/lit/ - Literature

>>19593385
Pope Leo XIII

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

>inb4 Ratzinger
The Ratzinger Report is based, he wrote it in the 80s when he was a cardinal. he btfo commies and their "liberation" theology.

>>19593385
>‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.’
>Lol this Jesus guy, what an effeminate leftist. Who cares about the poor lmao?
>CRUELTY MURDER DEATH HATRED OF THE WEAK SATAN I LOVE SATAN HAAHAH

>>19593429
Go back

>>19593430
Go back to Christ, Satanist

>>19593385
>Ideally not someone who promotes immigration
There is neither Jew nor Greek.

>>19593436
I never said people shouldn't care about the poor. What Leo XIII said however was this:
>At the time being, the condition of the working classes is the pressing question of the hour, and nothing can be of higher interest to all classes of the State than that it should be rightly and reasonably settled.
The pressing question that was of the highest interest was the lack of morality in the world not the material condition of the working class. Everyone wants all people to do well.

>>19593385
Never have been, never will be. Rerum Novarum is pussy shit, like all Christianity. It will be phased out by communism soon

>>19593445
That verse has nothing to do with immigration.

>>19593445
Doesn't mean they should destroy our culture and rape women

>>19593560
>The pressing question that was of the highest interest was the lack of morality in the world not the material condition of the working class.
filtered

>>19593685
Go on, argue your position.

>>19593626
>2000 more years! dem christcucks will be GONE!
>gets Solidarnosc'd
Materialist explanations for the rise of religion will NEVER make sense.

>>19593655
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
>>19593669
where are you from?

>>19593692
Why do you keep quoting unrelated verses? Do you just look them up online from other people like yourself who never read the Bible?

>>19593689
IF you believe that Popes are the Vicars of Christ, of course they are living in the present reality and they do need to address present-reality's issues. G*D is "out" of the world, He can "deal" with everlasting stuff: the Pope is here, it's precisely his job to deal with reality - otherwise why would he even be a Pope?

Jesus was in fact a worker, "ora et labora" is an ancient monastic rule that is followed to this day. In the 70s in Europe there were many "workers priests", who were literally employed in factories, because they believed that it's of the uttermost importance to live between the last, the common people.

Popes have always addressed real, pressing issues, this is nothing new:

>In Sublimis Deus (June 2, 1537), Paul III declares the indigenous peoples of the Americas to be "truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it," and denounces any idea to the contrary as directly inspired by the "enemy of the human race" (Satan)

>>19593707
>Why do you keep quoting unrelated verses?
I'm not>>19593445

>>19593713
You haven't argued why the condition of working class people was more important than the lack of morality, so try again.

>>19593560
First of all, he didn't say the question of the highest interest in general, he said it specifically as it pertains to the STATE IN THAT TIME. He said that governments "OF THE HOUR" should be concerned with this question the most. And he was writing in the 19th century when the conditions of workers WERE horrible and communism/revolutionary ideology was haunting Europe because of this. Your disagreement seems to be based on a technicality; whether it was THE MOST IMPORTANT question or not is irrelevant. The point the Pope is making is that it was very important.

>>19593385
>>muh poor working class folk
I don't see a problem

>>19593735
Indeed I have
>the lack of morality
Everlasting
>condition of working class people
Present time issue

Learn how to read.

>>19593750
You haven't: both are everlasting. Try again.

>>19593385
>>19593560
>"it's religion guys you should stay in your lane"
Catholicism defends the notion of private property. Consequently the pope must speak on how Catholics should best provide for themselves and each other. It only makes sense that, like eating and drinking responsibly and staying away from drugs and other addictions, a Catholic person's wealth management skills are related to their spiritual health. Not to mention providing for a family/keeping a healthy family life is probably the number one job of Catholics after receiving the sacraments and obedience to the great commandments.

>>19593736
You don't understand. The biggest issue was communism and revolutionary movements which would've existed regardless of the condition of the working class. That was the threat, that was the diagnosis that he was supposed to arrive at, and that's why it's central. The Bolshevik Revolution didn't happen because of the working class conditions. You don't understand the 19th century and likely learned about it from socialists.

>>19593403
wasnt he the architect of the second vatican council though?

>>19593771
>communism and revolutionary movements which would've existed regardless of the condition of the working class
Holy Jesus, is this your understanding of history?

>>19593771
Why do you think the left-wing in the West has virtually abandoned class-based politics and is now focusing on intersectionality and the like? Why do you think communism has virtually disappeared in the West? It's because the average worker is satisfied with how his life is going. He doesn't feel an urge to rise up and risk his life for a revolution against a system which is doing him quite well. This was not the case in the 19th century. Just go read Dickens and you'll see what I mean.
Even if you don't believe the Pope was right that it was "the most important issue", it is not a justification for dismissing his writings as you do. Reasonable people can have different views on this issue without thinking the other is evil or dismissing him.

>>19593821
The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what the workers feel or think. The workers are currently mass protesting thr recent cough mandates but that's not having any effect is it? Communism and progressivism are obviously considered useful to certain people in the elite and thats why they're promoted.

>>19593821
Firstly, communism still exists in the West but under a modern form. Secondly, most workers were not supporting communism, and the Bolshevik Revolution happened against the interests of the workers while holding them under threat. Thirdly, Dickens writes fiction.
You haven't explained why my dismissal is unjustified and I never claimed he was evil. He was just lacked so much intellectual autonomy that he simply adopted socialist talking points as dogma in a letter for his clergy. Obviously socialists would want you to believe that the condition of the workers was the biggest issue so they could justify their revolutionary actions. The problem was deeper and started before the French Revolution and continues today. Go on try to solve all problems that communists and neo-communists point you at, but don't expect rational people to follow your wild ghost chase. If you don't identify the causes you'll never solve the problems.

>>19593821
>Why do you think the left-wing in the West has virtually abandoned class-based politics and is now focusing on intersectionality and the like? Why do you think communism has virtually disappeared in the West? It's because the average worker is satisfied with how his life is going. He doesn't feel an urge to rise up and risk his life for a revolution against a system which is doing him quite well.
It's the opposite, it's because the rich needs an excuse to not care about workers' lives.
Of course, in first world countries we have it better than 19 century workers. But that's also not a big argument - "You know, kids in africa are dying, so be happy!"
In fact, the reason workers have it better now than in the past is because they fought for it

>>19593865
>he simply adopted socialist talking points as dogma in a letter for his clergy
A bull is not dogma
Also
There's a quote from either Tolstoy or Dostoevskij (I think the first) which says more or less "To defeat revolutionaries, we need to incorporate their ideas into an higher, greater idea, which already exists, which is Christianity, which is love for everyone, always. If we apply Christianity, there will be no need for a revolution"
I'm just going by memory here, I can't find the actual quote.
This is a very common technique, btw, making some concession to avoid deep social fractures.

>>19593810
No, he was a junior cleric. A priest iirc. He was present at times, however, I think. There were a lot of people responsible for Vatican II but the guy who pushed a lot of their [needless imo] liturgical reforms in was a fella named Bugnini. He wrote a book about his reforms. He was made nuncio to Iran afterwards. Pope Paul VI in fact is on the record of regretting the changes, but by that point it was too late. We're stuck with them until someone thinks of good reasons to remove them. It'll happen in a few decades once all the boomer clergy like Bp. Barron who came up in it pass away.

>>19593385
>Any good Popes out there to read?
The most kino of the Renaissance popes

>>19593918
Yeah I can see it's a common technique because Christianity has ireversibily declined since the French Revolution, and it's incapable to provide any working solutions.

>>19593836
>>19593865
It's simply absurd to say that the masses have no impact upon the course of history. The only way the Bolshevik Revolution could have happened is if people were willing to die for it. You couldn't topple the Czar with intellectuals alone.
You admit this very point when you say that communism had to morph into a "modern form". Why would it have to do so unless orthodox communism were no longer tenable? A communist party could not win a major election today, nor could they inspire a revolution in the West, because people's lives are too comfortable.
The communists themselves know this. Herbert Marcuse (communist subversive) writes about this very fact, saying that the prosperity of capitalism has drained the revolutionary energy from the working classes. He proposes that the left should look for a new source of energy in the black ghettos of America, where disgruntlement is still at large. That's they have done.
>as dogma
It's not a dogma. Idk if you're being hyperbolic but the Church can't dogmatise anything that's not about theology. This is a historical analysis, the Pope's personal view, not an infallible dogma of the Church.
>Dickens writes fiction.
You would not be so shallow-minded as to imply that fiction has no relation to reality? Dickens wrote fiction based on the hardship and poverty of his day.

>Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various religious denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine, and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.
—Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), ‘Without Roots’

>>19593950
Are you at least trying to understand the discussion? It's getting tedious. Firstly, the masses were against communists, I never said they don't impact it. Secondly, communists had foreign financial aid to topple the monarchy so it wasn't just intellectuals and it obviously had a segment of dissatisfied workers. Thirdly, communists hadn't won a major election then either because like I keep telling you it didn't have popular support.

The point is that communists will always exploit dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction will always exist. You don't stop dissatisfaction from happening, you address the part where dissatisfaction turns into revolution. He was trying to address the dissatisfaction. Please make an effort to understand the core idea discussed and stop going on tangents discussing things I never said.

>>19593385
Catholicism is long dead. Face it tradcucks

>>19593986
>Firstly, the masses were against communists
Source? Not a communist but this statement sounds too definite.

>>19593986
The Red Army had 5 million men according to Wikipedia. That's not just "a segment of dissatisfied workers". Those 5 million were not all intellectuals or foreign agents or whatever. I think you're vastly underestimating the popularity of communism in those times.
> communists hadn't won a major election then either because like I keep telling you it didn't have popular support.
Communist parties and movements were much more viable in the west in the past than they are now.

>>19594002
Then read some history books. They were never voted in power, and the Second International was shocked to find out workers wouldn't rise against the capitalist class and was a central point of contention between anarchists and communists.

rightwing catholics are so cringe. either embrace the fact that catholicism is ancient blm, or drop the larp.

>>19594002
remember when after the russian revolution there was actually a mass vote but the results got thrown out by the bolsheviks cuz it rejected them? oh probably not because marxist tend to memory hole it

>>19594024
Red Army was about 200,000 people when they took power. You're haven't demonstrated you're in a position to judge any of the things you're trying to argue.

>>19594035
ancient black lives matter? what are you on about faggot?

>>19593986
>Thirdly, communists hadn't won a major election then either
>because like I keep telling you it didn't have popular support.

Read books.

The electoral laws were promulgated in December 1905 and introduced franchise to male citizens over 25 years of age, and electing through four electoral colleges. The elections were therefore not universal as they excluded women, soldiers, officers and some nationalities.[7] Nor were they equal since the constituencies differed greatly in size, and six curia were established which gave much more weight to the votes of landowners and peasants (those most loyal to the Tsar) than workers.[7]

The voting system was further complicated by the fact that representatives were not always directly elected.[8] Only nobles elected their representatives directly to the duma, while the rest of voters elected representatives to an electoral 'college', which in turn elected duma members.[8] As a result, 1 noble's vote was equivalent to 2 townsman’s votes, 15 peasant votes and 45 urban worker votes.[8]

---

Because this election was before the coup of June 1907 (which resulted in the changing of the electoral franchise) and because the Social Democratic Party and Socialist Revolutionaries ended their electoral boycott for this election, the Second Duma was the only one elected in the Russian Empire that included representatives of all the main parties in numbers that even remotely matched those parties’ popularity amongst the public.[5]

---

This was the first election after the coup of June 1907, in which the Tsarist government purposely altered the voting system for elections so as to create more pro-Tsar Dumas.[2] Landowners were given much more voting power, the voting rights of peasants and workers were restricted, and the number of representatives of so-called 'national remote areas' (i.e. ethnic minorities) was also reduced.[1][2] Only the most affluent third of population was able to vote in this and future elections, and only one per cent of the electorate now elected at least 300 of the 435 deputies.[2][4] Thus, the Third Duma, and the Fourth Duma after it, was less radical and more flexible than the First and Second Dumas, and both were much more favourable to the government.[2] Despite this, the Duma continued to attempt to influence the Tsarist government and hold the government to account, questioning ministers and opposing certain legislation.[4]

---
>second party
>No official electoral census exists. The estimated population of eligible voters at the time (excluding occupied territories) has been estimated at around 85 million; the number of eligible voters in the districts where polling took place has been estimated at around 80 million
>over 10 millions vote
>n-no popular support!

>>19594035
Lol true

>>19594048
it was literally a religion of slaves and middle class women upset that a minority criminal was killed by the government

>>19594046
And western communists today could not gather such numbers to revolt if they tried. Why? Because working class people are not so dissatisfied with their economic situation. Sure there are other factors but that is at least one major factor, which the communists themselves admit.

>>19594056
cringe retard

>>19594066
>Because working class people are not so dissatisfied with their economic situation.
Go out more

>>19594049
What are you trying to prove? That Bolsheviks had the support of 10 of the political so they were popular?

>>19594080
10% of the population*

>>19594067
enjoy sitting in mass tomorrow listening to some childless old boomer reading you stories about ancient israel

>>19594067
Not an argument

Celsus complained that Christianity was a phenomenon limited primarily to the lower class. He claimed that Christians actively sought out and converted the ignorant, uneducated, and lower class, as they were the only people who would believe in such a ridiculous theology and blindly follow its doctrines.[14] If an individual was from the upper class, and therefore well educated and naturally of good character, they would not be converted because they could not possibly believe in the absurd assumptions one had to in order to be considered "Christian". Celsus revealed himself to be a member of the upper class when he makes his statements regarding Jesus; who obviously could not be the son of god as he was born a peasant. The True Word stated that Mary would have been unworthy to be noticed by God "because she was neither rich nor of royal rank".[15] Celsus also claimed that Christianity was against personal betterment, as that could cause their followers to discover the fallacies within their religion. Celsus declared that Christians convert by "lead[ing] on wicked men by empty hopes, and to persuade them to despise better things, saying that if they refrain from them it will be better...".[16][17]

>>19594080
Can you read and count?
10 million votes out of 80 millions potential voters is not 10% of the population. Voters are not population. Seriously, how old are you?

>second party
>N-no support!

>>19594106
So you mean it's 12.5% instead of 10%? Is that the argument that they were popular?

>>19594091
Do you understand that without God life is nothing? If your thoughts are just chemical reactions firing in your brain (which atheism necessitates) then you have no way of distinguishing what is true. Your chemical reactions fire and tell you there is no God. My chemical reactions fire and tell me God exists. Under atheism, there is no way to distinguish these thoughts, because no chemical reaction is "truer" than another. If two fireworks go off next to each other, there is no way to say one firework is "truer" than the other firework. Atheism refutes itself.

>>19594119
And the other socialist parties got loads of votes too lmao

>>19593403
cope. The future of Catholicism is going to be South American socialist Christian countries. White Tradcatholicism is a 4chan larp

>>19594120
if israel story hour gives ur life meaning that's wonderful buddy keep it up

>>19594148
The ones that had coalitions with the liberals and socdems and were not revolutionary in reality?

>>19594161
They are like children watching their marvel movies

>>19594119
See >>19594148
He says "lmao", I'm not sure why
Yes, the three main parties in first free elections were left wing. What's so hard to understand about that?

>>19594170
Maybe he says lmao because like you he doesn't know anything about these parties? They were not communists.

>>19594120
Also
>G*D is real bro, just feel it, He's everywhere
>I don't feel it
>Just think about it bro, there must be a G*D, because it just needs to be there, ok?
Theism just refutes itself

>>19594167
The original argument we're having here is if the poor conditions of the working classes put Europe in danger of revolution.
Clearly if a huge chunk of a country is voting for parties that openly brand themselves as communist revolutionaries then that country is in danger of a revolution.
And what caused this huge chunk of people to have communist revolutionary sentiments? Could it be the communists' promise to lift them out of poverty and hardship?
If yes you've basically conceded your argument.

>>19594181
>They were not communists.
And...?
They were clearly left-wing (I mean, "Socialist Revolutionary" is quite telling), and anyway voting them does not prevent you from supporting October revolution. Serge was in no way an orthodox leninist and yet he participated in it.
There was social unrest, you can't expect people to keep their ideas forever in those times, "social unrest" is the opposite of that.

>>19594161
Do you have a response to the argument

>>19594208
Sound post, but
>Clearly if a huge chunk of a country is voting for parties that openly brand themselves as communist revolutionaries
The Italian Communist party was yet to come at the time of Rerum Novarum,
>The right to vote was reserved exclusively for upper-class males, those who paid a certain amount of taxes a year to the State and were over 25 years old. In 1881 the right was extended to include the middle-class and the minimum age lowered to 21 years. Universal male suffrage was only achieved in 1918.

So the "red scare" was not so much about "voting" than about protests etc

>>19593560
Anon, and I say this with sincerity, it's easier to understand considering how child labor was thing in those days. Morality is not even necessary ingredient to make the connection that something needs to be changed.

Not being able to make the connection with your concern, morality, with the working conditions and suffering of your fellow man is the barrier set in place by ideology.

If you go looking enough there are some real horrors going on at the present as well.

>>19594208
>>19594213
People voted for the Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries as a vote *against* revolution because the election took place after the Bolsheviks took power by force. So the fact that Bolsheviks still lost shows people did not want a revolution and the actual problem was the revolutionaries who were not only illegitimate, but they were a bigger threat to society than the working class. Which only supports the thesis that Pope Leo III misdiagnosed the situation.

>>19594244
Try to make an actual argument that relates to what I said, namely that there were bigger issues that the Church should've focused on. But history supports my point because the actual threat turned out to be the communists who still threaten society today

>>19594251
>because the election took place after the Bolsheviks took power by force.
???
Never happened
Moreover, what you said literally doesn't make sense. Why the fuck would the Bolsheviks allow elections AFTER "taking power by force", nonetheless allowing themselves to lose?
>HA! I'm an evil dictator, I WILL indict elections, just to lose them! THAT will show them!

Read books, or at least learn how to think

>The elections, however, did not produce a democratically-elected government. The Constituent Assembly only met for a single day the following January before being dissolved by the Bolsheviks. All opposition parties were ultimately banned, and the Bolsheviks ruled the country as a one-party state.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

>>19594270
Anon we have calendars and we know how time works. I can't help you anymore.

>>19594120
That argument was refuted by the Catholic Elizabeth Anscombe

>>19594157
>socialist countries
>the future of religion
anon...

>>19594276
>t-they took power BY FORCE!
>AND they held elections!
Have a nice saturday night

>>19593385
Working to alleviate the suffering of the poor is absolutely fundamental to the teachings of Christ. You simply cannot be a good christian if you don't care about it.

>>19594330
Shhh, don't tell him to read Matthew 25

>>19594276
we know that it works
not how it works

>>19594269
Types of governments come and go, but avarice has been long considered a sin for a reason. I don't see how communism is a threat considering the cold war ended 30 years ago though, especially considering the Fukuyama thesis at the time (agree or disagree is not the point). Seeing communism everywhere would be paranoid. There's no reason to focus on that in particular since to say authoritarianism would suffice and also cover the 20th c. Stalinist style along with North Korea plus a wider umbrella of examples of what to be against that dehumanize and threaten the dignity of people.

It's easier to point at something and call it communist than to constantly ensure the basic well-being of your fellow man and neighbor.

>>19594382
It has become a cliche to point out but if you look at the list of demands and goals in the communist manifesto it looks suspiciously similar to our current society in many respects. Whether they'll really pull the rug on the entire economy I don't know. Maybe they have refined the formula after the soviet union's troubles.

>>19594398
> if you look at the list of demands and goals in the communist manifesto it looks suspiciously similar to our current society in many respects.
What. I don’t think even the most ardent (sane) critics of communism would say that

>>19593385
> Charity for the poor and weak is not a fundamental Catholic value.
I'll pray for you anon.

>>19594294
You cant just say something is refuted you have to give an argument

>>19594382
Communism is not a type of government, it's an ideology. You still haven't demonstrated anything that supports your view, and I gave up expecting that you will.

>>19594410
Elle est mignonne

>>19594409
For example abolishing the family and nations. You can hardly even call modern marriage the same thing as traditional marriage and every nation is being turned into an international dumping ground.

>>19594432
>Communism is not a type of government, it's an ideology.
Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
Not the same anon btw.

>>19594446
Marx already predicted globalization, but today's world you don't really see "Workers of all world unite".

>>19594446
In our case that is the result of capitalism though (hence the fascist hostility both to bourgeois economics and Marxism, which they saw as twin forces of internationalism). Marx described capitalism as the “ultimate revolutionary force” under which “all that is solid melts into air”. This is one of the major sources of the critique of capItalism and liberalism from the organic conservative and communitarian perspective

>>19594455
Why are you telling me what Marx predicted, you asked for examples from the manifesto that resemble today's society and I gave you two. As I said they might do something a bit different with the economy, perhaps "universal basic income" or some such meme.

>>19594466
I dont think capitalism is even a thing in the way marxists talk about it but regardless the point stands about it having similarities to the manifestos aims.

>>19594486
You might want to read some conservative critiques of the socially disintegrative nature of capitalist modernity like Daniel Bell, Christopher Lasch, and Patrick J. Deneen

>>19594476
>you asked for examples from the manifesto that resemble today's society and I gave you two
Not the same anon.

>>19594432
>>19594450
In its 20th century appearances it was both. You're worried about some kind central committee with a figure at the top, plus also some way of thinking that can lead to that. USSR clearly had a way of running things that you disagree with, along with others that shared a connection to it, and that's what I'm referring to. Not in reference to what was thought in theory from the 19th century either (response to anon that replied). I'm just saying that authoritarianism would be a better label to use for your concerns.

The appropriateness of even using that word aside, with all that being said, I think you know what I'm referring to.

>>19594100
celsius sounds like a cringe retard that drank too much lead

>>19594504
I prefer to locate the source of the problems in specific financial practices than "capitalism" broadly.

>>19594091
I will thank you

>>19594512
If you understood that communism is an ideology perhaps you could start identifying the common ideological points and understand how it still exists today. But if when you think communism you think cold war, then you're talking bureaucratic centralism far detached from the communist ideology. Also the other anon is wrong too: communism is an ideology and he's talking about a communist society.

>>19594522
Not an argument
Also, how do you think J*sus turned water into wine?

>>19594523
You're the first on the list

>>19594540
miracle

>>19594539
>Also the other anon is wrong too: communism is an ideology and he's talking about a communist society.
(You) are wrong: communism is the opposite of ideology (=superstructure) precisely because it destroys superstructure and exposes structure.
Marxism is science, it employs critique and self-critique, a concept unknown to ANY ideology.
Read books.

>>19594545
What list?

>>19594549
It was just wine encrusted in the vases that got diluted in the fresh water + people already too drunk

3 When the wine was gone, [...]9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine **after the guests have had too much to drink**; but you have saved the best till now.”

>>19594554
This is just dumb semantics. Ideologies are just a collection of ideas that are related and with usually a common goal or point.
T. Marxist

>https://m.imdb.com/list/ls063880308/
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican%27s_list_of_films
Does the Vatican have good taste in kino? You decide!
>https://www.strawpoll.me/45896569

>>19594556
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_(list)

>>19594570
>T. Marxist
kek

>>19594572
I dont matter anywhere near enough lol. Even a Twitter poster with 500 followers has more influence than me. I also have no actual political goal, I just shitpost

>>19594562
They weren't wine vases -- they were containers for ritual cleansing. So if they were encrusted with anything, it was the encrusted funk of dirty bathwater.

>>19594571
>Nosferatu
Cool!

>>19594597
Do you actually know how wine is made?

>>19594539
That doesn't make any since considering how few rights workers have, the decline in unionization, the increase of financialization, and how just recently billionaires launched themselves into space. If communism truly exists, then it must be completely ineffective by the looks of it.

If you mean something culture related then I don't see how something like communism is related to that. When people allude to that it's just remnant from cold war hysteria.

>>19594671
dont you know that unions are evil anon read your ancaps

>>19594665
What's your point?

>>19594100
pic related. Celsus, probably.

>>19593923
I feel sorry for Henri De Lubac. He had a lot of good ideas about returning to the Church Fathers but got hoodwinked. I can understand his position at the time, the Neo-Thomists probably looked like the worse choice since they would have arguably locked the Church into a specific medieval theology that was ill suited to address modernity, but he didn't realize the depth of the depravity of those who would use his theology as an excuse to relativize Church teachings and undermine its authority.

I truly believe he was a devout and faithful man who simply made the wrong choice and was far too hopeful while not being skeptical enough about the corrosive influence of secular modernity on the Church. Digging in and drawing the line was the right option in hindsight but he could hardly be expected to know that at a time when it looked like the Church was about to become an antique and relic of history.

>>19593950
>The only way the Bolshevik Revolution could have happened is if people were willing to die for it. You couldn't topple the Czar with intellectuals alone.
So history is influenced by those who can best herd the cattle, not the decisions of the cattle themselves.

>>19594161
Is this the power of atheist philosophy?
>lol just watch ur marvel movies and don't think about it dude

>>19594100
>Celsus revealed himself to be a member of the upper class when he makes his statements regarding Jesus; who obviously could not be the son of god as he was born a peasant. The True Word stated that Mary would have been unworthy to be noticed by God "because she was neither rich nor of royal rank".
He thinks God would privilege people because of their social status or material possessions what a fucking retard. I'm sure the creator of the entire universe is really impressed by your fancy title and big bank account.

>>19593950
>The only way the Bolshevik Revolution could have happened is if people were willing to die for it. You couldn't topple the Czar with intellectuals alone.

the bolsheviks didn't topple the tzar, they overthrew keresnskys provisional government and there were only like 1000 people that participated in the october revolution that was largly bloodless

>>19594157
lmao you're all getting cucked out of your mutt herd by Bakker rip-off pentecostals, the shrinking soon to be minority of SA catholics are all white-ish middle class conservatives who don't even go to mass

>>19593929
>I Tatti library
based Renaissance Loeb. I'm about to start with their series on Ficino.

>>19595274
tbhwydesu I've avoided reading De Lubac and Rahner and the whole nouveau theologie crowd because of their association with the reformers. de Chardin the little I've read of him sounds like a proto-Francis, a back to nature religion kind of guy. where should I start with De Lubac?

>>19593560
>lack of morality in the world not the material condition of the working class.
The material conditions of the poor ARE the predominant moral crisis the world is facing.

>>19597193
the 100,000+ unborn children being blood sacrificed every day would like a word with you

>>19597237
>whataboutism
can we get back on topic please. recommend good papal documents and why they are good. or failing that theologians and why they are important.

>>19597237
>abortion because of poor living conditions
Hmm

>>19597193
No, the moral crisis stems from the absence of a moral authority with executive powers. It has nothing to do with the material conditions of the poor.

well I guess this is the Catholicism thread now that jannies have nuked the sedevacantism books thread

>>19599887
Jannies on /lit/ are special type of trannies

>>19599902
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the litanon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the litanon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the litanon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the litanon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the litanon began to hate.

>>19599941
>It was not part of their blood,
That's where you're wrong

>>19599887
I wonder what's their hate boner for Catholic threads.