|
Blot was good, very tired. I was supposed to go across the country and listen to country today, but I don't think I'm gonna. 10/10, would represent Freja in the west again.HEY GUNS posted:god, imagine someone from Constantinople going up to Germany and trying to talk theology with these dudes Going to Constantinople and coming back was a serious force of social mobility in norse society. For instance, in Ravnkel Frejsgodes saga, we learn of a dude who led a homestead but went fighting in the Varangian guard, and when he comes back( to Iceland), he's flush with gold and talked about as a big shot, which leads him to attempt a legal coup against the titular character.
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? Jun 11, 2024 10:52 |
|
https://twitter.com/dril/status/414136853302759424
|
![]() |
|
sylvester II
|
![]() |
|
i'm gonna have to go with anacletus, purely on the basis of being so much pope he was mistaken for two popes
|
![]() |
|
yeah ok anal cletus![]()
|
![]() |
|
Peter II
|
![]() |
|
Stolen from the PYF Funny Pictures thread.
|
![]() |
|
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/opinion/sunday/christianity-communism.html?refererquote:Not that anyone should have been surprised. If the communism of the apostolic church is a secret, it is a startlingly open one. Vaguer terms like “communalist” or “communitarian” might make the facts sound more palatable but cannot change them. The New Testament’s Book of Acts tells us that in Jerusalem the first converts to the proclamation of the risen Christ affirmed their new faith by living in a single dwelling, selling their fixed holdings, redistributing their wealth “as each needed” and owning all possessions communally. This was, after all, a pattern Jesus himself had established: “Each of you who does not give up all he possesses is incapable of being my disciple” (Luke 14:33). opinions on this sort of take? im assuming there's been a fair amount of academic writing on how leftist concepts have sprung up throughout history?
|
![]() |
|
Dietrich Bonhoeffer posted:When he was challenged by Jesus to accept a life of voluntary poverty, the rich young man knew he was faced with the simple alternative of obedience or disobedience. When Levi was called from the receipt of custom and Peter from his nets, there was no doubt that Jesus meant business. Both of them were to leave everything and follow. Again, when Peter was called to walk on the rolling sea, he had to get up and risk his life. Only one thing was required in each case - to rely on Christ’s word, and cling to it as offering greater security than all the securities in the world. The forces which tried to interpose themselves between the word of Jesus and the response of obedience were as formidable then as they are to-day. Reason and conscience, responsibility and piety all stood in the way, and even the law and ‘scriptural authority’ itself were obstacles which pretended to defend them from going to the extremes of antinomianism and ‘enthusiasms’. But the call of Jesus made short work of all these barriers, and created obedience. That call was the Word of God himself, and all that it required was single-minded obedience. shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Nov 5, 2017 |
![]() |
|
Kanine posted:opinions on this sort of take? im assuming there's been a fair amount of academic writing on how leftist concepts have sprung up throughout history? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Nov 5, 2017 |
![]() |
|
i just got out of temple and am on my way to lunch with my mother so pretend i posted about liberation theology
|
![]() |
|
Senju Kannon posted:i just got out of temple and am on my way to lunch with my mother so pretend i posted about liberation theology I am outraged!
|
![]() |
|
I wish I was that good with words. That's some real solid writing, thanks for posting it.
|
![]() |
|
Kanine posted:opinions on this sort of take? im assuming there's been a fair amount of academic writing on how leftist concepts have sprung up throughout history? Betteridge's Law of Headlines strikes again. The problem with saying that early Christianity is Communist (besides the obvious one of it being presentism) is that early Christians were not trying to transform all of society. Their goal was to entirely be set apart from society; St. John Chrysostom is writing to a Christian audience dictating the way that Christians should live. Nobody gave a flying gently caress what the actual government of the Roman Empire was doing. St. Augustine's City of God is not a political treatise. That was the whole impetus for the Desert Fathers and Mothers to move out to the rear end end of nowhere; they thought that Christianity had been corrupted by society after Constantine and could only be validly practiced away from society. Communism, actual Communism, seeks a radical change in society and not just simply allowing a bunch of hippies to live in a commune somewhere.
|
![]() |
|
Paladinus posted:I am outraged!
|
![]() |
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Communism, actual Communism, seeks a radical change in society and not just simply allowing a bunch of hippies to live in a commune somewhere.
|
![]() |
|
HEY GUNS posted:Christianity can't be reduced to a mere worldly agenda. Christ explicitly says he did not come to set up a form of government or an economic system: "my kingdom is not of this world. If it were of this world, then my followers would fight." If he had, the closest success would probably have been the Byzantine empire, not Communism. (The Catholic Integralists tried something like this in the middle of the 20th century and the results were culty and depressing.) Would you mind expanding on this? Because I don't think Christ would have done a lot of things that the Byzantine Empire did. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Nov 5, 2017 |
![]() |
|
HEY GUNS posted:I pick up on your outrage but misread your argument! i came out here to have a good time and i feel so attacked right now
|
![]() |
|
System Metternich posted:I'm currently in Hamburg being busy getting wasted with a couple friends, I'll try if I can manage an effort post on Sunday or sometime next week. It's definitely a super interesting topic! Okay, I'm back now and even somewhat awake, so let me type up The second thing you have to know about the "Counter-Reformation" (I'll just keep using that term in this post both for simplicity's sake and also because repeatedly having to type the word "confessionalisation" is kinda annoying) is that it is a phenomenon that a) took a long time, encompassing (depending on who you ask) either the time from 1517 to 1618, the mid-to-late 18th century (which I personally prefer) or even the Second Vatican Council, b) wasn't a clear-cut or straight development, having lots of "fault lines" as well instead, and c) was a multi-layered phenomenon, with the different layers on which the counter-reformation took place being 1. developing an Anti- or Counter-Protestant theology in order to succesfully defend Catholic practice and thought against Protestant attacks, 2. reconfiguring and reforming the Church itself in its structures, hierarchies and rules, 3. developing a new and innovative Catholic theology/spiritual practice more suited to the demands of the time and 4. supporting and propping up Catholic rulers and other influential players while doing the reverse with non-Catholics all over the world and trying to lead a concerted anti-Protestant effort on a political level, while Catholic political players supported the Church as well. Let's look at the ideal implementation of counter-reformation thought and practice as seen by ultra-montanist historians of the 19th century, who had a decided interest in portraying it as quick and thorough as possible. Peter Hersche offers a somewhat sarcastic summation of countless enthusiastic 19th and 20th century portrayals of spirited and zealous bishop reformers who brought the counter-reformation to their diocese: Peter Hersche (my translation) posted:In [post-WW2] Germany, the question [of how the counter-reformation took place] was more urgent than in other countries due to political and cultural reasons - especially clerical authors felt the need to prove that Catholicism hadn't just reacted aggressively to Protestantim by trying to fight back with fire and sword, but also underwent a thorough inner reformation. The [insanely detailed research on the Council of Trent done by German historian Hubert Jedin in the 50s and 60s] inspired a large amount of further studies, most of them local, the type of which still continues to be published. All of them follow more or less the same pattern: Mostly in the years around 1600 (with some belated examples like the Bishop of Münster, Christoph Bernhard von Galen), in each of the German dioceses a tridentine, busy and pious bishop appears, full of zeal and enthusiasm for a Catholic Reformation which is sorely needed in a German Church left in a pitiable state by the Protestant Reformation. First, he chases all remaining Protestants away, if necessary (if he isn't a prince-bishop himself) with the help of Catholic rulers with whom he closely cooperates on all levels anyway. In the same way, all traces of Protestant influence are removed from Catholic rites and theology, such as the communion of both bread and wine. Following the standards and rules set by the Council of Trent, he calls diocesan synods, personally undertakes lots of visitations in all parts of his diocese, establishes a seminary and brings Jesuits and other counter-reformation orders into his lands. He places a special focus on the deficits he finds in the lower clergy; he removes concubines, enforces clercial attire and morals, reminds his priests of their duty to live in their assigned parish, tries to improve the theological education and assigns the priests lots of new pastoral duties, e.g. regularly giving homilies and catechesis. If necessary, he starts new parishes, criticises the poor state of the existing churches (dirt, missing liturgical equipment, inappropriate images), tears down run-down old churches and replaces them with new ones and tries to clearly move the graveyard into the sacral sphere. After the clergy, the laity as well becomes the target of countless directives which aren't just aimed at enforcing religious duties (Easter confession, Sunday Mass, new marriage laws etc.), but also want to improve on public morals: secuality, drunkenness, gluttony, dance, gambling, feasts and working on Sundays are either to be reduced or fully abolished, while new counter-reformation confraternities and religious practices foster further Christianisation. The diocesan administration is optimised, control mechanisms like archdeaneries and rural deans are re-introduced or newly created and the ecclesiastical courts are revived. The epsicopal power is asserted and enlarged at the expense of other ecclesiastical institutions while the influence of laypeople within and on the Church is kept down to a minimum. With all these measures, the Counter-Reformation and the Catholic Reformation is, at least according to these authors, finished. Again: This is the ideal version of Catholic Reformation as seen by ultramontanist historians who tended and tend to see the whole process from a top-down perspective, or as Hersche describes it: a zealous and reform-minded bishops appears and turns the whole thing around on his own, supported by a Tridentine Council and a clear Church hierarchy. This is obviously a hugely simplified portrayal, but it still lists many facets that were at the core of what we call "Counter-Reformation" - if not in deed, than at least in thought. To return to my initial list of Counter-Reformation layers above: 1. developing an Anti- or Counter-Protestant theology: this was the main domain of the Jesuits, who were at the heart of the development of the so-called "controversial theology", i.e. a combination of Catholic apologetics and anti-Protestant polemics, designed to maximise success in the countless theological debates that were raging especially in early modern Germany. The Protestants developed their own versions of this. Other Catholic orders like the Dominicans or the Capuchins also participated to a large degree here, and my own research seems to indicate that as late as the 1760s, diocesan clergy who minored in theologica polemica (yes, there were university courses in how to own Protestants ![]() 2. reconfiguring and reforming the Church itself in its structures, hierarchies and rules: Here, the Council of Trent did a huge amount of groundwork, with the main points being mentioned above by Hersche: seminaries in all dioceses to ensure a well-founded priestly education, diocesan synods and episcopal visitations to enforce the Council's standards even in far-flung and isolated areas, obligatory residence of priests and bishops in their assigned parishes and dioceses... generally speaking, the Church was "hierarchised", with each layer of the ecclesiastical structure being institutionally strengthened against its subordinates with the laypeople on the bottom and the Pope on top. This included a strengthening of parish priests' rights and privileges, broader episcopal powers, a centralisation of the entire Church with Rome in the middle and generally a bureaucratisation and professionalisation of the entire Church structure. The same followed for the numerous religious orders, many or even most of which were in a miserable state during the early 16th century: reinforcing existing rules and a number of new rules and statues aimed at getting rid of corruption and vice within the monasteries revived the orders and brought in a huge number of new and zealous vocations. One aspect of this monastic reform that made a certain kind of sense during this time but had and has negative consequences even today is the sequestration of female religious away from the world; whereas male religious were and are allowed and even supposed to be active in a wide number of fields beyond their monastery's walls (depending on the respective order, naturally), nuns were largely removed from the world altogether and only allowed to operate outside of the monastery in very few and restricted areas. 3. developing a new and innovative Catholic theology/spiritual practice more suited to the demands of the time: again the Council of Trent did a lot of work here. As early as the Council's second session (of 25), the Council Fathers decided that any ecclesiastical reform wasn't complete when it covered just the mechanisms of pastoral work, but needed to reinvigorate Church doctrine as well. This included clarifications on a lot of doctrinal points and a wide range of measures designed to reinvigorate Catholic faith amongst the laity and make it more accessible and interesting to the outsider, like the propagation of (a new kind of) confraternities, pilgrimages, the rosary, processions, religious exercises, rural missions, theatre plays, devotionals, Eucharistic adoration and so on. The new Jesuit pedagogy was hugely important here too, even though it gradually fell out of touch with new pedagogic models during the 18th century and was widely decried as being hopelessly conservative by the time of the dissolution of the Jesuits in 1773, but for a while especially in the 17th century, there were few better schools in Europe than those built by the Jesuits and other orders (like the Ursulines, who cared for girls). The pedagogic efforts included the priestly education, which (outside of France) was mostly done by the Jesuits too. Catholic art, music and literature had been relatively free from ecclesiastical regulation before the Council, but facing the large focus of Lutheranism on music and the general Protestant distaste for exuberant religious imagery, the Council Fathers were forced to define a Catholic position here as well. Movements withing the Church, inspired by Lutheran and Reformed reforms, demanded music to become as simple as possible; this was however turned by the Council into an affirmation that music is an important and proper "adornment" of the liturgy and needs to be well understandable text-wise and free of improper elements which might distract from the theological message behind it. This might sound vague, but it gave Catholic musicians a lot of free wiggle room to create the exuberant and incredibly lively musical culture of the Baroque in the Council's wake. The same went with the visual arts, which were defined as being important vehicles of Catholic messages which therefore needed to be free of "unpure" stuff - just vague enough to make the great surge of Catholic arts later on possible. Literature-wise, the creation of the Roman index made it possible for the Church authorities to control the information flow directed at the laity. While Protestant literature of the age was (outside of France) undeniably much more numerous and qualitatively better in the fields of both fiction and non-fiction works, a huge surge in the publication of printed homilies and prayer books amongst Catholic Europe greatly contributed to the education of Catholics in their faith, while religious theatre was almost non-existent amongst Protestants but very popular and important for Catholics. 4. supporting and propping up Catholic rulers and other influential players while doing the reverse with non-Catholics all over the world and trying to lead a concerted anti-Protestant effort on a political level, while Catholic political players supported the Church as well: you don't need to look further than cuius regio, eius religio in Germany for that. Catholic princes were seen as being morally obligated to propagate their faith by all means possible; religion became politics and politics became religion, even more so than during the Middle Ages. Jesuits were installed as confessors to a huge number of important figures in Europe, directly and indirectly influencing them. Wars were waged, conflicts were negotiated in front of the courts, money and public support were poured out toward Catholic rulers ready to fight for the Church. A hugely important factor here were the Hapsburgs, which were part of the ruling elite not only in the Empire, but also in Spain and for a while even in Portugal with all their colonies, Italy and parts of Eastern Europe. Other Catholic dynasties also had important roles to play here, like the Bourbons in France or the Wittelsbachs in Germany; they all were enlisted into the Catholic effort and propagated their own form of Tridentine/Baroque Catholicism amongst their subjects. An additional aspect of this was the relatively large number of princely conversions in Germany after 1648 from Protestantism to Catholicism, which were purposefully orchestrated especially by the Jesuits and used as an effective propaganda tool against Protestantism. The various difficulties and fault lines withing this process we call "Counter-Reformation" mustn't be understated, though. In many dioceses there were ten unsuited for the office and/or super baroque bishops for every strict tridentine one; the Church and the State were opponents as often as they were partners; many attempted reforms like regular diocesan synods or the establishment seminaries saw a surge following the Council of Trent, only to "fall asleep" again in the 17th century and to haphardazly be revived in the 18th century, when some Popes tried to finally make the reform demands of Trent reality during what we call the "ripresa tridentina”. This attempt was anything but thorough, however, and found many opponents too. There was lots of resistance against the “Counter-Reformation” not only and even especially within Catholicism itself, from laypeople who didn’t want the Church to dictate their personal religious practices to priests who refused to follow the strict moral standards imposed on them by their Church all the way to bishops who cared more about sweet new palaces and awesome music at their court than proper pastoral care in their dioceses (this is what auxiliary bishops were for, at least in Germany). Famous faces of the Counter-Reformation were openly at odds with each other , with St. Philip Neri reportedly saying: "If I have a real problem, I contemplate what Ignatius [of Loyola] would do ... and then I do the exact opposite" (though to be fair, other than their divergent positions on what Catholic Reform should entail they were actually good friends). Medieval religious practices saw something of a revival during the Baroque, isolated regions like Sicily or Galicia were only really reached by the new reforms during the late 18th or even 19th century, and France did whatever it wanted to do anyways. And yet it was also somewhat of a success: why almost nobody would have batted an eye at a priest having a concubine in 1500, in most areas this would have been more or less unthinkable by 1750. The general educational standards of priests and laypeople alike had risen sharply, the Baroque saw a frankly incredible boom in Catholic art, architecture and music. Many areas that had been majority Protestant by the mid-to-late 16th century were successfully re-catholicised, and Catholicism left the bounds of Europe forever, being brought to and prospering in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies all over the world. There would be much more to say, but I think it’s enough to state that the Counter-Reformation/Catholic Reformation/Confessionalisation or however you want to call it was both an impressive effort and a centuries-long and highly complex historical process full of contradictions that was hugely important to the history of the Church, of Europe and the World. System Metternich fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Nov 5, 2017 |
![]() |
|
interestingly, despite his opinions about religious toleration, wallenstein really liked jesuits. when it was time to bestow some cash on worthy recipients those were the guys he'd pick. Possibly the education angle, he founded a lot of schools. Also trent was a mistake
|
![]() |
|
-
pidan fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Mar 13, 2018 |
![]() |
|
pidan posted:Hey guys since this thread has a bunch of people who know about iconography and new religious movements I have an actual question this time. Are you sure it wasn't a lamb's head?
|
![]() |
|
pidan posted:I'd assume it's a Satanist amulet, but he's a responsible adult. So maybe it's a metal fan thing, or maybe there's some obscure Christian or new religious meaning to it. sounds like amon amarth merch, probably a metal fan some gnostic groups use those types of crosses but I'm unfamiliar with any of them being real real into goats
|
![]() |
|
thor's hammer with a goat instead of a top bit? You said the four bits are "about" the same length, is the goat head bit just a little longer?
|
![]() |
|
Worthleast posted:Stolen from the PYF Funny Pictures thread. ![]()
|
![]() |
|
HEY GUNS posted:I pick up on your outrage but misread your argument! This cacophony harshes my high...
|
![]() |
|
-
pidan fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Mar 13, 2018 |
![]() |
|
HEY GUNS posted:that made the rounds in the milhist thread and tias said it was basically "hegel.jpg" and i didn't contradict him Why would you ever ![]() pidan posted:It's similar to this design, but with a cross instead of a hammer, which I haven't been able to find online: Animal parts for the hammer shaft are pretty common on Thor's hammers, because of grave finds with that design. The wolf of Fenris or goats b/c Thor owned goats. As for having them on a cross, I wouldn't know.
|
![]() |
|
![]() is it like this? i found it by googling viking cross, which was a suggested search term from thor cross
|
![]() |
|
-
pidan fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Mar 13, 2018 |
![]() |
|
Long time no see, chat buddies. Went on a trip to Tucson and visited the Mission San Xavier del Bac while I was there. I'll try to remember to post some of the pics I took, but I'm off to work at the moment. Also, icons spotted at the Episcopal church in Tucson.
|
![]() |
|
pidan posted:The goat bit is longer if you count the goat, but it's subtle.
|
![]() |
|
My money was on black metal wehraboo.
|
![]() |
|
Given the fact that it's a reversed-crucifix, it seems more likely to me that it's not a declaration of Christian belief, given the popular association of the inverted cross (despite Peter's martyrdom) with Anti-Christian ideology.
|
![]() |
|
I tried listening to the Catholic Stuff You Should Know podcast for a while but hoo boy does it take a turn in the runup to the 2012 election. It was too bad, there were a few hints it was going to break bad (offhand reference to Newt Gingrich as anything other than a charlatan) but it seemed like an okay semi-harmless interesting pleasing podcast to listen to. Kind of morbidly curious to keep listening to see just how enthusiastically these guys ride the Trump train to oblivion. Welp, owned by a podcast, that's my story.
|
![]() |
|
welcome friend it's mostly shitposting and europeans in here
|
![]() |
|
i was extremely disappointed that the chapo ep with liz bruenig didnt really give her a chance to talk
|
![]() |
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:(offhand reference to Newt Gingrich as anything other than a charlatan) it's okay his wife is the US ambassador to the Vatican now because they have both lived very moral, very Catholic lives, you see, a perfect choice
|
![]() |
|
The Phlegmatist posted:it's okay his wife is the US ambassador to the Vatican now
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? Jun 11, 2024 10:52 |
|
Well they pale in comparison to Paul Ryan, who is (or was ca. 2012) the Perfect Manifestation of What a Catholic Should Sound Like, which is what prompted my reaction. The podcast after making that argument they described at length giving really politically conservative homilies in their liberal parishes and being happy that people walked out because it meant they were not real Catholics. I feel really lucky I have never had a pastor like that. I've certainly had a few who have made a point of emphasizing the catechism in its fullness, sometimes without couching it as an invitation to perfection none of us are actually capable of fulfilling and blah blah. But never have I had a pastor who dismissed someone walking out as if it meant they won a purity contest. Makes me really wonder about the seminary in Denver, if it's pumping out priests of this type. The podcast is done by a cohort of them who graduated from that seminary in approx 2010-2013 and are diocesan priests in Denver. Like maybe it's natural for people to be all jacked up on THE TRUTH after seminary and mellow over the years, or maybe this place has pictures of Mel Gibson on the walls or something.
|
![]() |