/lit/ - Literature

Why are you concerned about it? Your job is to obey what your bishop tells you. You have no say in any doctrinal matter.

>>18451333
>Gregory Sadler

I like his videos on Hegel as much as the next autist here , but his understanding of the subject was always sus to me.
I mean look at that statement:

if doctrine and philosophy are mutually exclusive then how did the church arrive at the doctrine. without inquiry the catholic and orthodox churches would have the same taliban-level liberalism that the americans have.

if only the neoscholastic variant is incompatible with philosophical inquiry then was mediveal scholasticism compatible? but then the second sentence is false.

pure doctrine is also a straw man, doctrine was formed and revisied many times throughout history as our understanding of the world evolved. and that understanding did inform doctrine for revelation cannot be disconnected from the observable workings of creation.

I mean this sentence would disqualify half the Church Fathers from doctrine since their questioning was based in philosophical inquiry, not to mention Augustine, Eckhart, Belloc Newman etc.

So no. For my two pence he is categorically wrong.

So fo

>>18453180
>taliban-level liberalism
literalism

Jay Dyer has already refuted Thomas Aquinas and classical foundationalism lol. The 5 ways only lead to a generic unmoved mover god that any of the world religions can say they follow, this is why Catholics say that Christians and Muslims worship the same god and hold interfaith prayer meetings. The transcendental argument is 100x more powerful because it questions world views and paradigms.
>ps filioque and ads lead to atheism which is why the west is an atheist factory
Watch this vid if ur interested in learning more
https://youtu.be/Hd2uICRds2w

>>18451333
>You can have Catholic doctrine and philosophical inquiry but not both.
ftfy

>>18453218
> The 5 ways only lead to a generic unmoved mover god that any of the world religions can say they follow
You mean exactly what St. Aquinas said they lead to, they lead to? Crazy.

>>18453218
How does the TAG for God make a distinction between the Christian God and other world religions though?

>>18454298
All philosophical inquiry presupposes some dogma

>>18454431
Orthodoxy is the only coherent worldview

>>18454448
Quick question. I'm assuming you are Orthodox. Would you say the validity of Orthodoxy is a purely logical one based on Presuppositionalism or a historical one?

>>18454477
Both

>>18454524
Why can the conception of God not be made through an Aristotelian or Platonic lens though? (not admitting that they must solely be made through these paradigms)

>>18451333
God isn't real and Gregory Sadler is a fat boomer with a tranny son.

>>18454448
If Orthodoxy is the one true faith, the one true branch of Christianity, how come every time it looks like they're going to get out of Eastern Europe, some world-historical event occurs and busts them back down to persecuted status? I don't think God would entrust the global spread of the Gospel to a Church that constantly seems to be getting its shit kicked in.

>>18454681
As a catholic, I don't particularly find this objection very effective. They can appeal to the fact that the truth value of orthodoxy is independent of circumstance.

>>18454656
Parroting Jay’s ideas, the classical foundationalism of Aquinas takes reason to be a more basic or certain belief than the belief in God. Also Aquinas believes in a form of empiricism and sees the individual human as a tabula rasa, and so he couldn’t use things such as causality or teleology in his arguments as they aren’t known through the senses alone. The whole concept of natural theology seems off to me, as Christians must believe in the Fall, and just by looking at the world you’d have to believe that the Creator was a bumbling fool that purposefully created suffering and death, and you’d have to add on the doctrine of the Fall after the fact. I’m not quite well versed in philosophy yet but Thomism just seems like a thoroughly outdated system.

scholasticism still living rent-free in dyertards heads, I see...

>>18454740
I don't think Aquinas believes reason is more fundamental than God. His argumentation certainly does start with reason as an assumption first and foremost. But this reason is used as a tool so we can reach God. He does not ontologically place reason prior to God.

I can see the arguments for presuppositionalism but does not one also have to use reason to arrive at it similar to what Aquinas does?

>>18454740
who is Dr. Jay Dyer's favorite theologian?

>>18454761
I just haven’t really seen any responses to the objections he brings up to be honest. I’d be open to learning more about it

>>18454801
The Venerable Saint Gregory Palamas, Defender of Hesychasm. Who is venerated by Catholics funnily enough

It's a shame EOs are so obsessed with Palamas. He's incredibly overrated.

>>18454812
I think reason and theology yt channel has some good content over Orthodoxy in terms of history. There was one video where Erick Ybarra had a conversation with Dyer over church history in which I don't believe Dyer argued his case thoroughly. Classical theist (thomist) has also done a debate with Dyer too. I wish more Thomists like Feser would debate him because his arguments are really effective. You really mainly only see Catholic vs protestant debates, Orthodoxy deserves more attention.

>>18454724
The success of Catholic evangelisation is a plus for the Catholic Church I must say. Unrelatedly what I do find a bit unsettling from the outside looking in though is what seems like an over-emphasis on the Virgin Mary. Even though I’m not from a Protestant background, I do find it a bit weird that she is called the Co-Mediatrix and some have even called her the ‘quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit’.

>>18453218
Fuck you
Even if I agree with you for the filioque,etc...
Anti-intellectualism is as much of a plague as intellectualism.
The 5ways are fine, they were used by Church fathers and predates Thomas Aquinas.
>but we need a special God
We have Christ for that. No need to throw away good metaphysics.

>>18454824
he's the guy with the holy quartet, right? Essence, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

>>18454846
A Feser debate would be quite interesting, but it’s unlikely. Dyer doesn’t present himself as a serious theologian on the same level as Feser.

>>18454856
The funny thing is, is that Palmas himself has argued that Mary is a sort of co redemptrix. (Although I'm sure Orthodox will just say he is mistaken)

“She alone forms the boundary between created and uncreated nature, and no one can come to God except through her and the Mediator born of her, and none of God’s gifts can be bestowed in angels or men except through her.” - St. Gregory Palamas (Homily 53)

>>18454888
not that guy but what do you think of feser's "aristotle's revenge"? i'd say it's a pretty good work, but as someone who hasn't read much philosophical works i bet i don't have an adequate perception

>>18454891
Through her doesn't mean co redemptrix

You don't know shit. All orthodox know every grace flows through her. But because she is the servant and in no way the action of the Logos of of the Spirit is divided with that of the Virgin Mary, who personnalise the humanity's acceptance of God's grace.

>>18453218
>Jay Dyer
His extreme hubris and lack of charity is very off-putting tbqh. He’s an expert on everything from Thomism to perennialism to Freemasonry and has somehow come up with an invincible argument for God, all from reading a bunch of thinkers with no academic guidance. This haphazard way of learning has led to him jumping to and fro between several denominations and pronouncing himself an authority on all of them.
>btw presuppositionalism is just a way to hold to asinine positions like YEC or biblical inerrancy. If confronted on believing that Joshua literally stopped the Sun from revolving or that the Earth is 6000 years old he’ll just refute you by ‘demolishing’ your ‘completely materialist presupps bruhhh’

>>18454903
Not him but I read his introduction to Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction which I found incredibly insightful. He draws on a variety of different contemporary authors and tries to provide a link between the modern reassessment of the enlightenment, that is, Hume, Kant etc all while addressing various misconceptions and objections had around Scholasticism. His point about the presocratics and how the Aristotle's act potency solves a lot of their dilemmas was especially enlightening.

>>18454944
You don't understand what we mean by co redemptrix though. We mean it exactly as Palamas stated it, mainly that, like you said, every grace flows through her.

Basically the point is that we agree with you. The issue here is semantics, not substance, which is a lot of what Roman Catholic/Orthodox disagreements boil down to really.

Can Dyer refute Ibn Arabi?

>>18454992
Well he refuted pantheistic perennialist bs in a debate with some dude coz it can’t account for:
>ETHICS
>METAPHYSICS
>EPISTEMOLOGY

>>18454962
It's weird too because in a lot of debates he's very calm and then some debates he just goes off and starts attacking people. Which Ik people say, "actually ad homs are based" but still it doesn't exactly show humility. Especially in the Ybarra debate where Dyer calls him a dialectical idiot.

>>18455008
>it can’t account for:
>>ETHICS
>>METAPHYSICS
>>EPISTEMOLOGY
why not?

>>18454824
>Who is venerated by Catholics funnily enough
what

>>18455120
>ETHICS
Which ethical code do I follow in a perennialist scheme? They’re all valid right? So can I have 70 wives like a Mormon or not?
>METAPHYSICS
Jumbled up. Monism vs Dualism, occasionalism vs causality etc etc
>EPISTEMOLOGY
Empiricism or not? Is solipsism valid?

>>18455133
He's probably talking about Eastern Catholics (Uniates)

>>18455008
>Well he refuted pantheistic perennialist bs in a debate with some dude coz it can’t account for:

Nice, which debate?

>>18455152
>refutes pantheism with skepticism
>????
>his theism is somehow not susceptible to this
Are tradzooms' brains fried?

>>18455188
https://youtu.be/KGgJFtTzZMc

>>18454991
Yes I know the justification.

Still, the word is inappropriate. It's not co redemptrix but "the one who accepted redemption" on the passive side and not on the same level. So the already existing term "mediatrix". This choice of word is saying (also since shills wants the two terms together).
Even if the heresy was just formal, there would still be a grave problem. Popes and pope francis reject the term. It just shows again Franciscans faggotry, who shilled that from the medieval age

Anyway the problems of papist mariology lies before, in what Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas,... rejected and franciscains upheld : the supposed immaculate conception of the Virgin mary. Mary is not without stain of the first sin or else she would be divine (like Christ).

>>18455343
Anyone else see RC mariology as a tad too much? Like consecrating things in her heart, memorising every detail about Fatima, a million Marian apparitions? Where would they draw the line ?

>>18451336
True

>>18455343
>else she would be divine (like Christ).
How does this follow

>>18455152
>Which ethical code do I follow in a perennialist scheme? They’re all valid right? So can I have 70 wives like a Mormon or not?
How does that refute perennialism? The implication of it is that each religion contains with it an ethical scheme which is proper to that people where that religion originated and their culture, mentality etc. You can follow the ethics of whichever religion you follow. There are many commonalities between them anyway.
>>METAPHYSICS
>Jumbled up. Monism vs Dualism, occasionalism vs causality etc etc
This is only an issue if you say that every religious perspective is equally valid, with the perennialism of the Traditionalist school they say that non-dualism is the ultimate truth and that the other views are lesser truths which are lower on the hierarchy of spiritual understanding, so that's not an issue for the perennialism of people like Guenon because they can do and so say that some views are flat out wrong while other views are partial approximations of the truth.
>>EPISTEMOLOGY
>Empiricism or not? Is solipsism valid?
Not all knowledge is inevitably known via sense-knowledge, so empiricism isn't the final truth, as for example the nature of God or metaphysical knowledge isn't grasped via sense-knowledge. Solipsism is wrong also, and it's rejected by almost all religious doctrines/traditions, I'm not sure how this point was supposed to refute perennialism.

>>18451333
you can have both
see
>Alasdair MacIntyre
>Wayne J. Hankey
>Hans Urs von Balthasar
>Jean-Luc Marion
>Jean Borella
Sadler is a retard
>>18453218
>my e-celeb undid Thomism
Bro your e-celeb believes in protestant presup which is necessarily circular logic.
If you assume the truth of the Faith before your make any argument about it, and then try to present an argument for it, you've presupposed your conclusion in your premise.
Ergo, if you hold to presup, you are logically barred from actually being able to argue for or defend the Faith.

>>18455544
>circular logic
All arguments are circular at the paradigm level

>>18455366
Well the trick is, do you believe the Marian apparitions are real or not?

And that's related to the larger question of, what exactly do you expect Christianity to be? Just this ethical system? Or a private matter of the heart? Or do you think it is the action of God Himself, the Alpha and the Omega, He who set the stars in their courses, coming directly into the world, and altering the course of history? And, in doing so, fulfilling the messages He had laid out since the time of Abraham, and which were repeatedly emphasized and reemphasized in all the Law and all the Prophets?

If Christianity is not just a system of ethics, or a way of perceiving the world, but is, instead, about the actual God of the universe interacting with mankind, then there would be a certain amount of evidence of this interaction, right? Logical assumption would say so.

And this is part of what the Marian apparitions are. They are a subset of the miraculous deeds that God has worked for His People since time immemorial, and which He continues to work today for the benefit of His people, who are the Church founded by Christ.

Not every half-baked Marian apparition claim should be taken seriously, of course. But the Church has designated some of them as "worthy of belief," and these should be taken very seriously indeed, because they are signs that God still does incredible things in the world. That God is not dead, and has not withdrawn Himself from human beings, but instead continues, from time to time, to do marvels and wonders, such as we read of in Exodus, or in Joshua. If the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe has survived for centuries, or if the sun danced in the sky because of Our Lady of Fatima, should we really be surprised, if it comes from the same God who parted the Red Sea? Shouldn't we EXPECT that God, if He is real, can continue to work miracles even today?

How does one really know if his church is correct? It seems like you need a Theology degree and the capability to read Greek and Latin, as well as countless hours of time in order to come to the correct conclusion. And even then you’d have to constantly be refuting new arguments. Unless you can’t stand the liturgical abuses, or your church somehow decides to allow gay marriage, the best path to take seems to be to just ignore these debates and focus on living a life in Christ.

>>18455944
>or your church somehow decides to allow gay marriage
In regards to the Catholic Church that isn't possible because it's already been solemnly condemned at the Third and Fourth Lateran Councils

>as well as countless hours of time in order to come to the correct conclusion.
Well the Church is here for that. The only question is which Church. The only two options really that have apostolic tradition and succession are Orthodox and Catholicism.

>>18455474
The first sin and its stain is separation from God.
She would be saint but whitout the need to become saint (immaculate from conception), so she would be a divine incarnation.
Like Jesus Christ who had no trace of sin.

papist are clearly heretics

>>18455958
Wasn’t theistic evolution/not reading Genesis as historical also condemned at one of the earlier councils? All in all though I must say that Catholics have always been solid on social teachings, although there are so rogue elements like Fr James Martin SJ who are ultimately powerless when it comes to official church teaching. I remember once he said that the Church was being hurtful in calling homo behaviour as intrinsically disordered in the Catechism.

Personally I was brought up in a nominally Oriental Orthodox home. While I respect its history and the way it persevered under Islamic persecution, I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit was absent in the EO and RC from 451 AD onwards, only to be found guiding the Orientals. So really my choice is between RC and EO, and I’ve been trying to learn as much as I can about both of them. The recent dialogues and agreements made between OO and both the RC and EO seem to muddy the waters as well. In learning more about Chalcedon it seems more and more to be a minor disagreement on semantics, while I must say the Chalcedonians are better at formulating precise christology. Tbh I’m leaning towards Catholicism, although it seems like there’s a ‘crisis’ in the church.

>>18456005
What about Adam and Eve?

>>18455366
RC Mariology does not bother me, but some of the pious devotions surrounding Mary make me uncomfortable. There's quite a bit of RC arcana that cuts a real odd figure with me: mystical marriages and ecstasies, relics, etc. I barely have enough time to read and pray as I ought, let alone get wrapped up in all that jazz. The orthodox have a term for a certain sort of religious lunacy that they accuse catholics of, I think. Maybe someone here knows it.

>>18456115
I'm not sure about the council condemning theistic evolution but from my knowledge the Catholic Church hasn't really taken a position against or for evolution, it only holds that Adam and Eve are real people and that there is intelligent and divine design possible under evolution.

>although it seems like there’s a ‘crisis’ in the church.
There very much is, as, like you said, people such as Fr James Martin (probably under material heresy) get special treatment but those that want to hold to tradition are seen as dangerous. As a Catholic I can only pray for the pope, pray for good and holy priests, and have faith in the Church which I believe Christ instituted and said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.

Now is the Catholic Church that church? Well I think that's a historical argument. I have respect for the Oriental Orthodox and other churches which have apostolic succession it's just I don't quite understand the reason for rejecting the Council of Chalcedon as authoritative while at the same time holding the Council of Nicaea authoritative. On the other hand, the split between the East and West seems largely to do with cultural problems more so than theological or doctrinal ones. Although, of course, the debate for Universal Jurisdiction of Rome is very nuanced, I'm still looking into and trying to learn more.

>>18456160
They were in union with God before the fall. Since the fall humanity needs salvation and have sin, death,...
God was with Adam in ghe garden of Eden. Then Eve have eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there were no evil before the fall, because there was only union with God/paradise.
Ibn4 : to ask why they fell would be the same as to ask why Lucifer did.

To say Mary as no stain of it would me she is saint by default (from her conception so by nature), so by nature she is in union with God.

>>18456284
What do you think about Mary being called the new Eve though? Irenaeus makes this correlation.

>...the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Irenaeus Against Heresies)

>>18456284
Okay, I was only confused same as the other anon about how divinity follows from the IC. I was curious if you thought Adam and Eve were divine as well since they were created without the stain of sin.

>>18453218
Isn't this the guy who got exposed for being a stupid sophist by the Dimond brothers

>>18454669
>God isn't real
Imagine being a m*terialist.

>>18456005
>so she would be a divine incarnation.
That doesn't follow from not having original sin at all.

>>18453218
Jay Dyer is a fucking retard and got absolutely destroyed by the Dimond Brothers of all people
https://youtu.be/XRLOQUnw-FY

Honestly he's just a convertodox who spends all his time trying to build theological walls to explain why Orthodox theology is completely incompatible with Catholic theology while completely mangling Catholic theology to do it. He's emblematic of a massive problem in Orthodoxy where they try to create dilemmas specifically to claim that there's no way to reunite with the Catholic Church and ends up undermining their own position to do it.

In the words of David Bentley Hart:

>Again, I do not want to venture too far into purely technical matters, but I can think of no better example of an almost entirely imaginary theological problem, pursued with ferocious pertinacity solely because it serves to exaggerate and harden—or, rather, to rationalize—the division between Christian East and West, but that succeeds only in distorting the tradition of both almost beyond recognition. And I cannot emphasize this last point too forcefully. Since the time of Lossky, various modern Orthodox theologians have adopted an exaggerated ‘Photianism’ and have, in their assault on ‘filioquism’, argued that—though, within the economy of salvation, the Spirit is breathed out by Christ upon the apostles—the Trinitarian relations as revealed in the economy of salvation are distinct from the eternal relations of the immanent Trinity. This is theologically disastrous, and in fact subversive of the entire Eastern patristic tradition of Trinitarian dogma. Were this claim sound, there would be absolutely no basis for Trinitarian theology at all; the arguments by which the Cappadocians defended full Trinitarian theology against Arian and Eunomian thought—in works like Basil’s De Spiritu Sancto and Gregory’s Adversus Macedonianos—would entirely fail. Orthodoxy would have no basis whatsoever.

https://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2014/06/the-myth-of-schism-david-bentley-hart.html

>>18456296
Just like Eve had no sin and took on one, the Virgin Mary had a stain of sin but got purified of it.
In the two cases Eve and the new are in the transition from purity to sin or from sin to purity.
The Virgin find the union, in Christ, that Eve destroyed by making Adam eat the forbidden fruit

>>18457198
>Just like Eve had no sin and took on one, the Virgin Mary had a stain of sin but got purified of it.
These aren't "just like" at all.

>>18456317
For fathers pf the Church Adam and Eve are humanity when it "was" in unity with God. To have no sin or consequence of the fall means to have separation from God (which doesn't mean there can't be a distinction between Him and his prescience of humanity as it is in the world).

>>18451333

Hhahuahuhaua

Scholastics btfo, they're like retarded sheep that just repeat what they've learned without any ability to criticize what they hold as knowledge / truth.

>>18454669
>Uses photo of a rainbow tuxedo pepe

You IRL.

>>18456949
No stain from sin = no separation from God = hypostatic union = I am not my Father but I know everything of Him = divine incarnation of Christ

It is very well known the immaculate birth with no stain of sin of Christ is considered as a proof and a reason of his divinity.
>inb4 : his resurrection is proof of it.
That's another proof but in fact about it papist started to think Mary didn't have to pass through death and directly went to paradise (assomption). On this refuted heresy by the orthodox churches, some popes tried backward to appease them (after the proclamation of this new dogma)

that's a symmetrical analogy.
The same story but in the opposite direction.

>>18457281
for >>18457211

Why is this on /lit/

>>18451333
Sadler is a sad sack of a man and a poor philosopher at best.
t. Milwaukee citizen

>>18451333
The guy is an idiot and his son is a tranny

>>18457271
>No stain from sin = no separation from God = hypostatic union = I am not my Father but I know everything of Him = divine incarnation of Christ
>No stain from sin = no separation from God = hypostatic union
No it doesn't. This doesn't follow at all. The hypostatic union is the two natures of Christ - divine and human - united in one person. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the hypostatic union. Even ignoring that, this reasoning would assert that the Angels are also divine sin they have no stain from sin, hence no separation from God. Do you know what separation from God in the context of sin even means?
>It is very well known the immaculate birth with no stain of sin of Christ is considered as a proof and a reason of his divinity.
No - it isn't. Christ's reason for His divinity is because He's the incarnation of God - He isn't the incarnation of God because He was sinless.

>>18457374
>hypostatic union
It is perfect unity of the divine and human nature. It is the fact Jesus Christ is perfectly unified to the divine nature since he never left it (fall, first sin). The divine takes up humanity without leaving or separating from divinity (separation that is sin and loss of communion with God, loss of contemplation).

>angels have no original sin
Do you imply that Mary is an angel or some kind of non human entity so she can have no stain all humans are subjected to ?

The fact that there are different degrees of aspects of the divine in perfect communion to one another is another topic.
Also another topic since they don't incarnate.

The Virgin Mary is above all angels, so the question of her salvation is again stranger to it.
She is a human, deified, but human. Not an angel.

Separation is the obscuring of the soul, attachment to lesser goods, lost of knowledge of God's goodness, the opposite of contemplation.

There is no causality between the fact God's incarnation was sinless and the fact it was God's incarnation. It's his nature to be sinless. What is sinless is of his nature, what is of his nature is sinless (because it's perfection and only God is perfect).

>>18456252
>I don't quite understand the reason for rejecting the Council of Chalcedon
It does seem like both sides were saying the same thing with slightly different wording, but I intend to do research on all the councils. IIRC John Paul II signed a mutual christological statement with the Copts. On the whole between East and West the largest divide seems to be papal authority. Some commentators have said that the powers explicated by Vatican I weren’t held by the Pope in the 1st millenium.

>>18457137
I honestly think people like Jay shouldn’t be teaching theology to the masses. Now you have Orthodox catechumen who were Prots two weeks ago arguing about dense theological topics like the Filioque and Absolute Divine Simplicity.

>>18457349
How much philosophy should you read so that your son isn’t a tranny or rather what type of philosophy

>>18451333
Isnt Sadler a catholic?

>>18457908
Yes but probably not a serious one as his son is a tranny

>>18457137
>In the words of David Bentley Hart:

isnt this guy a cringe ecumenicist who loves buddhism and hinduism? fat fuck too

>>18454740

Catholic "natural theology" is a kind of bdsm whereby the Catholic must project God's glory onto the very world that the Catholic claims fallen. This also ties into the Catholic obsession with children (no, not THAT one), the Apocryphal idea here is that God should be treated as, and ultimately is, a cretinous baby whose mess they have to perpetually clean, this dubious honor being one and the same in parenthood and Catholicism. The only reason why they do not explicitly distinguish and worship the Old Testament God alone is that they have degraded Jesus into their ideal being: God's perfect toilet.

>>18457994
Yeah he’s a universalist too. Why is it that the majority of theologians/clerics who study and teach in institutes of higher learning hold liberal views like LGBT acceptance or universalism. I’ve seen this is in Muslim intellectuals as well. The Jews are probably the worst when it comes to this though, many reformed rabbis are open perennialists.

>>18458694
Probably because universalism is the only morally coherent view on Hell. Reject that and you've turned God into a moral idiot

>>18457908
The quote is a reading from the book he wrote on the 1930s Catholic debates. The latest video on YouTube. I think he was quoting the specific writer he was discussing and paraphrasing his thought but I thought the idea was interesting enough to start this thread. Also Sadler himself clearly opposes traditional Christian readings on topics such as homosexuality.>>18457993

>>18458713
So do we just ignore all the verses about universal torment?

>>18458694
>many reformed rabbis are open perennialists
Based

>>18459007
I think we should not interpret them literally, otherwise we would turn God into an evil, immoral, sadistic being.

>>18458713
> using reform jews as an example of religious jews and jewish thought

> ????????????????????

What is the Catholic obsession with saying that Muslims and Christians worship the same God? I understand that this is the logical conclusion of natural theology, but it’s so annoying and cringeworthy to see Catholics writing books and holding talks on this point. It’s completely unreciprocated by Muslims as well, as it should. You never see this type of capitulation from Muslims, who proudly state that unbelievers are going to hell. Also wouldn’t this mean that Muhammad was a legitimate prophet of God? And extrapolating from there we could even say that all believers in any religion are really just worshiping the same God, so why not bite the bullet and form a syncretic universal religion?

>>18459522
Orthodox Jews are largely insignificant inside and outside of Israel, most Israelis are secular even

>>18458694
>Why is it that the majority of theologians/clerics who study and teach in institutes of higher learning hold liberal views like LGBT acceptance or universalism.
Liberal views on LGBT are gating to employment in institutions of higher education

>>18459007
>>18459338
I mean it's a legitimate issue, if we take medieval Saints at face value and conclude that 99.999% of people go to Hell, the whole "Salvation History' thing becomes a bit disappointing and really just makes one prefer to have never existed at all.

>>18459594
because zionism is/was a majority secular idea

>>18456216
Prelest (пpeлecть)?

>>18459723
I doubt the number is 99.99% but Christ does say ‘narrow is the way’. To be honest I’m not sure how to reconcile this with ‘it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom’ and ‘my yoke is easy’. Does this mean that the majority of people are just reprobates? Sometimes I just look around and think to myself that no one’s going to make it to the pearly gates.

>>18456216
I’m not sure where they would draw the line though. I’ve seen RC saints rewrite the Psalms and put Mary in the place of God or the Lord. For some less educated laity the line between dulia and latria must get blurred right, especially among the South American populace and the cults surrounding Mary?

>>18453218
>Jay Dyer
this faggot, Kantbot, BAP, Logo Daedalus and all other assorted e-celebs are part of the cancer that's consuming /lit/. so long as understanding Aquinas requires actually reading him as opposed to watching a 10 minute recording of a rootless Am*erican "destroying" 5 ways with facts and logic I'll stick with Aquinas

>>18459884
>Logo Daedalus
Lol didn’t that guy deny the Virgin birth? But yeah stop with the adhominems and engage his arguments bucko

>>18459573
>What is the Catholic obsession with saying that Muslims and Christians worship the same God?
???

>>18456115
I would tell you to read about Sedevacantism but that would likely send you to the Dimond Bros who are very abrasive and obsessed with the end times. (But to be fair, no one has really bested them in a debate or disproved them on matters of faith).

If you have a problem with believing that the Holy Spirit would only guide the Orientals, then you would have a problem believing that the Holy Spirit would only guide the Greeks and Slavs after a certain point. EOs up until now have not been able to spread outside of their sphere of influence... The only reason they gain any traction in this day is because deluded people like fancy robes and traditional liturgy, there is no care for the truth here.

And get this, the Greeks have no real reason they can reject the council of Florence since by their own standards it was a true ecumenical council, every delegate except Mark of Ephesus signed the Florentine union and later abjured the true position because the people at home got angry about it. In-fact, there was a saying that it was "Better to die than to Latinize." or "Better the Turkish turban than the Papal Tiara." Well they got their wish on the feast of Pentecost in 1453. EO history is one of subjugation, not evangelization and miraculous work.

>>18459843
There was some Saint that gave a figure on the order of 1/10,000 and this hardly seems to have been considered a pessimistic view.

>Does this mean that the majority of people are just reprobates? Sometimes I just look around and think to myself that no one’s going to make it to the pearly gates.
It's certainly possible, more so especially if you take a hardline extra ecclesiam nulla salus stance (basically all non-Catholics go to Hell, end of).

>>18460586
>extra ecclesiam nulla salus stance
Nowadays some have relaxed this to saying that people who would agree with Catholic doctrines but don’t have membership can still be saved. Also didn’t Bishop Barron catch some slack about saying that God’s Grace can still reach those in non-Christian religions? Plus how about all those who didn’t hear the Gospel? I read somewhere that they aren’t automatically damned

>>18457465
>It is the fact Jesus Christ is perfectly unified to the divine nature since he never left it (fall, first sin).
Why do you keep inserting a causality where there isn't one?
>Do you imply that Mary is an angel or some kind of non human entity so she can have no stain all humans are subjected to ?
No, I am stating your claim that No stain from sin = God is wrong. If what you claimed was true, every angel would be God.
>She is a human, deified, but human. Not an angel.
Mary is not deified - what does that even imply? That she became God? Speak more carefully anon.
>Separation is the obscuring of the soul, attachment to lesser goods, lost of knowledge of God's goodness, the opposite of contemplation.
Just to back it up, you stated no separation from God (which you defined as no stain from sin) = hypostatic union. If that's true, you're claiming that at the moment of baptism every single person has a divine nature. This is beyond absurd and I don't know if you're just using words without care or what.

>>18460757
Yeah it was changed with Vatican II but there are still some people that uphold it anyway (Feeneyites, presumably Sedevacantists, etc.) not sure if more vanilla Trads like SSPX/FSSP uphold strict EENS. At the end of the day I think most people are going to drift towards soft perennialism or universalism in practice. It's simply harder to hold these positions in the West at least where the population is realistically single digit percentages Christian at most, and one might have friends from around the world - hard to imagine your friend Kumar who is by all accounts a decent person going to Hell forever for improper worship. This isn't even getting into the different Christian sects that all condemn each other to Hell.

>>18460806
>Yeah it was changed with Vatican II
It was not changed. Please reread Lumen Gentium.

>>18460823
Wasn't EENS the de facto position before VII?

>>18460837
>>18460823
By which I mean Strict EENS of course.

>>18460837
Yes, as per the Council of Florence, and it still is, as stated in Lumen Gentium.

>14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. (Lumen Gentium 14)

This of course not not ignore the fact that there are very rare cases where people can be saved through their invincible ignorance, as Pope Pius IX stated in his Singulari Quadam and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.

>...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.

Augustine, although not infallible, also makes mention that the Donatists (heretics) could be saved if they were to follow their conscience that they were still in Catholic unity.

>For if any one were compelled by urgent necessity, being unable to find a Catholic from whom to receive baptism, and so, while preserving Catholic peace in his heart, should receive from one without the pale of Catholic unity the sacrament which he was intending to receive within its pale, this man, should he immediately depart this life, we deem to be none other than a Catholic. (St. Augustine; On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book I Ch II).

>>18451333
>Sadler
lmao no

do you have a source for that quote? I want to confirm he's the biggest pseud of all time.

>>18460798
I didn't insert a causality. Christ is God from all eternity, there is simply causality in regard to the ways of his incarnation.

>Angels are already saved, without Christ unlike the Virgin Mary.
Angels are aspects of God in perfect union yet in a hierarchical order. They are God, just different aspects of Him, different level of His participation, contemplation, of His powers. They are distinct from God from a relative point of view. They are distinct, we are separated, because of sin. To them, the logic of the fall and salvation doesn't apply, but it does to Mary.

There is four possibilities : Mary can be God incarnated, an angel, a human or a demon.
Since the Virgin Mary is human she has stains of sin, or else she would either be an angel or in other word a divine manifestation. Since she can't be an angel (they don't incarnate and she is above them all in her pure nature from conception or after purification) she is either human or an incarnation of God.

>deification (theosis)
Yes, it's an orthodox traditional term (used also by Thomas Aquinas). She became God by participation, like all saints. God by adoption. The fact that she is above angels proves enough she plainly became divine (became and not is, since she had the stain from the first sin).

>Just to back it up, you stated no separation from God (which you defined as no stain from sin) = hypostatic union. If that's true, you're claiming that at the moment of baptism every single person has a divine nature.

That's just another papist heresy you can't detach you from. After baptism the stain of sin must still be erased by spiritual work. One doesn't passively and automatically become saint, as the papist church say. The stain is what we must be purified of.

Hope I can help you anon

>>18460806
>It's simply harder to hold these positions in the West at least where the population is realistically single digit percentages Christian
True. I think you’re right about the drift to perennialism because for most of church history everyone was pretty adamant on eternal hellfire up until recently. IIRC universalism was condemned at one of the first few councils, and no one really espoused it except Origen and I think Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac or Ephrem the Syrian.

>>18461273
>Angels are aspects of God in perfect union yet in a hierarchical order
Not only does this not make sense, it is wrong.

>Since the Virgin Mary is human she has stains of sin
You are stupid.

Please stop teaching error.

>>18461273
Mary is stainless in the same way the Ark of the Covenant could not be stained by human hands. She was preserved from original sin by God.

>>18459573
>What is the Catholic obsession with saying that Muslims and Christians worship the same God?
Not "Catholic obsession", Novus Ordite obsession trying to reconcile this shit robber council.

>>18461304
You provide no argument...

>>18461339
The Ark of covenant was made by human hands and out of wood covered with gold (and it could symbolize the origin and purification of Mary, made of wood but transformed by God's grace).

Of course at some point, she become pure and out of touch from sin, being in perfect union with her divine son.

If she was preserved from the moment of her conception, then her nature is to be preserved, since there where no moment in which she was not. Instead, for Bernard of Clairvaux, for example, she was human but purified after her conception. God purified her, but if he had "preserved her from conception" it would just mean He created a being pure from stain of sin. Her very nature would not be that of humanity but of divine principle (divine since by nature in union with God, like Christ).

She was free and of human nature, adopted by grace. It was necessary that the human nature accepted freely God's salvation and welcomed Him in itself.
If from the beginning of her existence she is pure, then she would not be part of humanity and humanity would not have accepted salvation through her.

>>18461347
I’ve heard from the ‘Novus Ordites’ that Bellarmine taught this as well. In any case it really is a puzzling doctrine.

>>18461300
Isaac

>>18461469
The Virgin Mary has an Immaculate Heart. She was born without sin. This is basic, basic, basic catechism and you're getting it wrong.

>>18461300
I think there are some people whom I wouldn't feel any pity for if they went to eternal hell, like organized pederasts, for example. But I'd like to think most decent people can make it there even if they require a long Purgatory.

>>18461347
>robber council
Are there even any bishops left to validly ordain a Pope according to Sedevacantist thinking? I was under the impression that the last one died recently.

>>18461575
The wood that was used to build the Ark is described as incorruptible, so kind of a moot point there.
In any case, I don't understand what you're saying. If inheriting original sin is what makes you a man, then what was Adam?

>>18461642
Thuc, Lefebvre and some others have valid lines, Idk about a new Pope because I personally can't see a way out of this but it's the only consistent position imo.

>>18461659
True, but don't you get into the problem of not having a visible Church at some point? Presumably you'd have to figure out whether to follow the Thuc line, the Lefebvre line, Pope Michael (lol forgot about him), etc.

>>18461718
I don't see why I would have to follow an individual line of Bishops, I think that they are valid and coexist in the same way Benedictines and Franciscans coexist...

>>18461754
I mean how many years before having a Pope again is a viable prospect in your view? Do you think there will be a valid Pope in your lifetime?

>>18461769
>18461769
I don't know and no.
Perhaps if the faithful were more grateful that there still is a Church then God would grant them a new Pope? But by this point I'm kind of convinced we're near the end here anyway.
Anyway, I think St. Athanasius said that even if the Church were reduced to a handful, they would still be the ones maintaining the true faith.

>>18461718
>thinking of access to the Chair of Peter as some kind of worldly medieval dynastism
stupid.

Popes are elected by a conclave with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Every pope is valid. Popes do not have 'pedigree' from other previous popes.

>>18461829
>Perhaps if the faithful were more grateful that there still is a Church then God would grant them a new Pope?
I would think the bigger issue is that basically no one has access to valid sacraments or a Mass to attend. Plus, most of the people who consider themselves the faithful also think the Catholic Church is the one in Vatican City right now.

>>18461840
I thought you needed Cardinals to hold a conclave. In Sedevacantism, as far as I know, there are hardly any validly ordained Bishops left anymore except for a few lines mentioned in >>18461659. I am not a Sedevacantist so maybe you could correct me on this point.

>>18461871
Sedevacantes are not Catholics.

where do Sedevacantists go for mass?

>>18461635
Isn’t purgatory for people who would go to heaven anyway but need to be purified first, as in they are in a good state anyway? I’m under the impression that if you die in a state of mortal sin you’ll go to hell straight away. Also idk how both murder and masturbation are mortal sins. Wanking is a big sin of mine desu

>>18461876
>nooooo you have to accept my ecumenical monster and heresies

>>18462044
I have been forced to massively downgrade my assessment of most peoples' moral agency (or really mental agency period) due to recent events.

>>18462075
Wdym? You think the average person is just that far gone? Tbh it’s scary to see how rife relativism is in today’s society.

>>18462054
what should JP2 have done? sat out of an ecumenical meeting? Catholics first job after loving God and their neighbor is going out and converting the nations. You are making the mistake of assuming JP2 is in that photo as equal in authority to the others. Being the holy father of the one true faith, he was not.

>>18462171
lol
It's literally called the Assisi prayer meeting, brother. The only conversions happening there are conversions to hippy style universalism and conversions out of the Catholic faith. It just shows the extraordinarily bad fruits of Vatican II.
You should read A Man named John by Alden Hatch and The Undermining of the Catholic Church by Mary Ball Martinez.

>>18462147
Not really "relativism", rather, that the average person is not really capable of engaging in moral reasoning and will do pretty much whatever authority figures say. It's not so much relativism, there is a great deal of moral dogmatism today, rather, the content of those dogmas can change on a dime and people will have no cognitive dissonance about it.

>>18462300
Just look at how fast people accepted child drag queens or transexuality for an egregious example. People would think this was insane 10 years ago, but when authority decided to reframe this as "brave and stunning victim standing up to the WASPs at the top" everyone went along with it without a thought and will actively demonize anyone who points out the obvious as the second coming of Hitler.

>>18462147
>stoves are hot
>therefore angloid bugman utilitarian moralizing
Ewww

>>18454669
Is his son really a troon?

>>18461273
>They are God, just different aspects of Him, different level of His participation, contemplation, of His powers
Name one Church Father who supports stating Angels are God and are different aspects of God.
>After baptism the stain of sin must still be erased by spiritual work
Yes, if after baptism sin was committed. But baptism, at the moment of receiving it, purifies everything such that there is no sin nor guilt in the baptized. To say otherwise is to deny the salvatory power of baptism.

>>18461631
the most traditional churches of christianism reject that heresy. And no, it's a XX century dogma far from basic

>>18462314
Don't mock him, it's his first step into the Socratic method. He's basically Protagoras. Let's just try to find a Socrates for him.

>>18463724
>the most traditional churches of christianism reject that heresy
And who are these churches, and who are their saints, that they deny the immaculate conception? What scripture do they raise in their defense? Didn't they read that the Angel greets "Hail, Full of Grace, the Lord is with you"?

>>18462171
>is going out and converting the nations
V2 ecumenism is the opposite since it states that other religions are also valid, conversion is thus not needed.

>>18463724
>the most traditional churches of christianism reject that heresy
lol no

>>18461089
I hate to be the "watch the full video" guy but it was in this video and I forget the time stamp.

https://youtu.be/Y1pakb8tGTg

>>18461651
>The wood that was used to build the Ark is described as incorruptible
For orthodox she didn't sin and was purified from the bad tendencies of human sinners.

>If inheriting original sin is what makes you a man, then what was Adam?

For Church fathers, Adam was spiritual, like an angel and without no sex (fruit of division and of the body), so he was divine.

>>18463779
>For Church fathers, Adam was spiritual, like an angel and without no sex
What are you even meaning by spiritual here?

>>18463721
>"...angels, whether seen or not, the divine power bestows good things. Such was the mode adopted in the advent of the Lord. And sometimes also the power “breathes” in men’s thoughts and reasonings, and “puts in” their hearts “strength” and a keener perception, and furnishes “prowess” and “boldness of alacrity”..."
>(The Stromata of Miscellanies, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, p 518)

Angels, since they have a hierarchy and are created are not God in himself, but they are frequently called the powers of God. They are different levels of contemplation and participation to God's essence.

>"...these primitive and first created virtues are unchangeable in substance, and along with subordinate angels and archangels whose names they share, effect divine operations.

Hence their unchangeability (that makes it even more stupid to talk of first sin in their case.
The angels are no subject to sin of any case and they only worship God. They are not God's essence but God's powers or energies.

Do you understand the difference now and why it's stupid to think of them in terms of salvation ?

>>18453218
>Jay Dyer
Presups are retarded.

>>18463742
>And who are these churches, and who are their saints, that they deny the immaculate conception?
Pic related. Type XXcentury orthodox saints.
>Kecharitomene
It means she is favored, and litteraly full of favors. Doesn't necessarily means these favors are actual from conception or are no stain from original sin.

Instead she is a human and without the holy spirit.
>Luke 1:34-35
>New International Version
>34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

>35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

>>18463828
No limited by a physical body.

>>18463751
Do you suppose the orthodox patriarch are not the most traditional churches ?

>>18453218
I'd feel if embarrassed if I wrote this post seriously

>>18463948
>The Holy Spirit will come on you
What a slut

>>18455008
>ethics
There's no need to account for things which don't exist

>>18462300
Well with the erosion of organised religion in the states that is to be expected. Also the values that we hold dearest today are ‘freedom’ and ‘consent’, so there is no real reason why a parent wouldn’t take their kid to a pride parade.

>>18463931
>Presups
What’s a better form of Christian apologetics then?
>look at all the evidence for the resurrection bro xddd

>>18464054
Evidentiaists are at least comprised of respectable and reasonable people. I disagree with them but at least they got people like Rasmussen or Pruss.
presups are literally bottom of the barrell.

>>18453180

>>18453186
>Taliban level liberalism
Kek!

>>18464089
So who are the absolute best apologists in your estimation?

>>18453218
based

>>18464045
>Also the values that we hold dearest today are ‘freedom’ and ‘consent’, so there is no real reason why a parent wouldn’t take their kid to a pride parade.
lolno, if we were free we'd be allowed to refuse to associate with that sort of thing, however, it's at least partially illegalized due to Civil Rights Law. The value we hold dearest today is concern for "victims".

>>18464547
By which I mean you must bake the cake you bigot, however, discrimination by the "victim" against the "victimizer" group would be acceptable.

>>18462147
What happens when the most effective way of avoiding what sucks for me is inflecting something that sucks on you? Isn't this guy supposed to be a philosopher?

>>18453218
fuck you to death for inadvertently making me click on a breadtube video

>>18464562
Then you calculate what sucks the most and avoid that

bump