/christ/

My Pope is Benedict

If you have a pope, it's whoever was last elected by the cardinals. Disagree with his opinions all you like, but denying his legitimacy is a sin.

Quand lo boièr ven de laurar,
Planta aquí l'agulhada,
A, E, I, O, U,
Planta aquí l'agulhada.

Trapa sa femna al pè del fuòc,
Tota desconsolada,
A, E, I, O, U,
Tota desconsolada.

Se siás malauta, diga me,
Te farai un potatge,
A, E, I, O, U,
Te farai un potatge.

>catholics

>Santuario de Chimayo

Amb una raba, amb un caulet,
Una lauseta magra,
A, E, I, O, U,
Una lauseta magra.

nice
plain and simple, gets the job done/10

here's my second favourite
started building during the Interwar and finished after the war, got that Art Deco style typical to some other buildings of that time

Quand sarai mòrta, enterratz-me
Al pus fons de la cava,
A, E, I, O, U,
Al pus fons de la cava.

Los pès virats a la paret,
Lo cap jos la canèla,
A, E, I, O, U,
Lo cap jos la canèla.

E los romieus que passaràn
Prendràn d'aiga senhada,
A, E, I, O, U,
Prendràn d'aiga senhada.

E diràn cal es mort aici?
Es la paura Joanna,
A, E, I, O, U,
Es la paura Joanna.

good thread

VERY good general
but there is just one issue here gentlemen

what to do about the proddie question

Que n'es anada al Paradis,
Al Cèl ambe sas cabras,
A, E, I, O, U,
Al Cèl ambe sas cabras.

we're gonna need a bigger Council

I am the OP, and I am a protty, all are welcome though.

Except arians, they can scram three times.

>and I am a protty

Please excuse me but your ideas on God and faith slightly differ from my own and here are 95 reasons why, all codified and organized by type of offense. I will now engage in petty squabbles for several centuries so my vision of an abstract concept can become the most relevant.

kek

>Disagree with his opinions all you like, but denying his legitimacy is a sin.
No, it's not. By this logic it would have been a sin to deny the legitimacy of any antipope who had significant support among the princes of the Church.

There are grounds to doubt Francis' canonical election, though this would be a minority view among Canon lawyers (and it's not my view, personally). Questions about Francis' canonical election have been circulating since day one. It is not a sin to deny a pope's legitimacy as affirmed by Abp. Lefebvre. The problem forms when one takes the leap from questioning the legitimacy of the current pontiff to schismatic sedevacantism (i.e. SSPV).

...

Pater noster qui es in celis,
sanctificetur nomen tuum;
adveniat regnum tuum.
Fiat voluntas tua sicut in celo et in terra.
Panem nostrum supersubstancialem da nobis hodie.
Et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
Et ne nos inducas in temptationem sed libera nos a malo.
Quoniam tuum est regnum et virtus et gloria in secula.
Amen.

I like Francis but Catholics are well within their rights to not agree with him or doubt his legitimate appointment

there's a sect of Catholics who believe the Papal Throne has been effectively vacant for years now and that the current pope is illegitimate. I can't remember what they're called, I know they're mad over Vatican 2

Even Catholics do not take them as serious as the other books I think.

sedevacantists

>reading the bible

either sedevacantists, or the SSPX

Do you think Vatican 2 was a mistake?

also
>tfw no more based Benedict

[1] Here Begins the Book of the Two Principles. Since many persons are hampered in rightly understand the truth, to enlighten them, to stimulate those who do have right understanding, and also for the delight of my soul, I have made it my purpose to explain our true faith by evidence from the Holy Scriptures and with eminently suitable arguments, invoking to my efforts the aid of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

[2] On the Two Principles. To the honor of the Most Holy Father, I wish to begin my discussion concerning the two principles by refuting the belief in one Principle, however much this may contradict well-nigh all religious persons. We may commence as follows: Either there is only one First Principle, or there is more than one. If, indeed, there were one and not more, as the unenlightened say, then, of necessity, He would be either good or evil.. But surely not evil, since then only evil would proceed from Him and not good, as Christ says in the Gospel of the Blessed Matthew: "And the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit." And the Blessed James says in his Epistle: "Doth a fountain send forth out of the same hole sweet and bitter water? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear grapes; or the vine, figs? So neither can the salt water yield sweet."

forgot to mention that sspx doesn't really hold the current Pope as illegitimate
they reject Vatican II, though

I mentioned this group in my post. I have no problem with sedevacantists as such. As I said, the issue is when they become full-blown schismatics like SSPV.

Personally, I strongly dislike Francis, particularly in light of Amoris Laetitia and his recent letter to the Argentine bishops. There are now legitimate case for the charge of formal heresy against him.

SSPX is not sedevacantist. They are simply not in full communion with Rome.

[3] On the Goodness of God. Now, our opponents are clear in their assertion that God is good, holy, just, wise, and true; that He is also called pure goodness and is above all praise, as they seek to prove by the following citations and many others of like nature. For Jesus the son of Sirach says: "Glorify the Lord as much as ever you can, for He will yet far exceed, and His magnificence is wonderful. Blessing the Lord, exalt Him as much as you can, for He is above all praise." And David says "Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; and of His greatness there is no end"; and again, "Great is our Lord, and great is his power; and of His wisdom there is no number." And Paul says to the Romans: "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments and how unsearchable His ways, and so on. And in the Liber de causis is written, "The first cause is far greater than can be described."

[4] That God Knows All Things from Eternity. Whence they stoutly affirm that God knows all things from eternity because of the greatness of His wisdom; that all the past, the present, and the future are always before Him and He knows all things before they come to pass, as says Susanna in the Book of Daniel, "O eternal God, who knowest hidden things, who knowest all things before they come to pass." And Jesus, son of Sirach, says, "For all things were known to the Lord God before they were created; so also after they were perfected He beholdeth all things." And the Apostle writes to the Hebrews, "Neither is there any creature invisible in His sight, but all things are naked and open to His eyes.

>tfw Catholic
>In love with an Orthodox qt, who is definitely wife material

Also, I haven't confessed in a year due, though every time I confess I've never mentioned my shitposting, as I don't

sedevacantists, I think they even bought one papal crown and have it here in the US, there's also Palmarians.

In fact, there are stil la few papal tiaras remaining, and while Benedict/Francis don't have one on their coat of arms they were presented a one by Bulgarian/German catholics (respectively).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiara_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI

I find it quite difficult to swallow that he words just about every position he makes as a theological statement.

I know that he is not seen as an authority on things other than theology, so that is why it seems a bit curious that he frames political statements in a theological structure.

"A true christian does not build walls" seems more like his opinion masked as a statement about God.

[5] On the Goodness, Holiness, and Justice of God. It is clearly demonstrated, moreover, that our Lord God is good, holy, and just, as is said above. For David says: "How good is God to Israel, to them that are of a right heart"; and again, "The Lord is faithful in all His words and holy in all His works"; and again, "The Lord is sweet and righteousness; therefore He will give a law to sinners in the way"; and again, God is a just judge, strong and patient; is He angry every day?" And in the Book of Wisdom it is written, "For so much then as thou art just, Thou orderest all things justly."

[6] On the Omnipotence of God. For the Lord is called omnipotent, as our opponents avow, and He can do whatsoever pleases Him; nor can anyone resist Him," or say, "Why dost Thou so?" As Ecclesiastes says: For He will do all that pleaseth Him and His word is full of power; neither can any man say to Him: 'Why dost Thou so?' " And David says, "But our God in heaven; He hath done all things whatsoever He would," And in the Apocalypse is written: "Saith the Lord God, who is and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." And again, "Great and wonderful are Thy works, O Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Thy ways, O King of Ages! Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and magnify Thy name? For Thou only art holy."

electing a Spic was a good idea, but I imagine they could have picked someone else.
its because he's a Jesuit and they have always been modernist yuppies.

how can one be a) catholic and b) white?

even the dutch """"catholics"""" (pretty much protestant in all but name) are swarthier than dutch protestants

They are called "Sedevacantists", or, in other words, butthurt heretics.

Catholics are better than whites
its the Roman blood

more like "everyone else is a heretic except for me!"

That in itself is nothing strange. The separation of Church and state has perverted the mind of modern man, who now believes, due to revolutionary liberalism, that the Church has no moral right to involve itself in political affairs. This is not the Catholic view. We do not believe in separation of Church and state; such was condemned by Bl. Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors. The Catholic view is that the Church is to the state what the soul is to the body.

We also believe in the social reign of Christ, meaning that society in itself is subordinate to God and the Moral Law, and that, moreover, society has a moral duty to uphold the Moral Law and make itself obedient to God. Failing this, the chastisements begin.

This is ultimately to say that the Catholic does not separate the theological and what some people would call the secular into two, separate categories.

>"A true christian does not build walls" seems more like his opinion
That's because it is his opinion and nothing more. Francis is notorious for casually throwing out these sort of bombshell comments (this one wasn't even particularly bad, IMO). He's a typical Jesuit.

[7] On the First Proposition, against My Opponents. At this point I take issue with the thesis (sententiam) of those who assert that there is only one First Principle. For I say: Assume that God—who is good, just, holy, wise, righteous, "faithful in all His words, and holy in all His works," who is almighty and knows all things before they come to pass, as I have shown above—created and arrayed His angels as He chose from the beginning through Himself alone and without any apparent extraneous compulsion from anyone; and assume, further, that that He knew the fate of all His angels before they came into being, because within His providence existed all the causes for which those angels must be found wanting in the future and must remain for all time things of evil and demons in His sight, as nearly all our opponents say: then, without doubt, it follows ineluctably that those angels could never remain good, holy, or humble with their Lord, in whose power of necessity all things occurred from eternity, except to the extent to which God himself had knowledge from the beginning. For one who knows fully all things that shall come to pass is powerless, in so far as he is self-consistent, to do anything except that which he himself has known from eternity that he shall do. This I prove.

No, it's a legitimate council. If you disagree with this one, you can as well disagree with any other one.

Excuse me if I am not very well known with the ramifications of all different catholic councils.

But Vatican I (not the hated Vatican II) laid down the framework of what statements are made "ex cathedra", so there seems to be some sort of distinction. Perhaps you could explain it to me a bit better than I can.

>not agree with him

This can be okay

>doubt his legitimate appointment

This is never okay

>they have always been modernist yuppies

Before the second half of the 20th century Jesuits were seen as some of the most orthodox and loyal Catholics, it's only in relatively recent times that they've gotten weird.

What did he mean by this?

yea but do you think they made the right choices?
I like the universal call to holiness as the central aspect of the Church but not the modernist mingling with non-Christians

though efforts to unite christianity are important.

[8] On Impossibility. For I say that just as it is impossible for that which is past not to be in the past, so it is impossible for that which is in the future not to be in the future. This is especially true in God, who from the beginning understood and knew that which would come to pass, so that existence as something still to come was possible for an event before it occurred. It was without doubt necessary that the future its( II should exist wholly in Him, because He would know and understand from eternity all the causes which are required for bringing the future to fruition. And it is the more true since, if there is only one First Principle, God himself is the sole cause of all causes; and above all if it is fact, as the opponents of truth assert, that God does whatever pleases himself and His might is not affected by anyone.

I say further: If God understood all things from the beginning and knew that His angels would in the future become demons, because of the character which He himself gave them from the beginning (because all the causes which would make those angels become demons in the future arose entirely within His providence and it did not please God to make them otherwise than He did), it of necessity follows that the afore- said angels could never in any way have avoided becoming demons. And this is particularly true because it is impossible that anything which God knows to be future may be in any way changed so that it does not come to pass in the future—above all, in Him who from eternity knows the future completely, as we have just seen explained.

butthurt Bosniak ranting about >muh poor Bogolomists dindu nuffin

Objecting to the supposed veracity of shit
DOES NOT EQUAL TO
presenting an alternative, posited claim.

Ex cathedra is essentially shorthand for those pronouncements which formally define dogmatic teaching. This has only occurred twice and on each occasion the dogmatic weight of the pronouncements were made explicit. It literally means "from the Chair [of Peter]," and originates in the pre-Christian tradition of rabbis making similar pronouncements "from the Chair of Moses".

Ex cathedra statements are when the Pope defines a disputed dogma as binding for the entire Church. This has only rarely happened, and the Pope can never contradict past teaching or authoritatively teach error with these statements.

Popes can still be wrong, for instance Pope John XXII believed that the righteous would not see the Beatific Vision until Final Judgement, though later I think he was persuaded to change his mind.

How, then, can the unlearned say that the aforesaid angels could remain good, holy, and humble with their Lord for all time, since it was from eternity utterly impossible in God? They are therefore by the most valid reasoning forced to confess that, in accordance with their thesis God knowingly and in full awareness created and made His angels of such imperfection from the beginning that they could in no way escape evil. And so God himself, of whom the words good, holy, just, wise, and righteous were used above, who is above all praise, as was previously declared, was the whole cause and origin of all evil—which is obviously to be denied. For this reason we are required to acknowledge two principles. One is good. The other is evil, the source and cause of the imperfection of the angels and also of all evil."

[9] A Reply to the Foregoing. But perchance someone will say: The wisdom and providence which God himself had from the beginning, induced in His own creatures no unavoidable necessity to do good or to do evil. For this, perhaps, they might offer an illustration thus: If a certain man in a mansion should see another man walking of his own free will along a way," one might perchance say that it is not the wisdom nor the foresight of him in the mansion which makes the other man walk along the way, even though the former is fully cognizant of and sees the way the other is going.

So with God. Although He knew fully and foresaw from eternity the fate of all His angels, His wisdom and providence did not make His angles become demons, but they became demons and things of evil by their own will, because they did not wish to remain holy and humble before their Lord, but wickedly puffed themselves up in pride against Him.

If you believe in infallibility, you can't as a Catholic say they made the wrong choice. It was infallible.

Actually I shouldn't say disputed, nobody really doubted the Assumption of Mary for instance before it was formally defined.

Guess I need to brush up my knowledge of catholic teachings before I make another statement like that.

Donatist here. Sup?

It was definitely made more times, everytime you can see things like "We define" or "[...) let there be anathema" you can expect it to be ex cathedra. Read statements like this, you can notice a certain style, very authoritative and official, different from your typical papal comments quoted by media.

There has been a huge amount of ex cathedra statements.

You can say that Vatican II was often interpreted and implemented poorly. Not to mention that Vatican II did not define any new dogma, not all of its documents are binding.

Not true. Pope Paul VI made it abundantly clear that nothing which was produced by Vatican II was defining anything as a matter of faith. Therefore, Vatican II cannot be considered infallible under the Ordinary Universal Magisterium according to the criteria established by the First Vatican Council.

For what it's worth, Bp. Fellay has recently said that, in his discussions with Rome, not only has Rome stated to him that Vatican II is not infallible, but that Vatican II documents need not even be accepted. Again, for what it's worth.

[10] Rejection of the Preceding Illustration. One must in truth reject this very misleading illustration. Since God in himself was—in the view of our opponents—from the beginning wholly the cause of all His angels, they indubitably derived exclusively and essentially from Him, in a way that was pleasing to Him, the character, the formation or creation, which God himself gave them. And, according to these persons, that which the angels were, they were through Him wholly, in all their causes which made it inevitable for them to become demons in the characteristics, nor did they derive anything at all from any other than Him alone, nor did it please their God to create or make the angels otherwise from the beginning. For these persons believe that had He so wished, He could most easily have made them otherwise. And so it seems clear that God did not seek to make His angels perfect from the beginning, but knowingly and in full awareness endowed them with all future. This was, of necessity, within the power of God, in whom all things occur inevitably from eternity. Whence, the assertion that the wisdom or providence of God did not cause His angels to become things of evil and demons is not valid in the same sense as is the statement that the foresight of the man in the mansion did not cause the other man to walk a long the way.

Are Protestants welcome

You are confusing formal pronouncements of the Extraordinary Magisterium with pronouncements ex cathedra. Only two ex cathedra pronouncements have been made: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. That's it.

As long as you abide by the dogma of the trinity.

Yes I do.

Then be welcome fellow proddy.

Above all, this is true because he who walked along the way is not the creature of him who is in the mansion, nor does he have his being or even his strength from him. But if one had his strength from the other and all the causes whatsoever which were necessary for completion of that journey—just as the aforesaid angels, according to the belief of our opponents, had them from their God—it would be untrue to say that the foresight of the man in the mansion did not make the other man walk along the way, for it is clear that the latter would walk only because of the former, as is most plainly explained above with reference to God. And so no man can rationally condemn those angels when, owing to the character which they had from their Lord, they could do no other than they did. In the same way that an Ethiopian cannot change his skin or a leopard his spots, because of the nature which they have from their maker, so the angels, if we accept the belief of our opponents, could in no way avoid evil, because of the character which their God gave to them from the beginning. This is a most wicked belief.

But now our opponents may, if they can, eagerly try another way of escape. For they plainly say: Had He wished it, God might well from the beginning have made His angels of such perfection that they would have been quite unable to sin or to do evil, and this on three counts, which are that He is almighty, that He knows all things from eternity, and that His omnipotence is not qualified by anyone.

I have a curious question about European Christians. What happened to your numbers. Why are there so few of you

But God was not willing to make them of such perfection; and they advance this reason: If God had from the beginning made His angels of such perfection that they could commit no sin or evil of any kind but inevitably must obey their

Lord, the Lord himself would have given them no thanks for their obedience or service. For thus God could say to them: I give you no thanks for your service, since you cannot act otherwise. Perhaps our opponents might offer an illustration of this point: If a certain lord had a servant "who knew the will of his lord" in all things and could do nothing at all except follow it, this lord they say, would give no thanks at all to his servant for his service, because the latter would be unable to act otherwise.

[11] On the Free Will of the Angels. And thus, they say, God created His angels of such nature from the beginning that they could at their pleasure do good or evil; and they call this "free will" (liberum arbitrium) or, according to some of them, "choice" (arbitrium), to will a certain free strength or power by which he to whom it is given is equally capable of good or evil. And so they insist that God in reason and justice could allot glory or punishment to the angels; that is to say, they might receive punishment because they were able to do good and did not. Thus God could reasonably say to them: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink," and so on.

Postmodernism, it is happening over there too with you guys.

Postmodernism is like an anthropomorphic goat near a porcelain cabinet. It smashes everything to bits so small that an ancient Greek would call it an atom all the while screaming "deconstruction" from the top of its lungs. After it has destroyed everything and when there is nothing left still standing it will gloat and say it is progressive.

People don't want an objective standard for themselves. Since God is the ultimate unmoving standard for everything, he too has to go. This idea has preceded the postmodern "era" but has taken full swing thanks to it.

This is as if He were to say:You were able to refrain from giving but because you gave, there-fore do you in reason and justice possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Then, on the other hand, the Lord himself could reasonably say to sinners: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me not to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink,” and so on. This is as if He were to say: You were able to give and did not; therefore, by reason and justice will you go to the fire eternal. For, they say, if they had no power at all to give Him to eat or drink, by what reason could the Lord himself have said to them, "for I was hungry and you gave me not to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink," and so on? Therefore, they affirm, God did not wish to create His angels perfect, that is, of such perfection that they were quite unable to sin or to do evil, for the Lord himself would have shown them no favor for their service, as has already been said.

They also say that God was not willing to create the angels of such nature that they could always do only evil and not good, because the aforesaid angels could reasonably excuse themselves, saying: We were unable to do anything but evil because of the character which you gave us from the beginning. So they say that God created His angels of such character from the beginning that they could do good and evil. As a result the Lord himself could reasonably judge His angels, in that they were able to sin and had not sinned, or they could refrain from sin and had sinned. And thus our opponents unwisely exult at our expense.

can't forget the 30 years war and decades of priests supporting dubious State actions rather than being independent.

gave European churches a bad name.

It's not as big a problem here, but I think that's due to the traditionally secular nature of our government. Faith is less of an institution than a personal attribute, here. This is especially true after the Catholic and Jewish immigrant waves of the 19th and 20th century.

[12] Refutation of the Thesis of Our Opponents. I shall now clarify what has just been said, namely, their declaration that if God had made His angels perfect from the beginning, in such perfection that they would have been unable to sin at all or to do evil, the Lord would have given them no thanks for their service because they would have been unable to do otherwise. I am convinced that their statement greatly strengthens my position. For if God shows favor to anyone for his service, this seems to me necessarily to follow: namely, that there is something wanting to God and to His will, that He wishes for and desires something done which does not yet exist, or that He desires to have what He does not have. And so, pursuant to this, it seems that we can serve God by fulfilling what is wanting to His will or by rendering to Him something which He needs and desires, either for Himself or for others, as the Gospel text quoted above clearly implies, to wit: "For I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink," and so on; and again, "As long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me." And again, Christ said to Jerusalem, "How often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not?" And the Lord, speaking through Ezechiel to Samaria, says, "Thy uncleanness is execrable. Because I desired to cleanse thee and thou art not cleansed from thy filthiness." From this it seems manifest that the will of God and of His Son, Jesus Christ, was not then wholly fulfilled. This would be impossible, were there only one First Principle, good, holy, just, and perfect.

I think the 30 years wars is something that has very little to no influence on the recent change to irreligion. It is more something that the recent atheist have take up to use as a "proof" that there is something wrong with Christianity rather than the actual cause of it.

I really think personally that it is the idea that man ought to shake everything off that is holding him back, even if that holding back is a positive thing. Postmodernism is just another facet (though an uncontrollable big one) of the death of God that Nietzsche talked about.

World war one killed national faith.

>Postmodernism is like an anthropomorphic goat near a porcelain cabinet. It smashes everything to bits so small that an ancient Greek would call it an atom all the while screaming "deconstruction" from the top of its lungs. After it has destroyed everything and when there is nothing left still standing it will gloat and say it is progressive.

Dostojevski used a similar description for the nihilists of his day. Given that the postmodernists invented the term postmodernism, we may safely say that the 19th century Russian anarchists, communists and similar that went under the universal banner of nihilism, those who wanted to burn everything and leave the rebuilding for others, are the spiritual fathers of "postmodernism".

yea but even in the 19th century you had people like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche talking about irreligious or disingenuous attitudes

So why not get involved in stuff like churches here

Sure, it precedes postmodernism, but it was in large an idea in the mind of the intellectual I think. It sprang over to the common people in the 20th century, which is where the atrocities of that age come from I think. Nietzsche was right in saying that this century would be the bloodiest because of it but people remained largely marginally religious (I say that since subjective morality surely contradicts the idea of a lawgiving God).

I think personally the current postmodernist trend can help in describing the current sway to irreligion as many atheists also agree to the notion that morality is either subjective or non-existent.

Hence, this is the basis on which we can serve God and Christ, when we carry out their will with the aid of the true Father, namely, by alleviating hunger and other hurtful things among the creatures of the good Lord. Then the Lord himself may thank us for fulfilling that which He wishes for and desires to exist. And this seems to uphold my thesis, for neither God nor man can desire or wish anything unless first He have that which He does not desire and which troubles Him, either on His own account or on another's behalf. In particular, to declare that this Principle could be burdened with anything which He does not desire, and that there could be something which could trouble Him and make Him sorrowful on His own behalf or for others seems quite in contradiction to the position of those who say that there is only one First Principle, whole and perfect.

[This could not be] unless He were divided against Himself, harmful to His very self and His Son, that is to say, by Himself alone without extraneous compulsion from anyone doing that which would be wholly contrary to Himself and to His own in the future, that which would make Him sad, sorrowful, and dolorous. For that Lord who, according to our opponents, created male and female and all other living things says in Genesis, "And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, he said, 'I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them." This the true God most certainly would not do in and of himself, were there but one First Principle, holy and perfect.

There is something in 20th century communism which shows that they tried to mirror society as they had previously known it but without God, Jesus or the Church, swapping these for their own philosophers and leaders, and the party, giving these a divine aura. A last but very clear remnant today is North Korea.

Postmodernism is essentially the nihilism of a capitalist society, where all former taboos and social conventions are burned in order to commercialise them.

Here again the worldly powers, now decentralised and globalised, in a sense redefine morality by offering a hollowed version of it, and it is the "consumer" who can "shop" for what he wants to add to it.

Is christianism a serious thing to young europeans yet? I heard just older people are practicing some religion in europe nowadays.

I think capitalism does not necessarily lead to this hollowed out morality. The mess we ended up with in the west is in the grand narrative of things relatively recent. But I do agree that the we are looking for our morals in the wrong place as a society.

We have decided that what is righteous and that which is pleasurable are synonyms, which they are not. We take pleasure from something that lasts for a while not giving a care in the world about its repercussions.

I'm not sure but at least at the campus in leuven it isn't

I didn't mean to say that capitalism leads to this kind of nihilism per se, but this requires certain limitations, and what organ will impose those? I think this is partly defined culturally, but definitely from a shared sense of social duty, which has been attacked vehemently in the name of individualism, but in reality indeed by what I only can call thinly disguised hedonists.

I do agree fully with your last two sentences.

Why Christianity loves to plays with retarded sadomasochistic practices and fears about the end of the world? also why you are refusing to accept the entity you worships it's canonically the god of jews?

I agree that there ought to be limitations and I think the church is that which ought to guard and shepherd us obviously against these hedonistic ideas you talk about. As a protestant I see the church as a different entity than the catholic (unbeknownst which group you yourself belong to) but I do think that all Christians can agree to that role the church ought to play. This is one of the reasons I lament the recent decrease of Christians in Europe, notwithstanding the state of their souls, but that goes without saying. The separation of church and state I think only works if there is a church to separate the state from, if there is no church then people will look for their morals either from the entity that the separation is about (the state) or they look for their morals in the worldly.

The first times that a separation between the two was tried (the forerunner to modern day state entities) the founders of those governments never even thought it was possible to have such a configuration without a religious population. This was also the thought of those establishing a country like the US.

Good for you, all Jesuits will go to Hell

I can guess the practices you have mentioned are not so retarded within the Christian mindset where everyone should feel guilty of something they never did, even though nothing like that apparently happened in the history of human species - I mean the original sin of course. I have also never met a Christian fearing the end of the world, because it's actually positive event after which everything will be remade anew and better than it is now. If you have met other people on your path, please share the experience. Also only shallow retards who are more rightwing than Christian actually have any problem with worshipping a jewish deity. I have even met Catholics studying judaistic (non-biblical) scriptures to build-up their faith through widening the knowledge about culture of their Saviour.

Are cat-holics welcome?

Uhm... do you believe that cats are a creation of God?