/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21915536]

Pope Gregory XVI
> This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone.... Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Pope Pius IX
>The civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people. The Roman Pontiff cannot, and ought never to, reconcile himself with liberalism, progress, or modern civilisation.

Pope Leo XIII
>So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils.

Vatican II:
>This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

How can members of the Vatican II sect claim to be Catholic?

[Anonymous No.21915539]

>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.21915546]

>>21915536
hmm I wonder how many souls were saved by the brutal religious wars that raped europe for hundreds of years after the reformation? liberalism and the toleration of religious difference didn't emerge just for the hell of it. people became sick of conflict. they wanted to be able to live without having their barns burned down and and seeing their neighbours raped and strung up on trees.

[Anonymous No.21915547]

>>21915539
I quoted 4 books

[Anonymous No.21915548]

>>21915536
man i'm glad i'm a protestant so i don't have to worry about all this

[Anonymous No.21915549]

>>21915536
Catholics are heretics.

[Anonymous No.21915563]

>>21915536
This is honestly why I don’t even follow Christianity. I was raised catholic and I never have really been able to feel like I belong in protestant culture. Yet catholicism is now evil. There is always orthodoxy but as I know they are very communal and speak Russian or whatever other slavic languages. The beauty in the cathedrals of orthodoxy and catholicism is enough to show that obviously the work of God was involved in their construction but at this point its all pedo gay pussy bs as far as I can see and this is no time to forgive thy neighbor or whatever the fuck. So I instead adhere to more Eastern thinking as far as the cyclical nature of all things, and basically do as I please as someone who is not a sicko. But I wouldnt be opposed to a genocide of some sort but God forbid we do anything bad to our neighbor. Spengler may have been right when he said Christianity is the grandmother of bolshevism.

[Anonymous No.21915567]

>>21915563
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are literal meme religions that hate the scriptures.

[Anonymous No.21915569]

>>21915563
>at this point its all pedo gay pussy bs as far as I can see
it was the same (probably worse) in the middle ages lol

[Anonymous No.21915573]

>>21915546
Any religious war you want to cite has produced less suffering and less casualties than the secular wars of the 20th century, in which millions were slaughtered and even civilians targeted (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, bombing of Britain).

The religious wars of Europe have a complex history and the name is misleading. You had alliances between Catholic and Protestant states against other Catholic and Protestant states. To the extent that religion had a motivating factor, it was quickly forgotten in the realities of geopolitics and power.

The Catholic Church has always taught that error has no rights. It is impossible for a false religion to have rights to express itself, propagandise, preach, build places of worship, etc.. A king may allow that in his own dominion if he believes it to be a politically wise decision, but it is not possible to assert it as an absolute right.

Pope Leo XIII:
>It is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.

[Anonymous No.21915586]

>>21915563
>Spengler may have been right when he said Christianity is the grandmother of bolshevism.
The Popes (up to the Vatican II revolution) absolutely condemned the French Revolution and the socialism and communism that sprang out of its philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21915592]

>>21915586
>conservativism is just defending yesterday's revolution
Yeah, we know.

[Anonymous No.21915593]

>>21915573
>The Catholic Church has always taught that error has no rights.
Fine proposition, except when multiple competing sects all believe this. It's strange you invoke 20th century atrocities when they themselves were animated by this exact same principle -- the intolerant dogmatism of Marxism, or of fascism, and, yes, of an imperialistic liberalism also (though it's worth noting that neither of the world wars were started by liberal governments, but despotic ones).

The problem is that reasonable people appear to be capable of profound differences of opinion on metaphysical matters. Humans do not appear to have unvarnished access to objective truth. It is also a fact of human psychology that people do not respond charitably to physical intimidation. I doubt John Henry Newman would have made so good a convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism had it been terror, rather than reason, that prompted it, or Augustine from scepticism to Christianity. I think Abraham Joshua Hschel and Pope Benedict XVI are right that if religion is in decline, it is in large part religion's fault... it is because religion has not advocated for itself very well, it has grown decadent, triumphant, arrogant -- it has not competed at a high standard in the marketplace of ideas. (But religion, considered demographically, in terms of birth rates, is probably not in as much danger as we believe).

[Anonymous No.21915599]

>>21915593
Actually anon, the Pope gets to decide what people in the past believed, so no, no one has ever disagreed with the Pope, everyone in the Middle Ages believed exactly what Bergoglio is teaching now.

[Anonymous No.21915649]

>>21915593
This is a classic liberal argument: that, because man is not capable of grasping fundamental truth, we should allow for maximum freedom for experimentation in order that the best philosophy might be discovered. This same principle animates the Darwinists and those who put unbridled faith in the "free market" to solve all human problems; the idea that the process of competition will naturally discover the best social order.

The problem with this argument is that human beings possess what is called in Christianity a fallen nature, although this is certainly not just a Christian observation. The human mind grasps at what is easy, what is near, those pleasures of the flesh which consume ones immediate perception.

For a man to develop true virtue, he needs to constantly restrain his base desires and attain utter self-mastery. This is what the Classical Greek definition of freedom was: freedom from the passions, enthronement of the rational faculty above the body. Christ: "He that sins is a slave to sin."

In view of this, it is clear that the liberal order will not produce the true philosophy, but will rather lead society to degenerate. Pornography, drugs, alcohol, fornication, abortion, contraception, faggotry, divorce, gender-bending, addiction to technology, atomisation, feminism, revolution, adultery, dissolution of the patriarchal family, destruction of the race and nation, mass migration, unbridled individualism, loss of standards and beauty, socialism, communism, theft of private property. This is the philosophy that will rise to the top under liberalism, because these are easy pleasures which satisfy the sinful lusts of the flesh.

Man must be restrained for his own good.

[Anonymous No.21915677]

>>21915592
The Popes did not defend any revolution, they were reactionaries through and through. The Vatican II antipopes unfortunately imbibed the precepts of the revolution and changed the Church fundamentally, but more and more people are realising that they are nothing more than ageing hippies who abandoned the faith.

[Anonymous No.21915701]

>>21915649
Based. You should read Man and Technics if you haven’t already. It’s basically this argument applied specifically to advancing technology.

[Anonymous No.21915709]

>>21915649
I agree that a free market place of ideas does not necessarily result in the victory of the 'best' ideas (there is also reason to suspect that evolution does not always favour reliable cognition). But it does seem like the best overall solution to an intractable problem. The problem does not go away, even in a homogeneous culture, even with the most virtuous people, the people best trained in rational thinking.

This is not just a problem for those who are ruled but also those who rule, if they take their ethical obligation seriously. Consider an Islamic country where Christian preaching is repressed, or Communist states which do the same. They are operating under the exact same mentality as your benevolent Catholic monarch. If they are sinning, it is not because their motives are wrong (they are trying to make sure that society manifests the Good, using the exact same methods you propose), but rather because they possess a wrong apprehension of the facts (actually Communism does not manifest the Good, but Catholicism). Now, how are they supposed to learn that they possess a wrong apprehension of the facts, if they are not able to be exposed to Christian argument and teaching?

You might say, "That is only a problem in places where the truth is not already known." But the problem is that the Islamist agrees with you.

Let us imagine Communists torturing a Christian priest, and Inquisitors torturing a heretic. You probably imagine that the first set of men are evil, and the latter set of men good. But both groups of men have been led to their actions by the same set of mental operations, only, they disagree as to which system is ultimately true and good.

Taking man's fallenness as an axiom, it seems naive to rely upon institutional authority. How can any authority certify itself? Shouldn't I be just as morally justified, if I am a worker who naively believes Communism, as if I am a peasant who naively believes Catholicism? If naive belief is not good, then how can I become a reasonable believer, without some free exchange of ideas?

[Anonymous No.21915715]

>>21915709
>how are they supposed to learn that they possess a wrong apprehension of the facts

[Anonymous No.21915744]

>>21915709
I think any nation or empire is constantly undulating between war and peace and violence and horrible things are just human nature. But it’s better to generally have nations of unified beliefs and racially monolithic. That way there is violence between nations but at least while they are still healthy it flourishes within maintains great cultures and produces great art. It doesnt seem to matter what belief it is as long as its traditional. Kieth Woods has a great lecture on the commonality of all traditional belief systems.

[Anonymous No.21915751]

>>21915744
That's fine as a meta-rational anthropological statement but inadequate for people actually concerned about the truth-value of the beliefs animating their cultures, like the Catholic poster ITT. His interest in Catholic despotism is not pragmatic but moral.

[Anonymous No.21915780]

>>21915536
>how can members of the Vatican II sect claim to be Catholic
They can because virtually nobody at this point knows what Catholicism should be i.e. the institution dedicated to preservation of Apostolic tradition as opposed to New Age immanentism, which is what most of post Vaticanum Secundum theology boils down to. They can spout the most incoherent tripe and people will eat it up regardless. Modern Catholicism is basically Protestantism plus some garbs and incense if that. Modernist priests are essentially indistinguishable from pastors.

[Anonymous No.21915970]

>>21915751
Well sure now we cant really deal with any pragmatic ideas and any suggestion of such is one form of idealism or another. But thats also the case because our society has been ideologically divided so no mass can come up as a united force. So the result will be social anarchy and we will see the horrific results of that unfold in the next few decades alongside obviously the evils of corporatism we already are seeing becoming worse.

[Anonymous No.21915990]

>>21915539
/his/ is just /pol/ 2.0 but filled with even dumber posters. People on that board distinctly feel stupid in their reasoning and posts. I've never had a good discussion there.
Coincidentally, such has been my experience with history majors in real life. All has an astonishingly low IQ. Extremely stupid. They only could offer little factoids and trivia but they didn't genuinely think about the material. They just regurgitate what they have learned. All failed in life too post college. Teacher making 50k is the most successful one I know of and that's nothing to me.

[Anonymous No.21916369]

>>21915536
The Vatican has been making concessions to modernity and liberalism since Napoleon killed a pope in jail and the next pope signed the Concordat with him anyway. I've been posting this in sede threads for a year and none of you have a historical response

[Anonymous No.21916376]

>>21915990
we can't all be good like you

[Anonymous No.21916537]

>>21915536
Wow I'm glad I am a Buddhist so I don't have to worry about all these things...

[Anonymous No.21916738]

The SSPX is in full communion, they are heretics as well.

[Anonymous No.21916867]

>>21916738
"Brother" Dimond is a retard my friend. I'm a Sedevacantist because I believe Vatican II taught heresy but he is the actual embodiment of all atheistic pearl-clutching about religious closed-mindedness and idiocy. The guy has videos on his channel of magicians performing tricks and uses this as proof of a "spiritual world". He believes that everyone who was not baptised and held to every single dogma of the Catholic faith will perish in Hell for eternity, even though it was taught traditionally that those who die in invincible ignorance and follow the mandates of their conscience written by God upon their hearts can be saved in some cases.

Their "monastery" is either a collection of retarded schizos and autists or a massive grift.

[Anonymous No.21916900]

>>21916369
I'm pretty sure I spoke to you before and told you that politics doesn't matter as much as principle. Sedevacantists aren't concerned with the bad political decisions of the Vatican II popes, but with their open proclamation that they believe in religious liberty, ecumenism, and liberalism, all of which were condemned by prior Popes whom you accuse of giving concessions to liberals.

[Anonymous No.21917338]

>>21915536
What would Jesus say about punishing people for having wrong opinions or refusing to believe in Him?

>in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other
That pestilence is God's to cast upon man, not man's to cast on fellow man in order to "save his soul" through violence and fear.

>conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people
All men at all times and walks of life are prone to sin. Lord did not create his Paradise shielded from human failings. To aspire for a world where man cannot sin is to dream of placing oneself above God, but in truth lacking the confidence and love in oneself to forgive, and seeking to escape the labor of forgiveness and acceptance to a world where there is nothing to accept and forgive.

>The Roman Pontiff cannot, and ought never to, reconcile himself with liberalism, progress, or modern civilisation.
All mortal life is progress towards Christ's Kingdom for the Day will come.

>So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils.
The man himself if the fountain-head and origin of all evil. Lord taught us to love this fountainhead of sin and embrace him in ourselves and in others, and hold our friends, and help our neighbors, and embrace our enemies, and love ourselves even though we are not free of sin. Not to strike down this fountainhead for our fear of sin being stronger than our love of God.

[Anonymous No.21917380]

>>21915677
>The Popes did not defend any revolution, had Jesus walked among them they would be the Pharisees of their day.
We know.

[Anonymous No.21917468]

>>21915536
wow I'm glad I am a capybara so I don't have to worry about all these things

[Anonymous No.21917640]

>>21917338
It’s not about forcing people to believe in Jesus, it’s about preventing Jews, Muslims, heretics, etc. from propagandising in society, preventing them from going into government, preventing them from building places of worship and blaspheming Christ when in their mosques and synagogues they openly preach that he’s not God. These are all legitimate actions the state can take. It’s also about preventing immorality in society. If someone is out there publishing books which advocate for divorce or abortion, their books should be burned because they’re evil. No we won’t ever defeat sin fully but that doesn’t mean the state doesn’t have a duty to inculcate virtue in its subjects.

[Anonymous No.21917649]

>>21916867
>religious closed-mindedness
Buzzword. I'm not a follower of them but they get it right on a lot of things they just go too far on certain issues like when they say (true) Baptism of Desire must be rejected. Only legitimate authority can settle that question and bring all the scattered Traditional groups together.

[Anonymous No.21917663]

>>21917649
He’s a retard and his brother is an even bigger retard. They think magic tricks are real, that’s how retarded they are. If you want to follow some Sedevacantists check out bishop Donald Sanborn, Father Anthony Cekada (RIP), and the CMRI. They’re the best in the English speaking world.

[Anonymous No.21917711]

>>21917380
How are they Pharisees for rejecting revolution and liberalism?

[Anonymous No.21918176]

>>21915709
I’ll respond to you tomorrow if the thread is up, I’m going to sleep now