Aquinas

[Anonymous No.19795894]

>Widely considered (even by secular philosophers), as the greatest philosopher of the Middle Ages, and among the greatest philosophers in history, probably in the top five of all time.
>Metaphysical assumptions aboutrealityare the foundation of modern science, a task that not even professional biologists and physicists have been able to achieve.
>/lit/ does not discuss it just because he defended Catholicism and because he was a theologian.
I have never read a discussion about actuality and potentiality here, and when his arguments in favor of the existence of God are brought up almost always those who post have misinterpretations of these and make a fool of themselves.

[Anonymous No.19796547]

Non-Catholic people rarely read Aquinas. They prefer to go for some meme popular philosophers like nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.19796552]

>>19796547
/thread
This board's interest in philosophy is pretty much limited to what appeals to teenagers, so either Nietzsche for those who feel superior to the sheeples, or some flavour of nihilism for those who just can't get a gf

[Anonymous No.19796606]

>>19796547
>>19796552
The lack of self awareness is amazing, is this satire?

[Anonymous No.19796935]

>>19795894
>actuality and potentiality
>arguments for the existence of God
We're in a post-Kant post-Husserl era, there is no excuse to waste any more time on such childish ideas.

[Anonymous No.19796971]

>>19795894
His IQ was 120 at the absolute most.

[Anonymous No.19796990]

>>19796971
Ah yes, after reading the Wikipedia page, /lit/ has reached a consensus on how many matching pictures would a Catholic monk living in the XIII century find.

[that one capitalist. No.19797005]

>>19795894
https://youtu.be/yOlU_4pzft4
A protestant tours a catholic cathedral

https://youtu.be/rbAQGvuoXwk
A protestant talks with a catholic priest

https://youtu.be/ISB4GTj7sc0
Journey of the apostles

https://youtu.be/xFIXMM1KWyc
Church history: complete documentary AD 33 to Present

https://youtu.be/305OOQGc2yY
All popes of the catholic church: st peter to francis

https://youtu.be/Y80qNnuIIig
Minute faith - roman catholicism

https://youtu.be/uEqmE9Z_BZ0
What is catholicism?

https://youtu.be/gsAc7bS7Nt0
What inside a catholic church?

https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattolici_tradizionalisti
Traditionalist Catholics

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicisme_social
Social catholicism

https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributismo

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributionnisme
distributism

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_carolingienne

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karolingische_Renaissance
Carolingian Renaissance

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottonische_Renaissance
Ottonian Renaissance

here bro

[Anonymous No.19797019]

>>19795894
Copleston's book on Aquinas is excellent.

[Anonymous No.19797064]

>>19795894
Aquinas is quite complex.
Where is the best place to start with this holy man?

[Anonymous No.19797112]

>>19795894
>among the greatest philosophers in history, probably in the top five of all time.
Only if you agree with him. What use is there in ranking philosophers without paying any mind to what they argued for and just calling them "great"?

[Anonymous No.19797147]

>>19797064
>Where is the best place to start with this holy man?
Plato

[Anonymous No.19797155]

>>19797147
I will check him out. Any rec for someone that is about to begin Plato?

[Anonymous No.19797179]

>>19795894
He was fat. I don’t like fatties.

[Anonymous No.19797260]

>>19796935
>Kant
Wrong.
>Husserl
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.19797275]

>>19797155

[Anonymous No.19797284]

>>19796935
I recommend Gaven Kerr's work, it's specifically on Aquinas from a post-Kantian perspective.
During the course of working on my thesis, interacting with Kant's CPR, it's remarkable how bad his argument against the traditional arguments is. Essentially, because he [rightly] rejects the ontological argument (God as necessary being by definition), therefore if a different argument proves what the ontological argument concludes to (e.g. God as necessary being by logical demonstration) he thinks it relies on the ontological argument. One would think Thomists rejecting the ontological argument would be a clue that this isn't the case.
>>19797064
Ed Feser's "Aquinas for Beginners," but you won't go wrong reading some Plato like anon said. Copleston is good too, not a big gilson fan but YMMV. If you have time for YouTube philosophy Pints with Aquinas or Pat Flynn/ Philosophy for the People are good, be warned that the latter can get advanced fairly quickly

[Anonymous No.19797516]

>>19797275
>>19797284
Thanks a lot

[Anonymous No.19797823]

>>19797155
Apology, Apology

[Anonymous No.19797852]

>>19796971
he memorized the entire latin bible. but you're surely at least 130 IQ because you watch rick an morty, right?

[Anonymous No.19798066]

what's with catholics, christians or religious people in general with this false sense of persecution. What do you mean Aquinas is never discussed? I saw another Aquinas thread earlier today. I see threads about theologians, religious philosophers, and religion itself all the time. And they're almost never attacked by atheists or whatever, it's the atheists that are made fun of and hated the most here.

[Anonymous No.19798077]

>>19796935
>post-Kant
Kant was refuted by literally every single philosopher after him, even the fucking Einstein obligated trascendental idealism.

>post-Husserl
Compatible with Aquinas, even Pope JPII liked both Aquinas and Husserl, phenomenology is part of the project of Aristotle and Aquinas.

>>19796971
Most retarded thing I have ever read in this website.

[Anonymous No.19798082]

>>19798066
shut the fuck up atheist

[Anonymous No.19798086]

>>19798077
>even Pope JPII
he was not a valid pope or a catholic at all. piss be upon his name for eternity and fuck him in Hell for ever.

[Anonymous No.19798103]

>>19798086
Found the sedevacantist lmao, cope and seethe

[Anonymous No.19798132]

>>19798103
you really think this man was a saint? he KISSED a book that says Christ is not God.

[Anonymous No.19798177]

The real answer is that its too long and dry for the average person. If half the protestants had had access to him and knew how to read him the reformation and many other heresies wouldnt have been an issue.

[Anonymous No.19798180]

>>19796935
Aquinas touches on serious issues like War within the ST

[Anonymous No.19798186]

>>19797005
>>19797019
Thanks guys

[Anonymous No.19798263]

What do you think is the best way to read him?
1-2-3-4; 1-2-3-4
Or
1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4

[Anonymous No.19798284]

>>19798263
the latter if you have to pick, but i just skip around to whatever part I'm interested in. constraining myself to reading linearly has hindered me greatly from learning as much as I could have in the past

[Anonymous No.19798345]

>>19796935
In the post-Kant era we have Guénon who retroactively refuted Kant. "Actuality and potentiality" still stands, see The reign of quantity and the signs of the times.

[Anonymous No.19798718]

>>19798082
what I find so bizarre is that a genuine christian could not have made this meme

[Anonymous No.19798755]

>>19796971
Sounds to me like you’re projecting, anon.

[Anonymous No.19798765]

>>19797284
>Essentially, because he [rightly] rejects the ontological argument (God as necessary being by definition), therefore if a different argument proves what the ontological argument concludes to (e.g. God as necessary being by logical demonstration) he thinks it relies on the ontological argument. One would think Thomists rejecting the ontological argument would be a clue that this isn't the case.
Wow, and this is the guy that people hold up as revolutionizing philosophy, what an embarrassment

[Anonymous No.19798776]

>>19798066
I go to /lit/ almost everyday, and its only been this month where I’ve seen Aquinas threads being made (pssst i made one of them). This is contrast to last year where there were like a hundred Neetch, Guenon, Jordan Peterson and Cormac Mcarthy threads.

>Atheists are being persecuted
Cope. You’ll find a similar case in /his/ where there are literally tons of Anti-Christian threads being spawned everyday.

[Anonymous No.19798782]

>>19798132
A sign of respect, not Apostasy.

[Anonymous No.19798832]

Disputed Questions on Truth is a great book. Don't read Aquinas like you would read a math textbook. You should just read it out loud and let it wash over you. You won't understand when you read it but it's like planting seeds that will grow over time

[Anonymous No.19798839]

>>19798776
>/his/ crossboarder
disgusting

[Anonymous No.19798857]

>>19798839
Nah, man I don't go to that shit hole. My first visit was enough to keep from ever returning there.

[Anonymous No.19798932]

>>19798782
do you also kiss boys you respect? faggot.

[Anonymous No.19798941]

>>19798782
also the catechism of St Pius X commanded Christians to burn KJV's if they were given them. if you had any faith at all you would agree with that as well as realize that jpii wasn't Christian in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.19798952]

>>19798082
This particular genus of right-wing meme is an interesting development because of the total lack of irony. /pol/ has historically thrived on ruthless satire, whereas memes of this new format are almost devoid of commentary and consist of mere insult. This one in particular isn't even a sensible metaphor. What is "heavy" about being retarded? Surely it would just make one stupid.

[Anonymous No.19798973]

>>19798776
>I go to /lit/ almost everyday, and its only been this month where I’ve seen Aquinas threads being made
You obviously are a new arrival because Christposting has been going on in earnest since 2014. Before that this board was non-stop Marx, Foucault, Derrida

[Anonymous No.19798975]

>>19798952
shut the fuck up tranny

[Anonymous No.19799054]

>>19798941
>le Castro pic with JPII
Lol

[Anonymous No.19799074]

>>19796547
Aquinas is the meme of this board

[Anonymous No.19799097]

>>19799074
>butthurt
Nietzsche fags cant meme

[Anonymous No.19799107]

>>19798975
Nice comeback, Champ! You really hurt some feelings and made a difference on this side of the 4chan!

[Anonymous No.19799131]

>>19799054
if shaking hands with castro and epstein and kissing a kuran isn't an issue for you, then was the time jpii invited jews, muslims, shintos, bhuddists, and other sects to Assisi to pray together as one? the bhuddists placed a statue of bhudda and burning incense on a tabernacle in a catholic church and worshipped it. all the sects were invited into a church building with many rooms and crucifixes were removed or covered up so the false religions wouldn't be offended. you see no problem with this?

[Anonymous No.19799135]

>>19799131
no

[Anonymous No.19799145]

>>19799135
so then admit you aren't Christian

[Anonymous No.19799172]

>>19799074
Have you read Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.19799192]

>>19799074
>Aquinas is the meme of this board

Stop kidding yourself, newfag.

[Anonymous No.19799219]

>>19798345
>In the post-Kant era we have Guénon who retroactively refuted Kant
PBUH

[Anonymous No.19799261]

>>19795894
Aquinas is mentioned here all the time. People who haven't read the Summa constantly recommend it as an intro to Christianity, not realizing how ridiculous that is due to it's complexity, style, and size.

People talk about actuality in phil threads all the time. That isn't an Aquinas topic. It's a basic metaphysics topic. Aristotle began the major differentiation of potential vs actual to deal with Parmenides. Aquinas has a lot of novel additions, but a lot of what created his fame was restating commentaries of Aristotle written by Jews and Muslims in Christian terms.

He's one of the greats for sure, but this thread seems more like a persecution complex.

Also, top five of all time? I'm not sure about that, but certainly for the era. Although theologically I would put Augustine and Pseudo Dionysius before him. For philosophers, Maimonides, Occam, and Avicenna could rank higher. In short term impact, Averoese might be number one for creating a craze, but the impact didn't last as long.

People tend to use Ansalem's proof of God because it has held up so much better.

[Anonymous No.19799345]

>>19799261
Aquinas is still the official metaphysics of the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.19799500]

>>19799131
Ok sedevacantist you win, explain to me how the popes before the Second Vatican Council were different and what solution do you propose for this crisis; and if it really is as you say and you explain it to me well, I will think hard about becoming a sedevacantist like you, I will give you the opportunity.

>>19799135
Not me

[Anonymous No.19799504]

>>19799131
St. Marcel Lefebvre did nothing wrong
>>19799345
Correct, Scotism and Suarez can't compete
>>19798263
Honestly ST is great but you really need to read earlier works like de Esse et Essentia, de Aeternitate Mundi, and de Potentia Dei, as well as commentaries in Boethius (especially on the Trinity and de Hebdomadibus). Commentaries on Aquinas like Feser and Copleston are also great.

[Anonymous No.19799522]

>>19799504
The Summa is the introductory work. And no one should really be reading these things until they've mastered a Catechism.

[Anonymous No.19799538]

All philosophy post Thomas Aquinas is experimentation and boredom, Thomism has never actually been refuted.

[Anonymous No.19799548]

>>19795894
Talking about God is about as interesting as talking about Batman to me. I don't give a shit. You could be the biggest brained genius in the world but if you're writing essays on the nature of Batman I don't care, there are too many real things to think about, too many other philosophers and writers to read.

[Anonymous No.19799555]

>>19799131
You deal with false religions by affirming the truth and good within their own traditions, and showing a reverence to your shared dignity. The biggest problem with Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, ect is that the error in those traditions erodes human dignity, and only Catholicism fully protects the divine image of man as it's the Church of the incarnate God.

[Anonymous No.19799557]

>>19799538
Thomism has never been refuted because it is basically a synthesis of the best of Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Roman Catholicism: A milkshake of the best that existed in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19799561]

>>19799548
Let's talk about you instead

[Anonymous No.19799566]

>>19799557
It's also mostly true

[Anonymous No.19799569]

>>19799504
Atheistfags BTFO'D forever!

[Anonymous No.19799583]

>>19799548
>God isn't interesting
>There are too many reeeeeeeeeeeel things to talk about
>There are too many other midwits to read about
>((Still contributes to Aquinas thread anyway))

Time to grow up, boy.

[Anonymous No.19799588]

>>19795894
>Metaphysical assumptions about reality are the foundation of modern science
I saw someone claim this a few days ago and it's simply not true. You can read that faggot Feser and see how much he bitches about modern science not following Aristotle. Modern science is founded on the refutation of parts of Aristotelian metaphysics and modern science BTFO of Aristotelian science.

[Anonymous No.19799605]

>>19795894
>Metaphysical assumptions aboutrealityare the foundation of modern science
Can you elaborate on this? What would happen if you tried to base science on pre-Christian Aristotelian metaphysics, for example, without any of Aquinas' input?

[Anonymous No.19799606]

>>19798941
>also the catechism of St Pius X commanded Christians to burn KJV's if they were given them.
based
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSiz7NwuW7Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33Exy2onqlk

[Anonymous No.19799612]

>>19799605
>What would happen if you tried to base science on pre-Christian Aristotelian metaphysics
You get Aristotelian physics that was just plain wrong

[Anonymous No.19799613]

>>19795894
Who are the other 4

[Anonymous No.19799620]

>>19799612
Why is it wrong though? What is it about the metaphysics that prevents you from developing a proper scientific method?

[Anonymous No.19799621]

>>19798952
>total lack of irony
You must have strong shoulders from bearing the heavy weight of retardation.

[Anonymous No.19799623]

>>19798132
In the modern world Muslims are not the main enemy of the church, they're closer allies than the American government. Muslims as people are usually better and more Christ like than Americans in general

[Anonymous No.19799636]

>>19799557
Why bother to refute thomism if you can easily discard its premises? The only motive to accept his premises but refute him would be to advance a non-thomist Christianity. No one cares enough, not the atheists and not the Christians

[Anonymous No.19799639]

>>19799620
>What is it about the metaphysics that prevents you from developing a proper scientific method?
Presupposing a metaphysics that is the basis for your science is not compatible with the scientific method. Since experimentation can prove your science and by extension your metaphysics wrong you stop doing experiments and just rely on authority

[Anonymous No.19799641]

>>19799500
The first fact I present to you is that John XXIII was the one who convened the Vatican II Council. This council is the central issue to any man claiming to be catholic today, regardless of which of the three major camps he falls into.
>1) Modernists who believe it was the holiest council of all time that finally fixed the Catholic Church and made it relevant again.
>2) Those who remain in communion with the Vatican yet try to retain the traditions of the Catholic Church despite the efforts of the Vatican II popes, and believe the council either wasn't truly an ecumenical council, or that it was infallible, but its documents were written ambiguously so as to be later easily interpreted in a modernist way.
>3) Sedevacantists who reject the council altogether as not catholic on the grounds that it contradicts previous ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church, which leads to the necessary conclusion that those who adhere to it, including the supposed popes, are not catholic.

The first category I write off completely, as they are blatantly not catholic and rarely even claim to be. As you probably know, catholic means universal, so to be catholic means implicitly to hold the belief that the teachings of Jesus Christ are universally applicable to all men, that all men are governed by His law and are to be judged by Him. The liberal Modernists believe that any man of any creed can attain salvation by being a "nice" person, basically, and the common platitude among them is that the Catholic Church is merely the "premium" way to Heaven. As Leo XIII said, "You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held." [Satis Cognitum]

So if we want to be sincere, we can really only argue for either the second or the third positions. The matter is whether or not the Vatican Council II was infallible or not, and if it was infallible, whether or not it promulgated heresy. If the council did promulgate heresy in a supposedly infallible manner, then we must accept that it was not of the Catholic Church, and the fact of the matter is that it was infallible by the standards set out in Vatican I, and the documents not only contain but are rife with heresy. Now before I go any further, I must ask you what you think the correct opinion to have about Vatican II is. Do you think it was an infallible ecumenical council? Do you think we must adhere to its promulgations?

[Anonymous No.19799642]

>>19799588
>Modern science is founded on the refutation of parts of Aristotelian metaphysics and modern science BTFO of Aristotelian science.
No, read pic

[Anonymous No.19799652]

>>19799641
How many levels of pilpul are you on my protestant dude?

[Anonymous No.19799653]

>>19799642
So when modern science says final causation doesn't exist that is an Aristotelian position?

[Anonymous No.19799671]

>>19799652
you do not hold the faith of Rome.

[Anonymous No.19799672]

>>19799612
>>19799639
Physics is not metaphysics. The name "metaphysics" comes from later librarians (centuries after Aristotle), traditionally organizing the metaphysics as "that which came after the physics." Hence meta-physics. It is not actually connected with physics anymore than other writings, since Aristotle implements similar though distinct systematizing in different works. Writings that were either believed to be written after the physics, or are chronologically placed after the physics. Aristotle might term metaphysics as we know it as "First Philosophy." First principles.
Further, science does presume metaphysical and logical principles, it conversely does not prove them, because that would be circular.
This is abundantly true if you actually know the history of science, and if you've read works such as New Organon by Francis Bacon, or Galileo on Corpuscularianism (an early predecessor to atomic theory). Experiment was only one piece of science. And, as an astute reader would note, the so-called "scientific method" did not play any role as a cohesive idea in early science. Particularly this idea of "peer review." The "scientific method" came from an academic institution arising after science matured.
Also,
>Since experimentation can prove your science and by extension your metaphysics wrong you stop doing experiments and just rely on authority
That's a peculiarly unscientific statement, purely one that describes the possible emotions or psychoanalysis of a person in that situation. How is this a valuable statement at all?

[Anonymous No.19799679]

>>19799548
reddit moment

[Anonymous No.19799681]

>>19799588
How about you actually prove that, using sustained argument?
Stupid gaytheists always do this.
>all knowledge is subsumed in empirical science
Yet they'll proudly and ignorantly make sweeping claims without presenting any evidence.

[Anonymous No.19799685]

>Talking about God is about as interesting as talking about Batman to me. I don't give a shit. You could be the biggest brained genius in the world but if you're writing essays on the nature of Batman I don't care, there are too many real things to think about, too many other philosophers and writers to read.

[Anonymous No.19799692]

>>19799672
>Further, science does presume metaphysical and logical principles, it conversely does not prove them, because that would be circular.
Science doesn't prove metaphysics but if the science that is based on it is proven wrong then the metaphysics is proven wrong or at least unconnected to reality. Saying physics is based on metaphysics opens the door to your metaphysics being shown to be wrong.

>That's a peculiarly unscientific statement, purely one that describes the possible emotions or psychoanalysis of a person in that situation. How is this a valuable statement at all?
It's just a description of why Aristotelian physics didn't develop the scientific method and failed so badly. If you think Aristotle's metaphysics is unassailable and that his physics was based on it then what reason do you have to empirically test it?

[Anonymous No.19799695]

>>19799672
>>19799692
So why are Aquinas' metaphysical assumptions about reality the foundation of modern science? Was OP just making that up, or is there actually some step toward modern science that could not have been done without him? If so, what is it?

[Anonymous No.19799699]

>>19799681
How about you actually prove that, using sustained argument?
About what? That modern science throws out final causation? Or that modern science BTFO of Aristotelian science?

[Anonymous No.19799701]

>>19799695
>Was OP just making that up, or is there actually some step toward modern science that could not have been done without him?
He was just making it up in pathetic attempt to get some of the prestige of modern science for Aristotle and Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.19799707]

>>19799701
Modern science has little prestige on /lit/. The best you could hope for is getting called fedora

[Anonymous No.19799711]

>>19799707
Experimental science is not reliable, and doesn't explain the things that people conflate with it.

[Anonymous No.19799713]

>>19799707
Then why did OP try to claim modern science for Aquinas? Was that an attack on Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.19799723]

>>19799692
>that is based on it is proven wrong then the metaphysics is proven wrong or at least unconnected to reality
Can you show an actual concrete example, and demonstrate through argument how this is the case? Otherwise, I think your claim is ultimately shallow and has no substance. It's aimless pontificating.
>Saying physics is based on metaphysics opens the door to your metaphysics being shown to be wrong.
>It's just a description of why Aristotelian physics didn't develop the scientific method and failed so badly.
A description according to who?
It was, quite literally, the first speculative theory of physics ever. The plum pudding model of the atom was also discredited, but it was important in the development of later theory.
I don't think you've studied this topic at all, nor do you know anything about the beginnings of modern science.
Let's take a quote from Heisenberg, for example,
>“If we compare this situation with the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form, we can say that the matter of Aristotle, which is mere “potentia,” should be compared to our concept of energy, which gets into “actuality” by means of the form, when the elementary particle is created”...
>“One might perhaps call it an objective tendency or possibility, a ‘potentia’ in the sense of Aristotelian philosophy. In fact, I believe that the language actually used by physicists when they speak about atomic events produces in their minds similar notions as the concept ‘potentia.’ So the physicists have gradually become accustomed to considering the electronic orbits, etc., not as reality but rather as a kind of ‘potentia’”
The point I'm making is that metaphysical discussions do play in (that is, precede) actual, substantive science. And this is often centuries in the making.

[Anonymous No.19799725]

>>19799605
>What would happen if you tried to base science on pre-Christian Aristotelian metaphysics, for example, without any of Aquinas' input?
Removing Aquinas from Aristotelian metaphysics would be like removing infinitesimal calculus from physics just because Newton and Leibniz were Christians. A disaster.

[Anonymous No.19799729]

>>19799699
>That modern science throws out final causation? Or that modern science BTFO of Aristotelian science?
Neither of those are the claim you made, which is:
>Modern science is founded on the refutation of parts of Aristotelian metaphysics
Can you show, from history, that modern science began as a refutation of Aristotle's metaphysics (which is distinct from the Physics)?

[Anonymous No.19799731]

>>19799613
Only Plato, Aristotle and Kant are above.

[Anonymous No.19799739]

>>19797147
didn't he pretty much bring aristotle back in favour with the catholic church? he pretty much got plato ditched.

[Anonymous No.19799756]

>>19799723
>Can you show an actual concrete example, and demonstrate through argument how this is the case?
Aristotelian physics is wrong in multiple ways look at Galileo with his ramps and the tower. The two bricks connected by a string falling faster than two bricks by themselves is a simple thought experiment that makes Aristotle look stupid. Aristotelian physics was based on Aristotelian metaphysics

>It was, quite literally, the first speculative theory of physics ever. The plum pudding model of the atom was also discredited, but it was important in the development of later theory.
I mean sure Aristotle deserves a lot of historical credit in multiple fields. But he has been discredited is the point and his metaphysics is not the basis of modern science.

>Heisenberg blah blah
Quantum physics is beloved by woowoo people of all types. If you look to that you're putting Aquinas in the same section as crystal healers and New Age gurus. There are multiple philosophical frameworks for quantum mechanics that can't be empirically verified to be true or false.

[Anonymous No.19799766]

>>19799756
i get the feeling this anon neither knows much about Aristotle's metaphysics nor about his physics

[Anonymous No.19799773]

>>19799729
>Can you show, from history, that modern science began as a refutation of Aristotle's metaphysics (which is distinct from the Physics)?
Final causation is understood to be part of Aristotle's metaphysics even though it was first introduced in the Physics. Aristotle thought shit fell to the ground because that was where it belonged by final causation and he had no concept of gravity or indeed of any force at a distance.

[Anonymous No.19799788]

>>19798857
Same. The moment I saw their anti-catholic threads and their disgusting threads about Saint Joan of Arc I promised myself to never visit that shithole again.

[Anonymous No.19799796]

>>19799695
I don't know much about that, I'd have to research it. There is no single individual that such a thing could be ascribed to, I would think. Rather, it's a very deep and ingrained worldview which caused modern science to come about.
I do know that scientific thought in Europe began in earnest in the same world as the Scholastics. I think Oswald Spengler puts it well, in Man and Technics,
>With a boldness and a like hunger for power and booty, in this case intellectual, Northern monks in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries forced their way deep into the world of technical-physical problems.
>...Hence the advance in mathematical methods, due to the Englishmen Grosseteste (born 1175) and Roger Bacon (born ca. 1210), and the Germans Albertus Magnus (born 1193) and Witelo (born 1220).
Truly, there would be no science as such in Europe (what we think of today) without many of these monks, scholars, and friars. The account that science began with a sudden, unprecedented, and cohesive "rebellion" against Medieval tastes is simply false.
In reality, it was the result of a very long intellectual development of philosophers, which also involves developments from Islamic thought and practice. It was a protracted conversation beginning in Classical Greece, that went through the Islamic world (after the destruction of Classical civilization), then the Medieval period and the Renaissance. For example, we might consider that chemistry developed as a result of alchemy, but for that to happen required developments in the Islamic world which were evolving from their own usage of various Greek thinkers on the natural world.

[Anonymous No.19799800]

>>19799701
Lol, many physicists unwittingly rely on the transferability between truth and beauty when devising their theories, which is very Thomistic if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.19799805]

>>19799548
>redditor trying to equal batman to literally God
The hubris of this motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.19799813]

>>19799800
Elegant theories are preferred but elegance isn't a substitute for empirical verification. If Aquinas said that he's a dumb dumb. The Standard Model is far from pretty and has horrible cludges like renormalization to make it work. But it does work to an incredible degree of accuracy

[Anonymous No.19800013]

>>19799548
What is it 2010 again?

[Anonymous No.19800487]

>>19799731
**This is according to Stanford's list, at least.

[Anonymous No.19800491]

[Anonymous No.19800493]

>>19799685
This. Gaytheists need to go back to their ivory towers, lock themselves in and throw away the key.

[Anonymous No.19800506]

[Anonymous No.19800534]

>>19800506
>>19800491
kek

[Anonymous No.19800598]

>>19799671
and you don't believe the church of Rome is authoritative

[Anonymous No.19801031]

>>19799756
>The two bricks connected by a string falling faster than two bricks by themselves is a simple thought experiment that makes Aristotle look stupid

No, your bringing it up makes you look stupid and betrays the fact that you've never actually read Aristotle's physics.

Aristotle's physics isn't what you think it is. You think it's about predicting how balls will roll down inclines and shit like that. It's more about questions like whether matter is infinitely divisible, what elements comprise things, can a body exist which is just a single point, etc.

If you go into Aristotle hoping for an ancient equivalent to your Prussian style Intro to Physics with its obsession with predicting how fast bricks will fall and 1000 other tricks to make your capitalist owners wealthier, you're gonna have a bad time.

[Anonymous No.19801083]

>>19801031
>It's more about questions like whether matter is infinitely divisible, what elements comprise things, can a body exist which is just a single point, etc.
Isn't that just metaphysics? I suppose the term didn't exist yet so Aristotle gets to call his speculations "physics." But that's not physics as a contemporary field of science at all

[Anonymous No.19801134]

>>19799739
Yes, he rejected the Platonic idealism and embraced Aristotle´s realism.

[Anonymous No.19801212]

>>19801083
There is a lot of overlap because Aristotle himself didn't sharply divide Physics from Metaphysics, that's what later cataloguers did.

As a very rough approximation, Aristotle's Physics concerns things which are subject to motion (not just motion in place but also qualitative motion such as change of color, as well as generation and destruction, which are also considered types of motion). Metaphysics concerns things not subject to motion (intelligible things, mathematical things, God). To further complicate things, it isn't clear what things are and are not subject to motion, so a lot of the text itself discusses that very question. And as it's not obvious that "motion vs. no motion" is the correct divide, the text discusses the question of what IS the correct divide

[Anonymous No.19801261]

>>19795894
It’s the same with St Augustine, who was the greatest philosopher ever

[Anonymous No.19801322]

>>19800506
>No Jesus, no Paul
>No Averroes
>No Avicenna
>No Boethius
>"Neoplatonism? What's that?"
>Not even Dionysius
Your image is built on a foundation of straw

[Anonymous No.19801426]

>>19801083
>upset because the titles of Aristotle's books don't correspond to 21st century classification
LOL i wanna see your face when you read his "Meteorology"! >:D

[Anonymous No.19801427]

>>19801322
You should keep reading the section on anger. Without the perfection of meekness, it is impossible for one's anger to be in perfect accord with right reason.

[Anonymous No.19801463]

>>19801427
Which of his books is the anger stuff from? I'm reading through his works but haven't gotten to that yet. Just stole the meme from someone else here

[Anonymous No.19801484]

>>19801083
No. Metaphysics literally means "After physics", because it's what Aristotle addressed in the book which came after his book called Physics. What Aristotle addresses in Physics is properly physics, for he treats of the principles of Physics. The exact behavior of some element is a smaller matter than the principles of what physical things actually are. The real genius of Aristotle though is Prior Analytics; it's why he's right about just about everything else.

[Anonymous No.19801504]

>>19801463
It's in the Secunda Secundae Partis of the Summa. Specifically Questions 157, 158, and 159. When Aquinas says that just anger is worthy of praise, this essentially means the anger of God is worthy of praise; whoever else is angry must either be angry in accordance with God's anger or not, and so if their anger is praiseworthy, it is because they are angry with the anger of God, which is praiseworthy. Whoever is angry apart from God's anger sins.

[Anonymous No.19801526]

>>19801504
Thanks. Planning on doing the ST last after reading whatever else of his I can find. (Is that a retarded idea?)

[Anonymous No.19801552]

>>19801484
I don't doubt that Aristotle's Physics is about what he believes physics is. It's not considered physics anymore is my point

[Anonymous No.19801554]

>>19801526
If you are reading theology proper, and not just sermons, you should begin with the Summa. It is the introductory work. St. Thomas specifically wrote it for beginners. But, if you're going to study theology, you should study a good catechism first. Also, it is dangerous to study theology independently. Find a priest who you know has been to a good seminary so that you can ask questions and be taught the right way of understanding difficult passages. Also remember, it's not necessary to know theology beyond the basics of the faith. Make sure you're studying in order to love God more rather than to be proud of your knowledge.

[Anonymous No.19801567]

>>19801552
>It's not considered physics anymore
Who says and how do they say it? How has this been demonstrated, empirically speaking?

[Anonymous No.19801581]

>>19801552
Physics is what physicists say it is.

And if you ask, "Who are physicists?" The answer is, people who study physics.

[Anonymous No.19801588]

>>19801554
Thanks
>Find a priest who you know has been to a good seminary
My priest is Jesus Christ. Not sure if he would be considered to have gone to any good seminaries though

[Anonymous No.19801600]

>>19801552
Universities have been co-opted by capitalists and all they care about is making factories more efficient and things like that. Hence the current de facto notion of physics in those institutions. But that doesn't mean Aristotle's physics aren't physics.

[Anonymous No.19801619]

>>19801261
I'm Christian and I disagree, still, I love the bishop of Hippo like you wouldn't believe.

[Anonymous No.19801648]

>>19801567
>>19801581
>>19801600
Yes I suppose it is a value judgment as to what is and is not physics. He would not meet any contemporary or academic standards as he is relegated to philosophy. Certainly Aristotle's speculations on physics did not yield the feats of engineering you rely on to make these posts defending him.

[Anonymous No.19801672]

>>19801648
If you had a few hundred billion dollars, it would be quite trivial for you to (over a couple of decades) manipulate society into teaching Aristotle's Physics in Physics 101 university courses. Find people sympathetic to your cause (or pay them to be sympathetic to it), use your financing to pull strings and get them hired as professors, department chairs, editors, politicians.

A silly thought experiment of course because who the fuck would spend hundreds of billions to indoctrinate kids with Aristotelian physics? But then, if they're not gonna spend it to indoctrinate kids with Aristotelian physics, then what ARE they going to spend it to indoctrinate kids with...?

>Muh "You use internet therefore technology good" argument
In an idea world we'd be having this conversation face-to-face with our neighbors at the local pub. It is because of the dystopian zeitgeist that we have to discuss these things in the fringe corners of a Mongolian basketweaving forum

[Anonymous No.19801694]

>Pic related published in 2017
>Three years later Francis defines the death penalty to be always wrong
oops

[Anonymous No.19801710]

>>19801672
I'm not making a value judgment about tech, but if the people whose opinions on physics matter (not you) believed in Aristotelian instead of modern physics we could not have this discussion. Just something to consider. You may like being wrong about this as part of some contrived e-catholic identity, but you could join a seminary if it is that important to you that the curriculum be frozen in Catholic ideology

[Anonymous No.19801734]

>>19801710
>Aristotelian instead of modern physics
You seem to have the impression that, like, there's some sort of "Aristotle's Third Law of Motion" which directly contradicts Newton's Laws or something.

Aristotle's physics can be divided into two kinds (which are mixed together in his work): [1] Things that are absolutely laughable today because Aristotle lacked certain observational data (e.g. he had extremely misguided ideas about outer space). [2] Things that nobody even thinks of as Aristotelian physics because they're so deeply ingrained in all aspects of human thought by now that everyone simply takes them for granted.

Sort of a "Seinfeld's not funny" thing.

BTW, I'm not catholic.

[Anonymous No.19801769]

>>19801734
>Things that nobody even thinks of as Aristotelian physics because they're so deeply ingrained in all aspects of human thought by now that everyone simply takes them for granted.
So there are elements of Aristotle which are still accepted while others are rejected, a decision that can only take place if you have repudiated him generally as an authority and use some other criteria to evaluate over "Aristotle said this"

[Anonymous No.19801788]

>>19801769
You have deep, fundamental misunderstandings of science and the scientific process.

One does not read a scientist because he is an infallible authority. Whether he's a household name or an unknown grad student, one reads his work to hear what he has to say. As a thought experiment, suppose you picked up a book by Albert Einstein and it said, "The moon is made of cheese. This is an irrefutable fact and you must accept it based on my authority." You wouldn't believe it just because it's Einstein. That's not how science works.

We read Aristotle because he was a super smart guy with a lot of great ideas. Not because he's officially the accepted authority whom dogma compels us to "believe in". That's fucking retarded.

Go take another vax, your latest booster's running out.

[Anonymous No.19801813]

>>19801788
>That's not how science works.
Yes now that scientific inquiry is no longer controlled by thomist religious authorities (inb4 modern academia is the same as the medieval church)

[Anonymous No.19801856]

>>19801813
The only times Thomas ever appeals to dogma is in matters of creed, which only applies to matters such as The Trinity. Such appeals are actually extremely rare in his work---like, one such appeal in five hundred pages. And Aristotle makes NO such appeals ever.

You should try actually reading stuff before bashing it. Instead all you're doing is regurgitating talking points like a good foot soldier in some sort of culture war.

Don't start with Aquinas or Aristotle though. Start with Plato. Thank me later.

[Anonymous No.19801870]

>>19801856
I've read Plato, Plotinus, Proclus. Skipped Aristotle and Aquinas. Don't like em simple as

[Anonymous No.19801881]

>>19801769
You shouldn't be using authority to evaluate over when someone says "Aristotle said this" anyway. You should actually be listening to what's said. When I say, "Einstein said we should try to think about what would happen if you were going at the speed of light and your turned on your headlights", we shouldn't just blindly follow because it's Einstein. Rather, we should perform the thought experiment and contemplate what would happen in that situation. The only reason to mention Einstein's name there at all is to credit him and not plagiarize.

[Anonymous No.19801892]

>>19801870
>I don't like this thing I've never tried
Umm ok? Go sit at the kids' table please

>No! I will spam your thread about that thing anyway!
Sounds like it's early bedtime for junior

[Anonymous No.19801894]

>>19801881
And this can only happen in an intellectual climate where you are not expected to affirm a particular source's doctrines

[Anonymous No.19801901]

>>19801894
Keep attacking that straw man. I think you've just about got him on the ropes!

[Anonymous No.19801926]

>>19801894
I'm really genuinely curious about your mental view. Trying to understand better how you see the world.

If Aquinas was just affirming a particular source's doctrines, why did he even need to write at all? It would be quite pointless for me to write an entire book just saying "The Bible is true and unarguable" over and over. Why would the church push people to read such a book when the church could just push them to read the Bible?

Or, is it that you think Thomas was given the task of creating the infallible doctrine? Why on earth would the church do that? "Hmm we have political control of most of Europe. Now we need to come up with a bunch of arbitrary assertions to enforce. Let's enlist this random monk (who seems to desire to push the ideas of an ancient Greek pagan that the church has never endorsed) and give him this awesome authority." Why would the church ever say that?

[Anonymous No.19801950]

>>19801926
Overly intellectual people are unsatisfied with fairy tales but if you're going to be burned to death might as well be creative about why you agree with the fairy tale.

[Anonymous No.19801990]

>>19801950
Aquinas was obviously a brilliant guy, regardless what you think of Christianity. So, if he thought it was a bunch of fairy tales, why didn't he write about mathematics or history or anything else? Why would he write so many thousands of pages if he had no real ideas and was just affirming his sources? What's in it for him? Don't tell me he was in it for money, the guy was born an aristocrat and basically renounced the world despite great pressure to lead a life of power and wealth

[Anonymous No.19802026]

>>19801990
He must have liked writing, and liked Aristotle, and as a member of the clergy he did what that lifestyle afforded and wrote his weight in parchment

[Anonymous No.19802074]

The problem of Aquinas and philosophy at large is primarily a political problem rather than a philosophical one. Aquinas is not a revolutionairy, he works *within* the Greek tradition and is a continuation of philosophy as truly "love of wisdom". Aquinas really is interested in finding out "how things really are" in the Greek sense, as all great philosophers of Greek antiquity were. Therefore Aquinas is inside this tradition. Starting with Descartes, but really exploding a few centuries later in power, we have the concept of philosophy as art. It is not important anymore to work within inside any tradition, to be a continuation of something. The fundamental question of "how things really are", the "love of wisdom" is instead replaced by a subjectivist, quasi-narcissist displacement of "this is *my* philosophy, *I* am a philosoper". The important aspect is not the philosophy, but the philosopher, not the love of wisdom but individual cleverness and so philosophy becomes just personal art. To now go back and accord to Aquinas the importance he deserves and actually *study* him seriously is an impossibility, as it would bring into question the entire construction of modernity. For that reason, Aquinas is and will need to be glossed over, skipped over without any serious argument, the few weak ones and a hand-wave will do. Taking Aquinas seriously would almost certainly entail the collapse of the modern world, the way we think about political structures, the way we think about human rights, the way we think of equality, freedom and every ideological structure and position modernity and its power structures rely on. That is why Aquinas must be kept out of discourse, not that this is specific to him alone, but he is essentially one of the most potentially catastrophic figures for the present power structures should he ever be allowed his proper place in contemporary discourse.

[Anonymous No.19802128]

>>19795894
I only know aquinas from his "five ways", is there more to him than this?

[Anonymous No.19802141]

>>19798086
>>19798103
>>19798132
I don't get sedevacantism. "Popes can't teach heresy, so if he's teaching heresy it means he's not pope" sounds like an absolute COPE because "Catholic teaching about the papacy is false" flows just as easily from those premises as sedevacantism does and sedememers provide no arguments why choose their conclusion over the other.

[Anonymous No.19802147]

>>19802074
Delusional. The values that produced Aquinas are not there anymore. You can't just reload and undo history.

[Anonymous No.19802193]

>>19801950
If you think that Aquinas thought that about Christianity, I'm afraid you're wrong. Just as there are thousands of Christian scientists, there are also those in philosophy such as Leibniz, Kant and him; It is not that these scientists and philosophers thought that Christianity was fairy tales, for them it was something real and beautiful.

>>19801990
>if he thought it was a bunch of fairy tales
He didn't, don't listen to that anon

[Anonymous No.19802230]

>>19802147
All good philosophy is timeless philosophy. Crack open a Platonic dialogue and it could mostly be written today. Same with Aquinas. It's the "contemporary" philosophers who are bound to their time. They will be burnt away like straw.

[Anonymous No.19802247]

>>19802230
People will still be reading Hume and Wittgenstein centuries from now.

[Anonymous No.19802251]

>>19802230
Are there non-Catholic philosophere who make any use of Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.19802284]

>>19795894
Is Aquinas worth reading, as someone who doesn't give a fuck about Christianity/Catholicism? I've only began studying philosophy in earnest the last few months.

[Anonymous No.19802288]

>>19801648
>He would not meet any contemporary standard
>relegated to philosophy
>Aristotle's speculations
>did not yield feats of engineering
Who sets these standards? Or is it just your own imaginary standard?

[Anonymous No.19802299]

>>19801588
Did not Jesus say to listen to those that he sends? And do not the Apostles say in scripture, how will they learn if there is no one to teach them? And who will teach, unless they be sent? If two people disagree on what is and is not scripture, how can the disagreement be settled?

[Anonymous No.19802303]

>>19802247
Who is even reading them today?.

[Anonymous No.19802336]

>>19802141
The trouble is that your counter to sedevacantists isn't correct. Catholic teaching about the papacy is that the Pope is only infallible in some particular circumstances. That necessarily means that he is potentially fallible in all other circumstances.

Sedevacantism fails because it says that the line of Peter has been broken, while Christ himself has promised that such a thing would never happen.

Sedevacantis speculaiton is perhaps permissible for a short time, but there have been five popes since John XXIII died, and there are some sedevacantists who argue that even he was not a pope. It is all ridiculous. In trying to maintain the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church, they end of creating an invisible and unknowable church.

[Anonymous No.19802347]

>>19802303
/lit/

[Anonymous No.19802353]

>>19802347
Point proven.

[Anonymous No.19802366]

>>19802336
>while Christ himself has promised that such a thing would never happen.
That didn't happen

[Anonymous No.19802374]

>>19802288
>using pomo to defend Aristotle
made me chuckle

[Anonymous No.19802390]

>>19802374
Noting the failure to cite empirical evidence is far different from the denial of empirical reasoning.

[Anonymous No.19802406]

>>19802366
>Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
>And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
>And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

[Anonymous No.19802411]

>>19802390
You have some premodern standard you are appealing to if you think Aristotle is an authority on physics and not a speculative philosopher. In which case I can just as well ask you why that standard exists, who sets it, etc.

[Anonymous No.19802424]

>>19802406
>and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Gates are a barrier that mark the entrance to a place, they are not an offensive weapon. You do not attack someone with a gate. It means that the church will prevail over the gates of Hell (Hades, the grave), which is to say that the church will conquer death.

[Anonymous No.19802447]

>>19802424
How do you know they won't strip their strip gates and make pointy sticks from them?

[Anonymous No.19802458]

>>19802447
Because this is an inversion of the metaphor that the text uses.

[Anonymous No.19802477]

>>19802336
My counter is correct GIVEN the sedevacantist understanding of how papal infallibility works. If that understanding is correct, the unavoidable conclusions are either mine or those of sedes. The controversy you're bringing up is whether that understanding itself is correct or not, which is another discussion entirely.

[Anonymous No.19802486]

>>19798082
>>19798975
>>19799583
>>19800493
You sound like a dude who suddenly "found his faith" within the last 3 years and now has a massive superiority complex because of it. Hubris and hurling insults at others are not the way of the Godly man.

[Anonymous No.19802497]

>>19802458
Maybe it was meant as a joke in Aramaic

[Anonymous No.19802507]

>>19802497
Feel free to demonstrate such a thing. Your baseless speculation is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.19802528]

>>19802411
Are you appealing to authority, or are you appealing to empirical evidence and reason? If authority, name the authority. If evidence and reason, show the evidence and provide the reason.

[Anonymous No.19802550]

>>19802477
That is not how their understanding works. It's a caricature of their understanding. There is a difference between teaching something false and being a heretic. A notorious heretic is automatically excommunicated, and excommunicated persons are automatically removed from their position in the Church. A heretical Bishop remains a Bishop according to the sacrament of order, but is immediately and implicitly stripped of his seat.

[Anonymous No.19802569]

>>19802424
Your interpretation is your own, and is against the teaching of the Church.

[Anonymous No.19802587]

>>19802569
Yes, I know. It doesn't really matter what the text actually says, it only matters what the doctrinal ruling is.

[Anonymous No.19802702]

>>19802587
The text says the gates of hell shall not prevail. But you suggest that Christ is mistaken--gates are not offensive, and so do not prevailing of any kind. Therefore you conclude that Christ's meaning was not clearly expressed.

When an army marches, it marches forth from the gates. So, to say that the armies of hell shall not prevail is also expressed by saying that the gates of hell shall not prevail, for what do the gates of hell do but spew forth the denizens thereof?

[Anonymous No.19802742]

>>19802702
Oh no, I think it is quite clearly expressed in the interpretation that I gave. Christ by his death conquers death. We do not suffer the eternal death but are resurrected to eternal life. Christ has defeated the grave and the church, his body, will not die. Death will not hold us. We make the assault upon death, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.19802759]

>>19802528
Giancoli

[Anonymous No.19802799]

>>19802742
>I think it is quite clear
Hell and death are not the same.

[Anonymous No.19802812]

>>19802759
Why that textbook, and not another? Why do you accept Giancoli's definition of physics. What is his defintion of physics?

[Anonymous No.19802823]

>>19802799
In the Greek the term is Hades, which is used in several ways, including the general meaning of the grave, e.g. Acts 2:31 (he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption). This is the meaning that makes sense with the metaphor of gate.

[Anonymous No.19802850]

>>19802812
It's the one they teach physics students, Socrates.

[Anonymous No.19802879]

>>19797155
Parmenides

[Anonymous No.19803093]

>>19802284
yes

[Anonymous No.19803112]

>>19802550
It's not a caricature at all, and it is definitely their understanding of how infallibility/indefectibility works. Infallibility in this view is not only for solemn ex cathedra statements; it’s application is much broader than that. Something like Amoris Laetitia would most definitely qualify for infallibility within the standards sedes establish. For instance, Cekada (who was probably the biggest name in sede theology until his death in 2020):

>Further, another essential property of Christ’s Church is her infallibility. This does not apply (as some traditional Catholics seem to think) only to rare ex cathedra papal pronouncements like those defining the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Infallibility also extends to the Church’s universal disciplinary laws
>It is impossible, then, for the Church to give something evil through her laws — including laws regulating worship.
>A recognition, on one hand, that the post-Vatican II hierarchy has officially sanctioned errors and evils, and a consideration, on the other, of the Church’s essential properties thus lead us to a conclusion about the authority of the post-Vatican II hierarchy: Given the Church’s indefectibility in her teaching (her teaching cannot change) and the Church’s infallibility in her universal disciplinary laws (her liturgical laws cannot compromisse doctrine or harm souls), it is impossible that the errors and evils we have catalogued could have proceeded from what is in fact the authority of the Church. There must be another explanation.

The only explanation that makes sense given those premises is: those men were never validly elected popes in the first place. Because saying otherwise would be to admit that the Church COULD give something evil through her laws, that a validly elected pope COULD promulgate universal disciplinary laws that were evil (as sedes consider the NO mass to be). Cekada had this to say about Francis:

>A man who is not a Catholic — is a public heretic — cannot become a true pope and the rule is a matter of divine law. Bergoglio is a public heretic, so he cannot be the pope. It’s as easy as that. Bergoglio never got the papacy in the first place — so he’s got nothing to lose.

In fact, for the "hard sede" view, it’s not even just a matter of an heretic pope being "stripped" of his office. Said pope was never pope in the first place, because the very election of such a man violates the indefectibility of the Church in the first place. The election was invalid to begin with. Which is the only thing that makes sense within that view of infallibility/indefectibility. Otherwise we’re admitting the possibility of a valid pope promulgating evil laws, even if he’s auto-excommunicated a milisecond after.

As soon as one leaves the strict "ex cathedra only" view of infallibility, only two things explain the crisis in the church: either sedevacantism, or error in the doctrine of the papacy.

[Anonymous No.19803170]

>>19803112
>or error in the doctrine of the papacy.
It's obviously this but it hurts too much to admit so people live in cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.19803190]

>>19802074
>The fundamental question of "how things really are", the "love of wisdom" is instead replaced by a subjectivist, quasi-narcissist displacement of "this is *my* philosophy, *I* am a philosoper"
Is arguing against such embarassing strawman a counscious choice or are you just that limited intellectually?

[Anonymous No.19803721]

>>19798941
>also the catechism of St Pius X commanded Christians to burn KJV's if they were given them.
Which Bible should Catholics use instead?. Which Bible is approved by Pius X?.

[Anonymous No.19803732]

>>19796547
>Non-Catholic people rarely read Aquinas
Got it, Aquinas is based and childfuckpilled.

[Anonymous No.19803779]

>>19803190
It is a really good summary of the problems inherent to Christian theology, though.

[Anonymous No.19803799]

>>19802284
Yes, you'll get bored reading 8,000 pages of something you don't believe in, but by the end of it you'll be a brainiac. You will most likely convert to Christianity btw, Aquinas has converted Jews, Muslims, and Atheists to Christianity with just a few words, among those many intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.19803824]

>>19803721
one which contains the deuterocanon, 7 books that the protestants removed so they could match up the OT to the jewish bible. Douay-Rheims or RSV-2CE if you're a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.19803840]

>>19802284
Not really. Everything in Aquinas can be traced back to the primacy of Revelation, which he uses as a trump card to get out of Aristotelianism leading to some pretty un-Christian conclusions (like the whole "uncreated polytheistic universe" thing).

[Anonymous No.19803981]

>>19795894
>does not discuss it
I'm Catholic and I think the amount of religion discussion on /lit/ is disproportionate to the board topic. Catholic discussion is also the most common in Christian discussion but that might just because Catholics have the most developed literary/philosophical tradition out of the different branches of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19804102]

>>19803170
Because it has far reaching consequences as far as the faith goes. If the church erred regarding the papacy, about what else has she erred? It single-handedly implodes magisterial teaching authority because indefectibility does not tolerate exceptions.

[Anonymous No.19804115]

>>19803981
It's likely more because of election tourism and the popularity of reactionary politics among descendants of Italian- and Irish-Americans who've defected from the Democratic party as they've moved out of their former cities. There is certainly no highly developed discussion here to accompany any highly developed tradition, mostly vicious posturing

[Anonymous No.19804129]

>>19804115
>everything is about muh american politics
ugh

[Anonymous No.19804146]

>>19804129
What, you think all the tradcath fundamentalists who post here are sincere?

[Anonymous No.19804160]

>>19804146
I am. And I'm also not american.

[Anonymous No.19804179]

>>19804146
"tradcath" is mostly a meaningless boogeyman phrase invented by leftist grifters to make Catholicism seem more dangerous and radical. "Traditional Catholic" realistically means very little other than an informal preference for TLM liturgical style that is rare in American Catholicism to the point of insignificance.

It's also telling that sedevacantism is a major point of discussion when the topic comes up even though by the numbers sedes are an irrelevant cult that I, as a lifelong Catholic, have never heard of and would probably not even know exist if not for the internet. Yet there's this weird leftist grift to make them and "the tradcaths" seem like some kind of dangerous powerful sect and implicitly make all actually practiced Catholicism seem suspect.

[Anonymous No.19804191]

>>19804115
I tend to think that most people who adhere to this hyper-stringent rhetoric about religion are fundamentally larpers with more of a love for being stringent towards others than for the thing they're stringent about. You don't really come to this type of commitment to a belief without forcing it unless you either had lifelong immersion in it or had a borderline mystical revelation about it. Anything else is you using it to fill a void.

[Anonymous No.19804228]

>>19804191
>more of a love for being stringent towards others than for the thing they're stringent about
Yes that's the attitude of most religion threads on 4channel, they are otaku of Catholicism, not Catholics proper
>>19804179
People self-identify as it to distance themselves from I guess what you'd call the Pope but sure it's just a direction-brain false-flag

[Anonymous No.19804469]

>>19804115
i am a catholic and i know you meant this as an effeminate passive-aggressive jab, but you're completely correct at least about the ethnicity point. in all fairness, however, you were also responding to an effeminate passive-aggressive jab. there's also the fact that there really isn't a dedicated place anywhere on the internet for non-gay religious discussion ever since 8ch got nuked and /christian/ was killed. this contributed to the rise of religious discussion on /lit/ and /his/ far more than the election (which was fucking 6 years ago, get over it tranny).

[Anonymous No.19804475]

>>19804228
>People self-identify as it to distance themselves from I guess what you'd call the Pope
Not personally agreeing with every single thing the pope offhandedly says about migrants or whatever doesn't make you "a dissident Catholic" or want to create a different Church or whatever. Why is this such a difficult concept for non-Catholics to grasp?

[Anonymous No.19804489]

>>19804179
non-traditional "catholicism" is highly suspect. practically all modernist NO priests are gay and can't stop fucking boys. tradcaths don't have this issue.

[Anonymous No.19804492]

>>19804475
Francis and the other Vatican II antipopes have done far worse than kiss nigger feet.

[Anonymous No.19804632]

>>19799641
>I must ask you what you think the correct opinion to have about Vatican II is. Do you think it was an infallible ecumenical council? Do you think we must adhere to its promulgations?
To be honest, I don't know, I don't have the knowledge to answer you, but shit like Pachamama, the communist crucifix, and the photos you showed on JPII are really demoralizing and are the reason why I have too many doubts. The second option you passed seems to be the most rational.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.19804655]

He’s extremely underrated by atheists and extremely overrated by Catholics. Ockham was better

[Anonymous No.19804668]

>>19795894
>I have never read a discussion about actuality and potentiality here
lurk moar newfag. and read some aristotle.

[Anonymous No.19804700]

>>19802336
>In trying to maintain the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church, they end of creating an invisible and unknowable church.
The church is both visible and invisible, no salvation outside the church isn't hard to understand, in the sense that salvation is being incorporated into the Church. Sedevacantists like MHFM are simply wrong, they misconstrue Catholic dogma and conflate past speculations by taking quotes out of context. Christianity is a continuation of old testament Judaism, the law was fulfilled by Christ and it's understood through love, because love perfects justice.

[Anonymous No.19804706]

>>19796971
>IQ
Meme concept

[Anonymous No.19804721]

>>19804102
Of course it does. It means the whole thing was a charade and you need to understand authority differently.

[Anonymous No.19804727]

>>19798086
Popes have always interacted and dialogued with degenerate elites and world powers, this is nothing new and it doesn't really say anything about him

[Anonymous No.19804753]

>>19804179
There's more to life than being needlessly edgy and hateful, Catholicism has never been right wing or left wing. Catholicity is an entirely different paradigm, and it's the solution to the problem that you and your enemies pose. JRR Tolkien got it when he would point out the genius and beauty of Catholicism is that everyone worships Christ in the same church.

[Anonymous No.19804781]

>>19804655
>Ockham was better
Most retarded shit I have ever read in my life nominalist fag

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.19804803]

>>19804781
He’s better for a lot of reasons and that’s just one. He was clearly a far more original, groundbreaking and independent thinker

[Anonymous No.19804868]

>>19804469
When threads start off with "aquinas so great, everyone who disagrees is dumb or an edgy teenager," do you think those reflect on a deep commitment to the religion and its theology, or someone who just wants a battering ram to smash into their perceived enemies?