/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22709721]

The position of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II was extremely reactionary. The Popes ardently opposed almost every single modern innovation. Pope Pius IX outright declared war on the modern world, and asserted that the Church would never be able to reconcile itself to it.

This all changed at Vatican II. In one shocking, unexpected flash the Church completely reversed its outlook. It wholeheartedly embraced a liberal conception of the state and of society, and essentially abandoned everything it used to stand for. The ancient Christian liturgical tradition was replaced by a democratic abomination called the New Mass, the antisemitic prayers were thrown out, the secular liberal conception of the state was affirmed, and the modern world was called to “dialogue” and “reconciliation”.

It is not an exaggeration to say that here, in the 1960s, the Catholic Church, which had been the cornerstone of Western society for 2000 years, suddenly died.

I have tried to cope my way around this, to keep being a Catholic, but it’s impossible. There is no hope of resuscitating this religion. Unlike the Muslims, the west simply no longer possesses the vitality and idealism for radical belief.

All this has led me to think — maybe Nietzsche really was a modern prophet. He proclaimed the death of God a century before the Church collapsed before everyone’s eyes. And yet — where to go from here? What am I to do when I get married, or have a child, or need a funeral? What replacement do I have? Without the Church there is only cold, bleak materialism. There is no overarching narrative, no social-spiritual unifying principle that makes life worth living. Marriage is now just a legal contract. A funeral is a corny little get-together where poems are read and music is played.

There seems to be no possible alternative. How will we create new values? Or will we just die and be subsumed by the more vital Islamic culture?

[Anonymous No.22709750]

The foundation of this makes no sense.
So the Catholic church is wrong for embracing the modern world but did so with the same authority they previously declared war on it?

So wouldn't as a Catholic you submit to the supreme pontiff rather then judge the First See by your own personal political preferences?

[Anonymous No.22709757]

>>22709721
How does your argument interact with this?
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

[Anonymous No.22709761]

>>22709721
>I have tried to cope my way around this, to keep being a Catholic, but it’s impossible. There is no hope of resuscitating this religion. Unlike the Muslims, the west simply no longer possesses the vitality and idealism for radical belief.
You're going to love what's coming.

[Anonymous No.22709772]

>>22709721
You can always convert to quietest Isalm and ride the tiger anon.

[Anonymous No.22709819]

>>22709721
I think you make that criticism because of your ignorance of Catholic history, theology, etc. 1) In the first place, Catholicism being a cornerstone of Western society is irrelevant to the faith. 2) Vatican II was a direct continuation of Vatican I, and is in line with Catholic social teaching.
>The Popes ardently opposed almost every single modern innovation.
>Catholic apologists such as Félix Dupanloup and John Henry Newman said that the Syllabus was widely misinterpreted by readers who did not have access to, or did not bother to check, the original documents of which it was a summary. The propositions listed had been condemned as erroneous opinions in the sense and context in which they originally occurred; without the original context, the document appeared to condemn a larger range of ideas than it actually did. Thus, it was asserted that no critical response to the Syllabus could be valid, if it did not take into account the cited documents and their context.

[Anonymous No.22709842]

>>22709819
No point even interacting with an obvious bad faith argument like OP’s. Anyone who calls Vatican II a “shocking, unexpected flash” obviously has no idea what they’re talking about. Either posting in bad faith to bait or actually an idiot.

[Anonymous No.22709855]

>>22709721
>This all changed at Vatican II. In one shocking, unexpected flash the Church completely reversed its outlook. It wholeheartedly embraced a liberal conception of the state and of society, and essentially abandoned everything it used to stand for. The ancient Christian liturgical tradition was replaced by a democratic abomination called the New Mass, the antisemitic prayers were thrown out, the secular liberal conception of the state was affirmed, and the modern world was called to “dialogue” and “reconciliation”.
t. teenager who decided to larp as a tradcath due to internet memes
>where to go from here? What am I to do when I get married, or have a child, or need a funeral? What replacement do I have? Without the Church there is only cold, bleak materialism.
Are you retarded? There is literally so much fucking stuff out there which doesn't exist in your constructed paradigm. Read Hegel or Heidegger, or both.

[Anonymous No.22710867]

>>22709757
My argument is not harmed by the existence of Rerum Novarum. That is an encyclical which is primarily a condemnation of socialism. It also argues for the rights of workers and their good treatment —- something I do not oppose. What is your point?
>>22709772
I thought about converting to Islam but it’s not authentic. Catholicism was authentic for me in the 2 years I was an ardent believer.
>>22709819
>>22709842
This is a total lie.

Condemned prior to Vatican II:
—- Free speech and religious liberty
—- Ecumenism
—- Modernism: the idea that the Church needs to change with the times
—- Secular liberal state
—- The idea that the Jews are included in the plan of salvation
—- The idea that the Church can reconcile itself to the modern world after the liberal revolutions

And yet all of these were affirmed in no uncertain terms at Vatican II.

Those are the word-for-word contradictions, but they don’t matter as much as the contradiction in SPIRIT that occurred. Vatican II embraced, for the first time ever, an anti-reactionary pro-modern stance. The liturgy was democratised. The entire outlook changed, and it was evident from how differently the post Vatican II popes behaved and still behave compared to the past. Pope Pius V wanted the death penalty for homosexuals and blasphemers, Pope Francis declares that homosexuality “is not a crime”. Pope Pius XI condemned feminism and co-education, Pope John Paul II embraces women working outside the home as a good thing. Anyone who can read the signs of the times knows that the post Vatican II church actually has nothing to do with the Catholic Church of the past.

It has nothing to do with Pope Pius IX, who said
>The Roman Pontiff cannot, and ought never to, reconcile himself or come to terms with liberalism, progress, or modern civilisation.
Because that’s exactly what they did.
>>22709855
I understand that philosophy is able to offer a way out. But it’s not a complete spiritual system. It is, first of all, a lonely thing, and second of all a cerebral thing. There is no Hegelian church where I can get a Hegelian marriage. This sort of social function of the Church, the integration of human life into a cosmic history represented by symbols, marriage and funeral rites, prayers, art, iconography, liturgy, etc., is something that philosophy simply cannot imitate.

We lost something really important with the death of religion.

[Anonymous No.22710873]

>>22710867
>Catholicism was authentic for me in the 2 years I was an ardent believer.
lol. You know nothing. NOTHING

[Anonymous No.22710876]

>>22710867
>I thought about converting to Islam but it’s not authentic.
>>22710867
>Catholicism was authentic for me in the 2 years I was an ardent believer.
>We lost something really important with the death of religion.
Mods please ban this underage midwit

[Anonymous No.22710879]

>>22710867
>>22709721
This reads like an Orthodox line of argumentation (that's usually successful). If it weren't for the odd mentions of Islam I'd assume you were Orthodox trying to bait tradcaths, which as an Ortho myself would seem disingenuous to not just outright say so.

If you're throwing this book around you must be familiar with Orthodox and their apologetics, why not just begome at this point?

Pope Honorus was condemned by an ecumenical council for Monothelitism. Vat 1 doesn't even make sense

[Anonymous No.22710881]

>>22710867
>in the 2 years I was an ardent believer
bruh just admit that you thought Catholicism would be your option to yell "fuck kikes and fuck niggers" in a socially-acceptable way, so when you caught penance for hateful thoughts your dream cracked and dissolved into caustic resentment.

[Anonymous No.22710883]

>>22710873
>>22710876
This is called the ad hominem fallacy.
You refuted none of my arguments, because there’s simply no way to refute them. Your own guys, like Joseph Ratzinger acknowledge and are happy about the fact that Vatican II was a reversal from the previous reactionary stance. This isn’t some conspiracy theory that is hidden or secret. Both sides acknowledge that this is what happened.

[Anonymous No.22710884]

>>22710879
>as an Ortho myself
How are your two years as an ardent believer?

[Anonymous No.22710887]

>>22710883
>You refuted none of my arguments
You have no authority to criticize the Church, period.
>"B-but~"
You were never a Catholic at all. Making arguments on "decline" of the Church means you had 0 faith in it in the first place.

[Anonymous No.22710896]

>>22710887
Reason trumps blind allegiance to authority. That’s because we must use our reason to interpret the dictates of authority. Thus reason is prior to authority.
>>22710879
It’s got nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Faithful Catholics, such as Archbishop Lefebvre, reacted against Vatican II for precisely the same reasons I am giving here. These guys in this thread are acting like I made all this stuff up.

As for Orthodoxy, there are no orthodox churches near me. And I no longer trust the institutional iChurch becasue of the betrayal of Vatican II.

[Anonymous No.22710898]

>>22710884
If you're a Vat 2 defender you'll get nowhere by calling peoples' authenticity of belief info question. No Vat 2fag actually believes it. That's why they get mad and pick fights. By LARPing as holding that position in the context of an argument it almost feels real

Literally post-op tranny tier just before the rope, just detransition my man

[Anonymous No.22710901]

>>22710883
>This is called the ad hominem fallacy.
>You refuted none of my arguments

[Anonymous No.22710902]

>>22710896
>reason is prior to authority
Even divine authority?

[Anonymous No.22710907]

>>22710902
Yes, because of the argument I gave.

How do I obey the commands of God? First I must understand them. There must be a sense in which I must analyse them with reason before I can even submit to the authority. So if something is repugnant to reason (Ie a contradiction like the blatant one in Vatican II compared to the past) how can authority be superior?

[Anonymous No.22710909]

>>22709721
If you were a real Christian you wouldn't care, because this world is just a brief precursor to the Kingdom of God.

[Anonymous No.22710910]

Your mind is rotted by internet buzzwords. Seek help.

[Anonymous No.22710912]

>>22709721
>The position of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II was extremely reactionary.
Only as a tactic to discourage and attempt to prevent the risorgimento and loss of the Papal States to the Italian (Sardinian) Kingdom. Pius IX's anti-modernism was an entirely political manoeuver to maintain church temporal power in Rome against the ideological threat of enlightenment and romantic nationalism and people like Mazzini and Garibaldi who actually commanded the support of Italian people and would take the city away from the Church and give it to the Italian people, as they already proved they would do in the 1862 March on Rome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Garibaldi#Expedition_against_Rome

Just like how the pope's of the mid-17th century decided it was politically pragmatic to suppress the Jesuits, or in the early 18th century to support Napoleon's empire. Don't puff yourself up with "2000 years" nonsense.

[Anonymous No.22710914]

>>22710907
>How do I obey the commands of God? First I must understand them.
That's why Jesus left a Church to lead and shepherd you.

>So if something is repugnant to reason
To (you)r inherently flawed and sinful reason, which you proudly place above the reason of all other men, including those ordained by divine will.

[Anonymous No.22710916]

>>22710896
Many heresiarchs were bishops. The problem with Catholics is that they tried to replace the Holy Spirit with the human authority of the papacy.

There's no external guarantor of Truth. The saints are like the authors of a math textbook book. You check your work against them, but sometimes the math book has errors.

[Anonymous No.22710917]

>>22710916
>There's no external guarantor of Truth
Um, Jesus Christ himself?

[Anonymous No.22710925]

>>22710917
You know what I mean, retard. Even if you saw Jesus and he told you what was up, how would you know that was him and not the devil? You'd need the spiritual discernment first which is internal. We're taught that if you as some schlub think you see Jesus don't belive him because it's a good chance it's a demon

This theme is the whole point of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man

[Anonymous No.22710927]

>>22709721
>Le church changed therefore not the real one anymore
Better tell that to Gregory the Great, Gregory VII, Innocent II, Alexander III and every bishop to ever attend an Ecumenical council.

[Anonymous No.22710930]

>>22710917
Maybe you're not a retard, I'm just assuming you're being combative so apologies if that's not the case

[Anonymous No.22710931]

>>22710925
>You know what I mean, retard. Even if you saw Jesus and he told you what was up, how would you know that was him and not the devil?
So you are outright stating that human nature is inherently unperceptive of the divine grace. You are not a Christian.

[Anonymous No.22710934]

>>22710912
Protestants always have this weird aversion to political power. There’s nothing inherently wrong with political power, as long as it’s used well. Popes using tactics to gain political power is not dirty; Jesus Christ should be king of earth. But Pius IX opposed modernism because it is objectively contrary to the Catholic outlook on life, not merely as a ploy for political power

[Anonymous No.22710939]

>>22710931
I'm stating the opposite of that and you know it, so I retract my conditional apology for calling you retarded.

I'm saying that internal perception of truth is prior to external. The fact that there are gradations of ability to perceive spirituality, and that this can be trained, is uncontrversial to anyone who knows anything about Christianity and its history

[Anonymous No.22710940]

>>22710939
Spiritually*

[Anonymous No.22710943]

>>22710934
He's probably not a protestant, just making the point that RC theology has always been a political project. This arguably goes back to the filioque

[Anonymous No.22710946]

>>22710943
Ye the Church was always involved with politics since the first council of Nicaea was called by an emperor. I have no shame about that. Politics is not inherently evil; in fact it can be a force for good.

[Anonymous No.22710949]

>>22710943
>>22710934
In fact, just to make this point clearer, can you think of a time where this wasn't the case? Where Rome went against its political interests in affirming a doctrine? I'm not saying they didn't sometimes happen to believe it, but where's the popes sacrificing temporal power for the truth? Like a st maximus the Confessor or St John Chrysostom situation

[Anonymous No.22710958]

>>22710867
> The idea that the Jews are included in the plan of salvation
Why wouldn't they? They are God's most beloved people. You may hate them for crucifying Christ, but He wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.22710960]

>>22709750
Real ass catholics know anons are more pious and intelligent than the holy see.

[Anonymous No.22710962]

>>22710949
Yes, the Pope would not grant Henry VIII a divorce and this led to the creation of the Church of England.
>>22710958
Because the Old Law has been replaced

[Anonymous No.22710966]

>>22710962
The Pope was on shaky terms with the Holy Roman Emperor at the time, whose neice was Henry VIII's wife.

[Anonymous No.22710973]

>>22710966
So the English reformation wasn’t a big blow to the Church?

[Anonymous No.22710974]

I'm not opposed to the idea that a pope did make such a sacrifice, to be clear. I'm just making the point that Francis is arguably trad in RC terms in respect to how he changes theology and morals to suit his political goals

[Anonymous No.22710978]

>>22710962
Christ himself was the replacement, and He favored the Jews.

> And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
> But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
> But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:22-24

[Anonymous No.22710979]

>>22710973
It was, but the rejection of the divorce was motivated by personal and political concerns regarding the Holy Roman Emperor. How could he have known that Henry'd go sicko mode and make his schizochurch?

[Anonymous No.22711158]

OP is better off leaving the Church because he can’t stop sucking cock

[Anonymous No.22711194]

>>22710879
Not that anon but I'm trying to get back into the catholic church as an adult and feel saddened by how much the churches near me lack a sense of community. We just go to mass on sunday and that's that. I don't even know the name of any of the other curchgoers despite going for a month and people clearly aren't intrested in getting to know each other since they always immediately leave after mass.
Is the Orthodox church like that too? I would like to make part of a christian community but it seems that the evangelicals are the only ones who care about this kind of stuff around here.

[Anonymous No.22711203]

>>22710978
You’ve clearly never read the Bible

>Go out and baptise ALL NATIONS

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

[Anonymous No.22711211]

>>22710978
>>22711203
Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology,[1] is a Christian theological doctrine which describes the theological conviction that the Christian Church has superseded the nation of Israel assuming their role as God's covenanted people,[2] thus asserting that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ has superseded or replaced the Mosaic covenant exclusive to Jews. Supersessionist theology also holds that the universal Christian Church has replaced ancient Israel as God's true Israel and that Christians (including gentiles) have replaced the biological bloodline of ancient Israelites as the people of God.

Often claimed by later Christians to have originated with Paul the Apostle in the New Testament, supersessionism has formed a core tenet of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches for the majority of their history. Many early Church Fathers—including Justin Martyr and Augustine of Hippo—were supersessionist.[3]

Most historic Christian churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, Methodist churches and Reformed churches, hold that the Old Covenant has three components: ceremonial, moral, and civil (cf. covenant theology).[4][5] They teach that while the ceremonial and civil (judicial) laws have been fulfilled, the moral law of the Ten Commandments continues to bind Christian believers.[4][6][5] Since the 19th century, certain Christian communities, such as the Plymouth Brethren, have espoused dispensationalist theology as contrasted to supersessionism and covenant theology.[7] Additionally, as part of Christian–Jewish reconciliation, the Roman Catholic Church has placed an increased emphasis on the shared history between Christianity and the modern Jewish faith.

Rabbinic Judaism disregards supersessionism as offensive to Jewish history. Islam teaches that it is the final and most authentic expression of Abrahamic monotheism, superseding both Judaism and Christianity. The Islamic doctrine of tahrif teaches that earlier monotheistic scriptures or earlier interpretations of them have been corrupted by later interpretations of them, while the Quran presents a pure version of their divine message.


Like I said, the Catholic Church used to teach supersessionism but at Vatican II stated that the Jews are included in the plan of salvation and that God is pleased with their practices.

[Anonymous No.22711322]

>>22709721
>The position of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II was extremely reactionary.
Daily reminder that the pope signed the Concordat with Napoleon, the republican regicide who imprisoned the prior pope until he died in captivity. This was so unpopular, a proto sedevacantist "petite eglise" split from Rome for a century until they were eventually reconciled.
The Vatican has been making politically necessary concessions to liberalism since it first reared its head on the continent

[Anonymous No.22711332]

First of all, Western theology was making grievous errors long before Vatican II. The moment the popes decided to seize for themselves political and legal authority, the writing was on the wall. When that succeeds, all you have to do is infiltrate and subvert the church was done easily in almost the exact same way all of the universities, judge circuits, prosecutors offices, and everything else of any importance was infiltrated and subverted. Vatican II is just the final usurping that allowed for heretical popes to make Catholic theology into whatever his handlers want.

For the mainstream, philosophy has tried to take over where theology has sputtered. The problem with secular philosophy is that it ends in nihilism, or else the dead end of Greek rationalism. Leo Strauss, famous philosopher of the 20th century and scholar of Ancient, medieval, and post-modern philosophy, explained that everywhere you look secular western philosophy runs into the problem of Greek rationalism but is conditioned in desire by medieval Western theology. So to overcome the wall of rationalism, one can either go back into the theology of the Middle Ages (the theology of the Catholic Church before modern reforms and usurpation) or the theology of the East, namely, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Some have confused his fall to the East as a call to Far Eastern philosophical relativism, to post-modern Eurasianism, but the call seems to me obviously to be toward something more like the Eastern Christian understanding of the heart.

[Anonymous No.22711896]

>>22711194
In my experience, Orthodox socialize quite a bit at coffee hour. I don't know if it's different in larger parishes but it's been the case at every Orthodox church I've been to, especially on Sundays.

[Anonymous No.22711986]

>>22709721
>Without the Church there is only cold, bleak materialism
Kek, read Guenon

[Anonymous No.22712096]

>>22711986
Guenon is just the other side of the coin of materialism. It’s basically intuitionism. You’re called to intuit spiritual knowledge while defying reason and actual orthodoxy. How do you know you’re not just intuiting what demons want you to believe? Guenon can never answer that question. It’s no surprise then that he himself was a drug addict and others in school have been pedophiles, satanists, Muslims, and even new age theosophists who were convinced about alien Buddhism and figures like Nicholas Roerich. It’s all just delusion as the result of demonic possession.

[Anonymous No.22712278]

>>22712096
>Guenon is just the other side of the coin of materialism.
Wrong

>It’s basically intuitionism. You’re called to intuit spiritual knowledge while defying reason and actual orthodoxy.
This is patently untrue, Guenon advises joining an established religion and participating in and following both its exoteric doctrines and its inner spiritual path, that’s not “denying orthodoxy” since you can still participate in Sufi practice while being an orthodox Muslim etc, and you can extend this example to other religions. Moreover this has nothing to do with “defying reason”, in fact many of the metaphysical texts which one studies in Hinduism, Buddhism and other eastern traditions contain a large amount of very careful and painstaking reasoning and logical argumentation, e.g. in Shankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya there are something like over 600 different arguments that he presents his opponents as saying and then he answers and logically refutes those objections.

Also, people are not supposed to just intuit things on their own in a void but one is supposed to receive spiritual instruction from a properly qualified teacher who beings to the tradition and then one implements and meditates/ponders on those teachings.

>How do you know you’re not just intuiting what demons want you to believe?
That is an irrational phobia, there is no reason to assume this is true or even a remote possibility if you don’t already suffer from the phobia that demons are constantly trying to make you like something besides Christianity, for someone like a neutral observer free of irrational phobias who wants to evaluate things objectively that is just not a serious problem even worth considering, one has no reason to even consider it in the first place an object of discussion. Even if we consider the idea for a moment though it’s really just absurd, since the eastern teachings generally promote values that Christianity agrees with like honesty, truth, non-violence, calmness, introspection, responsibility for one’s own actions, properly fulfilling ones duties etc. So demons are deluding people into acting in more wholesome ways, makes sense.

> Guenon can never answer that question. It’s no surprise then that he himself was a drug addict
He voluntarily stopped using drugs which suggests he wasnt an addict to begin with

>and others in school have been pedophiles, satanists, Muslims, and even new age theosophists
Not an argument against his actual ideas but a smear by association, the pedo allegations against Schuon were never substantiated. None of the traditionalists as far as Im aware ever openly endorsed satantism or theosophy. Being a Muslim is consistent with the POV of being a traditionalist so I dont see any issue there.

[Anonymous No.22712301]

>>22712278
> eastern teachings generally promote values that Christianity agrees with like honesty, truth, non-violence, calmness, introspection, responsibility for one’s own actions, properly fulfilling ones duties etc. So demons are deluding people into acting in more wholesome ways, makes sense.

Not that anon but those values are only meaningful in Christianity if they're motivated by love for the personal, living God. Eastern teachings generally deny that there even is such a God, so their tertiary virtues aren't particularly relevant. "You can be nice without God" is absolutely something a demon would try to teach people

[Anonymous No.22712324]

>>22712278
Guenonians are always unable to understand where Guenon’s ideas come from. That’s why they’re Guenonians. You didn’t even grasp the essence of the critique. Ask yourself how Guenon knows what he knows. Hm.

For what it’s worth, what he calls you to do is not orthodoxy, anywhere, in any religion btw. So yeah, he does flat out deny orthodoxy, all orthodoxies actually.

[Anonymous No.22712416]

>>22712301
>Eastern teachings generally deny that there even is such a God
The types that are often studied philosophically in the west do sometimes, but multiple schools of Islam and Hinduism conceive of God as basically a divine person with perfect attributes/nature, while other schools in those religions disagree and present other viewpoints.

>You can be nice without God" is absolutely something a demon would try to teach people
If you examine the implications of this it doesn't seem to be a very coherent or logical worldview. God according to Christians is omniscient in every sense or in the widest sense and thus knows every individuals actions and thoughts as well as the inner motivations, emotions and urges that guide decision making. And presumably demons mislead people in order to draw people away from God and heaven right? Why would God turn someone away from heaven because they had the right intentions and even acted in a wholesome and morally-upstanding way in their life, but they were tricked by demons into following a non-Christian religion which encouraged that upstanding behavior? If God would still send that person to hell (demons win) then a person's intentions and actions don't even really matter any more and it just comes down to basically a cognitive intellectual test of deception vs overcoming deception, like an SAT test granting admission to heaven; which becomes even more absurd when you remember that God granted differing individuals differing intellectual capacities, which as God He already has foreknowledge will either allow them to be smart of enough to be nonperceived or stupid enough to be deceived, in short you arrive at a Gnostic-demiurgic problem where God is just inflicting pre-designed problems on people with little to no recourse.

[Anonymous No.22712461]

>>22712324
>Guenonians are always unable to understand where Guenon’s ideas come from.
From studying religions, mysticism, occultism and esoterism and from participating in those things on various levels
>That’s why they’re Guenonians. You didn’t even grasp the essence of the critique. Ask yourself how Guenon knows what he knows. Hm.
It probably has something to do with him extensively studying eastern texts and receiving initiations into both Daoism and multiple Sufi orders, but that's just a guess.
>For what it’s worth, what he calls you to do is not orthodoxy, anywhere, in any religion btw.
The actions that he advocates and the general worldview he talks about are two different things. He encourages people in their actions to follow their respective traditions more or less in an authentic/orthodox manner.

Whether or not one additionally has a perennnialist POV while doing so is something different from one's actions and you are just deceptively muddying the waters by conflating these. In the schools of some religions having a perennialism perspective is explicitly NOT heterodox and some of the luminaries of those schools held similar views which they express in writing, there are multiple Buddhist and Hindu authors/philosophies which write about that.

[Anonymous No.22712516]

To me all that sounds like a political adjustment. The catholic church preparing itself to return to the catacombs. The battle was lost, it can't be helped.

[Anonymous No.22712954]

>>22712416
The problem is that you don't understand the Christian view of ethics or morality. There is no "upstanding" or "wholesome" motivation that isn't rooted psychologically in the love of God (sometimes unconsciously).

Those other religions might encourage similar behaviors, but will have fundamentally different motivations due to differences in how their gods/ultimate principles are constructed. If they manage to misunderstand their own religions and wind up with a Christian morality then it's up to God what he does with them, I don't know other than that they tend to convert. But that's different from what you're saying, which is that a person could be moral in a Christian sense through their error rather than in spite of it

[Anonymous No.22713012]

>>22712461
What exactly are you studying, genius. If a Buddhist says X is true and I go study that claim, I should be asking “Okay, how do you know that?” Guenon straight up has no answer. He does not even try to answer. He tells you it’s non-dual awareness, in other words, intuitionism. This is literally I’m spiritual but not religious garbage. It’s so funny. The guy wrote “metaphysics” probably a billion times and never even once engaged with metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.22713017]

>>22712301
>Eastern teachings generally deny that there even is such a God
No they don't, they teach that there's a huge number of personal Gods that enforce morality.

[Anonymous No.22713027]

>>22710867
>I understand that philosophy is able to offer a way out. But it’s not a complete spiritual system. It is, first of all, a lonely thing, and second of all a cerebral thing. There is no Hegelian church where I can get a Hegelian marriage. This sort of social function of the Church, the integration of human life into a cosmic history represented by symbols, marriage and funeral rites, prayers, art, iconography, liturgy, etc., is something that philosophy simply cannot imitate.
>We lost something really important with the death of religion.
Are you this dependent on other people? Lol fucking loser, go to Twitter or something if you are so desperate for "community".

[Anonymous No.22713189]

>>22710867

You were never a real believer, clown. Just using the church as a means to live out your ego.

[Anonymous No.22713198]

>>22709721
Ridding of the "antisemitic" prayers predates Vatican II and the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews was never actually antisemitic. The latin word for "unbelieving" was a false cognate for a mean-sounding Latinate English word. Hope this helps.

[Anonymous No.22713199]

>>22713017
The word God is obviously not being used the same way there

[Anonymous No.22713217]

>>22712954
>The problem is that you don't understand the Christian view of ethics or morality. There is no "upstanding" or "wholesome" motivation that isn't rooted psychologically in the love of God (sometimes unconsciously).
Don't Christians also affirm that God created humans with an inner moral conscience that helps them distinguish right from wrong? How else to explain primitive tribes having moral codes and a sense of right vs wrong even when they have never heard of Abrahamic religion? If humans have an inner capacity to distinguish right from wrong and to pursue the right or just option even absent any conceptual knowledge of religion then doesn't that contradicts the premise that there can be no right action that isn't rooted in love of God?

Moreover, even if we hypothetically accept the Christian worldview on this for a moment, accepting that position on ethics still doesn't solve the problem I pointed out about demons. Even if all good/bad/moral/amoral is defined in relation to one's acceptance of and love for God, then if demons are capable of fooling someone into the wrong religion through the deception of their thinking/cognitive apparatus even when they have a genuine desire to pursue the spiritual life and the truth about God/reality/soul, and if this deception is enough to cause them to be excluded from heaven, then God is punishing individuals for something which God himself was responsible for by creating them with whatever level of intelligence they possess.

In the sphere of morality Christians argue against the problem of evil by saying that God only grants us the ability to choose to do right and wrong and the individual decides to commit the wrong error/sin and so God isn't really responsible for it, but this same logic doesn't really work with the topic of intelligence and being deceived by demons because someone's intelligence is a set thing, it's not like how someone may have a moral change of heart and become a better person; since intelligence is hardcoded and more or less set since birth it wont change except being degraded through injury, disease etc; i.e. God would be knowingly billions of human beings with low IQs, low intelligence or whatever, and He would be doing so already knowing that they would be too dumb to not be deceived by demons, but He creates them in that flawed way anyway and then punishes them for that flaw, which is a logically absurd thing to believe about a God who is purportedly loving and perfect.

[Anonymous No.22713246]

>>22713012
>What exactly are you studying, genius. If a Buddhist says X is true and I go study that claim, I should be asking “Okay, how do you know that?” Guenon straight up has no answer. He does not even try to answer.
The answer to how does one know that is that every religion holds as axiomatic that its scriptures reveal the truth about ultimate reality, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and most Buddhists all believe this.

Hindus and Christians are on completely identical grounds in this regard, both take as axioms or basic principles of their faith that their scripture is revealed...... *and this is how you know that it teaches the truth*. The answer to your question is identical for Christians and Hindus and for most religious people.

Midwit JayDyerfags sometimes have mental breakdowns when you point this out, it's a big hole or inconsistency in their """apologetics"".

>He tells you it’s non-dual awareness, in other words, intuitionism.
You just claimed that he doesn't try to answer, you are contradicting what you wrote in the previous sentence.
>This is literally I’m spiritual but not religious garbage.
Not really because he is talking about practices that happen within the context of religion and not outside of it.

[Anonymous No.22713259]

>>22713199
Except for the cases where it is, of course.

[Anonymous No.22713273]

>>22710898
>immediately gets defensive and calls the other side a tranny
Your local ethnic orthodox contingent will never accept you

[Anonymous No.22713359]

>>22709721
>How will we create new values? Or will we just die and be subsumed by the more vital Islamic culture?
Younger priests are more conservative than the boomers. they are the ones bringing back latin mass. The boomers ruined everything. religion and poltics. as the boomers die off the church will shift dramtically.

[Anonymous No.22713371]

>>22713359
>Younger priests are more conservative than the boomers.
Literally every study ever disagrees with this. The young priests themselves don't in a literal sense as they think that female clergy, LGBT, interracial marriage, etc just simply are orthodoxy to be conserved, but that's not really what we mean when we say "conservative".

[Anonymous No.22713398]

>>22713371
>y "conservative".
>“More than half of the priests who were ordained since 2010 see themselves on the conservative side of the scale. No surveyed priests who were ordained after 2020 described themselves as ‘very progressive.’” The November Report found that 85% of the youngest group of priests surveyed described themselves as “conservative/orthodox” or “very conservative/orthodox” theologically, with only 14% describing themselves as “middle-of-the-road.” The Report also states that nearly 70% of priests ordained in the mid- to late 1960s describe themselves as “somewhat” or “very progressive.” By 2020, fewer than 5% of priests described themselves as such.

>Based on the findings of the November Report, it appears that both the Second Vatican Council and the sex-abuse crisis, which became a major event in the life of the Church in and around 2002, remain major events defining the doctrinal trajectory of the clergy. Those priests who view themselves as “progressive” did so in the wake of Vatican II while the shift toward conservatism began after 2002.

Theres a new study out from like less than a week ago. priests arent supporting of francis liberalizing ideas and female clergy isnt happening.

[Anonymous No.22713402]

>>22713398
that study confirms what he says anon

[Anonymous No.22713411]

>>22713398
Yeah, I know, that's why I cited it.

>priests arent supporting of francis liberalizing ideas and female clergy isnt happening.
Yes, they are. Even if they weren't it doesn't matter because if Francis doesn't make female clergy happen then the Synodal Path blows the Vatican up. They either declare Protestantism 2.0 and every Bishop who's butthurt that Francis's investigations into sexual abuse ruined their little cult gets free reign to be their own Pope, or they prop up an the actual Pope that Francis is just an Antipope to and let the various secular governments of the world decide who that is. This is ON TOP of the massive plummet in White seminarians and the rise in Negro ones who unambiguously support stuff like polygamy.

[Anonymous No.22713457]

>>22713411
>>22713402
>>22713398
>>22713371
https://catholicproject.catholic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Further-Insights-NSCP-Nov-2023-rev.pdf
The number of priests self-identifying as "orthodox" or "conservative" has gone up but that doesn't really mean much given that the number of priests who view themselves as being "Accountable" to the Pope (Francis, given that the study was conducted in 2022) and his ideology has more or less remained the same.

From pg. 7: about 13% of priests disagree or strongly disagree with being held accountable by Francis and his ideology, up from <5% in <1980. Approximately 69% of priests agree or strongly agree with being held accountable by Francis and his ideology (down from 85% in <1980).

Also, it's worth noting that the "youth" of the church are priests under 45. Trust of a bishop by priests appears to have nothing to do with actual content of belief and is purely relative (Trads trust Trad bishops more, Modernists trust Modernist bishops more). 10% of priests report having been the victim of sexual misconduct by fellow clergymen. 70% of priests know someone who was a victim of sexual abuse by clergymen.

[Anonymous No.22714562]

>>22713189
this

[Anonymous No.22714613]

>>22713411
>unambiguously support stuff like polygamy
holy based and charlemagne pilled we are going to RETVRN to tradition whether you like it or not

[Anonymous No.22714633]

The church was always cringe

[Anonymous No.22714946]

>>22709721
If you wanna be a Catholic, just be Erasmian. The Catholic Church is a joke, the popes are corrupt more than not, and the Gospel preached there is basically a form of Judaism and superstition more than not. Yet we hang around, seeing that the Protestants and Orthos are even goofier

[Anonymous No.22714953]

>>22709721
> maybe Nietzsche really was a modern prophet. He proclaimed the death of God a century before the Church collapsed before everyone’s eyes
Jesus and St. Paul both predicted a great apostasy millennia before that.

[Anonymous No.22714956]

>>22714946
Yes, definitely choose your religion based on vague feelings of ""goofiness"", it's what all based and redpilled chuds do.

[Anonymous No.22714977]

I BEG Tradcaths and Orthodox to read the Old Testament. These bizarre ideas of the indefectibility of the visible Church hierarchy are cancer to Christianity. Get your ecclesiology from the OT. The true followers of God will be a minority, the visible hierarchies will apostatize frequently and turn to paganism and the things of the world, and worldly glorly is a sign of the antichrist. Tradcaths are perpetually tormented by the Vatican hierarchy because they’ve been Stockholm Syndrome’d into believing the hierarchy is infallible and indefectible regardless how much filth and nonsense comes out of them.

The ‘Catholic Church’ (pre-schism) is a post-Constantine creation. The bishops were given immense power, the ecclesial structures mirrored the civil structures. It was made the only legal Christian body. The City of God is not the City of Man—Cathodox ecclesiology comes from the ideas of the Roma Aeterna more than the Bible.

t. had to learn this the hard way

[Anonymous No.22714981]

>>22709721

[Anonymous No.22714987]

>Idolizing reaction over your own church

Holy kek the mental gymnastics

[Anonymous No.22715000]

>>22710909
Someone gets it.

[Anonymous No.22715003]

>>22714977
Bingo