/lit/ - Literature

>>22278253
Aquinas was originally from Naples, so most likely he looked like one of those fat Italian mobsters. Like a Sopranos cast member.
I always read the Summa with a kind of Italian mobster voice in my head. Gives it an extra piece of authenticity.

>>22278331
I refuse to believe anyone here has read the Summa let alone the Bible in its entirety

>>22278365
I'm very close on the Bible but the Summa is massive and mostly a reference for even dedicated theologians. I also think the idol worship of an entirety of a work versus its relevant parts can be misleading if you are using it as a metric of dedication rather than intellectual edification.

>>22278253
Aquinas is based and gets a lot right. Too bad he was still too unwilling to really critique Augustine.

>>22278253
Bless you great Saint, and please pray for our own walks, that they may be pleasing to the Lord, that those who go astray themselves may right, that all might find their joy in God.

>>22278365
>>22278458
Just read the Summa of the Summa by Kreeft

>>22278486
Augustine doesn't need to be critiqued.

>>22278253
Why do people treat him as the greatest Catholic philosopher when there are much more interesting ones out there? Bonaventure, Scotus, and Ockham come to mind.

>>22278667
this nigga praying on the chan

>>22278253
He was just some autistic dude.

>>22279981
>interesting ones
This is partly true. He is interesting in his presumptions and his arguments but he isn't sudden and this gradual argumentative style can lead him to being perceived as dry when he is profoundly interesting and radical at times.

>>22279981
You didn't name more interesting ones.

>>22278331
his mother was from Normandy
apparently Aquinas himself had blond hair and was unusually tall for the time, like 6'6" iirc

>>22278458
>I also think the idol worship of an entirety of a work
meds moment

>>22278667
Amen.

>>22279981
Pope said its Bibel, Summa, all other liturgy. I like the parts of the Summa I've read the way its formatted is interesting I've found myself changing my mind a few times as I go through the objections and then read his response to them.

>>22279267
>Augustine doesn't need to be critiqued.
he should be critiquing for hating babies, the idea of unbaptized babies going to hell and being tortured there is absurd and morally outrageous and it has surely caused countless people to question their own faith

>>22281821
The part in Confessions where he is thinking about if babies have sin and then reflects on observing a greedy baby is one of my favorite parts of that book. It kind of comes off as comical to me. I think the view at that time is that parents are responsible for their children's sins and that aborted/young babies go to purgatory. There is a part in City of God where he talks about how aborted and unbaptized babies would most likely go to a purgatory zone, can't remember if they called it that back in the 400's, where they wait to be resurrected as the adults they would have become.

>>22281861
>Confessions
Is there really a part in that book where he compares a conversation he had with his mother, to a sexual climax?

>>22281877
Not that I remember I do recall that he talks about how much he loves sex quite a bit. That is his main struggle to overcome throughout the book.

>>22279981
Because Aquinas used his philosophy to formalize many, many Catholic doctrines which are not strictly philosophical, for example his elaboration of form and matter was used as an explanatory edifice for the function of the Eucharist and the other sacraments. If this happened with the other figures, it was to a much more limited extent. The other philosophers were generally not as clear or consistent as Aquinas, which made him much more effective as a theoretical or doctrinal device.

>>22281877
I don't think so, perhaps a translation type? He speaks very highly of his mother throughout and is glad of her piousness and devotion to her children but I don't know what you would be specifically referring to.

>>22281821
eternal conscious torment is an awful lie, no matter. This thread is atrocious.

>>22281861
You disgust me

>>22278667
Amen

Would he have gotten along with Meister Eckhart?

>>22282643
He was not at all opposed to "mystical experience", so one would think so. I do wonder how the works of Meister Eckhart fit into Thomism; where they diverge, etc.

>>22281821
>the idea of unbaptized babies going to hell and being tortured there is absurd and morally outrageous and it has surely caused countless people to question their own faith
how bout yahweh demanding ritualized genital mutilation?

>>22281821
You need to meditate on what Hell really means

>>22278253
>>22278331
Aquinas was not fat.

source: Jean Pierre Torell

>>22284187
From this it sounds like Aquinas could have been a great warrior also. Big robust muscly guy with great cardio. But they always paint him like a middle aged fat guy.

>>22282643
Meister Eckhart was a Dominican so he definitely found some affinity with Aquinas if he joined that order specifically.

>>22284465
He was also born into extreme royalty - his cousin was the Emperor. His choice to become a Friar was radical in the extreme.
>>22284468
Dominicans really are incredible.

>>22278253
It's pretty cool how he toed the line but never really stepped into blasphemous writings. A lesser man would have been burnt at the stake.

>>22282256
Agree. This needs to be heavily addressed in the Catholic church. I've been rambling about this in multiple threads but it really does bother me so I'll try and give some loose points to discuss.
Obviously this all lays underneath the truth that we don't understand God and should trust him, since the ultimate dogma is that he is infinite good. So don't use that argument, it's a given and only serves as an excuse to not try and understand.

If even one created being with a consciousness ends up in a state of eternal suffering, then I'd view all of reality as a cosmic tragedy, and no amount of joy or bliss of the elect could erase it. Aquinas seems to try and address this problem; do the souls in heaven delight in their suffering, are they veiled from it and ignore it, do they forget? iirc Aquinas say we rejoice, because after all, don't they deserve it?
But that's perverse, patently perverse and un-Godly.

Also, we are created in Gods image, in his likeness, there is an inherent good in us, a part of us that is inseparable. So for those suffering in Hell; is a good thing being tortured, has the good thing been destroyed and no longer exists (in which case God destroyed a good thing), or is the good thing separated from the bad? But that last point doesn't make sense with the rest of Christian thought on the individual soul, it can't be split apart.

The Jews did not have a developed and dogmatic understanding of hell. Gehinnom can simply mean the grave, the earth. It was definitely not a place of torment, though it was lamentable. Jews still do not try to understand that matter of things too specifically, which I think is wise.

Universalism is not a new wishy washy belief. It's very old, older than Augustine and Aquinas. Most notably is Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa, who's works were barely translated into latin, Hans Urs von Balthasar as late as the 1940s said his works were virtually unknown. Bishop Barron is very inspired by both and it's from Hans we get the "dare we hope" line of thinking. Hell still exists with these views, it's just not eternal, and btw, we now have no need for purgatory if we accept this. The eastern churches are far more receptive to this view, I recommend David Bently Hart for modern writings.

Basically I think Augustine and Aquinas were disgusting, and every time I detect them I don't like it. It's a mistake to try and crystalize these divine things into one clear line of human thought, the door needs to always remain open to mystery (scholastics vs mystics).

Is that a real icon? Thomas Aquinas is not canonized in the Orthodox tradition.

>>22285047
What do you mean by toed the line, what did he write that you think is close to blasphemous?

>>22285513
Firstly, no, I think that's from "Monastery Icons," which is a shady organization. But secondly, icons of Catholic saints aren't out of place at Eastern Catholic churches. Take for example, the picrel icon of Pope John Paul II from 5:50 in this video:
https://youtu.be/ii0jJecSIFw?t=350

>>22285483
>This needs to be heavily addressed in the Catholic church
I'll contact my local archbishop hold on

>>22278667
AMEN

>>22285523
Nothing. Even in his lifetime, St. Thomas was respected as one of the greatest theologians to ever live.

>>22285483
1. You don't read Latin.
2. You've never formally learned theology.
3. You've never formally learned philosophy.
4. You have not really studied history.
5. You are unquestioning in your acceptance of modern historical criticism, but unhesitatingly critical of the theologian most cited in dogmatic declarations.
6. If you are ever given the grace of understanding the purity of God, you will begin to understand the abominable wretchedness of sin.
7. Rather than spread your uneducated opinion, you should first try meditating on the fact that the seraphim gathered around the throne of God do not chant "power, power, power" nor "love, love, love" nor "mercy, mercy, mercy" nor "justice, justice, justice" nor "truth, truth, truth"--rather they repeat for all eternity "Holy, Holy, Holy." Consider this for a long time.

>>22285982
Why did they paint JPII so tanned? I guess the Italian sun is pretty harsh for a Polish guy, but still.

>>22286284
Looking at the rest of the video, that's just the flesh-tone paint color.

Guys, what is your answer to Calvinism, presuppositionism, theonomy, reconstructionism, etc.?

I'm Orthodox and consider Thomism and Calvinism to be the most interesting schools of thought in contemporary Christianity.

>>22286327
I forgot to mention Mennonism. I haven't decided who is closer to me - Mennonites or Theonomists. They are heavily influenced by communitarian and libertarian ideas.

>>22286202
That's a lot of assumptions you listed just to convince yourself you don't need to engage with his arguments or opinions

>>22286364
They’re not assumptions. They’re inferences. And they’re correct.

>>22285483
St. Thomas Aquinas's soteriology is unimportant for most of his thought (where for Origen it is central). St. Thomas is obsessed with what is fallen man's relationship to God and not what is God's relationship to eschatological man - the latter is meaningfully different. Keep in mind, universalism and apocatastasis, when not held in absolute certitude, are just heterodox and not heresies. I am a universalist Roman Catholic because I trust God's mercy more than man's folly and sin. St. Thomas is wrong about Satan too, in my view, which is heterodox, Satan is the last angel to hear the Gospel thus why Christ is kind to demonds despite them thinking He'll torture them.

>>22286447
Scripture confirms that Judas is in Hell, and that he will not be alone. To say otherwise is heresy.

>>22286202
>2. You've never formally learned theology.
>3. You've never formally learned philosophy.
>4. You have not really studied history.
Neither did many of the Saints and a few Doctors of the Church. The Spirit is life not the letter. Candidly, this borders on harrassment and is nearly mortal but I don't think the intent was fully there to be harmful.

>>22286455
>Scripture confirms that Judas is in Hell, and that he will not be alone.
Cite the Scripture.
>To say otherwise is heresy.
Nope. Apocatastasis, in itself, was never condemned just rather the idea you can reincarnate as demons and angels and then they all get saved in conjunction. I should be clear - I think universal apocastasis is the only sensible position but I also wouldn't be surprised if God damned me for my thoughts but I trust Him.

>>22286456
>legitimate correction is a mortal sin
Public errors are worthy of public correction. St. Thomas is one of the most wonderful saints to ever live, and no theologian is more commended by the Church. To denigrate him or his work genuinely calls into question one’s catholicity.

>>22286470
>To denigrate him or his work genuinely calls into question one’s catholicity.
Calling the Good Doctor's idea that heaven would involved the celebration of seeing others damned is a very serious and concerning thought and, it is fully within Dogma to say, is disgusting. I think it categorically misrepresents mercy, grace, and even his fellow Dominican St. Vincent Ferrer saved someone "in spite of himself" as well as gave someone else his gifts and forsaked them for himself. I think there is certainty in God's goodness and our fallenness but how mercy interracts with that does not include enjoying the torture of the damned. Keep in mind, I chose St. Thomas for my patron and also correction should be correction and not describing one's prior experience as paying $80-100K to say elements 1-4 is not correction.

>>22286463
Matthew 26:24

>>22286478
>Matthew 26:24
The key here is that one reads betrayal as literal and better to not be born as instructive metaphor. You cannot truly betray Christ as Christ is everything thus it is actually literal. You can lie and try to but it's not actually possible because you cannot hurt God. You can hurt youeself by trying to hurt God but yeah betraying God implies a literal possible and God would allow someone to be born that it would be better if they weren't ever born which is not possible because God cocreates us in our mothers' wombs.

>>22286476
It is not the thought of Thomas. It is the Word of God.
>The just shall see, and shall rejoice, and the innocent shall laugh them to scorn

>>22286481
You deny scripture and you deny sin. Christ says ‘that man,’ which indicates Judas specifically, and this is confirmed by Peter in Acts when He says Judas has received his lot.

>>22286478
>>22286481
Keep in mind, most people valorize Hell because they think that without the threat of damnation the whole Jesus Christ business is a nuissance. What they do not realize is that it idolizes worldly behavior over infinite mercy and God's desire to save everyone. The question is actually rather interesting - if God was going to save you anyway then why serve? You imply that God's Gospel is a misery machine rather than what it is, a way to experience pure beauty, safety, leace, and love on this fallen and broken Earth. If you would like to forget then sin but you cannot eliminate it. God's Gospel is not a world forsaking misery game but a guide to happiness below as above.

>>22286498
>>22286489
I am not debating anymore because you both manipulate Scripture to imply eternal torture which is just not there.

>>22286500
Very backwards. Servile fear is only the beginning of holy fear. Hell is Good because it glorifies God in the perfection of His justice by executing perfect vengeance upon the unrepentant, and it also glorified God in the perfection of His mercy, by delivering a fitting and final retribution to the wicked on behalf of the innocent.

>>22286507
>perfect vengeance

>>22286506
You mean that scripture
>which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction
?
Also, you are replying to one, not two.

>>22286508
>Praise his people, ye nations, for he will revenge the blood of his servants: and will render vengeance to their enemies, and he will be merciful to the land of his people

>>22286507
>glorified God in the perfection of His mercy
the mercy of not showing mercy?
anyway, hell being eternal contradicts God's perfection

>>22286669
>If thou, O Lord, wilt mark iniquities: Lord, who shall stand it
>And he smote his enemies on the hinder parts: he put them to an everlasting reproach

>>22286024
You know this stuff does come the ground up and not directly from the Holy Spirit right, or if not from the ground up, it comes from people.
>>22286202
Oh whatever. You're trying to hide behind the might and majesty of the Catholic Church and you've said nothing to address the points except "might is right". Amazing.

>>22286507
So why is he good, why are we told that? Instead they should just say he's the biggest guy around and will squish us like a bug.
I've heard the phrasing, a sin against an infinite being merits an infinite punishment.
And so we, each of us, deserve that already? Why doesn't he infinitely fuck off, with a snap of his fingers he could put each of us in a little garden of paradise, but instead he wants to have his created beings tortured? But lucky lucky for us we might be able to squeak by if we ask Jesus, and die within a state of technical grace (baptism, confession etc).
This whole idea is just evil. Like the whole point of my post up there was just to have people try and explain why he would be considered good, and he isn't, it doesn't fit the definition. Therefore it's not true and I'm in line with the eastern churches who seem more lenient on this matter, and say less in general.

>>22287217
>This whole idea is just evil.
Largely speaking you're right if you forget that Jesus Christ comes down, dies for us, and teaches us forgiveness and grace. These anons are very hellfire happy because they fear God, which is not wrong, but they do not understand the implications of their deeply disordered heresy when they say that, for certain, one soul is in Hell they have not only committed an act of heresy but also said that God may view justice as more important than mercy and may view human choice as more important than His love. Hell is real as a possibility but damnation, mass, minority, or singular, is not ever articulated as a doctrinal certainty. It is "probable" but I don't play dice with God's mercy - I understand humans are terrible and wretched and most, if not all, of worldly pleasure is thinly veiled sadism and yet I hope against hope. These anons do not understand that damnation is not something to shrug about, and often that is what non-universalists do, they just shrug. I won't. If there is a soul in Hell then every saint in heaven worthy of its name would ask to be a missionary. God does not limit mercy in number, type, or reasons. Saying that certainly everyone is saved and that anyone certainly is damned is equally heretical but the former is just less orthodox and traditional.

>>22287324
Oh I'm pretty much in agreement with you, I'm just reacting a little too strongly. But I really like how you worded it, that they just shrug at it and don't seem to care. I'm around a lot of "traditional" Catholics in real life, I'm very familiar with the north american catholic milieu. I remember this one asshole who did in fact study all this and read latin etc was talking about some saints vision of how "souls were falling into hell like snowflakes" in these modern times. And he didn't seem upset by it, just glad he was catholic. Immaturity.
Or another time at my actual nieces baptism some family friend came up and said "Another soul saved". As if she would go to hell otherwise.

>>22287378
Your response is correct. Flippancy with salvation is largely common among good laity but never among the best priests.
>some saints vision of how "souls were falling into hell like snowflakes" in these modern times
Again, Trads (of which I am unapologetically and gladly a part of) stop caring about Church authority as soon as it means their enemies get damned. Private Saint revelations are not authoritative. I don't know why the dreams of Saints are more valuable or meaningful than a single soul's salvation but here we go. Don't worry - it's an issue among any faithful who follow Jesus Christ but just remember the absolute best priest I know, who says a private Latin mass for himself no matter how many he is serving at the crack of dawn, viewed the hope as beautiful and he hoped for it too. Don't despair - it's called the blessed hope and lean into it. I look forward to trusting God's mercy.

>>22285523
Not in his theological writings obviously, but when he delved into natural sciences, like his observations on magnetism, he comes off as blasphemous at times

>>22278667
Amen

>>22283393
It's eternal unceasing hellfire anon and any other conclusion is specifically stated to be heretical.

>>22287457
They're not good laity or good people. Trads are some of the worst, most unnatural, and stilted people I've known. I've found more compassion from tweaked out chain-smoking old ladies. Trust me I am a part of this culture, I know the hotspots, in 10 or 15 years if I'm smart enough I could write a paper on psychological, physical and sociological effects of being in these communities.

Any spanish anons here? Can any of you perhaps translate the spanish best of compilation so to speak from disputationes metaphysicae by suarez? I can find neither complete version in Latin or English available anywhere in print. Appears to be a nice spanish collection however. May have to get it myself. But pretty weak in modern romance language.

Seraphic Doctor > Mystic Doctor > Angelic Doctor btw

I quite like both Augustine and Aquinas. And those who came after as well.

Thoughts on nouvelle theologie?

Kinda presages radical orthodoxy and radtrad but also like curiously progressive in a sense of ressourcement, renewal, rebirth...

Reading Homo Abyssus now and absolutely loving it. Dunno if that counts.

Also been reading Balthasaar. Smart man. Not as good as Ulrich. But a bit easier read.


Ironically, it was Meditations on Tarot which put me back in touch with Catholic roots. Hopelessly heterodox but good spirited work methinks regardless. But I read Solovyov and Bulgakov for Sophiology too so am prone to the heterodoxy. Yet recognize church has made proper decisions on heresies mostly. So try to agree w what is what.

>>22286202
>6. If you are ever given the grace of understanding the purity of God, you will begin to understand the abominable wretchedness of sin.
then why create beings which create sin just to punish them

>>22286507
how the fuck can you write something like this unironically and not feel completely crazy doing so

>>22286447
It really makes the simplest sense that God would not stop until everything is consolidated back to him, all of creation.

>>22287217
Go back to my first post:
>>22286202
>Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability
If you really want to answer questions about good and evil, first you must define good and evil. And then, once you understand them generally as principles, you must be able to apply them to particular things. God simply Is. He is the cause of Himself. Everything else that exists, exists by His will and according to His will. Being and Goodness are coextensive. That is, they are intellectually distinguishable, but not metaphysically distinguishable. Further, and in response to >>22287324
,>>22287378
the Church Fathers are unanimous on the existence of Hell, and wherever the Church Fathers are unanimous, it is de fide. While the Church has made no explicit statement on the damnation of Judas, Hell is de fide, and all the scriptural evidence of Hell clearly shows that Judas is among the damned, for Jesus himself uses the language of damnation in reference to Judas. To believe that Judas is saved, while not likely to be formal heresy, is almost unquestionably a material heresy. And this again goes back to my first post in this thread. If you do not have the proper theological background, it is at best reckless to publish novel and unsubstantiated theological opinions. On a personal level, it is downright dangerous to your soul to seek and accept such arguments with such little understanding. The souls who are damned deserve to be damned, and it is scripture that the just in heaven will rejoice and laugh at them. However, you are right to point out that this thought should humble us deeply, for who among us knows that we will not join them? Moreover, in so far as they could have done otherwise, and in so far as our judgement has not yet come, the knowledge of the damned ought to move us to pity, and we ought to be most moved to pity for those who to all human appearances stand in need of sanctifying grace. The vision you most likely refer to is that of Our Lady of Fatima, who showed the children of Fatima the countless souls falling into hell, most commonly for sins of impurity. It is very worth noting that after this, Our Lady of Fatima insisted that whenever a rosary is said, that the following prayer should be said after every decade: "Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of they mercy." Certainly, there are those who become puffed up by studying the truths of our faith, and in their pride they become callous and spiteful. This is a great and terrible thing, and something which Jesus warned about greatly: "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees." But note also, Jesus said: "Unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." By justice is meant works of the law, which are not mere formal acts of the mosaic law, but rather acts of charity.

>>22287817
I'm not interested whatsoever in what the church has held to be true for centuries. I'm interested in the natural moral logic behind it. It's wicked and all you've been saying is "well it's how it is, you'll understand one day."
If you have such an acclaimed theological background why can't you easily refute me?
Why is the vision of god you have not a demiurge?
So don't come arguing with me on the grounds of attacking my catholicity, I'd easily discard that if I couldn't make sense of this in my head. Why did Christ fail, what he couldn't save mankind?

>>22287618
Refer to points 1-5. They are not strictly necessary for personal understanding, but if you had done them, you would not ask this kind of question. God created us with a free will. By allowing us (and helping us) to join our will freely to His, He gives us a greater gift than if we made us just like the stones or the trees which do His will without choice. Also, we are able to choose between things which are all good, and either vary in their goodness or are equivalently good. Sin is a particular kind of freely chosen act which is in contradiction to God's will. Man was created able to sin, but man was not created in order to sin. Man was created for the receiving of grace, and ultimately (but this is a difficult thing, and much debated) for the beatific vision. In other words, God created Man in order to give good things to Man. But men often reject these good things by doing those things which are in substantial contradiction to that which God desires to give.

>>22286507
On behalf of the innocent!?
I wouldn't want any of them to suffer forever and ever and ever and ever and ever. i don't care if it's child rapist ted bundy or the 12yo muslim girl killed in Palestine. No person deserves eternal punishment, wtf is wrong with you.

>>22287850
If you're not interested in what the Catholic Church teaches, how do you call yourself Catholic? I'm not a theologian, which is why I'm not referring to the arguments of this or that theologian. Rather, some here, calling themselves Catholic, have put forward ideas in contradiction to the faith. I have some duty in charity to respond according to my ability. And the substance of my response is--if you don't have a proper theological background, you should not be putting forward potentially scandalous theological opinions to the public.

>>22287878
Now you're revealing yourself as a fraud. You're not engaging in the actual matter you're just quite sure you know what the Vatican teaches so that's that.
>scandalous theological opinions
That's exactly what I'm calling eternal hell though. I feel strongly about this, and at the very least consider me a "devils advocate" and am calling attention to something troublesome that needs attention.

>>22287877
>>22287727
How do you know what anyone deserves? Have you ever considered what God deserves? When someone gives you a gift, do you not owe them at least some thanks? Does not a child owe some obedience and gratitude and respect for their parents for the gift of life and protection? Doesn't a man owe some debt to his countrymen for the good they give him by their society? Can you make a single hair grow on your head? Your very existence has come forth as a word out of the mind of God. You are, as it were, one of His thoughts. One of his considerations in the making of His great work. He has woven you into His tapestry, and have you deserved it? Was He obliged to make you? And not only this, but he invites you to look through the lattice. He invites you into His house. He invites you to be a companion with Him. If a king were to invite a beggar to table, we would call him a noble king. How much less we are than beggars, and how much more He is than a king.

>>22287900
We didn't ask for any of this, we didn't ask to be born and dangle between heaven and hell. gratitude? You're grateful for good things not bad things.
I'm HIS responsibility, he made me out of nothing and everything else so its HE that needs to make sure everything ends well for every creation.
If we're using the parent analogy then what do parents do? Sometimes they have to punish but isn't it always supposed to be with the end goal of the child understanding and coming back?

>>22287900
>parent makes child
>child does something bad
>gets viciously beaten for it
>"you deserved this, I made you and you started acting out. you deserve this."

ok

>>22287887
Feelings are not valid theological arguments. It is not a matter of theology, but one of historical fact that the Church Fathers are unanimous in the teaching of damnation. In fact, it belongs to the Apostle's creed--'the judgement of the living and the dead.' It belongs more explicitly to the Athanasian Creed, and is explicitly defined in the Council of Florence.

>>22287977
Judgment doesn't equal eternal torment. I've already said that the earliest universalists, Greggory of Nyssa and Origen believed in hell just not an eternal one. Now we made up purgatory to assuage some of these feelings but we have no need for it.
Also consider this. Let's grant that the conclusions of these councils are the infallible word of God. Well God lies, he lied to Abraham and told him to sacrifice Isaac with the purpose to test him.
Also we could just retcon the very doctrine of holding infallible truth and escape the non sensical circular logic.

>>22287977
Also don't just call them feelings, I obviously gave an argument.

>>22287936
>>22287934
God does understand you. He understand you better than you do. He sees all your thoughts. There is not a word of yours that escapes His hearing. God has given you all you need and more to be saved. Really, it is easy. The only difficulty is our own weakness. But the child is forgiven because the child is ignorant. The child lacks understanding. When a man commits a crime, he is punished both for retribution to society and also for his correction. But what if we know a man will never be corrected? And what if he owes a debt he can never pay back? We will make him pay back whatever he can for the rest of his life. If he is truly unrepentant, if he truly will never change, he will owe his debt forever. And consider what kind of a man this is. Can you imagine, a prisoner on death row--he's killed 100 children with a pipe bomb--he is offered a complete pardon; he is offered even an honorable position in society, and incredible money; imagine he is offered all the bet that life has to offer. All he has to do for these things is to go to the houses and say he's sorry to the parents. Imagine, even though he says he's sorry, he refuses to do this because he says he doesn't want to get his shoes dirty. Or, he doesn't want to do it because he doesn't like flying on airplanes. How can we say that such a man is sorry? Imagine that its offered that he doesn't even have to leave his cell, the parents will be brought to him. And it doesn't have to be done publicly. The whole thing can be convenient for him. The least rules are placed on him, but sill he finds an excuse. He says he is sorry, but he finds excuse after excuse to never apologize to the parents. This is the soul in hell.

>>22288005
>I feel strongly about this
Who are you to decide what theological questions 'need attention'? How can you not see the arrogance of your proposition? You and I are both ignorant. But at the same time that you would stand on the foundation of the Catholic faith, you would call into question the very teachings of that faith, and say that you are someone who is to be listened to. According to you, those saints which the Catholic Church--your Church--has celebrated most are really very wicked and depraved, for they teach with clarity something which has always been taught, but which doesn't sit will with your unlearned opinion. Even a surface reading of St. Thomas, the vaguest familiarity with his work, would show you that his writings are the bedrock of Catholic theology for the past 800 years. And importantly, St. Thomas did not actually teach anything particularly new; rather, he is celebrated primarily for digesting all the teachings that had come before him and arranging them with brilliant clarity and precision. There is a saying 'Augustine teaches Thomas.' You would ignore almost the entire theological history of the Catholic Church. You may as wells say the the Holy Ghost left the church in 300 A.D.

>>22288045
>you might as well say the Holy Ghost left the church in 300AD.
Or the manner in which Christian faith is safeguarded isn't in the correctness of dogma located in one exact temporal church, maybe it's the spirit of the law vs the letter, hmm. Or none of it's true.
I'm not scared by either of these ideas because I'm trying to follow a genuine truth and love, so if that leads away from the church so be it.
Now it reaches a moot point because you might just be attaching yourself to the church, and not be willing to ask if it's actually true and sensible.

>>22288062
This is literally heresy. Why even try to call yourself Catholic? If you reject what the Church teaches, why not reject the name too? You don't love the truth--you love your own opinion.

>>22288083
How am I supposed to find truth?

>>22288088
>For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded.
>For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him.
>For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.
>How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?
>And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things.
If you want to know the truth, you have to allow yourself to be taught.

>>22288099
Ok you know what, and I've already made up my mind on this before, but I think I'll just be taking Pascals wager. I recognize that without something we take for granted as truth, then we can't say anything at al is true and everything is complete Kantian nominalism.
So if that were 'true' and there was no discernable truth, then I have no good reason to not remain a catholic. I don't really want to either, by and large I like it, I'm just very very disturbed by some of these supposed truths. Maybe I don't understand them. But I'm not completely opposed to the idea that the catholic church overstepped it's bounds in the degree it can be infallible. Papal infallibility was only enacted dogmatically in 1870 after all, supposedly it was just a verbalization of the long held tradition but I'm skeptical. But I've already thought about it and I have no desire to leave the sacraments or the church (even if I harboured doubt).

Also, lots of dubs and trips in our discussion.

>>22288131
And I've been talking about this too much on 4chan in multiple threads, let me just take a break from existential dread and enjoy my summer a bit lol.

>>22288131
My friend. Get over yourself. Read again points 1-5. You are not an academic. You are not an intellectual. It's not a question of truth. It's a question of authority. No matter what you believe, you are relying on what other people have told you. That's really all the world is. What we call our beliefs are just those experiences of other people we accept as true. Consider how little we actually experience for ourselves. Christianity, then, is unique in the world. For unlike any other association of people, it claims not a merely human witness, but a Divine Witness. And obviously, the testimony of God Himself about Himself is the only implicitly infallible testimony. So then, how do we know which denomination of Christianity is true? It is as simple as examining which claims of authority are self-consistent. Only the claims of the Catholic Church are self-consistent. The claim of the Catholic Church is this--2000 years ago God became Man and revealed the most essential truths to his followers, and promised them his divine assistance for the rest of time, and so the truths he taught have been preserved unchanged, taught from one generation to the next. And this is really what the sacrament of Holy Orders is all about. Jesus elevated the Apostles. The Apostles elevated their successors. So on and so on until today. These men are especially tasked, not with the development of new ideas nor even necessarily the progress of society, but with the preservation of the faith handed down to them from Christ. Not every Bishop is a good man. They do no always uphold the duties of their office. But Christ guaranteed that His teaching, and the body of men appointed to preserve it, would not fail until the world ends. This means that the Church can never teach anything new, and it can never teach something in contradiction to what it taught before. One man might, but over the course of time, those false teachings will fall away, and what is true will remain. And so, you ought to realize, that when you participate in the sacraments of the Church, you express by your acts that you accept this witness. You give testimony by your life that these things are true. And whatever might be said about good and evil, it ought to be clear that it is not good to give false witness. If you would receive the sacraments from our predecessors in the faith, receive also their witness.

>>22288225
I skim read this, but you're missing what I'm saying and underestimating how well I understand the Catholic faith. It's not as unique as you think it is.

>>22286202
>Rather than spread your uneducated opinion, you should first try meditating on the fact that the seraphim gathered around the throne of God do not chant "power, power, power" nor "love, love, love" nor "mercy, mercy, mercy" nor "justice, justice, justice" nor "truth, truth, truth"--rather they repeat for all eternity "Holy, Holy, Holy." Consider this for a long time.
In Latin too, right?
You're such a fucking loser, holy shit. Kill yourself.

>>22286507
Such a based take, anon. Truly Twitter-pilled and rhetorically Evangelical of you. God uhhhh, let's check the script, oh yeah he KILLS NIGGERs and DEUS VULT and CONSTANTINOPLE WILL RISE AGAIN and uhhh KIKES KIKES KIKES. Thank you for this homily, oh Jesus (Aryan Warlord), Amen.

>>22288245
>I skim read this
>You don't understand me

>>22288331
I hope you find peace, anon

>>22288352
It's standard apologetics, I grew up on this stuff. But here's what I think about what you said.
We have human witnesses today who claim they have an unbroken tradition with a divine witness at the start. They also claim that their interpretation of this divine witness is the only correct one, they reach this conclusion by interpreting part of what the divine said, "Peter the rock etc." to mean they can not err in interpretations of the divine message. Circular logic; our interpretation of the divine witness is correct. Why? Because Jesus built his church on Peter, and what that means is that we can not err in dogma.
Our interpretation of the divine witness is that we can not err in dogma. Circular logic. (I already offered my view that the manner in which Christianity could be safeguarded need not to the exactness of dogma in one church).
But Jesus wasn't the first divine witness. Moses spoke face to face with God on mount Sinai. No one else did, only Moses. So in the old covenant Moses was the human who claimed to have a divine witness. By and large Christianity failed with the Jews. So we actually have two groups who claim they have a divine witness (Christianity claims two divine encounters in a way).

So we have a lot to accept as given facts. The entire old testament for one and then everything else I've outlined. All I said was that I'm doubtful of all of this, BUT I recognize the argument that you might need to just make a choice to accept something as a given truth and without doing that you can't know anything as true (maybe).
That's why I mentioned pascals wager, because while I feel strongly about the matter of eternal hell, by and large I like Catholicism. At the very least it can be a decent life.

>>22288381
Nope. You totally missed the point. How did you ever know about Blaise Pascal? Or Kant? Did these names simply appear in your mind one day? Did their arguments arrive, fully formed, as though from on high? Of course not. So try to reduce all that you know into those things which you have learned entirely from your own direct observation. What is left? No, you are not an estranged and alienated perspective wading your way through a sea of phenomena. Almost everything you accept as true has merely been told to you. And most of what you have been told was not experienced directly by the people who told you. Now obviously you have heard many contradictory things already in life. Therefore, there are some things which you have chosen to accept, and some things you have chose to reject. So really, what you believe is not determined by your personal experience. It is not determined by deep analytic thought. You have chosen your beliefs according to those witness you have perceived to be more authoritative. You live your life not according to Logos, but according to Ethos and Pathos. And this is not wrong. You are not alone in this. We all live this way. There is no avoiding it. You believe what you believe because you trust who you trust. But you are ignorant, and arrogant, (as we all are) and so you don't know how to know who to trust.

>>22281821
Hmm, perhaps these low born sluts can soak up the sin of society. They don't deserve any thanks for this work btw it's merely a practicality which will end with their damnation, sacrificial lambs so to speak.
Btw the ends don't justify the means, can't have any consequentialism.

>>22288507
How do I know who to trust? The way I see it we're only delaying the problem, because how else can I decide who to trust besides using my senses and seeing who makes the most sense.

>>22288515
You're still missing the point. I'm not trying to get you to try and answer which philosopher is more trustworthy. I'm trying to get you to open your eyes to all the other people that inhabit the world around you, and especially those people who stand between you and the past. Don't just consider the works of important writers, consider whether the people who have told you those works are important and good actually know what they're talking about. Ask yourself if you have really received a good inheritance.

>>22288526
Yes my mommy and daddy are lovely people and raised me Catholic. Yes Catholic culture has been beautiful mostly. Yes it's a good inheritance and I'm proud of how my father raised us really close to math, history, books, theology, even computer science and circuitry.
Is that what you are asking ? because now I genuinely don't know. The people I trust the most in life told me to be Catholic, yes (not just family members but authors like Chesterton, Lewis, Tolkien, all my favourite people).

But now try using that argument on a literal muslim man, say he's a bit intellectually minded, wouldn't you just try and convince him through the apparent merits of the Catholic Faith? And not on who he trusts?

How come you (if I'm right) need two different methods to convince someone to become/stay catholic?

>>22285483
>Basically I think Augustine and Aquinas were disgusting, and every time I detect them I don't like it.
Why?

>>22288541
Read the thread.

>>22278365
The summa is just a handbook where you can check if your own theological conclusions align with church dogma. This is like demanding from somebody to read a dictionary from start to finish.

>>22287597
>They're not good laity or good people
Good laity means going to church as required, donating to church and charity, and participating in the Sacraments and upholding Catholic sexual teaching.

>>22278253
i feel bad for people who didn't study the superior Nicodemus Agioritis. The invisible war is the best christian book i've ever read

>>22288718
Nope.

>>22287817
>Judas is in Hell
Not de fide nor even certain so he might not be which means he's saved. To be certain of his damnation or salvation is heresy.
>Fatima
Isn't it the Blessed Virgin asks us to pray for all salvation and yet shows us so many damned souls? It is also very difficult to say if, and I know many people who have had visions of Hell and believe them deeply, visions of Hell impute a nature to damnation that aligns with certainty - for example, as the soul is eternal then the "kingdom of Hell" is in as much in our midst as the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ and so it is not unreasonable to say a mortal sin committed against God literally creates Hell itself by removing God from Earth by rejecting Him in your soul. I believe fixed will at the point of death is taught at the Council of Trent but also only souls in a "pure" state of mortal sin with "zero" repetentance get damned. Frankly, this is an incredibly high bar that someone could knowingly do wrong and have zero reptentance and I think is categorically impossible.

>>22288734
What exactly do you define good as? Repeated selflessness? Frankly, any Catholic who has been baptized and goes to confession regularly will have moral lessons about themselves more severe than nearly all people who committed violent crimes.

>>22288744
To be clear - it seems that to commit a mortal sin means one could still confess to God at the end but to be in a state of mortal sin even unto God I view as basically impossible not because of force but because of God's good love.

>>22278667
Amen

>>22288747
I'm simply using my experience as evidence that the best laity I know, the best who do everything you should, are assholes in such a unique way. Self righteous in a way I only see religious people have, or other ideology heavy people, woke, trans etc.

>>22288770
>Self righteous in a way I only see religious people have, or other ideology heavy people,
In my narrow experience this is parish-level issue and unique to American Catholics. My parish is very trad but keep in mind having strong beliefs implies other people's strongly held beliefs and ways of life are actually disordered and wrong. I do think the only issue is that they think being a trad Catholic is forsaking this world for the next but it is trusting in the next world to purify this one out of selflessness to the good of Jesus Christ and not to the selfishness of one's individual salvation.

>>22288809
Said otherwise, Catholics have the view that they take from the Good to save themselves when really it is by giving ourselves to Jesus Christ, indifferent of worldly pain at minimum and our own soul's fate yet staying confessionally clean in the extreme, and His Church that we fulfill His mandate. To be clear, I totally agree that stiff Trads are the worst but largely they're just lower IQ and have a view of God as abusive.

>>22288809
Yes I'll grant you that. There's a university I was considering going to that's very trad, some friends went there so I visited and got the lay of the land and holy shit they were ridiculous.
I think it has something to do with the general protestant waves in america or something because at this university they reminded me of mormons, not at all like cultural catholic countries.
>out of selflessness to the good of Jesus Christ and not to the selfishness of one's individual salvation.
I really like that sentiment. Yes I agree. I would add 'to the good of all people'. God clearly wants us to understand real altruism right?

>>22288831
>God clearly wants us to understand real altruism right?
Exactly. I also think it's a culture of reactionaries which, albeit young and headache inducing, are far better future overlords than any other cultural milieu out there. I would rather have normal marriages, no porn, no abortion, and feminism dead and buried than to have Joyce's Ulysses.

>>22287604
No responses??? Just theodicy wanking? It was all solved by privatio boni

>>22288952
>privatio boni
Then why does Christianity come across so much like dualism. We have heaven and hell, God and the devil, virtue and sin.
It really tells the tale of two kingdoms seemingly, and like everyone's talking about here hell is always depicted as a place opposite to hell. If it was just the lack of heaven that paints such a different picture.
You got no responses because you're probably the smartest person in the thread.

>>22288980
I was always told growing up that gnosticism was a heresy along with things like arianism and zorastrianism/manicheanism for the simple reason of being too dualistic. Does monism preserve dualism? Is monism nondualism? The problem of nothing(ness) is immense. Is nothing a thing at all? Must we collapse all distinctions if monists? Some eastern non-dualists for such reasons try to separate their beliefs from both monism and dualism. While yet preserving aspects of both. Kinda like a Hegelian sublation. Dialectics bb. You can see similar moves in people like Laruelle and Neoplatonists of olden times. There is the one. But a one above the one as well. A one that is not one. Proper christian theology should be triadic or trinitarian methinks. That is the revelation is it not? Satan is tricky issue. I do not dabble in pop theology. Alas most ideas of such come from there. Agamben says Satan is the power of judgement. Insert Kantian bs. Are we but vessels destined for the fire? Or even oblivion? Condemned? With God's grace, I hope all shall be saved like the fellow heterodox here. I believe Balthasaar asked the question before DBH. Ofc goes back to Origen. Who was condemned. But I worry mainly about myself. And I know that God wants me to use my freedom. To do good. To know goodness. As Buddhists say, absolutely there may be no difference between samsara and nirvana but practically on the relative level you must adhere to virtue ethics and accumulate "good" karma and so on and so forth.

Is Ipsum Esse Subsistens just the Nirguna Brahman? I'm seeing a lot of Catholics happy to make the connection between Aquinas and Shankara.

>>22289055
Sankara despite beautiful metaphysics is an impersonalist and lacking. Kinda like the henotheist systems of Neoplatonists. You can populate all sorts of demons and devas but ultimately all is one and unknowable. I think Christianity says God is both knowable and unknowable. He has revealed himself. For that is how we cone to know best. Hence for exanple why modern Hindus are more into Bhakti type movements than the more intellectual advaita movements that are popular among orientalists and theosophists is that we need that Saguna Brahma so to speak. Nirguna is not enough.

>>22288537
No, it’s not. I’m asking you to take an honest look at your own ignorance, and consider more thoughtfully that it is not even your own ignorance, but the ignorance of men and Man. But it is an ignorance you must recognize in yourself on a personal level. Consider the frailty of man’s knowledge and our precarious is our grasp on reality. You need to escape from your over-literate alienation from the past. You need to recognize your sweaty, human proximity to the dead. You need to live unencyclopedically. You need to come to terms with your own historical anonymity, and thereby discover the presence of the anonymous in your understanding of the past. You need to see how the sun once shown on the past the way it now shines on us, and soon we will join our fathers in the dark. Finally, you must understand that Truth is not something which bubbles up from inside of us and fishes forth, but rather it is something outside of us which we are given in pieces and fragments and only in so much as our companions are honest men. So when I ask, how do we know who to trust—the answer is that we should trust honest men. If you cannot recognize honesty, it is because you are not honest. And as much as you live honestly, you will be able to recognize what is honest in others.

>>22288753
>>22288744
That scripture is infallible is de fide. That there is a final judgement is de fide. That the soul is eternal is de fide. That God’s will is fixed is de fide. That the will of the soul at death is fixed is de fide. That an unrepentant sinner is damned is de fide. Scripture reveals damnation. The language by which scripture establishes damnation is used by Christ and by Peter to describe the fate of Judas. All the fathers agree in this interpretation. The damnation of Judas has not been defined by the Church, but the definitions of the church are not the limit of the Church’s dogmatic teaching. I am not a theologian, so I cannot say that it is impossible to reconcile Catholic Faith with the thought that Judas was saved. But, who among us is such a brilliant theologian that they can show the manner by which it can be reconciled? Since all here are fundamentally ignorant of these high subjects, as measured by the standards of the Church and common sense, what can it be put a profound presumption to so callously contend against the weighty evidence as to actually pour disgust upon the writings of the Churches most beloved teachers?

>>22288770
>>22288809
>>22288831
>>22288843
>my experience
Perhaps something about mores and logs would be fitting here? What do you have to say about all those whom you have not seen, or whom you have chosen to ignore? You think them callous, but I am a begger for your pity.

>>22289425
>That the will of the soul at death is fixed is de fide
how does that happen?

>>22285483
>Jews still do not try to understand that matter of things too specifically, which I think is wise.

What do you mean by this?

The only thing that burns in hell is the part of you that won't let go of your life: your memories, your attachments. They burn them all away, but they're not punishing you, they're freeing your soul. If you're frightened of dying and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. If you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels freeing you from the earth.
-Jacob's Ladder

Any ortho schizo russian troll fag bros willing to talk about the flying soul houses after death? Where do I learn more about that lore?

is ya nigga's crazy?

>>22289446
I am not a theologian, so I cannot really answer with any authority, but as I understand it the will of the soul is fixed at death because all those means by which the will changes its intention come from the body. But, at death, the soul is separated from the body. So, at death, the soul continues desiring as it desired in that moment. It has no longer any power to change itself.

There is an apocryphal christian legend that when Christ died he descended to hell for three days wherein he preached to the sinners and even the devil and upon resurrection vanquished not only sin and death but evil and damnation as well...

>>22289557
so the will has no will, it's the dick that has will...
seems more of that "le flesh is evil" line of reasoning that led monks to not bathing ever and nuns doing things like pic related

>>22289603
The dick / body and the brain / will actually battle over the heart. Both can be used for good n evil. What happens to the heart after death? Weighed by anubis or smthn. But certainly I weep and bleed for the very possibility of evil and eternal ends. Yet is part of world. Who am I to question the anthropotheo-drama?

>>22289572
I like Bulgakov's hypothetical account wherein Christ and Judas meet face-to-face during the Harrowing and the outcome is left uncertain.

>>22281861
>Christian art
>it's just Roman art

>>22289603
Again, I'm not a theologian. And neither are you. I did not say that the will ceases, but that the means by which the will changes its intention are stirpped. The will is that faculty which moves the lower power towards some particular end. In life, the will is informed by the senses, and then it uses those powers of the body which aid the intellect to deliberate between various possible ends. Let's say a man desires fornication. This is contrary to the law of God, and so in desiring it and perusing it, he necessarily places the pleasure of fornication as his final end rather than placing the love of God as his final end. Over time, the movement of his will toward fornication becomes habitual. But, still in life, the man may experience certain physical pains that show him he is choosing wrongly. Or perhaps he encounters a good preacher or a good book. He can use his imagination to consider some truth of faith or the gravity of the law. In all these things, his will works with his body to set for himself a new end toward which he will act. But when he dies, his body is separated from his soul. The body is dead and lifeless, while his soul continues on. The will, losing those powers by which it could correct its course, now carries on according to its habit and disposition.

>>22289653
Are Andrei Rublev's icons examples of Christian art or Russian art?

>>22289065
>Sankara despite beautiful metaphysics is an impersonalist and lacking. Kinda like the henotheist systems of Neoplatonists. You can populate all sorts of demons and devas but ultimately all is one and unknowable.
For Sankara the Absolute is not "unknowable" but it's the most self-evident and obvious thing of all—your own self.

>>22289766
Such a self is stripped of all personality. Sankara kant even answer whether maya is an illusion or real or why it is created.

>>22289776
>Such a self is stripped of all personality.
Something cannot be stripped of what it never possessed in the first place. One's own awareness lacks all traits associated with having a "personality" and these only appear as non-aware phenomena that are associated with sentient awareness in the context of humanly experience. It is through a habitual misidentification that people assume the awareness is the possessor of the properties and has them as it's "personality", like naively assuming that the clear crystal ball has really changed into a red colored-ball instead ofit merely allowing the red cloth behind the ball to be seen and revealed through it.
>Sankara kant even answer whether maya is an illusion or real
He does answer this, he says that everything besides Brahman is illusory, the very name of maya implies its illusory nature
>or why it is created.
What he says that it projected as an illusion due to it being Brahman's nature to do so, Brahman is possessed of the power to do so which is automatically actualized without requiring any effort or volition by Brahman, Brahman is not even aware of Himself as having created or projected the illusion and nor is Brahman aware of the illusion, from Brahman's perspective nothing has ever happened and Brahman just happily abides in eternal freedom and non-duality.

>>22289850
Ya. That's absurd. I'm sorry. All cows black bs. I can buy that the relation of the atman to my jiva is analogous to brahman to its maya but irregardless it is ugly and sterile and contradictory to claim my atman is brahman and like neoplatonism and other paganisms and judaism advaita has been sublated by the full revelation of Christianity.

>>22289868
>Ya. That's absurd. I'm sorry. All cows black bs.
I don't think so,
>All cows black bs.
I find the source of this quote (Hegel) to be bs, plus that occurs in the context of his disputation with other German Idealists and it has little relevance to the present topic, that's probably why you mentioned it as a brief aside instead of trying to expand it into an argument that would be relevant.
>I can buy that the relation of the atman to my jiva is analogous to brahman to its maya but irregardless it is ugly and sterile and contradictory to claim my atman is brahman
It's not ugly, sterile or contradictory to say that one's Atman is Brahman. The former two are subjective aesthetic judgements but I'm curious what exactly you think the contradiction here is.
>and like neoplatonism and other paganisms and judaism advaita has been sublated by the full revelation of Christianity.
I disagree

Thomists disgust me.

>>22289850
how embarrassing

>>22289953
>St. Thomas perfected and augmented still further by the almost angelic quality of his intellect all this superb patrimony of wisdom which he inherited from his predecessors and applied it to prepare, illustrate and protect sacred doctrine in the minds of men (In Librum Boethii de Trinitate, quaest, ii, 3). Sound reason suggests that it would be foolish to neglect it and religion will not suffer it to be in any way attenuated. And rightly, because, if Catholic doctrine is once deprived of this strong bulwark, it is useless to seek the slightest assistance for its defence in a philosophy whose principles are either common to the errors of materialism, monism, pantheism, socialism and modernism, or certainly not opposed to such systems. The reason is that the capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.
>We therefore desired that all teachers of philosophy and sacred theology should be warned that if they deviated so much as a step, in metaphysics especially, from Aquinas, they exposed themselves to grave risk. --We now go further and solemnly declare that those who in their interpretations misrepresent or affect to despise the principles and major theses of his philosophy are not only not following St. Thomas but are even far astray from the saintly Doctor. If the doctrine of any writer or Saint has ever been approved by Us or Our Predecessors with such singular commendation and in such a way that to the commendation were added an invitation and order to propagate and defend it, it may easily be understood that it was commended to the extent that it agreed with the principles of Aquinas or was in no way opposed to them.

>>22289953
>>22290015
>>As for sacred theology itself, it is Our desire that the study of it be always illuminated by the light of the philosophy before referred to, but in ordinary clerical seminaries, provided suitable teachers are available, there is no objection to the use of text books containing summaries of doctrines derived from the source of Aquinas. There is an ample supply of excellent works of the kind.
>But for the more profound study of this science, as it ought to be studied in Universities and Colleges and in all Seminaries and institutions which are empowered to grant academic degrees, it is of the first importance that the old system of lecturing on the actual text of the Summa Theologica- which should never have been allowed to fall into disuse-- be revived; for the reason also that prelections on this book make it easier to understand and to illustrate the solemn decrees of the teaching Church and the acts passed in consequence. For ever since the happy death of the saintly Doctor, the Church has not held a single Council, but he has been present at it with the wealth of his doctrine. The experience of so many centuries has shown and every passing day more clearly proves the truth of the statement made by Our Predecessor John XXII: "He (Thomas Aquinas) enlightened the Church more than all the other Doctors together; a man can derive more profit from his books in one year than from a lifetime spent in pondering the philosophy of others" (Consistorial address of 1318). St. Pius V confirmed this opinion when he ordered the feast of St. Thomas as Doctor to be kept by the universal Church: "But inasmuch as, by the providence of Almighty God, the power and truth of the philosophy of the Angelic Doctor, ever since his enrolment amongst the citizens of Heaven, have confounded, refuted and routed many subsequent heresies, as was so often clearly seen in the past and was lately apparent in the sacred decrees of the Council of Trent, We order that the memory of the Doctor by whose valour the world is daily delivered from pestilential errors be cultivated more than ever before with feelings of pious and grateful devotion" (Bull Mirabilis Deus of the 11th April, 1567). To avoid recapitulating the many other resounding praises of Our Predecessors, We may adopt the following words of Benedict XIV as a summary of all the commendations bestowed upon the writings of Thomas Aquinas, more particularly the Summa Theologica: "Numerous Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, have borne glorious testimony to his philosophy. We also, in the books which We have written on various topics, after by diligent examination perceiving and considering the mind of the Angelic Doctor, have always adhered and subscribed with joy and admiration to his philosophy, and candidly confess that whatever good is to be found in Our own Writings is in no way to be attributed to Us, but entirely to so eminent a teacher" (Acta Cap. Gen. O.P., vol IX, p. 196).
Pope St. Pius X

>>22286327
I'm a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Presup apologetics is a requirement for our pastors.

In my congregation we probably have more general equity theonomists than most since we have a lot of Doug Wilson fans.

Hey you fucking Protestants stop teaching children this lame ass art is acceptable. Its purpose is to lameify our glory of God.

>>22290052
This art is less offensive than your language.

>>22290059
This art is bad for Christianity and would-be Christians. Especially those raised in mega corp churches. It makes them not want to be Christians because of how fucking lame it is.

>>22290059
>I like ugly art
On the image boards nonetheless

>>22290067
That it is bad does not make your obscenity better.

>>22290074
>I raise my kids with this instead of Roman statues and German architecture
???

>>22290071
You like anime. Your opinion is irrelevant.

>>22289055
related to your question:

https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/28ce8647-043e-439a-a5c3-5290ec8af11c/content

>>22290140
so it's a yes then? got it

>>22289437
>You think them callous, but I am a begger for your pity.
I really have no idea who I am speaking with atthis point but suffice it to say that I don't pity people who are luke warm to anyone's damnation.

>>22289425
>I am not a theologian, so I cannot say that it is impossible to reconcile Catholic Faith with the thought that Judas was saved. But, who among us is such a brilliant theologian that they can show the manner by which it can be reconciled?
CCC 1058 - the Catechism agrees with me as it being a possibility so saying Judas is damned, OR ANYONE, with certitude, is incorrect.

>>22290399
>I have no pity for those I deem to be pitiless.

>>22289670
but ultimately the conclusion is still that after death we have no more free will, as it is tied to the physical world
honestly this makes no sense, but I guess theologians needed an explanation for why souls in hell can't be redeemed...

If you're defending eternal torment, but refuse to place your hand on a hot stove for a full second, let alone five seconds, you're just arguing with cartoons in your head.

>>22290460
>I don't understand it
>Therefore it doesn't make sense

>>22290484
>If you think there are some pains that are unavoidable, why do you avoid those pains which can be avoided?

>>22288011
>justifying the actions of an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God by comparing his position to that of the fragile legal systems/moral systems of human beings
nope, nice try tho

>>22289572
Isn't that just in the Apostles' Creed mixed with 1 Peter 3, though?
>[...] he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead
- Apostles' Creed
>For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
- 1 Peter 3:18-20 ESV

>>22290589
>Justice isn't real. It's just something some people made up to oppress other people.

>>22290603
>infinite punishment for finite transgression is Justice

>>22290602
No. The tradition of the is that Christ when to that outer hell which we call limbo to relieve the expectation of the just--the patriarchs and the prophets and other holy men and women--who could not enter heaven until Christ opened heaven to Man by redemption. This outer hell is distinct from the hell of damnation.

>>22290615
>Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. In no judgment, however, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11) is it requisite for punishment to equal fault in point of duration. For the fact that adultery or murder is committed in a moment does not call for a momentary punishment: in fact they are punished sometimes by imprisonment or banishment for life—sometimes even by death; wherein account is not taken of the time occupied in killing, but rather of the expediency of removing the murderer from the fellowship of the living, so that this punishment, in its own way, represents the eternity of punishment inflicted by God. Now according to Gregory (Dial. iv, 44) it is just that he who has sinned against God in his own eternity should be punished in God's eternity. A man is said to have sinned in his own eternity, not only as regards continual sinning throughout his whole life, but also because, from the very fact that he fixes his end in sin, he has the will to sin, everlastingly. Wherefore Gregory says (Dial. iv, 44) that the "wicked would wish to live without end, that they might abide in their sins for ever."
-St. Thomas

>>22290640
>canned Aquinas reply
you take his authority to that of scripture
and if Hell since is eternal, then it is just has valid as God as it is equally absolute (which logic dictates should should be a contradiction, as there can only be one)

>>22290627
this seems like another nonsensical explanation just to mantain unreasonable dogma

>>22290406
Incompetent interpretation. It would be absolutely wrong to pray for the damnation of anyone, and it would be wrong to consider any living soul beyond hope. But consider what the same text says just above:
>1051: Every man receives his eternal recompense in his immortal soul from the moment of his death in a particular judgment by Christ, the judge of the living and the dead.
Damnation is a de fide dogma of the Church. Christ Himself, using the language by which we establish the doctrine of damnation, indicates strongly that Judas is damned.

>>22290691
Scripture says that Hell is eternal.
>Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
Before you criticize others for being nonsensical, you should try to make sure your sentences are coherent.

>>22290640
>in fact they are punished sometimes by imprisonment or banishment for life—sometimes even by death; wherein account is not taken of the time occupied in killing, but rather of the expediency of removing the murderer from the fellowship of the living, so that this punishment, in its own way, represents the eternity of punishment inflicted by God.
But it doesn't. No human punishment is infinite or comparable in any way to the torture inflicted upon those in Hell. Even killing a murderer or adulterer is only a finite punishment. Say for the sake of argument that death is the end of consciousness and that once you die, you simply cease to be - no metaphysical afterlife. Even in such a case, killing the guilty is not comparable as their existence simply ends with the end of their consciousness. This is far different to the active and continual punishment of tortured souls in Hell, wherein they continue to exist for all eternity in agony as a result of their transgressions.

Your lazy copypasted argument from another person completely fails to craft a coherent defense of eternal, unceasing and ever intense torture.

>>22286507
Your God is not qualitatively speaking different from Satan. Both create sin through accusation. Continual forgiveness of sins is the motto of the New Testament; to think that Jesus, who never answered tyranny with tyranny during his life, is waiting to exact a more horrible punishment than he ever endured is foolish. His fight was always against states of mind, never particular individuals. The state of mind produced by the Sabbath law was what he abhorred, and by repudiating it he repudiated the figure of God represented to minds under the yoke of the Sabbath, viz. the God of the Book of Job, who can only justify the things he does through the tyrannies of space and time, through fear and torment, through mysterious claims of holiness and sanctitude, which are the only arguments his followers are able to come up with when they are forced to justify the existence of a post mortem burning pit of fire and brimstone created by this God.

>>22290067
shut the fuck up aestheticist trash

>>22290723
>represents
We sentence men to multiple life sentences. We sentence men to death. We would imprison men for eternity if it was in our power, but it is not in our power, and so we find other means to express it, like sewing them up in a sack and sinking them in the ocean with an anchor, or erasing them from photographers and criminalizing their name. But more to the point, it is a strange and terrible vanity would criticize a man for referencing a superior source. This is a thread about St. Thomas; he answered you contention deftly, and now, unable to defend yourself you chastise me for standing on the very work this thread was made to celebrate.

>>22290806
You are an ignorant onanist.

>>22287502
>when he stopped writing about sky fairies and actually looked into something useful in the real world, he started risking becoming a target of persecution
never change christians, never change

>>22291438
>We would imprison men for eternity if it was in our power
No, we wouldn't. Legal systems even go into semantic arguments against the necessity of infinite punishment. Didn't read the rest because you are fundamentally uneducated on matters of crime and punishment with humans.

>>22291460
The laws of the past 50 years are hardly representative compared to the rest of history.

>>22291458
I hope you don’t consider anons to be reliable sources, anon

>>22291522
huh? everybody knows the church is the greatest anti-intellectual force in the history of mankind, bar none. I'm not believing anybody, this is common knowledge

>>22291530
>everybody knows
>I asked them
The power of empiricism is truly remarkable

>>22291535
>muh overgeneralization fallacy
back to r/christianity

>>22291544
The lack of self-awareness is actually painful.