/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21315049]

>Nouvelle Théologie saved the Catholic Church from total irrelevance
>Neo-scholasticism was nothing more than an intellectual circle jerk for thomists
Alright tradcats, time to show everyone here that you're not larping. Refute these two points. Make your daddy (picrel) proud, or forever hold your peace.

[Anonymous No.21315071]

It's all papist cope.

[Anonymous No.21315083]

>>21315049
What's with all the play-pretend seminarian threads lately?

[Anonymous No.21315091]

>>21315083
Idk. I made this thread to see if these "seminarians" are worth their salt

[Anonymous No.21315099]

>>21315091
Nobody is going to justify your ignorance with a serious response. Your question is drivel.
Why not try an use a few braincells and expound on your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.21315104]

>>21315091
They're not. They could conquer the church in a generation if they wanted to, but that would involve becoming ordained instead of shopping on Amazon.

[Anonymous No.21315115]

>>21315049
>Refute these two points.

Prof. Matthew Minerd breaks it down here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oum2ICep_i0

He gives a series of talks on this subject, and has written a book or two as well, if memory serves. He has also translated over a million of Garrigou-Lagrange's words into English. He's not a polemicist, but he's vigorously pro-Garrigou-Lagrange, and (mildly) anti-Nouvelle Theologie.

Here's another talk on more or less the same subject: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/episode-38-sacred-monster-matthew-k-minerd/

Minerd on the Life and Theology of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_ANtpkC19U

Critique of George Weigel on Garrigou-Lagrange
https://www.philosophicalcatholic.com/blog/2022/10/12/vexation-aimed-aroused-by-weigel

>I lost my patience today regarding something the recent text by George Weigel related to the anniversary of Vatican II. It was mostly because of its ignorant half truth (=lies) about Garrigou-Lagrange. I get a bit testy. Oh well. It doesn’t really matter, but here it is for the record. It’s all so funny. I am actually a pluralist who will defend Eastern prerogatives. But, I am also a Thomist and know way too much about Garrigou’s history and work not to be angered that the ol’ Grandee of the Pope St. John Paul era finds it necessary to continue propagating these things. I actually want Communio people and even very conservative Thomists to get along. But I cannot accept this kind of thing without at least saying something.

[Anonymous No.21315121]

>>21315104
Who's "they"?

[Anonymous No.21315155]

>>21315121
laypeople larping as theological culture warriors

[Anonymous No.21315210]

>>21315099
Fair enough.
Does Neo-scholasticism live up to its name, in there being neo-Scotists, neo-Occamists, Neo-Venturans(?) as well, or was it virtually synonymous with neo-thomists? If the latter, what new insight can I get from the neo-thomists that I can't get from the Summa Theologica itself? Was one able to criticize Aquinas as he criticized some of his predecessors in the Neo-scholastic movement, or was the Summa viewed as almost infallible?

[Anonymous No.21315248]

>>21315071
True. I can at least sympathize the communio group though. Of the three (the other two being the concilium group, and the Neo-scholastics) they seemed to have been the most intellectually honest and engaging.

[Anonymous No.21315282]

>>21315071
And how is it cope?

[Anonymous No.21315348]

I'm gonna come right out and say it here (don't want to bombard the board with more pseudo-seminarian threads):
I think the Breviloquium is better than the Summa Theologica. Bonaventure has better flow, and is more concise and thought-provoking than Aquinas. To relate this to op, the more conservative thinkers in the Nouvelle Théologie (namely Ratzinger and Balthasar) were heavily influenced by Bonaventure.

[Anonymous No.21315560]

>>21315115
You know... for as much as they go on about how the will should be submissive to the intellect, thomists sure have no problem letting their wills/spirits take control when someone dares give even a smidgen of a critique of their daddies. Ffs all the guy said was that Garrigou-Lagrange was mistaken in associating the ressourcement movement with modernism, yet apparently that's all it takes to make a thomist seethe.

[Anonymous No.21315600]

>>21315049
> saved the Catholic Church from total irrelevance
Lol. The Catholic Church will continue to become more and more irrelevant.
The only future of your Church is in shithole poor countries.

[Anonymous No.21315611]

>>21315600
Touch grass retard

[Anonymous No.21315676]

>>21315600
>The only future of your Church is–
Gonna stop you right there anon. You faggots have been saying the same shit for nearly two millennia now, and yet nothing has changed. Picrel is recommended reading for you and any other anti-catholic midwits out there.

[Anonymous No.21315827]

>>21315049
I would consider myself a Communio Thomist but I take a much more moderate stance on Neoscholasticism. It had some serious limitations, but it came from a good place and there's a lot of good there that can be taken and used going forward, in contrast to many today who think the entire thing should just be forgotten. I can understand why people are going back to those like Garrigou-Lagrange, but I think that Lonergan and Balthasar are a better way forward on the whole, but G-L definitely wrote some great stuff that should still be read today.

[Anonymous No.21315860]

>>21315071
fpbp

[Anonymous No.21315888]

>>21315676
>loses 60% of the west to atheism
>nothing has changed!

[Anonymous No.21315902]

>>21315888
>>loses 60% of the west to atheism
You wanna try that again, this time without talking out of your ass?

[Anonymous No.21316116]

>>21315676
Cope harder.
The only regions were religion is growing are in shithole poor countries.

[Anonymous No.21316125]

>>21315611
>Touches grass
Statistics dont lie nerd

[Anonymous No.21316135]

>>21316116
>>21316125
See >>21315902

[Anonymous No.21316151]

>>21316116
>Religion is declining in the west
>Just trust me bro
You're as bad as the pseudo-seminarians this thread was meant for.

[Anonymous No.21316168]

>>21316151
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
There are plenty of other stats on this you can look up. Right at your finger tips. Keep coping

[Anonymous No.21316171]

>>21316125
>Atheists are 100 times more likely to kill themselves than Christians
Get to it anon. Statistics don't lie.

[Anonymous No.21316191]

>>21316168
>Pew research center
Lol okay dude. Well more room in heaven for me.

[Anonymous No.21316215]

>>21315888
>>21316116
>>21316125
>>21316168
Tbf aren't birthrates declining in the west, while rising in poor countries? Come to think of it, why are you even happy about this? Aren't most westerners woke retards anyways?

[Anonymous No.21316216]

>>21316216

[Anonymous No.21316257]

>makes a thread to call out tradcat larping retards
>gets ransacked by atheist retards who unironically use pew research center
The perpetual fall of this board is something to behold.

[Anonymous No.21316431]

>>21315888
The west is easily susceptible to British tricks

[Anonymous No.21316435]

>>21316171
I brought this up on here and everyone flipped out

[Anonymous No.21316474]

The only Catholic thinker in the last half-century worth reading is Ratzinger. But man, he's a giant.

[Anonymous No.21316500]

Who cares? With the exceptions of Poland, the Vatican and Malta, every nominally Catholic country has legalized abortion. Catholicism has more important things to be worrying about than whatever this is.

[Anonymous No.21316931]

>>21316500
The Church needs to get serious about mission work and reevangelization. Needs to get serious about cleaning up its corruption, too, but that goes without saying.

Sadly this will probably not happen until the Boomers begin to die en masse. It will be a smaller Church but a sharper Church and then it can start reevangelizing the Godless West.

[Anonymous No.21316960]

>>21316257
All these idiots thinking a post-Christian society would be some kind of atheist utopian pipedream when in reality we're gonna start seeing more and more of the return of weird late antiquity mystery cult shit and superstition.

>>21316474
Balthasar was an absolute genius and I feel like he very possibly could have become pope had he lived longer.

[Anonymous No.21316968]

No Romano Guardini chads around here?

[Anonymous No.21317237]

>>21315049
>Nouvelle Theologie
Who?

If it's like Nouvelle Droite then it's a dumpster fire.

[Anonymous No.21317240]

>>21317237
absolutely no connection between the two

[Anonymous No.21317637]

>>21317237
No, it's more like Nouvelle Cuisine.

[Anonymous No.21317796]

>>21316960
>the return of weird late antiquity mystery cult shit and superstition
You mean like believing you'll live forever if you eat God and drink his blood?

[Anonymous No.21317800]

>>21317237
image being so savage you think the French word for "new" must relate to extreme, and extremely irrelevant, polemical ideologies

[Anonymous No.21318450]

>>21315049
>NT almost immediately devolved into proximate heresy, and when it didn't, never had the guts to put its conclusions clearly and simply
>Neo-scholasticism can be overly formalist and irritatingly rigid, but when it's not (eg GGL), it's easily more worthwhile than NT
Reading Balthasar and Rahner can be fun, and Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth series was awesome, but there is something about the logical, passionate focus of neo-scholastics and their absolute fidelity to holy tradition I find just beautiful, e.g. Matthew Scheeben's Catholic Theology. It's enriching and full of content in ways dogmatic theology just isn't these days.
>t. former seminarian doused in modernist theology during seminary.

[Anonymous No.21318595]

>>21318450
>former seminarian
Why did you leave?

[Anonymous No.21318599]

>>21315049
You already posted enough, Garrigou Lagrange cancelled it. Aside from this, the quarrel is old and irrelevant by now.

>>21316968
This is a Jean-Herve Nicolas neighborhood or it will be when the dogmatic synthesis is fully translated in English (only part one now).

[Anonymous No.21318667]

>>21315049
Do people really think "Nouvelle Theology" had any effect whatsoever on the fortunes of the Church in the 20th Century? This will sound like a banal answer, but people leave because they don't buy the truth claims of the Church, not because of minor theological points.

[Anonymous No.21319973]

>>21318667
It's not quite so simple a "NT showed up, -> collapse, therefore NT -> collapse", but the emergence of the new theology, and its hallmarks of ambiguity/borderline heterodoxy, directly fueled the hatred of all things traditional - including doctrine - that exploded in the Church in the 60s up until very recently, when there was a pushback (leaving the SSPX to one side). It didn't even really crystallize until about ten years ago, when Francis was elected.

In clerical circles, after the new theology went crazy, all things traditional went out the window, particularly the sacred liturgy. Moreover, sexual morality was embarrassing, so it was quietly ignored (and flagrantly so, in the boyfucking priests). That, combined with a sense that the Church's message was "act with consent" and "hearken to the voice of the world", makes the Church herself unnecessary.

The Catholic Church totally failed to grapple with the sexual revolution, and did so in a period of extreme moral and theological corruption. Its clergy were pederasts and its bishops heretics. It's no wonder people left in droves.

All of that cannot be solely attributed to Rahner, Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Kung, and Schillebeeckx, but they and the theological movement they founded were absolutely contributing factors.

[Anonymous No.21320000]

>>21318595
Was ferociously intolerant of heresy and namby-pamby feel-good bullshit in class, and only cared about arguments and whether they were correct. I considered the professor a more experienced student, not a God-speaker, so I was never afraid to disagree with them. I also didn't bother to hide my love of traditional liturgy very well. This caused multiple problems, and spiraled because seminary formation at the time makes mountains out of molehills. After a series of misunderstandings and a few genuine fuckups on my end (not relating to the sixth commandment, inb4), I got expelled.

[Anonymous No.21320064]

>>21315888
The West turned atheist and as a result it is crumbling. Atheism is dysgenic, atheists have kids way below replacement rate. Even only nominally Catholic families have something like 2.5 kids on average, whereas Traditional Catholic families have 6-10 kids. Look up any traditional Catholic YouTuber. Taylor Marshall has 8 children. Timothy Gordon has 10 children. This is because the Catholic Church has eugenic sexual ethics such as avoidance of contraception and pornography and patriarchal family structure.

Religiosity, especially fundamentalist religiosity, is highly heritable, and it's extremely favourable for spreading your genes. Soon the atheists will simply be outbred.

[Anonymous No.21320088]

>>21315049
Daddy Lagrange probably says it best, and while he probably goes a bit too far in avoiding new formulations of traditional dogmas, his criticism of nouvelle theologie in substituting new ideas carelessly is spot on: https://ia902804.us.archive.org/26/items/Garrigou-LagrangeEnglish/_Where%20is%20the%20New%20Theology%20Leading%20Us__%20-%20Garrigou-Lagrange%2C%20Reginald%2C%20O.P_.pdf

Now this isn't strictly speaking necessarily true: I could describe the Eucharist, in the Catholic understanding, as "having the appearance of bread, but is in reality the Body of Christ" with perfect orthodoxy, and without using the word transubstantiation. But that's because I believe the old saying is still true, and try to avoid retardation when I form theological opinions.

The new theology often doesn't do this. It will take one aspect of a truth (e.g. in the Mass, the assembly of the people), throw it out of balance with the rest of related truths (re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary, which instituted the New Covenant, etc), and emphasize it to such an extreme that reading a book like that will make you think it is the people offering "the celebration" all together, and the priest is not really needed.

This has very real practical effects. To keep on with this example, having your mind formed like that is going to lead to all sorts of stupid shit in your liturgy, most of which is extremely repulsive to men who aren't effeminate faggots (handholding, hugging, dancing, stupid effeminate songs about feelings and singing a new church into being, etc.). No discipline, military precision, no awe and wonder at the Eternal God dying and bestowing life. No prostration before a towering Presence, the all in all, Who jealously demands everything you are without limit.

[Anonymous No.21320128]

>>21320088
Christianity was originally a religion of women and slaves who only gathered at night, so what you are bemoaning is a return to form. The real Romans have all dropped out finally. They've not yet coalesced into something new, but feel free to keep beating a dead horse.

[Anonymous No.21320133]

>>21318667
As (>>21319973) said, it's about the culture of the Church. Nouvelle Theologie and the Vatican II revolution represented a shift away from the Church's traditional culture -- monarchy, authority, patriarchy, tradition, scholasticism -- towards a more liberal and feminised version. The shift is quite clear when you read something like the Syllabus of Errors and compare it to Vatican II and its consequences.
Obviously the decline in Church attendance would have happened anyway (it happened in all Christian denominations) but the Church had the opportunity to act as a real bulwark against modernity and the political changes that occurred since WW1, and it failed to do so. They thought modernising would make the Church "cool" and "relevant", instead it just made them seem like out-of-touch boomers.

[Anonymous No.21320157]

>>21320128
Early Christianity was masculine as fuck. If you think today's progressive faggot liturgy accurately represents the life of faith 1st century Christians risked death to experience, you don't even rise to the level of retarded.

[Anonymous No.21320163]

>>21320128
>Christianity was originally a religion of women and slaves
No it wasn't. Christ was a man and all of the Apostles were men. None of them were slaves. Christ was a carpenter, St. Luke was a doctor and intellectual, St. Peter was a fisherman, St. Matthew a tax collector, St. Paul a Roman citizen and tent-maker. Women were never ordained as priestesses or bishops. Christianity is and has always been a patriarchal religion.
Christianity never condemned slavery either, it merely told masters to be just to their slaves and slaves to obey their masters. It's not some "slave religion" seeking the abolition of slavery.

[Anonymous No.21320176]

>>21320157
>>21320163
Roman writers of the period say otherwise. Keep posturing as masculine though for believing a wizard will save you from life being too hard.

[Anonymous No.21320190]

>>21320133
>out of touch boomers
You may or may not have any idea how absolutely fucking true this was. The new young seminarians don't give a shit about Grandpa's battles against Evil Bad Latin, they want to preach and worship according to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I was born in the 80s, and I'm a convert to Catholicism. I wasn't around in the 50s where you had a shitty Low Mass said by a priest who didn't care. I'm sure that sucked. When I entered the Church, I wanted to swallow the tradition whole, and most of my confreres in the seminary wanted the same. Almost all of them liked or didn't mind traditional theology and liturgy, and all but a very few were zealous in promoting sexual morality traditionally understood.

The contrast to our boomer formators couldn't be more drastic. These old men HATED everything before 1962. With a passion (some exceptions, but after 2013 they mostly got driven out). And we never understood it. They were fighting yesterday's war, as if vernacular, versus populum liturgy would convert the world, and lecturing us on how to be very tolerant and not judge when talking about sexual morality (as if fornication, pornography, and adultery aren't serious problems young men in particular wrestle with). They were and probably still are stuck in 1965. Nobody I knew looked up to them.

[Anonymous No.21320202]

>>21320176
Which Roman writers? Were they hostile or favourable toward Christianity? If hostile, why would you trust their words, especially when we have early Christian sources contradicting them? It's like you want it to be true so you cling onto any piece of evidence you can get.

[Anonymous No.21320212]

>>21320190
Are you a priest?

[Anonymous No.21320219]

>>21320163
Mostly true. Paul lowkey begs Philemon to free his slave, but the New Testament never condemns slavery intrinsically.
But it's also true that Christianity, with its message of compassion and mercy on the poor and lowly, was popular with, well, the poor and lowly, i.e. poor people, slaves, and women. The message that you should protect, rather than exploit the weak, is at least in the West pretty much a Christian invention. It's no surprise a woman might be taken by that idea first, and then by her new conduct convert her husband.

[Anonymous No.21320226]

>>21320212
No. I left seminary four years ago.

[Anonymous No.21320302]

>>21320219
>Paul lowkey begs Philemon to free his slave, but the New Testament never condemns slavery intrinsically.
St. Paul sent Onesimus, a runaway slave, back to Philemon, his master. Ie. He literally upheld the institution of Roman slavery by telling Onesimus to go back to his master. Begging for a master to free his slave (if that's how you want to interpret it; you could also say he was begging for clemency) is not identical to being against slavery. Elsewhere St. Paul explicitly says:
>Slaves, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ...
St. Paul was not against the institution of slavery as practiced in the Roman Empire.
>i.e. poor people, slaves, and women
Christianity is universal. Both the pauper and the king can be Christians. Was Charlemagne "weak and lowly"? Was Pope Urban "weak and lowly" when he called the crusade?
Again, none of the apostles were women or slaves. Women were never ordained to the priesthood. They never became bishops.
>its message of compassion and mercy on the poor and lowly
Which is not incompatible with just warfare, hierarchy, patriarchy, or masculinity.

[Anonymous No.21320310]

>>21320202
Jesus's resurrection was first witnessed by women, according to your Gospels. Anyway, I could flip this on you and complain about the Christian sources for early Christianity being inadmissably biased in their presentation of Christianity. And you don't have sources contradicting women and the underclass being the bulk of early Christian converts anyhow. You don't start bringing in the more educated and wealthy until later, which, if you know your church history, is when you have all these ethnic Greek or Roman writers turning Christianity into an excruciatingly complex form of neoplatonic theology and away from being a death cult where you commit suicide by Roman cop.

[Anonymous No.21320345]

>>21320310
>Jesus's resurrection was first witnessed by women, according to your Gospels
So? Do you realise the Romans worshipped goddesses and had priestesses? How faggy and effeminate were they!
>being inadmissably biased in their presentation of Christianity.
Of course they're biased but the point is if Christianity were this feminist egalitarian religion of women and slaves the early Christian writers would not have blushed to acknowledge this. After all, it would be their religion.
>women and the underclass being the bulk of early Christian converts
All of the apostles were male, none were slaves. St. Paul literally forbids women from taking up teaching authority or even from speaking in Church. "A woman shall not teach a man"... "It is a shame for a woman to uncover her hair in Church"... "A woman should keep silent in Church"... "Women should be keepers at home, obedient to their husbands, quiet, meek..." All these are paraphrased quotes from St. Paul.
Whether or not women and slaves were the majority of converts in the early period is something that is impossible to know, but all of the leaders were male and they all espoused patriarchal principles and never once condemned Roman slavery.
>don't start bringing in the more educated and wealthy until later
Theophilus (Roman official), St. Luke (doctor, intellectual), St. Paul (Roman citizen)... ok bro.
> excruciatingly complex form of neoplatonic theology
It's because Christianity was compatible with Greek philosophy, because Christianity is true, and a lot of Greek philosophy was also true.

[Anonymous No.21320352]

>>21319973
>In clerical circles, after the new theology went crazy, all things traditional went out the window, particularly the sacred liturgy. Moreover, sexual morality was embarrassing, so it was quietly ignored (and flagrantly so, in the boyfucking priests). That, combined with a sense that the Church's message was "act with consent" and "hearken to the voice of the world", makes the Church herself unnecessary.

I think your causality is backwards. It's easy for someone to slouch into Modernism or whatever if they don't REALLY believe the content of Church teaching. Frankly, I think very few people ever did. The pedo priests are an obvious example:
>I believe that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is capital-T Truth and I received Holy Orders which leaves a permanent mark on my soul so that I might proclaim this. I also coerce young boys into sex even though this is obviously morally wrong.
-t. large numbers of Priests since forever
Again, if you REALLY believed that Catholicism was the capital-T Truth and that eternal punishment awaited you for certain sins, would you, as a rational actor, behave in such a manner? No, lol. The whole thing is a joke. Furthermore, if the priesthood has always been this duplicitous, why draw the line at Vatican II (which is where the Trads usually draw it)? For all you know Trent could be a "robber council" as the Trads call it.

[Anonymous No.21320382]

>>21320345
>St. Paul literally forbids women from taking up teaching authority or even from speaking in Church
Why would you need a rule like this hmmm? Who was showing up in church?

[Anonymous No.21320398]

>>21320382
Then the reason Romans banned women from participating in politics is because women were "showing up" in the senate and the Roman republic was so effeminate right? You're a retard bro.

[Anonymous No.21320421]

>>21320398
>the Roman republic was so effeminate right
Weren't you just arguing the Romans were effeminate? Why do you hate the idea that women and underclass people were and are the core of Christian believers?

[Anonymous No.21320516]

>>21320421
>Weren't you just arguing the Romans were effeminate?
No it was a reductio ad absurdum.
>Why do you hate the idea that women and underclass people were and are the core of Christian believers?
First I hate the idea because you meant to imply by it that Christianity is an effeminate, egalitarian or feminist religion. This is why I showed you that the apostles all espoused patriarchal values and upheld the institution of Roman slavery.
Secondly I hate it because there's no reason to believe it's true. All of the apostles were male and none were slaves. There were wealthy and educated people in the early Church. In the later Church, we had figures like Charlemagne, showing that neither wealth nor power nor masculinity are incompatible with membership in the Church. And all you have to say otherwise is the words of some unnamed and unquoted "Roman writers" whom you admit were hostile to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.21320545]

>>21320516
>but but but the 12 apostles and these medieval kings were male so it's le based masculinity cult
Yet the only people who go to church are little old ladies. Need I point out the dancing rainbow pastors? You'll sneer that those are just Anglos, but even so, if Christianity is about hating effeminate behavior you can absolutely do that without praying to a dead wizard to rescue you from the planet his father created.

[Anonymous No.21320650]

>>21320352
That's interesting, and something I want to think harder about. In a way it turns into a chicken/egg problem, which might be unanswerable. I can't speak to the heart of each priest involved in the moral depravity of this age, but I can't help but think that a silence surrounding traditional sexual morality (i.e. no porn, only fuck your wife raw) combined with the explicit preaching that everything was changing, plus the new 'psychological insight' that you'll be happiest when you're honest with your own impulses, contributed to young gay men in the seminary being tacitly or explicitly encouraged in their sodomy. And from thereon into their priesthood as well. Who can say? But what categorically didn't help was a culture of regarding everything as changing, including doctrine, and that sexuality was healthily lived when it was expressed as felt.

[Anonymous No.21320672]

>>21316215
not all of us are

[Anonymous No.21320697]

>imagine such a thread would be better here than the equivalent on /pol/
>thread devolves into some would be larpagan going on a weird tangent about muh women muh slaves which is entirely irrelevant
By the way, for the curious, that line of non-argument came from Celsus (who is Greek and not Roman as our dear larpagan said but that's secondary) in the middle of various fraudulent allegations.

[Anonymous No.21320706]

>>21320697
I hold out hopes that some anons have read Maritain, Lagrange, Ratzinger, and Congar/Balthasar and will give us reasons for/against why their thought should emulated or not. Larpagans retreat back into the woodwork, after all.

[Anonymous No.21320707]

I think there's something to be said for the question: where does the Church go from here?

Maybe Nouvelle Theologie wasn't the answer, but it's fair to ask the direction the Church is giong to go in, in the face of a changing world.

I wouldn't consider myself a pure traditionalist, but I do think there is something to be said for a kind of reification of what has been true for a long time in the Church. That Vatican 2 attempting to "move forward" was a mistake precisely because it situated the Church too much in the events of this time rather than in eternity.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" is a trite slogan but it's also true. Christ is eternal. The Church, rooted in Christ, is eternal too. This should tempt us away from becoming faddish and obsessed with some "new" thing. Maybe we should also avoid becoming "rigid," as Pope Francis loves to harp on. Too much, I think. But I think you can be rooted in tradition, and rooted in eternity, in a way that is not rigid. Rather than belonging to this or that time, I think the Church and its theology should stand outside of time, so to speak.

[Anonymous No.21320732]

>>21315676
>nothing has changed
you think that the pope is not the real pope and hasnt been since the 1970s because he is a homosexual freemasonic jewish communist

[Anonymous No.21320746]

>>21320732
Correct, the Lord of Israel revoked the Apostolic Magisterium and granted it to the Thuc bishophric lineage.

[Anonymous No.21320756]

>>21320697
If random schizo #37 can ruin your thread this easily, it sounds like your thread was shit to begin with.

[Anonymous No.21320765]

>>21320732
Sedes are retarded and, more than that, they are ahistorical. They act like we've never had a bad Pope before. That we've never had a REALLY bad Pope before. When in fact we've had quite a few.

If the Church depended on the Holy Father always being a stand-up guy we'd have fallen apart centuries ago. Clearly it does not.

[Anonymous No.21320774]

>>21316171
well actually the highest suicide rate are in poor shit holes, the same places that have the most religion

[Anonymous No.21320781]

>>21320697
>that line of non-argument came from Celsus
It's not meant to be an argument. It's just a fact that the religion was popular with the underclass and also women. It was a mystery religion for the non-elite, and this universalism has endured in Christianity right through to the present day, where Christianity is most robust in the poorest places. And whether or not Celsus identified as Greek or wrote in Greek is irrelevant since he is from the Roman period. You can call him a Roman writer and and a Roman critic of the newly forming Christian religion. It would be pilpul not to—something you are no doubt familiar with as a play-pretend seminarian

[Anonymous No.21320783]

>>21315676
>nothing has changed
>over a third of christian are protestant
>islam is outgrowing christianity as a whole
>every whealty western country is growing increasingly secular every year

[Anonymous No.21320785]

>>21320756
I am always ready to debate the play-pretend seminarians about the books neither of us have read.

[Anonymous No.21320791]

>>21320774
>highest suicide rates are in poor shit holes
This is mostly true. Of the top ten as of 2019, only one is a first-world country, if you count South Korea as one (Russia I'm not counting as a first world country). Things must really be shit in Africa these days. Rip.

[Anonymous No.21320807]

>>21315121
Heideggers Das Man

[Anonymous No.21320827]

>>21320650
>I can't speak to the heart of each priest involved in the moral depravity of this age
I think that certain Trad types are making a mistake by assuming that moral depravity is elevated among the priesthood right now - it's probably right around average. IMO, the priesthood was just the place where many gay men wound up in Catholic countries. Moms in these countries probably recognized that their son wasn't particularly interested in girls, and guided them towards the priesthood. It wouldn't surprise me if >50% of priests were gay. But again the deeper problem is that you proclaim that "X is absolute Truth" while doing not-X - obviously you're a liar, so what else are you lying about? What other important Truths are actually just lies some priests or bishops cooked up for politically expedient reasons?

>But what categorically didn't help was a culture of regarding everything as changing, including doctrine, and that sexuality was healthily lived when it was expressed as felt.
Well, everything WAS changing. As far as sexuality goes, we really shouldn't fail to appreciate that sex had a high probability of creating children for most of human history. People were also less tied to the land and could find other things to do on a Sunday - I think that a decline in community pressure to attend Church (because everyone else was doing it) played a major role in Church attendance. It was also decided that WWII had made any form of conservatism a Bad Look.

But again, my base case is that a lot of people don't REALLY believe any of this stuff deep down since far before 1968 or so.

[Anonymous No.21320839]

>>21320783
>went from 12 dudes to the most influential force in history
>but the amazingatheist has 2 million subscribers on youtube!
Every time

[Anonymous No.21320875]

>>21315348
The two books are hardly comparable.

>>21320781
A "fact" known thanks to Celsus in the middle of several "facts". There is not even close to enough data to offer any sociological profile of Christians of very early phases, and by the time we can do so the "underclass and women" characterization is certainly false.
>It was a mystery religion for the non-elite
It was explicitly presented as opposed to the mystery religions.
>where Christianity is most robust in the poorest places
Here among (ethnic) Frenchmen this is certainly not the case and has not been for a century if it ever was. I have also lived in other places where it would be a marker of the complete opposite of your claim. Going through history your thesis is just bizarre. Do you think the average Christian was poorer than the average non-Christian, worldwide, in, say, 1850?
I am not the other anon that left the seminary.

[Anonymous No.21320878]

>>21320839
>the most influential force in history
The desire to take possession of land, women, and warm water ports?

[Anonymous No.21320902]

>>21320839
Stop being obtuse

[Anonymous No.21320903]

>>21320875
Are you excluding Poles and Italians and Portugese immigants and their descendents from your profile of French French Catholics? I suspect your churchgoing population would be even smaller without that infusion of non-Algerians. But in any case, Christianity thrives in Africa and Latin America while in northern countries there are shortages of priests to do basic pastoral upkeep. Going to become a snowballing kind of problem don't you think? Just wait until the well-below-capacity churches are totally understaffed on top of it. As for the complaint about Celsus as source, we might as well complain that the Gospels are our only source for the resurrection of Jesus and are... pro-Christian... so we ought to disregard the observation in the lack of corroborating evidence.

[Anonymous No.21320911]

>>21320903
Catholicism is unironically being (slowly) replaced by Pentecostalism in LatAm right now.

[Anonymous No.21320920]

>>21320827
Anon, I think you make the same assumption. You seem to assume that most men are incapable of celibacy, and the one who 'say' they're not are either faggots, pedophiles/pederasts, or both. I don't think that's the case. I grant that most men are not called to celibacy ("Not everyone can accept this word," after all), but I don't grant that everyone who is must necessarily be a deviant, and I genuinely believe the spiritual and intellectual environment of his/her growing up plays a large role in how well he/she lives out that call (including religious life here, so as to include monks and nuns).

Christ is real. His call is real. There are some people, some few, that he asks to renounce family for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. I do not believe that they all must be vile degenerates, and I think they would be helped by solid dogmatic theology surrounding sex and marriage; and that when these safeguards are torn down, that call can get perverted into disgusting self-seeking pleasure.

[Anonymous No.21320986]

>>21320920
>You seem to assume that most men are incapable of celibacy
Gay men basically are not. All available evidence on gay lifestyles today back this up. Women have lower sexual desire than men. Male-male "relationships" lack this moderating influence, so they just go wild - this is why gay "relationships" don't really exist.

>You seem to assume that most men are incapable of celibacy, and the one who 'say' they're not are either faggots, pedophiles/pederasts, or both
I assume the vast majority of men capable of getting sex are having sex. In the priesthood, I think it is the case that many of its members are gay, because until the 1960s or so, that's where a lot of gay men ended up, as they wouldn't be expected to marry - they probably also felt guilty about their attraction and wanted to sublimate it into something morally good, etc.

>I think they would be helped by solid dogmatic theology surrounding sex and marriage; and that when these safeguards are torn down, that call can get perverted into disgusting self-seeking pleasure.
Catholic prohibitions on gay sex (and all sex outside of marriage for that matter) aren't complex doctrine, it should be straightforward to uphold if you really believe that it is an absolute moral Truth, that you will suffer eternal torment for violating unless you repent etc. and yet many in the priesthood seem incapable of that.

If I can go to Church because I think there's a high risk Christianity is true and more or less uphold the moral doctrines I am required to, why is it that men who received Holy Orders etc. can't be bothered to even try to live according to doctrines they claim to uphold? One has to depend on these characters to transmit Tradition, too...

[Anonymous No.21321016]

>>21320911
In large part due to the CIA promoting Protestant missionaries.

Reminder that the United States is and always has been an enemy of the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.21321026]

>>21321016
>In large part due to the CIA promoting Protestant missionaries.
Why is it working?

[Anonymous No.21321181]

>>21321026
The clergy in Latin America have spent a lot of time being obsessed with dumb ideas like liberation theology and not enough time tending to their flock. I'm not saying they're blameless. But we can't lose sight of the fact that there's an attack going on in the spread of Protestant missionaries to Catholic countries, and often it has a tie to the United States government. Remember, the US was founded by freemasons, deists, and congregationalist Protestants.

[Anonymous No.21321312]

>>21320986
>if you really believe
this, I think, is where our difference is the biggest. This belief in Christian morality (broadly speaking) doesn't come to be, exist, or flourish, all on its own. How could it? Sexual pleasures (to say nothing of other types of sin) are pleasant, and are of themselves desirable. It requires education to see these sins as they are - empty, and incapable of fulfilling you.

Without that education, "Of Course" every man is going to have sex, particularly gay sex if his society taboos it, etc. This is not particularly surprising, but I do say it's unnecessary. It doesn't have to be the case that a priest is a boyfucker, or a porn addict, or a kiddy diddler. Many times he's not, anymore. What leads to them to this enlightenment is multifaceted, and its most important cause is an actual encounter with God, but important nonetheless is education in all of its forms, including how sexuality is a part of you. Understanding at your core about fatherhood and motherhood and how the two create a family in imitation of the Trinity is not something innate, it is learned, and without that learning, perversity is likely to run rampant.

Sound love and sound doctrine create sound families. The reverse causes the shit we see on the newsfeed every fucking day.

[Anonymous No.21321381]

>>21315049
The jesuits were the ultimate glowniggers, the ones who infilitrated china and india, honest very impressive.

[Anonymous No.21321388]

>>21321312
>fatherhood and motherhood and how the two create a family in imitation of the Trinity
When your momma said you were a gift from God it might have been a double entendre. Kind of feel bad for you and your "dad." That's not normal just so you know. Most families, especially the more, uh, committed ones, are not an imitation of "the Trinity."

[Anonymous No.21321397]

One thing I really like about Ratzinger is his heavy emphasis on Christ Himself. The person of Jesus. Insofar as that's a product of Nouvelle Theologie, that's to its credit.

Don't get me wrong. As a good Catholic I of course love Mary and the saints. I'm getting ready to pray my daily Rosary as we speak. But there IS the risk in Catholicism of Jesus Himself getting obscured, in our devotions to the Blessed Mother and to the saints. Ratzinger is not wrong to want to bring a renewed emphasis to Jesus Himself, because after all that is what makes Christianity what it is. The person of Jesus, what He did, and why He is so unique among the founders of the various religions.

[Anonymous No.21321486]

>>21321397
that's a nice and comfortable snackish bait, arigatou

[Anonymous No.21321504]

>>21315049
>tradcat is synonymous with thomism

How about you don't start the thread with a strawman

[Anonymous No.21321872]

>>21321388
Please dont start doing this. This thread is actually interesting and this is frankly just boring. Disagreement can be interesting ,but these poor attempts at rhetoric just make you look stupid.

[Anonymous No.21322360]

>>21321504
Appreciate this attitude, anon. I personally prefer the way of theology in the Church Fathers and early medievals (e.g. Anselm) over the scholastics - although I appreciate their logical precision and Thomas' intelligence. Theology made a mistake when it left the monastery and went to the university.

[Anonymous No.21322674]

>>21321312
>Without that education, "Of Course" every man is going to have sex, particularly gay sex if his society taboos it, etc.
Non-Christian societies also have restricted promiscuity, there are practical reasons for doing so.

>It doesn't have to be the case that a priest is a boyfucker, or a porn addict, or a kiddy diddler. Many times he's not, anymore.
Most priestly sexual misconduct is just typical gay male behavior. It doesn't have to be the case, but when you get a bunch of gay men together, well...
Again it's not something intrinsic to priesthood itself, rather, the laws surrounding priestly celibacy led to the priesthood being mostly staffed by gay men.

>Understanding at your core about fatherhood and motherhood and how the two create a family in imitation of the Trinity is not something innate, it is learned, and without that learning, perversity is likely to run rampant.
Most of these guys aren't even interested in women. It doesn't require a deep theological education to understand that sex makes babies. Non-Christian societies have understood this idea and the importance of marriage and restricting promiscuity for centuries.

If anything, runaway Christian concern for victims has "educated" people out of listening to their innate disgust reflex.

[Anonymous No.21322721]

>>21322674
How do you explain the kiddy diddlers and openly homosexual priests in protestant denominations? Looking at Anglicans or Episcopalians it seems like very other of their priests is a homosexual. None of them have any celibacy rules.

[Anonymous No.21322741]

>>21322721
The rate of sexual misconduct probably isn't that different between Catholics and Anglicans or Lutherans. I have no way of proving this, but I suspect "gay culture" was already institutionalized in Western Christianity's clergy by the time of the Reformation, since the clergy was being used as a dumping ground for gay men.

But this critique of the priesthood is less about the details of their sexual behavior and more about the implications it has for their trustworthiness - if they're all saying one thing and doing the opposite on basic moral doctrine, you're obviously dealing with a bunch of liars. Trads have no problem claiming this about Vatican II for example, but why not run the same logic further to question Vatican I or Trent? You could do the same as an Anglican or Lutheran.

[Anonymous No.21322822]

>>21322741
>I suspect "gay culture" was already institutionalized in Western Christianity's clergy
That "gay culture" thing seems to be just your unproven assumption. When clergy was accused or supspected of sexual misconduct in past it was of normal variety, even in fictional potrayals(like in Decameron).

>But this critique of the priesthood is less about the details of their sexual behavior and more about the implications it has for their trustworthiness
I am not Catholic, but the truthfulness or falsity of their doctrine is unrelated to the behaviour of clergy or lay members. They dont claim moral perfection but infallibility in their dogmas. Thats completely different.

>Trads have no problem claiming this about Vatican II for example
I see people accusing trads of rejecting it more often than them actually rejecting it. What binding doctrines do they actually reject from it?

Your citique is really shallow, and full of cliches, and it seems to me you are coming from a place of personal dislike rather than serious intellectual objections.