Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Lady Victory]

I don't recall Communism being anti-family.

IIRC, Marxists argue that the family forms the basic unit of consumption in capitalism, and teaches children to accept hierarchy. I could be misremembering/misunderstanding, though.

Never heard of that myself. Must be a specific subset of Marxism.

[Salus Maior]

IIRC, Marxists argue that the family forms the basic unit of consumption in capitalism, and teaches children to accept hierarchy. I could be misremembering/misunderstanding, though.

Never heard of that myself. Must be a specific subset of Marxism.

Look up Alexandra Kollontai sometime. She was an important figure in Lenin’s government.

[Catarapania]

IIRC, Marxists argue that the family forms the basic unit of consumption in capitalism, and teaches children to accept hierarchy. I could be misremembering/misunderstanding, though.

Never heard of that myself. Must be a specific subset of Marxism.

"Marx's and Engels' position, then, was a decisive move away from the naturalism of their predecessors. The aspects of naturalism they retained in no way blunted their radicalism. They held forth the hope that, instead of submitting to nature, communist society would be consciously shaped by humans freely creating. People would no longer be subject to what is natural. Even if people had a natural bond to their children, no provision would be made for this in communist society. Whatever Engels may have conjectured about the natural affinity of humans toward stable amorous relationships in communist society, he envisioned a society in which no compulsion would interfere with relationships. Thus, theoretically, any sexual relationship between mutually consenting persons would be possible. What would not be possible would be the security of a life-long marriage. This sexual relationship could not be chosen."

Source.

[Anglicora]

Would I be wrong in thinking that if C.S Lewis was alive today, we would convert to Catholicism. The Church of England is just so theologically liberal now.

Maybe. Depending on how attached he was to certain principles of the Reformation, he'd likely have found himself at home in the Continuing Anglican movement.

Well, shit.

Looks like Pope Francis is going to crack down on celebrations of the TLM. I guess so much for my respect for him. How incredibly out of touch these clerics are with the people.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salast ... .html#ingL Francis's accompanying letter.

Yeah, a silly move in my humble opinion.

Is the consensus that the original Christian Church was the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox if both used to be of one entity but split at around the same time in 1054 or earlier? Which has the stronger claim to representing the original institution?

The Roman Catholics claim that they have a nearly unbroken line of Popes more or less, originating from Saint Peter (one of Jesus' desciples) in 64 AD up until the present day. While on the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox had the benefit of an original language Bible that didn't require any translation because some of the new testament was written in Greek which was the prevalent language where Antioch was. Whilst the Roman Catholics had to translate from Greek to Latin and got the risk of translation errors.

If such a consensus existed on that, there would likely be no Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox churches. Just a single Catholic Church headed by the Bishop of Rome.

[South Reinkalistan]

IIRC, Marxists argue that the family forms the basic unit of consumption in capitalism, and teaches children to accept hierarchy. I could be misremembering/misunderstanding, though.

Never heard of that myself. Must be a specific subset of Marxism.

Not really a specific subset. This is established by Marx himself; i.e. that the family is a propertarian institution insofar that it exists as an economic unit; that the family's economic foundation would be eroded through the abolition of private property; that the family, therefore, is abolished by Communism, along with other related propertarian phenomena and institution, such as prostitution.

[Sundiata]

Not really a specific subset. This is established by Marx himself; i.e. that the family is a propertarian institution insofar that it exists as an economic unit; that the family's economic foundation would be eroded through the abolition of private property; that the family, therefore, is abolished by Communism, along with other related propertarian phenomena and institution, such as prostitution.

Correct.

[Hispida]

Never heard of that myself. Must be a specific subset of Marxism.

Not really a specific subset. This is established by Marx himself; i.e. that the family is a propertarian institution insofar that it exists as an economic unit; that the family's economic foundation would be eroded through the abolition of private property; that the family, therefore, is abolished by Communism, along with other related propertarian phenomena and institution, such as prostitution.

to quote marx himself, "cringe"

[Tarsonis]

You know it's funny, I don't recall ever making a Marxism thread.

[Sundiata]

You know it's funny, I don't recall ever making a Marxism thread.

It is the egalitarian heir to Christianity.

[Hispida]

You know it's funny, I don't recall ever making a Marxism thread.

It is the egalitarian heir to Christianity.

wtf commie sun

[South Reinkalistan]

Not really a specific subset. This is established by Marx himself; i.e. that the family is a propertarian institution insofar that it exists as an economic unit; that the family's economic foundation would be eroded through the abolition of private property; that the family, therefore, is abolished by Communism, along with other related propertarian phenomena and institution, such as prostitution.

to quote marx himself, "cringe"

Nah it's a sound position. In this scenario, nobody's forbidding children to interact with their parents, nor are they prohibiting lifelong romantic bonds. What is merely happening is regulating the control parents have over their kids to the whim of the community as a whole; for instance, child abuse would be a lot rarer in this scenario.

Threadjacking, though -- so I'll stop there.

[North Washington Republic]

Well, shit.

Looks like Pope Francis is going to crack down on celebrations of the TLM. I guess so much for my respect for him. How incredibly out of touch these clerics are with the people.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salast ... .html#ingL Francis's accompanying letter.

Well, the TLM crowd that are under the Pope’s authority got too comfortable in bashing Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI imho. I remember bringing this up earlier in the thread. The agreement for the liberalization(ironically) for the use of the TLM hinged of the understanding that those that preferred the TLM over the Novus Ordo would respect the it and accept Vatican II as wholly Catholic. That didn’t happen. Right wing Catholics don’t get a free pass for borderline schism. That is what the point that Francis is trying to make.

[Sundiata]

It is the egalitarian heir to Christianity.

wtf commie sun

I consider it psuedo-Christianity. Right about some things, wrong about others.

[Salus Maior]

Well, shit.

Looks like Pope Francis is going to crack down on celebrations of the TLM. I guess so much for my respect for him. How incredibly out of touch these clerics are with the people.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salast ... .html#ingL Francis's accompanying letter.

Well, the TLM crowd that are under the Pope’s authority got too comfortable in bashing Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI imho. I remember bringing this up earlier in the thread. The agreement for the liberalization(ironically) for the use of the TLM hinged of the understanding that those that preferred the TLM over the Novus Ordo would respect the it and accept Vatican II as wholly Catholic. That didn’t happen. Right wing Catholics don’t get a free pass for borderline schism. That is what the point that Francis is trying to make.

And he's doing so in the worst way possible.

This isn't going to end resentment for the NO, or the Vatican. It's going to exacerbate it, and not to mention deprive tons of regular, non-schismatic Catholics who prefer the TLM, of the traditional form of the mass. Not to mention, any chance of the SSPX and other such schismatics reconciling with the canonical Church is now zero. They will never trust them after this.

Hell, I'm certainly more resentful of the Vatican now, and I've never said the NO or V2 is invalid. But apparently, the Pope has decided my faith practice and outlook is schismatic and invalid. Pretty sucky.

[North Washington Republic]

Well, the TLM crowd that are under the Pope’s authority got too comfortable in bashing Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI imho. I remember bringing this up earlier in the thread. The agreement for the liberalization(ironically) for the use of the TLM hinged of the understanding that those that preferred the TLM over the Novus Ordo would respect the it and accept Vatican II as wholly Catholic. That didn’t happen. Right wing Catholics don’t get a free pass for borderline schism. That is what the point that Francis is trying to make.

And he's doing so in the worst way possible.

This isn't going to end resentment for the NO, or the Vatican. It's going to exacerbate it, and not to mention deprive tons of regular, non-schismatic Catholics who prefer the TLM, of the traditional form of the mass. Not to mention, any chance of the SSPX and other such schismatics reconciling with the canonical Church is now zero. They will never trust them after this.

Hell, I'm certainly more resentful of the Vatican now, and I've never said the NO or V2 is invalid. But apparently, the Pope has decided my faith practice and outlook is schismatic and invalid. Pretty sucky.

Well, if you read the letter from Francis, it states that he inquired about it from the bishops about this issue and he came to this conclusion from their input. I can understand this. I went to non-schismatic, technically in-Union parishes that had the TLM, and I’ve heard Priests bash Vatican II in homilies, and this was a FSSP parish. The current superior general of the SSPX is much more hard line than his predecessor and has shown no interest in reconciling with Rome. As for other schismatics, I doubt they have had any interest in reconciling with the wrong before this. Although I think this may push more trads into attending SSPX or go full blown sedevacantists, I think that would happen eventually without this new policy.

And he has NEVER said that the TLM is no invalid. The SSPX masses are technically valid. The term you’re looking for is illicit.

[Salus Maior]

And he's doing so in the worst way possible.

This isn't going to end resentment for the NO, or the Vatican. It's going to exacerbate it, and not to mention deprive tons of regular, non-schismatic Catholics who prefer the TLM, of the traditional form of the mass. Not to mention, any chance of the SSPX and other such schismatics reconciling with the canonical Church is now zero. They will never trust them after this.

Hell, I'm certainly more resentful of the Vatican now, and I've never said the NO or V2 is invalid. But apparently, the Pope has decided my faith practice and outlook is schismatic and invalid. Pretty sucky.

Well, if you read the letter from Francis, it states that he inquired about it from the bishops about this issue and he came to this conclusion from their input. I can understand this. I went to non-schismatic, technically in-Union parishes that had the TLM, and I’ve heard Priests bash Vatican II in homilies, and this was a FSSP parish. The current superior general of the SSPX is much more hard line and then his predecessor and has shown no interest in reconciling with Rome. As for other schismatics, I doubt they have had any interest in reconciling with the wrong before this. Although I think this may push more trads to attending SSPX or sedevacantism, I think that would happen eventually without this new policy.

And he has NEVER said that the TLM is no invalid. The SSPX masses are technically valid. The term you’re looking for is illicit.

I really don't care about your anecdotes. I've met very few TLM goers or Priests who deny the validity of the NO, and I've been attending one for a couple years now, that you've experienced that doesn't make this kind of harsh authoritative action the best move to solve the problems of schism. I also strongly disagree with your opinion that trads are schismatic and would inevitably schism, and that's also no reason for collective punishment which will make the problem worse.

[North Washington Republic]

Well, if you read the letter from Francis, it states that he inquired about it from the bishops about this issue and he came to this conclusion from their input. I can understand this. I went to non-schismatic, technically in-Union parishes that had the TLM, and I’ve heard Priests bash Vatican II in homilies, and this was a FSSP parish. The current superior general of the SSPX is much more hard line and then his predecessor and has shown no interest in reconciling with Rome. As for other schismatics, I doubt they have had any interest in reconciling with the wrong before this. Although I think this may push more trads to attending SSPX or sedevacantism, I think that would happen eventually without this new policy.

And he has NEVER said that the TLM is no invalid. The SSPX masses are technically valid. The term you’re looking for is illicit.

I really don't care about your anecdotes. I've met very few TLM goers or Priests who deny the validity of the NO, and I've been attending one for a couple years now, that you've experienced that doesn't make this kind of harsh authoritative action the best move to solve the problems of schism. I also strongly disagree with your opinion that trads are schismatic and would inevitably schism, and that's also no reason for collective punishment which will make the problem worse.

I've read the letter and the document. In the document Francis states that the NO is the "unique" expression of the Roman Rite, which implies that it is the only valid expression of the Roman Rite in his view.

Well, it looks like my experience is not just my personal anecdote. I never said that all trads are schismatics, but many of them are borderline schismatics. As I said before, the Pope didn’t wake up today and say “you know, I’m going to restrict the use of the TLM today.” He came to this conclusion because of the input he got from Bishops all over the world. They apparently told him that the TLM was being used at a symbol for reactionary Catholics. This was similar reasoning that Paul VI used in restricting the use of the TLM, and this was when the the NO was brand new. The NO is the most used expression of the Latin Rite, so perhaps that is what he meant when he said that it is the “unique” expression.

[Saiwania]

Hello, we’re forgetting a true candidate. High Tory Anglicanism!

For simplicity sake, I'm only counting what came about from the first split that ever happened or what existed previously to that event. When Christianity began, there was the Roman empire, but the Roman empire gradually divided into western and eastern halves over time. With the western half not surviving intact as long as the Eastern portion.

The first three main centers for Christianity were supposedly Rome, Alexandria, or Antioch.

[Salus Maior]

Well, it looks like my experience is not just my personal anecdote. I never said that all trads are schismatics, but many of them are borderline schismatics. As I said before, the Pope didn’t wake up today and say “you know, I’m going to restrict the use of the TLM today.” He came to this conclusion because of the input he got from Bishops all over the world. They apparently told him that the TLM was being used at a symbol for reactionary Catholics. This was similar reasoning that Paul VI used in restricting the use of the TLM, and this was when the the NO was brand new. The NO is the most used expression of the Latin Rite, so perhaps that is what he meant when he said that it is the “unique” expression.

We don't actually know the results of the survey among the bishops was, or anything about it. That information hasn't been made available.

And don't treat me like I'm stupid, it wouldn't make any sense to call it "unique" in that sense. And regardless of whether reactionary Catholics used the TLM as a symbol, that doesn't justify depriving parishes that want the TLM of it. This is going to harm a lot of peoples' faith life, people who are practicing and devout Catholics, including many converts, seminarians, etc. etc. This is a step backwards for the revitalization of Church life, for ecumenism, for combating schism, and the image of a supposed "welcoming" and tolerant church. There's no arguing that this is a good move, Pope Francis has made a serious error in judgement.

[North Washington Republic]

Well, it looks like my experience is not just my personal anecdote. I never said that all trads are schismatics, but many of them are borderline schismatics. As I said before, the Pope didn’t wake up today and say “you know, I’m going to restrict the use of the TLM today.” He came to this conclusion because of the input he got from Bishops all over the world. They apparently told him that the TLM was being used at a symbol for reactionary Catholics. This was similar reasoning that Paul VI used in restricting the use of the TLM, and this was when the the NO was brand new. The NO is the most used expression of the Latin Rite, so perhaps that is what he meant when he said that it is the “unique” expression.

We don't actually know the results of the survey among the bishops was, or anything about it. That information hasn't been made available.

And don't treat me like I'm stupid, it wouldn't make any sense to call it "unique" in that sense. And regardless of whether reactionary Catholics used the TLM as a symbol, that doesn't justify depriving parishes that want the TLM of it. This is going to harm a lot of peoples' faith life, people who are practicing and devout Catholics, including many converts, seminarians, etc. etc. This is a step backwards for the revitalization of Church life, for ecumenism, for combating schism, and the image of a supposed "welcoming" and tolerant church. There's no arguing that this is a good move, Pope Francis has made a serious error in judgement.

I’m not arguing if it’s a good or bad move on his part. I’m trying to give the reasons why he did this. My intention is not to treat you like you’re stupid. As for the results of the survey, I don’t see it becoming publicly available anytime soon. I don’t see him if having any reason to outright lie about the results, because if he wanted to restrict the use of the TLM without this survey, he would have done so years ago.

[Salus Maior]

We don't actually know the results of the survey among the bishops was, or anything about it. That information hasn't been made available.

And don't treat me like I'm stupid, it wouldn't make any sense to call it "unique" in that sense. And regardless of whether reactionary Catholics used the TLM as a symbol, that doesn't justify depriving parishes that want the TLM of it. This is going to harm a lot of peoples' faith life, people who are practicing and devout Catholics, including many converts, seminarians, etc. etc. This is a step backwards for the revitalization of Church life, for ecumenism, for combating schism, and the image of a supposed "welcoming" and tolerant church. There's no arguing that this is a good move, Pope Francis has made a serious error in judgement.

I’m not arguing if it’s a good or bad move on his part. I’m trying to give the reasons why he did this. My intention is not to treat you like you’re stupid. As for the results of the survey, I don’t see it becoming publicly available anytime soon. I don’t see him if having any reason to outright lie about the results, because if he wanted to restrict the use of the TLM without this survey, he would have done so years ago.

You don't have to give the reasons, I'm well informed.

And the Vatican hardly is past keeping secrets or acting dishonestly. As everyone here is aware of.

[Punished UMN]

IIRC, Marxists argue that the family forms the basic unit of consumption in capitalism, and teaches children to accept hierarchy. I could be misremembering/misunderstanding, though.

Never heard of that myself. Must be a specific subset of Marxism.

It isn't, it's one of the foundational ideas of Marxism that the family exists primarily as a means to transfer and expand control of property. So as not to threadjack, you can read about this in the Origin of The Family, Property, and the State, by Engels.

[Sundiata]

Never heard of that myself. Must be a specific subset of Marxism.

It isn't, it's one of the foundational ideas of Marxism that the family exists primarily as a means to transfer and expand control of property. So as not to threadjack, you can read about this in the Origin of The Family, Property, and the State, by Engels.

Do you see why Christians can't be Marxist-Communists?

[Punished UMN]

It isn't, it's one of the foundational ideas of Marxism that the family exists primarily as a means to transfer and expand control of property. So as not to threadjack, you can read about this in the Origin of The Family, Property, and the State, by Engels.

Do you see why Christians can't be Marxist-Communists?

I mean I thought it was pretty obvious from the whole dialectical/historical materialism thing.

[Sundiata]

Hello, we’re forgetting a true candidate. High Tory Anglicanism!

For simplicity sake, I'm only counting what came about from the first split that ever happened or what existed previously to that event. When Christianity began, there was the Roman empire, but the Roman empire gradually divided into western and eastern halves over time. With the western half not surviving intact as long as the Eastern portion.

The first three main centers for Christianity were supposedly Rome, Alexandria, or Antioch.