/lit/ - Literature

>>21663771
I'm in the trinity section of the summa theologica and I just don't have the will to continue. I'm getting filtered on a profound level by the vocabulary he uses. Are there any resources that explain this?

>>21664635
De Trinitate (On the Trinity) - Augustine

don't worry, the summa really is quite dry and complicated.

the denouncement of sodomy, trans, and other various things the right dislikes occurs in the OT. the laws of the ot are made irrelevant through the nt. how do modern politically influenced christian converts consolidate this with all their talk of degeneracy? its not as if they keep the passover or obey any of the other ot laws are you pro circumcision too

>>21664673
>made irrelevant in the NT?
you have clearly not read the NT. Christ came to fulfill the law of the OT and not a single law is invalid. Also, there are passages in the NT which denounce degeneracy. Look into Jesus' sayings on marriage or into the epistles.

>>21664749
so are you pro circumcision? do you observe passover? do you construct a tabernacle properly? do you perform all the required sacrifices?

>>21664660
Thanks, anon.

Can't believe the imitation of christ wasn't mentioned

>>21663774
>>21663811
Seriously man , fix your pictures, I can't read a thing.

Anyways currently reading Imitation of Christ, highly recommend.

>>21664755
not a catholic anymore, but when I was the response to this is that Jesus fulfilled the need for many of the sacrifices that were required by virtue of him being an infinite being. No more sacrifice is necessary if an infinite self-sustaining sacrifice has occurred. And happens every day with mass. So the laws regarding sacrifice have been super ceded by an infinite sacrifice which was Jesus on the cross. as far as I remember it's been a while since I've thought about technicalities like that

>>21665397
>So the laws regarding sacrifice have been super ceded by an infinite sacrifice
That's terribly convenient given the Roman destruction of the second temple

>>21665417
Yeah that's partially why I kinda stopped caring about apologetics and any defense of Catholicism specifically. Things are just too convenient all the time. And under any scrutiny past the high middle ages, any logical argument falls flat. Faith based on reason is utterly useless anyway. My conception of God is still unshakably Catholic due to my upbringing, but I can't say that I really care about the institution or rituals within.

>>21663834
>>21663811
>>21663774
Are these charts any good? Or is it the usual /lit/ meme?

>>21665436
This has to be the dumbest argument against Catholicism I've ever read.

>>21666384
>>21663811
I made this chart. I would switch some stuff around today, but it's a good list.

I just started reading "In Defense of Purity" by Dietrich von Hildebrand, and I really think that it is unreadable:
The terms which should be the most important for him, are the ones which he leaves the most obscure, like "deepth" and "profound", or even if he gives a definition for one use of them, he uses the term also in different senses, which are incompatible with the given definition, but are still not defined.
His argument seems really viciously circular, (even if his premises might be true):
>The sexual sphere is morally relevant because it is profound (Whatever that may mean)
> The sexual sphere is profound because it is morally relevant.

Being convinced that analytical philosophy is the only true heir of the scholastics and the ancients, I already had low expectations when I bought the book, but even for someone who works within the phenomenological tradition / method I find that Hildebrand is a really bad philosopher and I wonder how the Germans were falling for mystics like Hildebrand or even worse ppl, whose name should not be mention, lest his disciples come here to preach about the aletheia of Beying.

Has anyone else read the book? Does it get better? I want to keep reading, because I hope that Hildebrand is a better theologian than a philosopher, although I already doubt that someone who lacks traits needed for doing good philosophy could turn out to be a good theologian.
Hildebrand gets praised by the editiors as having had an enourmous influence on catholic thought. Whom did he influence except JPII? (BTW, I believe that the personalism of JPII/Woytila was much more influenced by Kant than it was by Scheler)

>>21666384
To me, it looks like someone who just put in every book he read and liked.
I don't know why one should read Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Metaphysics in order to deepen one's understanding of BendictXVI's "Jesus of Nazareth"
One might argue that reading Aristotle is beneficial to reading Aquinas, but Aquinas does not always follow Aristotle, and Aquinas' purpose of engaging with Aristotle is not always exposition, but finding the truth, therefore one should not read Aquinas' commentaries on Aristotle in order to understand Aristotle. You can simply understand Aquinas by reading Aquinas. The same goes, though to a lesser degree for Platonists like Augustine. You can read Augustine without having studied Plato. Studying Plato and Aristotle is definitely a good thing, if you have the time to do it properly, than do it. But if you only want to read in order to get a superficial grasp, which might hopefully help you understand important catholic authors, let it be. A good philosopher makes his arguments explicit, which means that all the premises are stated before the conclusion, meaning that you can follow the argument by simply following the text.
While many of the books on these charts are good books (I haven't read all of them), the chart (and thread post) seems a bit midwit imo

>>21666501
*then

>>21664635
What are the terms which confuse you? Do you read in latin or a translation? Have you just tried to consult a philosophical or theological dictionary?

>>21666472
>Has anyone else read the book?
I have read or tried to read his Aesthetics because outside of Maritain and Piper, there doesn't seem to be any other writer who wrote about it.
He was, as you say, unreadable. Obscure usage of words, no definitions, and half the explanations are just footnotes to his other books, he's pretending everyone already knows them. I have gained nothing from reading it and it was one of the biggest disappointments of last year as far as reading goes.
As for his influence, I don't really know. I am in the same camp as you, analytics are the modern scholastics in spirit and reading continentals usually ends up being a massive waste of time and effort.
>>21666501
>I don't know why one should read Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Metaphysics in order to deepen one's understanding of BendictXVI's "Jesus of Nazareth"
I made the chart. It doesn't and as you say it's more of a collection of books I liked than anything specific. Aristotle and Plato are important because they will pop up whenever you read anything later on, or their concepts will be somewhere in the background. I also made it some 6 years ago and in the meantime, my base of good Catholic books has increased significantly, at that point I had read maybe 250 in total, today around 750.
I should remake it and add some better formating than MS Paint offers.

>>21666403
Hence why I said "partially". I don't even necessarily disagree with a lot of the doctrines. I'm fulling willing to accept the absurdity of it without reason. I'm far beyond caring about insignificant details. I just cannot seem to make the leap of faith to Catholicism over anything else. The only benefit in my mind would be the ease of not having to worry about living in a catholic community without being catholic. But even then I'm sure if I talked about my experience and thoughts about theology I would be (probably rightly) called out as a heretic. I just think Catholics are far too autistic about the rational purity of the dogma. When it is literally designed to be as paradoxical and absurd as possible.

>>21666827
>When it is literally designed to be as paradoxical and absurd as possible.
You on one side say that things fit too rationally and perfectly, on the other that it's paradoxical and absurd. I don't think you can have it both ways.

>>21666586
>outside of Maritain and Piper, there doesn't seem to be any other writer who wrote about it
Do you mean Josef Pieper? If so, what are your thoughts on him? I have only read his "Wahrheit der Dinge" (his dissertation I believe) and gained the impression that he should not be regarded as a serious academic philosopher, but rather as some sort of popular writer. I haven't read anything else of his works, but for now I also don't plan to read more of him.

> reading continentals usually ends up being a massive waste of time and effort.
Agree, but I still read them, I don't know why. They always seem super interesting at first sight, but then I am almost always disappointed by how they deal with the topic. I guess because I love procrastinating, or because I find it so much easier to find the flaws in their arguments and then I congratulate myself about how smart I am. I should really stop doing this. I realize that what I do is not virtuous, and that I should study other authors (especially as I am expected to study other authors).

>at that point I had read maybe 250 in total, today around 750
That is impressive! May I ask how old you are and whether you live celibate? I am married and I have kids, I have to work and I simultaneously go to uni. Time for concentrated reading has become a very rare resource for me, but I also have become a very slow (and I hope careful) reader. Sometimes reading a few lines of Aristotle will take me an entire day or even more.
Do you read also non-catho/lit/ books? Do you read papers? For a long time, most of what I read were papers, only now, since I got more into ancient scholarships and studying the classics I read more monographs than papers.

>>21665417
> being convenient implies being wrong
imagine the inference (aka the smell)

>>21666403
not the dumbest, it may not even in my top list, but still not a very great argument. At least he knows the position against which he is arguing, seemingly to some greater degreee than those on my top list.
But we Catholics (assuming) should not speak like the rest of reddit/lit/4chan, bringing forth only insults against those who are visibly in need of clarity and truth.

>>21666837
>gained the impression that he should not be regarded as a serious academic philosopher, but rather as some sort of popular writer
I would say that he was more of a philosopher than say Chesterton or C.S. Lewis, but less than Maritain or Feser. He did write philosophy and lecture in it, but what you gain from it is sentiment and applicable ideas for daily life more than anything in terms of concepts. His Only the Lover Sings and Leisure are both solid works and I would recommend them.
>They always seem super interesting at first sight, but then I am almost always disappointed by how they deal with the topic.
There could be a barrier in thinking and vocabulary. I'm a lawyer and most of my reading is in scholastics or political philosophy when it comes to non-fiction. So I am used to a dry and technical sort of writing and I can grasp it, while I struggle a lot more with continentals, even when they actually do have something to say.
>May I ask how old you are and whether you live celibate?
28, not married so I guess celibate.
>Do you read also non-catho/lit/ books?
Of course and a lot. Here's my goodreads https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/157285346-pinky-2-0
>Do you read papers?
Only articles on journals and by certain authors I follow. Substack as well. I read what my friends write as well, we have a blog and are a circle of occasional essayists. Around 150 articles so far in 7 years.

>>21663834
Why did you include the Brothers Karamazov on the Bread Pill list? I just started to discover D. and I truly love his style. (Yesterday I read how the Raskolnikov's demons fled when the priest heard Marmeladoff's confession and gave him the last rites and the Eucharist in R.'s presence. Was a super cool scene, and D. doesn't make it too obvious. The drunkard
Marmeladoff seems like a prophet, and his wife like a true saint, carrying the cross and always forgiving and caring, but not hesitant to reveal her inner feelings towards God. Really great characters only a Christian could write. (Marmeladoff and especially his wife are my favorite characters so far)

>>21666834
What I mean is that it during my time studying apologetics when I was a hard-line traditionalist, it seems like a lot of reasoning is applied after the fact. This is obviously going to be true of theology, since it's a logical analysis of the divine (which is ridiculous in my opinion). But where it seems most prevalent is in the defense of the Church and the institution. Specifically as I mentioned, the rituals within. I suppose the leap of faith to be made there is in the institution and I understand that it's guided by the holy spirit and such. But so many other religious institutions say that same exact thing. Abstracted away from any belief, the institution is no different from any other. And you can rationalize that fact all day, but I don't think it changes any fundamental truth about it.

If It's not obvious, the only theology and philosophy as of late that I've given any care to is kierkegaard. Everything else just seems so flimsy and weak.

>>21666860
I still go to mass on Sundays, but I haven't partook in any sacrament in years. Significant religious trauma and mental illness is to blame for that I believe. I really do just think that everyone needs to come to God in some personal way, and many use apologetic and rationality as a substitute for a real encounter and understanding of God. Not that he could be understood entirely, but at least to have some substance in their mind of what the divine really is. Language is the domain of semiotics, which is firmly within logic, which is paradoxical and self-defeating (Although I just mentioned that that is not necessarily a bad thing - which is something to think about I guess). In the end, I would like to be able to find someway to be at peace with the ritualistic, institution based Catholicism. But I'm not sure there is a place for me other than a monastery.

>>21663771
Clinging to the Clementine Vulgate is cringe. Basically just burying your head in the sand.

>>21666889
>There could be a barrier in thinking and vocabulary.
No, I just get autistic about invalid inferences and equivocations and stuff, or the worst, completely unsubstantiated claims.

>>21666908
>Everything else just seems so flimsy and weak.
I found it to be completely the opposite. The irrationalism of Kierkegaard is so tied to Kantian epistemology I have moved far away from him. I'm a firm realist and I have no issues with what you are describing because it all fits incredibly well based on what I consider to be the best school of philosophy, aristotelian-thomism.
>Abstracted away from any belief, the institution is no different from any other.
There are some differences in how it works and it still exists is even improbable looking through history, but it is an institution that does function based on the same principles as any other institution. But I don't see the problem with this.

>>21666924
>I'm a firm realist and I have no issues with what you are describing
I think that is a temperament difference in all honesty, rather than some kind of deeper logical contradiction. Different ways of looking at the same fundamental object of Truth. So yeah no issue it's a subjective mode of understanding.

>But I don't see the problem with this
For me the issue comes with justifying the rituals and customs within. I understand that the _idea_ is Jesus trusted Peter to carry the keys to the kingdom and found the papacy. But that is again a justification applied after the fact. It was a way to validate the papacy, by the same institution that had stomped out other interpretations. After that everything follows obviously and I can see why people have faith in the institution to interpret scripture. But I just cannot shake the fact that from an objective standpoint, abstracted from any attachment to dogma or creed - it just looks like one group got more power and justified their own existence and validity with texts.

At this point I'm sure it sounds like I'm a Gnostic or protestant or relativist which is not true, everyone has a subjective and unique understanding. But it pales in comparison to an absolute. But the way to that absolute is not in logic and rationality and institutional faith, but paradox, angst, and personal encounter. All truth is subjective in the sense that you need to first "see" (read: come up with, invent, encounter) something before you "know" it.

>>21665397
A sacrifice of infinite worth does not need to be repeated on a daily basis for 2,000 years.

>>21666941
I also may be misrepresenting that to be fair. I would ask someone who studies apologetics more

>>21666945
This was an important criticism during the Reformation. My experience has been that some Catholics will tell you that it's only a sacrifice in the sense that it's "re-presented", others will actually just tell you it's a sacrifice. Certainly the conception is different. The Reformers held it to be a singular occurrence that saves and perfects all to whom it is applied, rather than something that needs to be continually applied over and over and which may not actually save you at the end of the day.

>>21666949
The official dogma is that the Eucharist is literally body and blood of Christ, and by consuming it you are communicate with God. So I would say that for a Catholic it is a literal sacrifice, hence the title of the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass".

>>21666940
>All truth is subjective in the sense that you need to first "see" (read: come up with, invent, encounter) something before you "know" it.
That you do, but a proposition is true or false regardless of our subjective perceptions. We may have different ways of approaching a proposition and reaching a correct or an incorrect conclusion. But it doesn't become true or false because of our experiences.
We most probably have different temperaments, sentiments and ways of approaching things. I'm very much not much of a mystic and I don't really 'experience' faith on an emotional level.

>>21666958
This would necessitate that there was something deficient in Christ's death on the cross. Also transubstantiation is illogical nonsense.

>>21666967
>Also transubstantiation is illogical nonsense.
Why? Why could God not influence an accident in a way that he changes the substance?

>>21666966
Exactly. I think when I say that truth is subjective, people often interpret it as relativism. There is absolute objective captial-T Truth out there. But I think it is inaccessible through logical reasoning. Precisely because it is paradoxical and absurd. And that's not to say you should build up a theology or philosophy to the point of absurdity, and then step over into faith. But hit the ground running on it. Which is why I say that I understand and accept and even admire and love the absurdity and illogicality of religion. My issue is why choose one over the other. The only answer to that is rational argumentation, but as previously stated it cannot be a faith.

>>21666967
>transubstantiation is illogical nonsense.
transsubstantiation happens all the time. When I die, the essence of my body changes. The matter remains, the essence changes. Something goes out of existence, and something else comes into existence. It is essential to my body that it is alive. It would not be this body if it were not alive.

>>21666974
The accidents do not become proper to the new substance, e.g. if the substance changes from bread to flesh, the accident "made of wheat" does not become proper to the flesh. But location is an accident; it's the physical presence of matter in space. So the location of the bread does not thus become proper to the flesh, meaning there's no logical means to locate the flesh in any particular place, such as on the altar.

>>21666984
Transubstantiation, as it is used today, refers to a specific explanation of the Eucharist in terms of Aristotelian hylomorphism.

>>21666988
and I outlined the aristotelean theory of essential change.

>>21666992
When you die your body remains your body, it only ceases its biological function and becomes disunited from your soul. It's still a body.

>>21666994
Have you even read De Anima? Aristotle is very clear on that a living body and a corpse cannot be numerically identical.

>>21666997
Does he resolve this? >>21666985

>>21666985
>locate the flesh in any particular place
Yes, a substance is not a material thing, so of course you cannot "locate" a substance. You only draw a conclusion of a substance based in accidents of a thing. None of us can see a substance, we have experiences and from them come to conclude that substances are proper to beings, etc.
>>21666988
>>21666984
But the other anon is correct in saying that a change in substance in general happens all the time and a change of substance from living being to a corpse is not going to change almost anything in the accident of the human body. Snapping a correct blood vessel in the brain or a certain nerve is going to leave you with an indistinguishable accident but a completely different substance. What separates the Eucharist from a change from one substance to another is in the fact that God creates the change of a substance in the same accident.

It's really weird to see these threads as a Catholic. The process of religious reading in Catholicism is so different to Protestantism, the idea of reading books with Catholic content making you more Catholic or better spiritually informed is just very alien. The type of books chosen is also very strange, like it's conjured from a list of books noted by Protestants to be Catholic, and assumed to have the same role in Catholicism as a notable religious text in Protestantism would. I suppose it's because religious belief without near universal literacy of converts didn't happen for Protestants, and certainly not for as long a history. The pictures and statues are there for a reason.

>>21666998
Instead of answering whether you have actually read Aristotle, (after lecturing others on Aristotle) you ask about whether Aristotle even covered the topic about which you were talking previously. Sir, you are a troll, but you might not notice it yourself.
Of course are the accidental properties of some primary substance always the properties of a primary substance which has an essence, a secondary substance. You only have to read the first 20 lines of the Organon in order to know Aristotle's position on that.

>>21666924
Also you mentioned kantian epistemology. I haven't read Kant, but a lot of my ideas and conclusions seem to lead me to him. What about his epistemology do you dislike? If you could debrief, I've just never read it but am familiar and want to know the criticisms because I really take to it a lot from what I know.

>>21663811
The Silmarillion?

>>21666998
sorry, my last message >>21667009 needlessly rude. But you got quite the nerves of telling that Catholicism is nonsense and teach others about Aristotle when it is quite clear that you haven't read much of Aristotle. Still sorry, we catholics should not be like (((the rest of the AI generated /plebbit/chan text bots))), but rather the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
If you have any questions about Aristotle, ask me, I think that I am qualified to answer on many questions concerning his metaphysics. (My favorite philosopher) I will be online in 6h again.
Have a nice day!

>>21667008
>like it's conjured from a list of books noted by Protestants to be Catholic,

There are non-catholic authors on the list, like Dostojewsky.

> the idea of reading books with Catholic content making you more Catholic or better spiritually informed is just very alien

I really like St. Anselms thoughts on the relevancy of theology for faith. Anselm argued against a position, which was similar to yours. People claimed that one should not do philosophy and theology, and that these were really some sort of decadent activites which would lead away from the practice of the lived faith.
Anselm's responses to such accusations are really interesting, some of them feature a very well worked out theory of mental acts, which prefigured people like Frege and Wittgenstein.

Ask yourself: For any proposition p, what does it mean to believe in p and can you believe in p without understanding p? No, you cannot believe in p without understanding p. Therefore the practice of lived faith needs understanding of the doctrines of faith. But this is theology, since
>theology is faith seeking reason
. <3 (How can anyone not love Anselm's philosophy?)

>>21667071
>>21667071
>There are non-catholic authors on the list, like Dostojewsky.
I don't see how you thought that made it unlike what I said. I should probably specifically say culturally Protestant AngloAmerican cultures.
>Anselm argued against a position, which was similar to yours
It isn't similar from my perspective, and I assume you've misinterpreted what I said, and seemingly expanded it to philosophy and theology, to act as though non sequiturs spoken back and forth constitute a conversation and ultimately to tell me things you would have said regardless.

>>21667071
For example one of the dialectical opponents of Anselm was Gregory the Great:
>Fides non habet meritum, cui humana ratio raebet experimentum.
Gregor, Hom. 26 in Evang. n. 1 (PL 76,1197c)

or St. Bernhard of Clairvaux:
>Est autem, quod in se est, omnis scientia
bona, quae tamen veritate subnixa sit; sed tu qui cum timore et tremore tuam ipsius operari salutem pro temporis brevitate festinas, ea scire amplius priusque curato, quae senseris viciniora saluti

>Sunt namque qui scire volunt eo fine tantum, ut sciant: et turpis curiositas est. Et sunt qui scire volunt, ut sciantur ipsi: et turpis vanitas est.

A very similar point like the one by St. Anselm was made also by Albert the Great:

>sicut etiam in aliis credibilibus primo scimus quid est quod proponitur per sermonem, et postea arguitur mens per consensum.
Albertus Magnus, In III Sent. d. 23 a. 18 (Borgnet 28), 438

>sicut prius est intelligere quidem quod dicitur per sermonem, quam assentire illi per credulitatem.
Albertus Magnus, In III Sent. d. 23 a. 18 (Borgnet 28), 439

>>21667095
so you are not the anon who said that
>theology is a logical analysis of the divine (which is ridiculous in my opinion)
>>21666908
?

>>21667102
Seems pretty clear you aren't trying to have a discussion with him but to stroke your e-peen.

>>21667009
I'm not talking about Aristotle, I'm talking about your doctrine, which I should not need to have read Aristotle to understand. If I'm wrong then explain to me how. How specifically is the location, say on the altar, conferred to the flesh?

>>21667121
what is wrong with showing someone that his thoughts were already the subject of a very interesting philosophical dispute and that wise and learned men considered his position worthy of argumentation? Also, mental acts are super interesting.

>>21667134
I'm sure you know already and don't need me to tell you.

>>21667110
I have zero idea why you think I'm the second post. Anon is not all one person. I didn't even read his post before responding and nothing of what I said was in reference to what he said, but in reference to the list. I still haven't read his post tbph, but looking at it now it looks like anon was talking about Kierkegaard so I don't know how you got
>don't read philosophy or theology
out of either post. It looks like you're just pumping out non sequiturs to everyone ITT.

>>21667131
Also I read about this problem from a Catholic source, specifically about how it was addressed by Scotus. It fits anything I've ever read about transubstantiation and I think I'm presenting it correctly.

>>21667131
>I should not need to have read Aristotle to understand
Certainly you should as the explanation he's going to give is going to be based on aristotelian metaphysics. You don't need to understand Aristotle to know bread and wine, by operation of God, become flesh and blood. But if you want to understand the mechanisms, which you seem to be asking for, you'll need Aristotle because that's the doctrine we believe and it's the way we explain it.

As for how specifically the bread is transubstantiated into flesh? By God's power, as he is omnipotent and replacing substances is possible (as shown before). Or are you expecting us to give a detailed account of how God exactly does it? Because I don't think anyone knows.

>>21667139
stop whining. It won't help you, since there IS nothing wrong with introducing someone else to philosophy.

>>21667143
>noone said theology le bad
>theology is absurd because it strives to be a logical analysis of the divine
>absurd
>le bad
? ok.

>>21667131
The primary substance is on the altar and the secondary substance is in the primary substance, not as a seperable part, but essentially in it. The secondary substance is not local, but the primary is.
And you were coming back with
>you don't know what you are talking about, transsubstantiation goes back to aristotle's hylomorphism. >>21666988

>>21667161
good post

>>21667170
>? ok
>Still hoping I'm the other anon
You know you could quote the anon who actually said that if you want to talk to him about it, instead of hoping that my skimming his post when you linked it would transform me into him. Because that hope seems unlikely.

>>21667185
a shame. its over. no transsubstantiation of anon through angry post. mfw

>>21667170
Is the "primary substance" the accidents?

>>21667198
no, it is the individual object which has an essence and accidents.

>>21667203
How do you separate the object from what it is?

>>21667214
socrates =/= man

Socrates is a man
Socrates is not the form of manhood.
There are many men, only one Socrates.
(recommendation: Read the first chapters of the Categories, if you want to know the lingo.)

>>21667214
>>21667216
Also, in the later Aristotle (hylomorphism), matter is used as a criterion of individuating several instances of one and the same essential form.

>>21667110
afraid so

>>21667216
That's not what I mean. Let me try to rephrase.

So there is an "object," which has physical properties as well as an essence. The essence is integral to the "object." So at this point, would you say that the physical properties are "proper" in some sense to the essence?

>>21667224
ok, no problems, I have already calmed my autism to some degree.

>>21667226
>would you say that the physical properties are "proper" in some sense to the essence?

some physical properties are accidental properties of the first substance and some property (singular) is the essence, the secondary stubstance, of the primary substance.
As I said, it is not an accident of the secondary substance that it is on the altar, since a secondary substance is not local, but rather a universal form. It does therefore not have this accidental property. But the primary substance does have this property.
No mystery involved here, almost everything can be stated clearly within the theory of transsubstantiation.
The secondary substance has quite some other properties from the primary substance. For example a secondary substance is an essential form. But the primary is not.
But I really recommend you to read the pre-praedicamenta of Aristotle's categories if these conceptual distinctions are wholly new to you.
Saying that Catholicism is nonsense will come of much more convincing when you at least have understood the basic concepts.

>>21667170
Kierk-anon here. I'm all in favor of absurdity I believe it is essential to Faith. I think that the logical analysis of the absurd is ridiculous. I simply don't see a point in the rationalization of the divine and see it more as a cop-out of true experience and encounter with God. God is inherently ineffable and beyond our understanding. And our logic pales in comparison to what he is. The only thing theology is really good for is better humbling yourself that you really no nothing about God. This is seen by the inherent holes and logical contradictions of literally everything. You can basically poke a hole into every argument possible. Except for one which admits its own absurdity and renders itself entirely to Faith on the strength of the absurd. At least, that's where I stand. I think by studying theology broadly among all sorts of different religions cultures and understandings, you come to the realization that no one knows anything, but are all somehow united in a common feeling and intuition. Which is usually some sort of mysticism or "one-ness" with God, for lack of a better term.

>>21667143
It's almost like an aging japanese-inspired image board from 2004 dedicated to pornography and anime is a bad place to talk about the intricacies of Faith and epistemology :o

>>21667268
>you really no nothing about God
>no
>"know"

excuse my retardedness I only got like 5 hours of sleep last night oops

>>21667268
>It's almost like an aging japanese-inspired image board from 2004 dedicated to pornography and anime is a bad place to talk about the intricacies of Faith and epistemology :o

^^ at least we don't have censorship. I find many non-bots here quite wholesome btw.

>>21667264
Am I reading this correctly that Christ's flesh is a universal form? That doesn't seem right to me.

>>21667268
>This is seen by the inherent holes and logical contradictions of literally everything. You can basically poke a hole into every argument possible. Except for one which admits its own absurdity and renders itself entirely to Faith on the strength of the absurd

Kierkanon, that is a quite strong claim! I just want to point out that logical analysis and ontological proofs are not really the same, and that you seem to be flip-floping on who is actually your oponent.
Btw, noone thinks that you can know everything about God through a priori proofs.
Besides rational theology (aka philosophy), you also have to know and understand how God reveals himself, the revelation (aka theology). You yourself say that we have to encounter God in order to know him. This means, that we have to understand the revelation - we have to do theology. Of course, you emphasize the personal aspect of it, which I do not in the same manner as you. Studying philosophy and theology can be a personal thing. Not everyone is a visionary. Some people, (like me) have to rely on scripture and try to understand it in order to get to know God. I can speak to God in my prayers, that is my personal relationship with God, but God only speaks to me through the Church, (as far as I am aware of), through the scripture and through the sacraments and the teachings of the church. I think that I am much clearer on what this personal aspect of my relationship with God actually is. If I am right in my suspicion, and you are the anon who is thinking about his vocation for joining a monastary, then it is my honest and well-meant advice, to think about and reflect on how you imagine that it is possible to have a personal relation with your creator.

>>21667293
I don't know exactly what you are thinking, but I guess that you are understanding correctly (though possibly still in a confused manner). Of course I cannot know.

Look, what is a universal form? Something which can be instantiated at several different places at the same time. If this is your definition of "universal form", and you believe that Christ's flesh can be instantiated in several different places at the same time, than it would be rational of you, to think that Christ's flesh is a universal form, as it fulfills the necessary and sufficient conditions of the relevant definition.

>>21667274
>I find many non-bots here quite wholesome btw.
It is rather striking desu

>>21667342
>logical analysis and ontological proofs are not really the same
That's a good distinction, I might rephrase my thoughts more clearly in those terms.
>Btw, noone thinks that you can know everything about God through a priori proofs.
For sure, I hope I wasn't coming off that way. Pretty sure Aquinas ends the summa basically saying that.

I do think the root of the issue as you say is the interpretation of a personal understanding of God. Where I believe that it can only happen through personal revelation and understanding in a subjective mode of thinking. (subjective, not relative). The opposite would be as you say, receiving the revelation through the words of others. Which is then after the fact, rediscovered for the self. An external objective, then becomes subjective and a personal understanding flourishes from there. But the danger there, is that the truth never enters the domain of subjective experience, and thus never becomes an infinite, self-sustaining truth based on Faith. It will always be tested and analytically dissected which in the unforgiving reality of self-defeating logic will lead to a despair and nihilism.

A while ago I was skimming summaries of Jung (yeah I should probably just read the primary texts but oh well) and it talked about his definition of introversion vs. extroversion. Which was highly illuminating. The real root of the definition, is which way information flows. Whether it's primarily suited towards the self (subjective) or external (objective). In reality it has nothing to do with parties or social battery or whatever (although those tend to be manifestations of the dichotomy). Basically, if the external world is secondary to the internal world it would be introversion. Whereas if the internal world is secondary to the external, it is extroversion. I think an extroverted individual would be more inclined to rationality, logic, and scriptures. Whereas an introverted person would be more attuned to internal workings and intuitive based knowledge or "feeling". Perhaps it's better to think about a synthesis of the two ideas. But that's just something to think about for later.

This is particularly why I think I've been attracted to the monastic vocation for my whole life. The freedom to just think and meditate on the internal and understanding of God sounds very peaceful.

>>21667342
I'm the anon you wanted to transform into Kierkegaard anon. This post kind of confirmed for me that you're coming from a non Catholic background. "I believe because it's absurd" and "I'm mistaken therefore I am" are pretty commonly used Latin quotes. It's weird you wanted to spam irrelevant Latin quotes at me without knowing the kind of knock knock punchline ones. That's the kind of weird I was getting off the OP and these threads in general, like trying to write a local's guide to a country you're unfamiliar with.

>>21667574
You might be quoting the wrong anon, I think that's the aristotelian anon (the better one, I only have a rudimentary understanding.

>>21667600
Perhaps you're both not Catholic, but it does encapsulate my point well. Catholics don't see absurdity of faith as a strong or out there claim of note. It's a very strange thing to get an exclamatory sentence back about.

One thing that helped me realize the "one true institutional church" concept was bunk was the sex abuse crisis. If you're a Catholic, and then a priest rapes your child, and then you leave the church, you then go to hell. Thanks, Jesus.

>>21667651
"Leaving" in that case falls under greater obligations, so you probably not only don't count as having left, you'd probably be morally deficient if you didn't.

>>21667697
Are you sure? Such a person, let's say, knows and understands all of the Catholic Church's claims about itself, and understood them to be true, and then knowingly rejects them. I'm pretty sure this is damnable in Catholic theology. Your child being raped by a priest would not void Christ's promises to the Church, etc.

>>21667709
Abusus non tollit usum. Excommunicating yourself over moral differences is thoroughly allowed, and not considered apostasy. The idea the priesthood is without sin isn't dogma, and plenty of saints were told to cease and desist by all level of the hierarchy before God, and still acted in grace. It doesn't make any sense under doctrine to damn such people, and the ones who spoke up are more likely present and future saints for their courage, honesty, and charity.

>>21667622
>Catholic, but it does encapsulate my point well. Catholics don't see absurdity of faith
That's correct, we don't see it as absurd at all, in fact, it is considered quite literally the most rational thing available to man because there is no better epistemic source of truth than God.

>>21667737
>Excommunicating yourself over moral differences is thoroughly allowed
[citation needed]

>>21667741
I don't think you understood my post.

>>21667746
>Why does not everyone line up at communion?
This isn't even exclusive to this moral difference, you can literally be divorced and get none of the ecclesiastical sanctions, let alone divine God's judgement.

>>21667767
Getting divorced doesn't cut you off from the church.

>>21667776
Are you under the impression that rape does? How would that even work?

>>21667790
Have you completely misunderstood what I said here? >>21667651

>>21667802
I understand that's not Catholic dogma and have no idea why you think it would be.

>>21667804
Can you show me some citation that says that a person can with full knowledge leave the church and not be damned?

>>21667747
Quite possible.
>>21667808
He can't, because that is the mortal sin of schism and no person in mortal sin can be saved. Such a person would need to receive absolution or have a perfect contrition before death.

>>21667808
How are they leaving the church with full knowledge? Are they writing to someone to ask to be apostasized and for what?

>>21667817
>How are they leaving the church with full knowledge?
By not acting from a position of invincible ignorance.

>>21667816
>mortal sin of schism
Lol, nope, and absolution can be granted in absence of the formal rites which allow it for things that are actual sins and not made up ones. Tell me you don't know Catholicism without telling me.

>>21667823
>Leaving the church is a "made up" sin
Wow

>>21667822
Well obviously because nobody in the Church has invincible ignorance, but that does not explain how you think they are leaving when they are following the moral obligation they have.

>>21667829
Schism is not a recognised mortal sin. You made it up. It's not even one of the new mortal sins, kek.

>>21667836
>Missing mass on a day of obligation is a mortal sin
>Literally leaving the church entirely isn't
okay

>>21667849
There's plenty of reasons why you don't have to attend holy days of obligation, including because it would be unhealthy for you to do so. In fact, attending when it would be unhealthy for you to do so is a sin, like observing fasts when anorexic is a sin.

>>21667823
>absolution can be granted in absence of the formal
Yes, which is why I explicitly named perfect contrition. Don't pretend to be smarter than you are. Who but a Catholic with some knowledge of terminology would use the phrase perfect contrition, as it has a technical meaning?
As the council of Florence teachers
The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straight away to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains (Session 6 — July 6,1439).

Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire (Session 8 — Nov. 22, 1439).

[The holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church (Session 11 — Feb. 4, 1442).

>>21667854
Yes I know that. You've responded on nothing more than a technicality, which is all you can do.

>>21667862
You said they would have to receive absolution and form perfect contrition. That is false, and if you have knowledge of Catholicism to that point, you know it's false.

>>21667864
I am failing to see why you want to think those people damned or you're well placed to judge.

>>21667869
He said "or" you illiterate mong.

Internet Catholics are always the best witness against Catholicism.

>>21667875
I did misread it. But since he knows they would have to be independently schismatic, it's much of the same.

>>21667862
>Who but a Catholic with some knowledge of terminology would use the phrase perfect contrition, as it has a technical meaning?
A larper stuck in the 1400s who believes rape victims are damned by parents who keep their promise to reject works of the devil and act in accordance with the gifts bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit?

>>21667910
Who ever said anything about rape victims? The original post was about the parent.

>>21667921
Was the rape victim not baptised?

>>21667923
I was talking about the *parent* of the victim leaving the church.

>>21667927
Is the parent letting the raped child stay on their own with the rapist every Sunday? Because then, yeah, that's unholy, cruel, and illegal.

>>21667932
Every reply you make is disingenuous.

What went wrong?

>>21667936
No it isn't. The rule you want to pass which damns the parent damns the child. They're both Catholic, unless the parent for some reason already chose to make the child not Catholic but also send him over to a rapey priest for one on one time, but that seems bizarre.

>>21667651
good post, rabbi.
reminds me of >>21664673

>>21667992
That post was a silly one. Mine is not. If there's only one singular church which you must be a member of to be saved, then it means they can abuse you or your family in whatever way they want.

>>21668003
Except the Catholic Church doesn't believe you have to be a member to be saved. It's actually harder to be good as a member than without knowledge of the Church.

>>21668013
My example was someone who was already a Catholic and understands the Church's dogma about itself.

>>21668023
They would be sinning to expose the kid to unnecessary torture. You're forgetting every good Catholic mother who reported it to the system because they didn't want their or anyone else's child raped. They weren't going into the bishop's office thinking "oh no I'm the devil" because they possess the grace and knowledge to know it should be reported and stopped. If your moral sense is telling you that rape is okay because church, the devil is in you and you are attempting to blaspheme and defile His Bride.

>>21667574
There seem to be some misunderstandings: I just replied to your accusation
>you're just pumping out non sequiturs to everyone >>21667143
this-merging-anons-by-thought desire did not really evolve out of my brain, I just played along, because I thought that you wer making a good joke. I am the guy who is autistic about primary and secondary substances and finds Hildebrand unreadable.

>This post kind of confirmed for me that you're coming from a non Catholic background.

Why? What was so uncatholic about >>21667342 ? I want to know,
I AM a catholic, from a catholic background. Actually, I just returned from mass. (Thought of you anons during mass<3)
And what do I not know? Credo quia absurdum or what? Why do you think that?

I think that the thread is fine. Why should catholics not be discussing catho/lit/? There are some rabbinical bot posts in here maybe, but I guess that we all already got used to them.
I don't get your point.

>>21668013
>Except the Catholic Church doesn't believe you have to be a member to be saved.
Yes it does. One must be joined to the Church in ordinary or extraordinary means to be saved, through baptism, as it ipso facto joins every baptized person under the juristiction of the Church. How one will be judged we have no way of knowing, but we know how those who are not joined to the Church will be judged. It's even in Dominus Iesus, which was published in 2000. I'm posting this because it's an interesting document, regardless of the other disingenuous anon who isn't here to discuss in good faith.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

>>21668056
>what is invincible ignorance
>why does the catechism say nobody is predestined to hell and especially not by circumstances beyond their control
Pull the other one, it has bells on.

>>21668063
Which part in "One must be joined to the Church in ordinary or extraordinary means" was unclear? I'm not speaking in riddles. I'm speaking in standard terminology which you wilfully ignore for reasons unknown.

>>21668053
Bro send a message on Goodreads, liked profile in earlier posts

>>21668076
So you mean everyone in the world and across the galaxy, including the Gelgameks, and all moral species outside the Church? Sure, but then almost everyone's a Catholic under that definition and it becomes useless to say outside the Church there is no salvation because a moral Hindu is part of the communion of saints.

>>21667622
>Catholics don't see absurdity of faith as a strong or out there claim of note.

I guess I see now what you were intending to communicate to me.
I was not specifically talking about credo-quia-absurdum but rather was responding to Kierk-anon's talk about
>the unforgiving reality of self-defeating logic >>21667437

Kierk-anon, as I understand him, says that not only faith is illogical, but that logic itself is "self-defeating", (I would like to know what kind of arguments Kierk-anon could bring for such a claim? Logical ones? Illogical (aka "bad") ones?)
I wasn't saying that credo QUIA absurdum is a bad reason for faith - although I was citing a response to the claim that reason is a bad reason for faith - I was not making any kind of normative judgements about the reasons for living faith at all. I believe that all reasons for faith are good enough, (even imperfect acts of repentence (fear of punishment) are good enough) and that actually noone can chose the faith by himself, since the faith is a gift of grace, which one cannot cause oneself, although one can prepare oneself for this precious gift.

>>21668092
oh no, a futher confusion xd ( i guess ?) I am not OP, there are two people who find Hildebrand unreadable. I find "In Defense of Purity" unreadable, OP who read 800 books or so, and has the goodreads account, found Hildebrand's aesthetics unreadable. I don't have a goodreads

>>21668137
I think you are confusing OP and me (Goodreads and Hildebrand is unreadable and 750 or so books read)
I'll post a throwaway discord in that case, then send the real one
https://discord.gg/qtpetMHQ

>>21667808
If they stay with full knowledge they're subjecting an already victimized child to a known rapist, then they're denying the Church's true grace and substituting a false Church who allows rapist priests to be instruments of grace.
>leaving Catholicism
Legitimately doesn't work even if you're atheist. You remain Catholic and to be judged by those standards. How you're graded, nobody knows, but once you've been in, there is no out without direct and specific jurisdiction from the Pope and he has no time for that. Imagine if every teenage atheist was allowed petition him for release, he'd never get to any of his duties.

>>21663774
Ant-man make it bigger

>>21668243
Staying doesn't require you to continue subjecting the child to abuse.

>>21667437
Kierkanon, what do you mean by
>But the danger there, is that the truth never enters the domain of subjective experience
?
Do you mean to say that there is a danger in not relating the comprehended philosophy & theology to one's own personal life? Like some professor for theology, who knows everything but doesn't ask daily for the grace of faith? Faith without works is dead. Intellectual faith without works is just as dead. If that is your point, you have a valid concern.

But the other thing which you claim, that reason leads into despair and nihilism is false. And I mean not only that this is an entirely unconvincing point, philosophically speaking. I also mean that it stems from an idea which is not easy to reconcile with the teaching that man is made in the image of God. John Damascus and Aquinas wrote about this well, I think. A great part of what constitutes our being-images is that we have reason, unlike any other animals. I don't think that God gave us reason, if reason will "always test and dissect" until we have despair and nihilism. Also, I don't think that reason is that flawed as you claim! It is a gift of God, and it determines what we are. We are reasonable animals. And even if angels or demons might be much smarter than we are, I don't think that our use of reason is so limited that it would necessarily lead us away from God. I even think that philosophy and theology can be ways of worshipping your creator with your mind. What do you make of the beatific vision? Isn't the beatific vision some form of worshipping God with your mind, through knowing and understanding (!) God? And a very beautiful one at that, if not the most beautiful one even? Would our Heavenly Father promise us not the best of the best out of His Love, so that we can love Him the most such that we will be beatified (read: "made happy") in the most possible way?

Also, what kind of arguments could you make, in order to convince me, that reason is bad? If you are using reason to prove your point, you are using a bad tool for proving your point, and therefore make a bad point. But if you are using an unreasonable way of proving your point, you are not proving your point by appealing to my reason, as you can only convince my ratio, and then you are either making a bad point or you are making no point at all.
You can always only show that some reasoning is fallacious, by using and appealing to reason and the standards for rationality. From a dialectical point of view, this looks like some constructive dilemma against your position.

>>21667437

Also, don't read Jung, bro, I suspect that it makes people gay and gay people even more gay. I know some people who are into Jung and they have all some traits in common. (Actually, the same goes for the male Kierkegaard enjoyers I know. But they are quite limited in number, so that they might be a bad basis for induction.) I think that you would be much better of, reading what the Catholic tradition has considered to be good, and which has stood the test of time.

>>21668272
If you feel it's in the child's best interest to leave, you leave. Ignoring the child's best interest is abuse.

>>21668282
So I may have made myself out to be against logic and reason. I think they are fine, but the issue it building your faith on these arguments. God is something completely above, by virtue of the fact that his existence is paradoxical. Jesus is both god and man, infinite and finite. God is three distinct persons in one, without delimitation. We are insignificant and mortal (materially speaking), yet we are the center of attention for an incorporeal and immortal being. Embracing this paradox and absurdity is the beginning of faith. Faith begins where reason leaves off. But more than that, it completely runs circles around logic. No level of ontological argumentation and rhetoric will make any of it make sense, or accepting it any easier.

I wouldn't say that reason and logic are bad, but they are creations of our own mind. As finite humans we understand according to our senses, these senses are limited, and to a certain extent self-referential. Of course mathematics perfectly describes reality. Because the same mind that perceives reality also created the rules for mathematics. We know logic is limited, given that we can formally prove these for example godel's theroems. We also know that logic is not necessarily intuitive at all times, higher dimensional mathematics is a great example of that. Further logic can come to inherently paradoxical conclusions (also godels theorems, but there are many mathematical paradoxes).

There is a possibility that I am misunderstanding quite a bit of what I am reading. I'm still reading the preliminary works of real analysis and elementary abstract algebra. I'm open to that and am completely willing to revise my stance on logic and knowledge.

>I also mean that it stems from an idea which is not easy to reconcile with the teaching that man is made in the image of God
This is a good example of what I mean that a lot of apologetics are just "too good to be true". This is applied after the fact. Assuming that you believe in God, yes this is a logical statement to make. But beyond the gates of rationality, I'm just not quite sure how much you can take back down to earth. You use rational apologetics to get 99% of the way to God, to make a 1% leap of faith, and then use that faith to clean up whatever else doesn't fit. It's applied after the fact, completely beyond the realm of pure rationality and logic. It just doesn't seem like you can argue that in good faith.

I think there is a mutual unintelligibly between us, given that our perception of things intuitively seems to be radically different, and we are both disagreeing on a major, life-affirming choice of belief

>>21668287
This isn't very convincing.. I would imagine that whatever the traits you are talking about are are things that predispose someone to more post-modern thinking. I don't think that the books themselves cause anything. Sure, indulging without question will make that "worse" but you are missing something primary to that.

>>21663771
Can't forget this one

>>21667864
>technicality
I see you're new to playing Catholicism. That's all there is. It is technically not a sin to stay home from Mass because a completely illegitimate fear of going to Mass, let alone a legitimate and reasonable fear. You have to pray to more saints for using "I couldn't find my keys" as a reason than that. Nobody's going to tell you subjecting rape victims of the Church to more trauma is not a sinful thing. Your blackened little 4chan troll heart knows that's not a good thing, and one day God might show you the abject horror of one advocating for it.

>>21668524
While I can see how you can call many of the mysteries paradoxical, I don't think you can justify calling any of the ones you named as absurd. Because something cannot be paradoxical and absurd at the same time. Unless you are using the word loosely.
And reasoning does make sense of it. It makes a lot of it. The world of concepts within the faith opens up and becomes intelligible.
The word faith also means two completely different things to us. You use the word to denote belief, while the two of us will use it to denote accepting of revealed truths.

>>21668764
>Because something cannot be paradoxical and absurd at the same time
Could you expand on this?
>The world of concepts within the faith opens up and becomes intelligible
But only to a small subset of reality which is describable and intuitive by human perception. Sure, it's the only thing which matters in the end, but it will still be insufficient to actually accurately represent God. That is, under my working definition of Faith. Which is belief beyond reason, precisely _because_ it is beyond reason. Sure you can reason about what you have uncovered via reason, but it won't reach the realm of the divine.

Ultimately a lot of this comes down to epistemological positions. I think I am of the idea that we can only understand bits and pieces of reality. The ultimate reality of God is unintelligible to human minds. Finite beings cannot understand the infinite. But in this impossibility lies a true Faith, which is freed from logic and rhetoric. It is not something which you could talk about or reduce to language, because that would necessitate bringing it down to a realm of human comprehension and thus misrepresenting the idea. Sort of like projecting a 3d object onto 2d space. You can reason that the shadow has four even straight sides so it must be a square. But in reality it's a rectangle being illuminated from an angle.

I think we are hitting a wall here. I've been in this thread all day lol. I'm gonna think about this throughout the week and hopefully clarify my position more. If you guys lurk here often I'd love to keep talking, this might be the only real conversation I've ever had on this god-forsaken website. I'll keep lurking for now so please keep discussing that if you have more points to make. I'll return with hopefully much clearer language. Again I'm really just figuring this out after having come out of a massive existential crisis from a few months ago.

>>21668106
>>21668053
It's coming across as culturally not Catholic because saying credo quia absurdum est isn't weird or notable for Catholics. It's like if someone says it's a strong claim to say the Bible isn't historically accurate, most Catholics will think you're from a kind of loopy Protestantism that thinks we rode dinosaurs if that's a strong claim for you.
>faith is a gift of grace
All humans possess grace. You're saying some things approaching Calvinism here, because what the Church believes happens in converts is they listen to their inherent grace and see its harmony with the Church. It's one of the reasons proselytes aren't encouraged in Catholicism: if you can reason someone in, then it wasn't the grace but the logic they listened to. The way Catholics are meant to convert others is basically by demonstrating our grace, showing it is good to listen to it and abide in it with our whole lives.
God also exists beyond logic. I don't know what Kierkegaard anon has to say and he's probably not going to see it if you ask me questions instead of asking him. But essentially God has already gifted you the potential for all grace and how often you listen to it and show it is how closely God holds you.

I don’t know where else to post this but I was working on an old man’s house today and I complemented his massive library. Before leaving for the day he gave me this. What do?

>>21668985
>All humans possess grace. You're saying some things approaching Calvinism here (when you say that faith is a gift of grace)

According to Aquinas, faith is a theological virtue, and theological virtues are distinct from the cardinal virtues in virtue of their object and their causal origin. Faith is caused by God and not by men. Men cannot cause these virtues, but only prepare themselves for it.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q62.A1.SC
https://aquinas.cc/la/la/~QDeVer.Q27.A3.SC3
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q63.A3.Obj1
I never said anything to the contrary of that every human (initially) has grace. I merely said that it is a gift. Also, I don't think that everyone is in a state of sanctifying grace, therefore I do not believe that everyone has sanctifying grace.


>God also exists beyond logic
The Catholic teaching on God's omnipotence is that God cannot "break" the laws of logic.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q25.A3
I cite, because it is such a cool passage imo:
>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered among those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: No word shall be impossible with God. For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing.

I sense the objection that saying that God can do logically impossible things is not the same as saying that "God is beyond logic". If this is what you think, could you please explain what you mean? At first I had this kind of intuition, but after thinking about it, I find it to be nonsense. I don't think that there are true contradictions, therefore I also do not think that God would be truly described by contradictions. I do not believe that God is contradictory, although I am willing to believe that our human languages are not making enough conceptual distinctions to be finegrained enough in order to describe fully how God is. The difference between believing this and believing that God is contradictory, is that according to my view, if there would be enough progress in conceptual distinctions and use of intellect, it would be at least in principle possible to grasp God's nature, wheras I am not sure whether the human mind can ever grasp, let alone believe (in the sense of "taking to be true"), a contradiction,

>>21668863
I didn't know about that proselytes are not encouraged. Interesting if true.
>if you can reason someone in, then it wasn't the grace but the logic they listened to
Are logic and grace mutually exclusive? Isn't understanding of the divine already some sort of grace? And if it is causing faith, isn't it also then a form of sanctifying grace?

>>21669160
inutilize it in some way, and throw into the trash.
just a heretic making a cult and trying to dress it up as Christianity.
sort of like islam, but he didn't go as far.

>>21663771
>CS lewis
He's very much not catholic though, I mean mere christianity is about how denominations don't really matter.
>doay rheims
Can I ask why? I'm just curious. I understand the history associated. but wouldnt the kjv be better because its based on the actual greek text and not a translation of a translation? Im not sure how much they differ though if at all.

>>21663771
Legitimately can't decide whether or not to become catholic. Any books that might sway my judgement?

>>21670237
I don't know what your issues might be in terms of reasoning, but there's a plethora of interesting authors. I have always been a Catholic so I was always exploring the faith from the standpoint of premises and internal consistency, but never had to go into it from something else.

>>21668863
>But only to a small subset of reality which is describable and intuitive by human perception.
But all of it falls under rational laws. Beings don't just pop into and out of existence without reason, laws of being don't change, laws of nature stay constant. We don't need to have absolute knowledge to understand that the world is intelligible. And faith is beyond reason in as much as we cannot have knowledge of faith without revelation, but nothing in faith itself is unreasonable.
Paradox is something which seems absurd at first, but is not absurd at all. Something absurd is self contradictory and nonsensical.

If Aquinas is a Neo-Aristotelian and Scotus is Neo-Platonism then who is Neo-Socratic?

>>21670165
Catholics use the Vulgate

>>21671115
just seems weird to me from a translation point of view cause i thought you always wanted to reduce that but im just a layman and if thats how it is eh

>>21671117
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate#Council_of_Trent_and_position_of_the_Catholic_Church

some background history for that decision.
Of course, as a layman, you can read any bible you want, even if not all are equally good. When I said that Catholics use the Vulgate, I meant that they use the Vulgate in the Liturgy. This decision was made, when the liturgy of the roman church was still almost universally in latin, and the Vulgate was considered that it should become the golden standard, and encouraged to be used by all theologians alike. This decision to use the vulgate in the liturgy remained, even when people started to celebrate in the vernacular, also because initially the vernacular mass should be nothing else than just a translated form of the old latin mass. (Certain regions celebrated the Tridentine Rite in the vernacular even before the Novus Ordo was celebrated in the vernacular.) It is just something which has some history and you cannot change the liturgy every time when a new translation gets published. And if the Vulgate is already aproved, one should use the Vulgate.

>catholics are against translation, say translation le bad
yeah, this is a widespread sentiment, but as you already realized, it cannot be quite true.

I actually think that St. Jerome's translation was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is a very beautiful work of art. I don't read much Greek, but I can compare the Vulgate to some translations into modern languages. What I find really interesting is how for example the word "fiat" pops up in places where the modern translations do not always render it with the same word. Examples:

>Dixit: Fiat lux. Et lux facta est.
>Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum et Verbum caro factum est
[actually from the Angelus, so not sure if that counts, but the fiat-factum parallel to the passage passage from Genesis is striking and it illustrates my point rather well]
>Fiat voluntas tua

I think that something profound can be learned by realizing that in some way Mary is becoming alike to God in some quality of holiness through doing exactly the oposite what the creator did when he said the same word "fiat": God ordered, Mary obeyed orders. Jesus teaches us to obey the will of the Father. But for the Father it is good to order, while for us it is good to obey, since this means that everyone takes the place assigned to one. I should not order or say "non serviam", but rather I should say "fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum". I could not have realized this if I didn't read the Latin text, as the languages which I speak all use different words here, wheras the Vulgate uses "fiat".
It is things like these, why I really love the Vulgate and consider Jerome's act of translating the Greek into the Latin as an act of creating art.

>>21663771
>>Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament RSV 2nd Edition
Don't recommend a Bible-version for pederasts. Douay-Rheims with Clementine Vulgata all the way.

>>United States Catholic Conference - Catechism of the Catholic Church-Libreria Editrice Vaticana (2000)
Also for faggots. Recommend Doctrina Cristiana, the catechism by St. Robert Bellarmine.

>>21671301
>Certain regions celebrated the Tridentine Rite in the vernacular
We did not. It is a common misconception. Church Croatian was never spoken and has always been a distinct liturgical language. I understand maybe 1/3 of it.

>>21668764
>The world of concepts within the faith opens up and becomes intelligible
On point! But I think that one can go even further and state that there is no act of believing without grasping what one believes, since the act of believing is an act of holding a proposition, which one has already grasped, to be true.

While there are several ways of grasping a proposition,
(examples:
Compare
>The first sentence which I read from todays newspapers is true
>The sentence "Jewish intellectuals argue that multiculturalism is good when it happens outside of Isreal" is true.
You can imagine a situation, where both greentext lines are talking about the same situation, and further you can imagine how one and the same person could believe only one greentext line, even if in that situation, both lines are about the same sentence.)

but they are all such that believing the proposition means grasping it and taking it to be true, even if the act of grasping may be happening through direct or indirect reference. But outside of that I see no way how one could believe anything, without grasping it and taking it to be true. Therefore, in some sense, there is no faith without theology. The best someone like Kierk-anon can do is to argue for a "minimal" theology, but he cannot eliminate theology without eliminating faith. But once you admit the necessity of theology for faith, I see no good reason for keeping theology at a "minimal" level.

In fact, I don't really understand what I am saying, when I talk about "keeping theology at a minimum", since I say that every act of believing p involves the grasping of p. But the grasping of p is either direct or indirect. If it is direct, it consists in understanding p. If it is indirect, it involves understanding, although not the understanding of p, but some other proposition q.
Every act of belief is an act of believing something and this means exactly: understanding a proposition and taking it to be true. There cannot be any faith without understanding!

>>21671024
>faith is beyond reason in as much as we cannot have knowledge of faith without revelation, but nothing in faith itself is unreasonable.
On point again, other aristo-anon!
Notice how accepting revelation on basis of authority involves indirect grasping of propositions:
>What St. Paul writes is true.
>St. Paul writes p.
>Therefore: p is true.
In such a syllogism you start with indirect reference and end with direct reference, and therein lies the progress in reason, which is also a progress i faith.

Aristotle is just the greates philosopher ever. With his concepts you can make sense of things where others would just simply yell out: "Despair! Despair! Exisistential dread!" (Funny, how these people will accuse us of using reason, because it arguably leads to "despair and nihilism" >>21667437 , when it seems to be exactly the other way round!)

>>21671404
It was celebrated in vernacular slovak.
T. I understand it, everyone understood it and it was beautiful.

>>21664635
Likewise, On the Trinity by St. Hilary

>>21668040
I think that this was obvious already from the first post on.
I like your use of capital letters in
>His Bride

>>21664635
The Summa is going to make sense only if you already grasp the terminology and basic metaphysics behind it. It's quite technical and much easier to read if you have a solid basic understanding. But you don't get the solid understanding through the Summa itself. How much experience with Thomas and Aristotle do you have?

>>21671410
reply to myself, because I find I haven't stressed my point enough:

There is a difference between believing
>What St. Paul writes is true
and
>The sentence "God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." is true.

Believing the second greentext consists in understanding the proposition " God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." and taking it to be true. Believing the first greentext does not involve understanding it.

(Indirect reference to propositions will involve some sort of predicate like truth or falsity, since
>"What Paul writes"
Is not an entire sentence and does as such not express a proposition which itself could be true or false. The expression
>"What Paul writes"
is neither true nor false on its own, as it is not a complete sentence)

So one can imagine a faith, where understanding of what one ultimately takes to be true is lacking, and a faith where such understanding is not lacking. I see no reason why one should favour the faith lacking the understanding of what one ultimately takes to be true.

I write "understanding what one ultimately is taking to be true", because even if you believe
>What Paul writes is true
you have to understand the sentence
>What Paul writes is true
and take it to be true, which then means that you believe
>The sentence "What Paul writes is true" is true.
So that believing "What Paul writes is true" already necessitates some understanding IN the act of taking it to be true, although here the understanding is not that of
>God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
but rather of
>What Paul writes is true
and the act of taking this to be true is thinking
>The sentence "What Paul writes is true" is true.

Now, the point that I want to stress is, that using a syllogism like in >>21671410 is constitutive for a progress in understanding, but also in faith. But it is not that they just accidentally coincide with each other. Here, the person who goes from
>What Paul writes is true
to
>"God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." is true
is making his progress in faith IN the progress of understanding. Here these two acts are identical.

Paul has some authority. But he has this authority from the Truth itself. (I am using capital T, Kierkanon, since I believe that the Word Made Flesh is the Truth) When I say that I believe in whatever it is that Paul is saying, do I say anthing else than that I believe Paul? Our faith should not rest on Paul, but on The Truth.

There is a deep theological reason, for why we should do theology.

>>21671538
It is inetersting that
>Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
is only a few verses in front of
>For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

>>21671413
>slovak

aren't you guys majority atheists?

>>21671485
>you don't get the solid understanding through the Summa itself

haven't read the ENTIRE summa (nowhere near it), but as far as I can tell, Aquinas is always very clear and always lays out what he wants to say with great precision and care.

But I am in general of the opinion that you can always just read the great philosophical masterpieces without any prior knowledge. Knowing the dialectical situation does not help to make sense of things, although it can help to recognise important things and to better memorise things.
In my view this is not talked about enough: When you read a lengthy book that constantly is making conceptual distinctions, it is sometimes hard to keep track of all the terms. (t. somewhere in the Critique of Pure Reason and already forgot what Kant wrote in the beginning of the book.)

It it is a philosophical text, the text will be argumentative, which means that the premises are all laid out, together with the conclusion (Order does not matter logically, but only in exposition), with the result that if you can follow the argument by simply following the text.
Every good philosopher will define his technical terms. But when he does not, what then justifies your move of simple using, say, Aristotle's definition of that term? How can you be sure to use the right definition? Mainly by thinking about what Aquinas could have meant in that passage. But you don't need to read Aristotle in order to think about what another author could have meant.

I always advocate for just jumping brave into the battle. I think that knowing Aristotle is a soft-skill when it comes to understanding Aquinas. A helpful soft skill, for sure, but not a necessary one.

>>21671567
no, check wikipedia. The majority of us are roman catholics. I amn sure that you are confusing us with the Czechs, as this is just a thing that keeps happening

>>21671567
but what wikipedia won't tell you is that almost all of the atheists live in the west of the country around Bratislava. The east is kinda holy based.
>>21671404
actually, I kinda doubt that your liturgical language "has always been a distinct liturgical language". Surely the liturgical language is just the vernacular language from the time when the liturgy became vernacular. This is how it was with the liturgical russian.
t. "The Epic of Russian Literature" by Marc Slonim

>>21671601
yeah sorry i confused you guys for czechs

how come you guys kept being catholics while czechs all became atheists almost overnight?

>>21671622
>Surely the liturgical language is just the vernacular language from the time when the liturgy became vernacular.
It wasn't. It was constructed to be different from vernacular and the liturgical language is closer to modern than old Croatian, which had 5 major dialects 4 of which I almost can't understand at all.
>>21671598
>But you don't need to read Aristotle in order to think about what another author could have meant.
Maybe you don't, but it is what I needed before starting to understand Aquinas.

>>21669648
>Also, I don't think that everyone is in a state of sanctifying grace, therefore I do not believe that everyone has sanctifying grace.
Yeah that kind of judgement is entirely inappropriate.
>>21669648
>According to Aquinas, faith is a theological virtue, and theological virtues are distinct from the cardinal virtues in virtue of their object and their causal origin. Faith is caused by God and not by men. Men cannot cause these virtues, but only prepare themselves for it
It's caused by directing the will toward God (through that internal grace). Man has free will in Catholicism. You have to choose to turn to that grace, whence charity is the form of faith, because faith is not solely caused by God. If it were, it would be predetermined and man would have no free will to choose to turn to God.
>logic
Logic and science are practically useful in this world. Things like depth, time, flesh, are necessary for the temporal world, and linear causality can only exist in them. But either of them can only work within their self defined perimeters of a physical world. Time without physical place is possible for humans, but impossible and illogical by most definitions of humans.

>>21671624
I'd say that we are culturally different. The communists tried to ban churches in SK but they failed. My grandmother always spoke about this with a great sense of pride: how the Church has won over communism and that communism could not defeat the Church in SK. Especially in the East of the country, where people are much more traditional than in the West of SK, religiosity has deep cultural roots. But they are installing globohomo everywhere, they succeeded greatly with the younger generations in Poland and I fear that things will start to change just as drastic in SK. My region was inhabited by protestant Germans for a while, while the native population always was Catholic.

I don't know if the Czechs have been protestants before they became atheists. I would like to know.
I think that Germany has no religious culture, because people were constantly switching from protestantism to catholicism and or vice versa. When your culture is religious, your religion is everywhere, which is beautiful and much better than if your religion is nowhere except in your privacy.
But now they tell us that degeneracy belongs into the public and should be celebrated by all sorts of parads and shows or story hours, but that our religion belongs into private sphere only. People who push degeneracy are antichrists. It is not just the LMNOP parades. It already started with sexualizing everything, with the excuse "It is capitalism, sex sells!".

>>21671670
germany really got maimed by the history of the country.
any attempt to stop progressiveness and you're very quick to be reprimanded, asked for reparations, and compared to a man with a funny little moustache.

>>21671662
>logic can only work within their self defined perimeters of a physical world
???
How did you come to know this?

>>21671680
or, in other words, they're extremely averse to any kind of authority, out of an authoritarian scare.

>>21671682
Because logics only ever work with their prescribed system. Not giving a logic system any parameters means it's not a logic system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-a6PGVf0pg

new catho/lit/ /lit/ lecture just dropped

I don't remember where I heard this but apparently in Dante's time there was a notion that the average people, peasants, who never held any substantial authority or wealth simply didn't go to hell. In purgatory to pay off their debts and purify yes, but not hell. So is this true

>>21671962
>Dante's time there was a notion that the average people, peasants, who never held any substantial authority or wealth simply didn't go to hell.
There may have been a notion, but during that time it was commonly assumed most people will go to hell.

Question for Catholic Anons
Do you view the Vulgate as divinely inspired? Not the works it's based off of but the translation it's self?

Been researching the KJV (yes yes heretic, protestant, etc.) and the translators in at least one spot went with what was in Latin over Greek manuscripts. Some protestants view the KJV as divinely inspired and only English translation that is trustworthy because of its sourcing

>>21672527
Yeah. It's not from the originals in large part, but it informs how other translations come out, so most all Catholic translations will have an ordering that distinguishes us from KJV, and certain terms will match Church dogma.
For example, what the KJV or other versions will translate as "faith, hope, and love" for Catholics is "faith, hope, and charity" because agape is translated to caritas in Latin. Those kinds of nuances inspire our faith, but if you want a translation for English literature, you should use the KJV because it's the source most English speaking authors would have been looking at and writing about for most of modern literature. Not all Protestants use KJV but its primacy in the English speaking world is largely due to it being a state issued Bible and England conquering everyone. Authors that use non KJV language are often making a very specific point: sometimes it's a Catholic dog whistle, sometimes it's a weird Protestant sect dog whistle.

>>21667032
you don't remember that part feom The Heliand?

>>21672527
>heretic
nobody says that, anymore

>>21672657
I didn't read it. I only know it's some kind of story about LOTR (which I did read)

>>21672616
>faith, hope, and charity
Thats actually how it is in KJV. I know what you mean though, faith, hope, and love are in most other english translations

>>21667008
If I had to guess, it's because these threads are filled with converts and reverts, who approach their faith very analytically and intellectually. I'm convinced this is also a huge factor behind the resurgence of Aquinas among the laity and relatively uneducated. I want to stress that being uneducated isn't a bad thing at all, but it's unbelievably strange to be lectured about how Aquinas is the greatest Catholic philosopher by a fast food worker who can't address my basic objections to hylomorphism, and has to admit he has little formal background in metaphysics.

Again, there's nothing wrong with not having a strict or formal philosophy background, but there's something deeply incongruent between online Catholics who parrot the Summa with religious fervor, and their actual behavior when you try talking to them about what the Summa actually discusses.

>>21667071
>Anselm argued against a position, which was similar to yours. People claimed that one should not do philosophy and theology, and that these were really some sort of decadent activites which would lead away from the practice of the lived faith.
Anselm is fantastic. I loved Anselm in college.

Anselm's movement (Scholasticism) immediately precedes the Protestant Reformation. Setting aside whether the logical form of Anselm's argument is correct or not, I think this says something about the overall position on reason and faith. That's not to say fideism was true, of course. Just that I think the Orthodox have a much stronger perspective on that relationship.

>>21672738
Yeah that' one was one of the times they chose the Latin over Greek. I think anon mentioning the translators picking Latin over Greek made me remember one of the instances where KJV is closer to the Catholic side than modern translations. I think KJV follows the Catholic side in that one because of the politics of the time: a lot of the time KJV is close to Tyndale to the point of plagiarism, so translating agape as charity was a way to make it not Tyndale. Tyndale uses love in his translation and it's probably where most modern ones get it too.

>>21667964
He cut his balls off.

Good effort, but the Church doesn't want people to have an excuse to castrate themselves left and right. Thus, Origen was considered too spicy to be taken seriously.

>>21669648
haha pretty crazy how Aquinas is not, in fact, Church doctrine and Catholics are not required to agree with Aquinas on all accounts

>>21673425
In case that Aquinas is too old school or as a doctor of the Church not authoritarial enough, you can just check the latest Catechisms. Here are §152 f. from the JPII Catechism:

>153. When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come "from flesh and blood", but from "my Father who is in heaven".
>Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and 'makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.'"

And §154:
>154. Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions, or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to "yield by faith the full submission of... intellect and will to God who reveals", and to share in an interior communion with him.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PX.HTM

>>21673324
>I think the Orthodox have a much stronger perspective on that relationship

What is the orthobro's take on that relationship? I don't know anything about them.

>>21673302
I have never had the luck of being lectured on Aquinas in McGoyslop, so I don't know if there is really a "resurgance of Aquinas among the laity and the relatively uneducated", but I know about a renewed interest in Aquinas among analytic philosophers, starting by such people like Geach & Anscombe, MacIntyre and you know... quite important people.
I think that people just started to read more philosophical classics in general. Before the internet, people who had prospects for formal education in philosophy would possibly feel much more overwhelmed. But the internet gave people much more resources and options, which especially beginners in philosophy feel the need to. I am sure that publishing houses make much more money on printing and selling books on stoicism than compared to ten or fifteen years ago. And I think the same goes for philosphical classics in general. And if catholics want to read a classical work of philosophy, it is quite understandable that they feel drawn to classics like St. Augustine or, as he is much more relevant to contemporary academic philosophy, Aquinas. Adding to that, several based Popes by the name Leo told Catholics to study his philosophy and theology.

>my basic objections to hylomorphism
do you want to tell us?

>>21666941
It's not repeated. It's the one sacrifice made present by the priest in persona Christi. I'm looking for more resources to understand the metaphysics behind the reasoning. Hopefully I'm representing the Church's teaching correctly in saying that the Eucharist transcends space and time and is one with the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. I also think it's an application thing. The Hebrews sacrificed the lamb, but they also spread it's blood on their lintels. The Lamb of God was/is sacrificed, and we apply that in the Eucharist and receive the graces. Inb4 there are different kinds of grace - I'm a smooth brain and still have a lot to learn about that

>>21674227
>1165 When the Church celebrates the mystery of Christ, there is a word that marks her prayer: "Today!" - a word echoing the prayer her Lord taught her and the call of the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Mt 6:11; Heb 3:7- 4:11; Ps 95:7) This "today" of the living God which man is called to enter is "the hour" of Jesus' Passover, which reaches across and underlies all history:

>Life extends over all beings and fills them with unlimited light; the Orient of orients pervades the universe, and he who was "before the daystar" and before the heavenly bodies, immortal and vast, the great Christ, shines over all beings more brightly than the sun. Therefore a day of long, eternal light is ushered in for us who believe in him, a day which is never blotted out: the mystical Passover.

>1090 "In the earthly liturgy we share in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle. With all the warriors of the heavenly army we sing a hymn of glory to the Lord; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, until he, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with him in glory."

>>21674089
>Here are §152 f. from the JPII Catechism
Not him, but who the fuck calls it that?
Also I think you're underestimating how many people and places you need to convince of bringing Aquinas back, and how some well known bits of Aquinas were shelved as soon as he produced them.
I traced this subthread back a bit and you still seem to have the fundamental misunderstanding about free will the anon pointed out when he called you Calvinist. It's like you're knowledgeable in the most ignorant way possible.

>>21663771
>Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis
Protestant
>Orthodoxy - G.K. Chesterton
Written while Protestant.
>History of the Christian Church (Complete Eight Volumes In One) - Philip Schaff
Protestant
>Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament RSV 2nd Edition
Protestant translation.
>The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection
If Schaff again then translated by a Protestant.

Reformed Catholics represent

>>21663774
>>21668271
Do you have any orange slices?!

>>21664635
The Summa in Verse

>>21675026
Whats the absolute best translation I can get of this in either English or Spanish?? OR should I just give up and go try to learn Italian before touching it?

>>21666510
I've had a hard time wrapping my head around his notion of Person in particular. It doesn't make much sense why he applies it to God either. I can't read Latin but I'm not sure how much that matters.
>>21671485
I have some experience with Aristotle but nowhere near a perfect understanding. Aquinas seems to make use of the organon a lot, which I skipped. Maybe I ought to revisit it.

>>21674484
>fundamental misunderstanding about free will
please make me better by telling me what I get fundamentally wrong.

pls respond

>>21671698
>>21671682
I thought about how to approach this for a while. I think that you are to some degree bad at logic. I do NOT want to say that you are stupid, but I think that your life could be better if you cared more about the steps to be taken by your process of reasoning.

If you're premises don't contain anything non-tautologous about the physical world, but your conclusion does, your argument is either merely inductive or not valid at all. Therefore, you cannot deduce "logic only works within the perimeters of a physical world" (whatever that means) from "not giving a logic system any parameters means its not a logic system".

Further. you seem to be quite lax on the terminology which you are using for thinking. You seem to treat non-synonymous terms as if they were synonymous. If that is so, your life could be better if you started caring more about how you think.

Maybe you want to ask yourself: "How long have I been thinking, before I came to the conclusion that,
>logic can only work within its self defined perimeters of a physical world
and that the way to realize that this conclusion is true is by realizing that
>logics only ever work with their prescribed system. Not giving a logic system any parameters means it's not a logic system.
?

To me, your argument seems more like some wild and interesting association of a perhaps creative person, rather than a rigorous argument, capable of convincing the reason of others, more like if it was just a brain fart, a thing that we all have from time to time, sometimes depending on our physical condition (like not having slept enough or well), and something that came out of your brain without a lot of prior reasoning, just like farts usually come out of the butt without much prior exercise of thought.

But if you thought about it, and think that you have something important to say, I will of course want to take your point serious. But for now, I cannot make any sense of either your position, nor your argument.

>>21668863
bro, I miss you.

>>21676278
Tfw you didn't join my discord to trash talk von Hildebrand

>>21668985
I didn't know about that proselytes are not encouraged. Interesting if true.
>if you can reason someone in, then it wasn't the grace but the logic they listened to
Are logic and grace mutually exclusive? Isn't understanding of the divine already some sort of grace? And if it is causing faith, isn't it also then a form of sanctifying grace?

>>21669656
Sorry, Kierk-anon, I initially replied to the wrong post!

>>21676286
>https://discord.gg/qtpetMHQ
I thought you were talking to OP ... I know, I am retarded
can you send a new invite?

>>21676293
What he's saying isn't true and I've never heard almost anything he mentioned, anywhere, ever. Especially not trying to proselyte or reason people into the faith because somehow grace can't work alongside reasoning? It's complete bollocks.

>>21676299
Here's, vetting server first if others will join
https://discord.gg/729eZFDq

>>21676293
>>21676304
Not him, but Pope Francis came out with
>Proselytism is solemn nonsense; it makes no sense.
in an interview recently and threw newer Catholics through a spin.
It's long established in the RCC you do not proselytise. Ad gentes for example says it's strictly verboten, and any encyclopedia, or glossary at the back of the Bible will have a section on it like they have sections on "anomaly" or "nubility" where it explains proselytism is a bad thing.

Protestants and (militant) atheists are always infuriated when they find out it's not allowed, and I have no idea why. If either of you are Protestant or atheist, can you explain why talking to someone until they believe you is such a big deal for you guys? Can you also explain why you want Catholics to do it, when most Protestants think Catholicism is wrong? I really don't understand why they're always so shocked and angry by us not doing it because surely they'd want what they view as a false faith to not proselytise?

>>21676775
It's probably disappointing to larpers who view the ability to proselytise as a selling point, and when they find out that isn't the product they bought, well, they want to write to the manager to get it included.
It's probably the same with atheists, except they probably have rote arguments against proselytism, and they're disappointed when you say you don't do that because it quashes the argument before they make it. The same thing happens when atheists are really excited to tear down biblical literalism and then are disappointed Catholics don't believe in that. They like to think they're using novel arguments which are anti-Church, so, for them, finding out they're using arguments the Church came up with is disappointing and uncomfortable.

>>21676833
That explains why the atheists are mad, but it doesn't explain why the Protestants want us to proselytise.

>>21676867
Idk anon, maybe one of the anons you were responding to here >>21676775 has an explanation why they want proselytism included if they're Protestant.

And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
[19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Salvete omnis! I have two questions:

1. Why is there only one audio version of the New Testament in Latin on the Internet?

2. What is this pronunciation called?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGNM2d05D2M

>>21677203
It's not church or classical. It sounds a bit like a romance language modern accent over Latin, with a weird mix of church and classical pronunciation. It might be someone who is used to Spanish or Italian phonics reading Latin? There's too many hard k and v sounds to be either church or classical, and the pronunciation is inconsistent for the same sounds in different contexts so I think he's unsure which to use. I think it's closer to Spanish phonics because Italians usually don't get the k sound off classical.

>>21676775
>Ad gentes for example says it's strictly verboten
did you mean this sentence
>The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the Faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the Faith by unjust vexations on the part of others.

Because if so, I think that you were mischaracterizing a little

>>21678527
Why do you think it would be allowed?

Does anyone have some recommendations for catholic literature that are not the handful of things people always discuss. I’m thinking of writers like walker percy or late period huysmans

>>21678688
The Comforters by Muriel Spark

>>21678648
nta, but proselytizing per se isn't really that.
i've talked to quite a few people who had no idea about faith, or misconceptions, and if i weren't lightly proselytizing they would still not know/be mistaken.
i'm quite sure some went to search more about the faith afterwards, especiallt if what held them was some doubt.
t. prot

>>21678786
Catholics kind of have to openly tell people it's best to just be a good person and that becoming a Catholic, let alone a specific type of Catholic, does not make it easier to be a good person but instead loads on more obligations.
I'm not going to give you the exhaustive list of reasons why, but a really big one is that there's more than one Catholic Church and trying to poach members from one part to another is seen as a denial of the whole, not an elevation of the part. It stops conflicts between the various Churches.
Additionally, it highlights the difference in obligation Catholics have. You have to go through a process where you're signing a contract with the Church repeatedly with other qualified sponsors who vouch for you, and with quizzes to make sure you understand you're signing up to be extra good and extra accountable. Part of what you sign up to is that any time you do something against the rules, you're held extra accountable, but what makes it even harder is that if you've broken the rules because you didn't know them, you're extra accountable for not just the rule breaking but also not knowing the rules. Not knowing better ceases to be an excuse and becomes an act of negligence. It's best to assume you're always breaking at least some.
A final reason is because telling people they're more likely to get into Heaven or go to Hell is trying to decide God's Will for Him. Those people might be fine without you, and we're meant to examine our own condition not try to see someone else's, which is impossible because you're not God.
You can tell people things or correct them so long as you're objective, but the second you start thinking "I'm leading them towards the Light" you're stepping into arrogance. The natural grace in them is leading them to God's grace, and your ego is getting in the way. And if you correct them and turn out to have got the rule wrong, you're potentially responsible for getting in the way more.

One overarching difference that could explain the final difference is Catholics don't believe the average person is safe to interpret the Bible on their own, so telling someone to go read it at home alone and see what they think, doesn't sound the same to Catholics and Protestants. It's like asking a hardline US Protestant evangelical who believes in witchcraft being the work of Satan if they tried reading Harry Potter first before burning it. It's so perverse to the common mindset that they'd know you're not one of them and that you're not even familiar with the supposed consequences of those actions.

>>21675035
I am not an expert on this subject, but I thought the Allen Mandelbaum translation was very good -- in a word, beautiful.

>>21666472
>>21668053
>>21668155
>>21676286
I can't speak to Dietrich von Hildebrand as a philosopher, but his book Transformation in Christ is very good indeed.

>>21676775
Francis is mostly speaking complete bollocks, unrelated to anything in the Catholic spiritual or intellectual tradition. I'm aware that he's against prosletysm, but he's against not receiving communion in mortal sin either.

>>21679170
Did you hold your own white smoke party?

>>21679203
No, the fact that he is a pope does not imply that he is going to make sense.
We were simply used to good popes for centuries and now got someone who has no idea what he's talking about most of the time.

>>21679214
It's not like he came up with being anti-proselytism. Besides, it makes it easier to pick out the Protestants.

>>21679232
>It's not like he came up with being anti-proselytism.
Prosletysm just means spreading the faith. So he did sort of come up with it. Prosletysm doesn't include violence or force.

>>21679243
>Prosletysm just means spreading the faith. So
No it does not. There are valid missions which are evangelical, but when evangelicism slips into proselytism, it's no longer in accordance with the Church or legitimate uses of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Proselytism tries to force your will onto the Church and Spirit, when they can both find souls without rhetoric. You show Grace, you don't tell people about it like what happened to your cousin two towns over you wouldn't know him he goes to a different school. Thinking your bit of grace made you smarter at being good than the next guy is a way of denying God's love for mankind and loving yourself more than your brother.

>>21679283
>No it does not.
Sure it does. At least according to usually usage and how it's defined in dictionaries and used in language for centuries. A dictionary defines it as "to induce someone to convert to one's faith". Which is identical to evangelisation.

>>21679297
Catholicism literally has dictionaries because we use words uniquely. An abomination isn't just a bad thing, it is something intolerable enough to God it is scrubbed from the earth. Catholic doesn't mean simply a denomination of Christianity, but the universal Church. Proselytism is not evangelicism within Catholicism. They are separate things, and proselytism is forbidden.

>>21663771
This Galilean meme has to die.

>>21679314
>Catholicism literally has dictionaries because we use words uniquely.
And prosletysm was used differently when? Which dictionary uses it in a different way?

>>21679363
>pls explain the intricate tensions of ecumenicism and full communion
lol are you nominating me cardinal? I'll have to decline.

>>21679363
my native tongue is not english, and I have almost never encountered the word 'proselytism' before, so I had to look it up. All the dictionaries I used said that it more or less means evangelization. You claim that all these dictionaries do not conform to the use of the english speaking catholic church. Since you doubt the authority of these sources, you must have a source with a higher authority available, which contradicts our sources, otherwise you would not be justified in doubting the authority of our sources. Please make our lifes better by providing these better and more authoritative sources.

Further, while nominal agreement may be a good thing, real agreement is much more important. Same anon said:
>The Catholic Church forbids the use of theology and philosophy for evangelization, because we should not convert others by making use of reason. source: trust me, goyim. Stop using theology and philosophy in order to evanglize.
and another post (maybe same anon) was making up false claims about Ad Gentes:
>Ad Gentes says that it is verboten. Trust me goyim. Immediatly stop evangelizing.
And people kind of doubt that the use of reason is forbiden in the process of evangelization.

So, even if we establish a common way of using the word "proselytism", that would still not settle all of our enquiries.

I want to add that while I am completely anaware of any kind of commandment which goes by "You shall not use philosophy for evanglization", and while I think that I am unaware of such a commandment, be it from the OT, the NT or His Bride, because such a law dos not exist, I would still agree that evanglization by living a holy life is by far the best form of evangelization. We have to be the salt of the earth. The city on the hill will be noticed. So start carrying your stones uphill and build your cities on visible hills, shine in the dark.

If you stop substantiating your claims, I will stop to take your points serious, and will regard them as distractions.
Please don't forget to be wholesome, as this is a catholic thread.

>>21680599
wrong anon adressed by >>21680599
>>21679426 anon, this >>21680599 is for you.

>>21679283
>rhetoric
you are the first to bring up rhetoric in this thread as far as I see. People were discussing the legitimate use of philosophy and theology in evangelization, which is a complete distraction imo, because there cannot be any faith without doctrine and doctrine has to be taught. While some truths are available to the mere use of reason, others are only accessible through accepting the revelation. But both can and should be taught.
Rethorical games are a completely different topic.

https://archive.org/details/Lexikon-fur-Theologie-und-Kirche/Lexikon-fur-Theologie-und-Kirche-LThK3---Band-8%2C-eds.--Michael-Buchberger%2C-Walter-Kasper%2C1999/page/n333/mode/2up?view=theater (p 334 of 771)

The LThK (Standard Reference for German speaking Catholic theologians) just says that P. (as it is used in German) means: Evangelization with wrong methods or wrong goals. It only says that the use of force is forbidden, but does not mention philosophy or theology (of course not, that would be completely absurd!)

>>21663771
The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay

>>21666827
>Catholics are too autistic about the rational purity of the dogma

I think there's a cultural point that gets lost when people form Germanic cultures (especially Americans and Bongs) attempt to convert to Catholicism

The Church has a long history of being autistically specific on points of dogma and procedure but then being very loosy-goosey in practice. For example, the entire Sedevacantist movement is a spergrage about the recent Popes not being valid because of some minor procedural question or potential heresy or whatever. The reality is that you had popes who were deposed and replaced by emperors, who would rape pilgrims etc and they're all happily accepted into the papal line by the Church despite those things probably being grounds for them being invalid

You'll notice that Catholicism survived in Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy etc - i.e. places where the culture is happy to play fast and loose with the official rules. Protestantism (inrended as a strict reversion to rules as laid down in the Bible) spread in the high-autism countries like Germany, Sweden, England etc. So when Germans or whatever try to get into Catholicism, they sperg over every detail as their culture demands, but Catholicism isn't really that kind of thing - it's very flexible when it needs to be (this can be a bad thing too - e.g. condemning things as heresy because its politically convenient to do so)

tl;dr - unless you want to be a theologian it's probably best not too sperg too hard over every minor detail of Catholic thought, no one else does and the Church has lasted longer than any other human institution in history.

I'm getting into aquinas but his premise of a "natural order" seems shaky, I'm concerned it's a priori in disguise.

The argument that prescedes it is sound in that variance is needed for understanding, and that man is a political animal thus understanding its a path to salvation.
But why does variance imply heirarchy?

>>21680599
>>21680630
If you want to lie about the the Church's views, that's a choice you can make.

>>21680931
some of his arguments for the a hierarchy in nature have to do with the teleological structure of actions, of thought and of reality, and insterestingly, also of happiness. Some of them are based on his account of causation. These thoughts can already be found quite explicitly in Aristotle, (except for some thoughts on causation, at least I am unaware of them in Aristotle's corpus).

What argument do you specifically have in mind (book, passage)?

Some of his considerations are obviously based on revelation.

>>21680980
are you the anon who lied about Ad Gentes?
micharacterizing your oponents view, by swapping "rhetorics" for "philosophy" and hoping that no one will notice is rhetorical trick btw.

Interestingly, I did not make even any claims about Church teaching in the message to which you replied, in where ever I did, I did so by citing Doctors of the Church and/or the Catechism of the Church. So, I don't know what you want to accuse me of. I don't even know what you COULD accuse me of.
But anyway, much better than just accusing me, would be to tell me on WHAT matter of faith I am wrong, and and to substantiate your claim by citing Doctors of the Church, or even better the Catechism, or other valid and binding official Church documents. This would be, what a Catholic would be willing (at least willing!) to do, whose goal is the salvation of souls, instead of someone whose goal is infiltration.

And please, you would not only teach myself, but many others in this thread here too. So please share your wisdom with us.

>>21680796
why have authority in the Church, when you should not listen to them? I don't get it.

>>21681167
I didn't lie about Ad gentes; it's explicitly against what you're hoping to do with your post. You could get better hopes in life.

>>21681173
>Vatican rules the Church and keeps it alive at all costs, often bending the rules or doing bad things to accomplish this
>Theologians attempt to define things as best they can, sometimes stretching logic a bit to do so
>Laity attempt to live according to God's Will as best they can, not always getting it right but not going too deep into the weeds unless it's needed to live better lives

Catholicism involves muddling through, don't mistake it for an absolute program or you'll spend 20 years attempting to justify the Particular Judgement instead of going out and living a good life

>>21681180
>explicitly
>doesn't cite after being asked to cite
sorry.

>>21681200
It's quoted ITT and you can read the full context if you look it up. If you want to lie about how citations work, that's a choice you can make too.

>>21680599
I think you are responding to the wrong post. I claimed that prosletysm doesn't mean anything different in Catholicism than it does anywhere else and the idea that proselytism is not allowed is against the Gospel and completely antithetical to Catholicism, as the word simply means evangelisation.