. Thanks for making it clear how Catholicism poisons your mind.

>>15350280
Dont you love when catholics throw around terms like apostate like anyone gives a shit? Did you know more people are leaving the catholic church in the us than any other religion, at a rate of 9 leaving to 1 coming in, and that's including births?

I wonder what all those people are seeing that you're not? Have fun larping as a crusader with all the geriatrics and cat ladies in training. I can only imagine what kind of fucking freak you must be.

>>15350368
>He thinks I'd bother discussing religion with a reddit tourist
lmao. I think it's strange that you came all the way over here to argue against Catholicism. it's just pathetic to me. Like If I were to go to /r/atheism to argue the existence of God.

>>15350378
ok apostate. You sound angry, so you must care.

>>15350379
>demon worship is ok because i told a lie about another website i pretended a person visits
holy shit. keep going because you have no idea how bad this looks to anyone just happening to read this. this is fucking gold.

>>15350385
>samefagging and repeating meaningless words
You are actually a mentally ill person....

>>15350379
>>15350385
As an onlooker, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>15350385
are you the one who "studied for years" before converting? are you seriously unable to produce a single substantive argument in any way whatsoever? what's your IQ? just curious?

>>15350394
I don't feel embarrassed, thank you for your concern though.
>>15350388
You're going around cursing people on an anonymous message board. I'm the mentally ill one? At best...pot, meet kettle.
>>15350412
>are you the one who "studied for years" before converting?
No? I have like....3 post, itt. And all recent. You must be paranoid.

>>15350302
Again, it's nowhere in official Church teaching. It's just an ill-reasoned attempt at interfaith dialogue, looking more into it. If you think it was unambiguously idolatrous you just have a bone to pick. I think Francis is a source of scandal in allowing these things to arise and not clarifying them further, but "POPE FRANCIS EXPLICITLY AND BY NAME SANCTIONED DEMON WORSHIP IN THE VATICAN" is as stupid as viewing them as Marian icons.
And frankly, no, I don't keep up with every possible source of scandal in my Church. I probably should, but that's a lot. Do you keep up with everything in yours that touches the press?
Now just so this isn't a one-way inquisition: where do you think the teaching authority of the true Church, whichever it is, comes from? What claims do the Lutherans have that aren't derived from a set of books that a very apostolic Church back in the Roman Empire decided was inspired by God?

>>15350467
>Again, it's nowhere in official Church teaching.
Yeah but the problem is this: >>15350478
The pope discussed this issue in a daily address from the seat of St. Peter. Because it touches on interfaith dialogue, you are required to provide full submission and are not even allowed to speak in this way about it. However, to equivocate by saying "well it could just be interfaith dialogue" is wrong because it is quite literally a sin against the first (1) commandment. You cannot have idolatry in a church. Saints have literally beaten the shit out of people or committed crimes over this very topic. How is worshiping a god other than God not idolatrous? I mean how can you make such a claim? It is the very definition of idolatry! You're just going through some cognitive dissonance about it. The Pope was very clear about his aims: encourage worship of another god in a Catholic church.

To you question about teaching authority: Where do you think it comes from? If, as we have covered, popes can make errors, ex cathedra or otherwise, aren't you relying on private judgments anyway? I mean the pachamama thing is a good example. You're clearly not taking the pope at his word. You're trying to finesse the situation instead of embracing the worship of another god because of... what? A private judgment.

>>15350537
Oh, you spawned another idiotic thread for this stupid argument. By the way: "concerning faith or morals" and "when they exercise the authentic magisterium" are pretty significant conditions. This issue falls outside of these, because we're not looking at officially sanctioned idol worship. The pope allowed it because he sees things like the pachamama statues not as idols being worshipped but as icons concerning the aspects of life they represent. His mistake in judgment on that doesn't imply that he encourages or requires idol worship.

>>15350584
Are you familiar with the term authentic magisterium? It includes everything spoken. The point of the term is to make it distinct from those types which are infallible. So it is the lowest possible bar. Interfaith dialogue is included in faith and morals.

>he sees things like the pachamama statues not as idols being worshipped but as icons concerning the aspects of life they represent
That is a claim that is unprovable, not substantiated by anything he said, and made up by you or some bullshit news story.

He said that it is a goddess worshiped by people in the region. He wasn't clear about this at first, but eventually was very clear. That's why all those excuses stopped. Stuff like "they were Mary" or "aspects of life" whatever that means. No, it was worship of an idol.

They had been described as representing “Our Lady of the Amazon,” and some journalists initially suggested they represented the Blessed Virgin Mary.

>Vatican spokesmen (NOT POPE FRANCIS) have said that they represent “life,” and are not religious symbols, but some journalists and commentators have raised questions about the origins of the symbols, and whether they were religious symbols of Amazonian indigenous groups.

>According to the transcript provided by the Vatican, the pope referred to the statues as "Pachamama," the name traditionally given to an Andean fertility goddess, which can be roughly translated as "Mother Earth."

So to say it has no idoloatrous intent is like committing murder and saying that there was no murderous intent. Either way it doesn't matter, but only a spokesman put such spin on it. Pope Francis referred to the goddess by name. So there is no way it could be anything other than the goddess. Not a symbol. A symbol doesn't have that name. A goddess does.

>>15350281
>200 popes, and one believed something erroneous but never officialized it? Time to bin the whole thing.
Yes.

>>15324609
>It seems like the dominance of consumer capitalism, where people fabricate their identities based on what they buy, read, and profess, now even extends into the realms of philosophy, morality, and ethics.

he was right all along

>>15350635
Francis referring to it directly as Pacahmama was only after the term had become popularized in the drama about the statues getting tossed in the river. That's not sufficient reason to reject what spokespeople appointed by the Vatican said about it. And others worshipping it as a God does not necessarily imply that Francis did so himself, just that he was more tolerant and respectful of such than it deserves.
There has been no clear statement that such idol worship is allowed in the churches, only pessimistic interpretation from the particular event. Vatican spokespeople have also explicitly rejected that idea. Universalizing it to a command on Catholics is foolish.
Also, nice job evading the questions in >>15350467

>>15322989
Thomism is rationally indifensible, if you bought into it I dare to assume you probably haven't read much of the counter arguments. Stuff like essentialism or teleology are almost impossible to make a case for.

>>15350724
>Francis referring to it directly as Pacahmama was only after the term had become popularized in the drama about the statues getting tossed in the river.
That stretches incredulity so much it's astounding.

>And others worshipping it as a God does not necessarily imply that Francis did so himself
That is not a precondition for idolatry by others to take place, obviously

>Vatican spokespeople have also explicitly rejected that idea. Universalizing it to a command on Catholics is foolish.
It doesn't need to be for you to have to defend it, per canon law.

>>15350786
Call it lazy if you want, but I'll refer to https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2019/11/pachamama-fiasco-hysterical-reactionaryism-as-usual.html

>>15349038
If that's true shouldn't we get rid of the distinction between knowingly and unknowingly doing evil acts? If what really everyone wants is the good, you can't accuse anyone of doing something evil while they know its evil. Even a child rapist doesn't have an evil intent on this view.

>>15350855
Yeah that liberal blog bullshit definitely makes me have faith in your opinion. That same site has literally thousands of blog posts about how Christians should support abortion. It's clear to me that all the Catholics on /lit/ are just left wingers larping. The sources you all posts are heretical and evil. National Catholic Reporter? Patheos? Come the fuck on.

>>15350970
Better patheos than a sedevacantist blog, though I can't defend either.
Try speaking to the article instead of the URL, though.

>>15351030
who the fuck is talking about sedevacantism?

>>15351089
Is >>15347323 not a sedevacantist site? That article sure as hell looks like one. Either way, article contents are more worth discussing than the site they're on.

>>15351116
It's a traditionalist site. It's avidly NOT sedevecantist, as are most traditionalists from the SSPX to the FSSP/ICK. I don't even know of any sede sites. This is just furthering my belief that /lit/ Catholics are completely unaware of their own faith.

Did someone just present the sede bogeyman to you one day to keep you firmly liberal and braindead?

>>15351135
Didn't look into the site, just saw the article with a braindead list of heretical popes and avowed traditionalism in the headers. It's not a lack of awareness of the faith to judge a website off the article I get linked to.
Either way I'm far from liberal, the patheos site just has a decent-enough writeup of the pachamama situation (albeit biased, but it's not hard to get the facts around the rhetoric).

>>15350960
But the action of the rapist is not God's will for the man but his own, the man sees a goodness in the action as unnaided his reason for the natural law can potentially run a mock, but with grace he may come to know God's will as God knows it, imagine a parent who leaves their child to clean their room but the child makes it worse, they both have the child's happiness as their interest but only one is correct in knowing it, they both love the child but only one sees what their perfection is, the child is still a child despite its action, children are good as every part of creation is, but it's action is disordered and unlawful for its nature as the child doesn't possess perfect knowledge of it's nature therefore leading to imperfect conduct, even when recognising the command it could still decide to do otherwise, Dostoevsky puts to Love someone is to see them as God intended them

>>15350635
>said that they represent “life,”
Why would you bow down to a representation of "life"? Sounds pagan to me...

>>15351197
How is this a reply to my post, you didn't address the point about the concept of doing something evil even though you know it's evil (which is employed both in common sense and christian ethics) becoming empty on your view. Essentially you throw the concept of moral responsibility out of the window because all moral acts become the result of ignorance, hence of bad luck.

>>15352887
*immoral acts