Catholicism: Criticism & Debate Thread

Knew it. Hans Kelsen had to be a jew. Only a jew could write this level of stupid shit. Making law independent of human nature???


Hans Kelsen (/ˈkɛlsən/; German: [ˈhans ˈkɛlsən]; October 11, 1881 – April 19, 1973) was an Austrian jurist, legal philosopher and political philosopher. He was the principal architect of the 1920 Austrian Constitution, which with amendments is still in operation. Due to the rise of totalitarianism in Austria (and a 1929 constitutional change),[2] Kelsen left for Germany in 1930 but was forced out of his university post after the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 because of his Jewish ancestry. That year he left for Geneva and in 1940 he moved to the United States. In 1934, Roscoe Pound lauded Kelsen as "undoubtedly the leading jurist of the time". While in Vienna, Kelsen met Sigmund Freud and his circle, and wrote on social psychology and sociology.

"
Kelsen was born in Prague into a middle-class, German-speaking, Jewish family"

Then he went to US to spread is disease more. Germans spreading their stupid vomit everywhere.

So stupid this idiot jew. Wrote and endorsed the exact ideology which would pursue him. So stupid. They are self-destructive. Myopic. And if unleashed destroy everything around them. Always keep an eye on the jew stupidity. They have to convert. Without doing any arm to them. But they have to convert. They will fuck everything up.


"Kirste discusses legal scholars who were active in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, identifying four main types of German legal positivism – jurisprudential, sociological, naturalistic, and statutory positivism – and a fifth type that he calls the general theory of law. His idea is that these theorists were legal positivists because they shared an epistemological aim, namely, establishing legal science as a science in its own right, independent of both the natural and the social sciences, and because they held that the only law is positive law in the sense of enacted norms or customary norms. He considers the theories of Hans Kelsen and Gustav Radbruch as examples of legal positivism. He points out that legal positivism lost its dominance in the wake of the post-World War II revival of natural law theory but soon reasserted its influence through the likes of Ota Weinberger, Niklas Luhmann, and Norbert Hoerster. He also notes that, since the late 1960s, authors such as Peter Koller and Ottfrid Höffe have focused on overcoming the gulf between natural law theory and legal positivism."

This stupid dumb jew said law shouldnt be attached to human fundamentals. Natural law. God law. To the poubelle. A law can be anything a human decides. Regardless of it´s fundamentals. Well guess what jew? A law can say a jew is subhuman. A law can say a dog can have more rights than a human.

Modern catholics will always say laws are grounded in human dignity. Always. Only a dumb jew could say otherwise. It goes back to Plato. Plato also wanted to make social experiences.
 
Last edited:
Modern catholics will always say laws are grounded in human dignity. Always. Only a dumb jew could say otherwise. It goes back to Plato. Plato also wanted to make social experiences.
An example of Catholic theology vs. Modernist theology...

Catholic Theology

God does not demand the impossible. Doing X is impossible for me. But God demands that I do X.

CATHOLICISM-

Catholic theology reasons from truth revealed by God to a conclusion about how man must act.

-> From general to particular
-> DEDUCTIVE

"God reveals the truth about man".

VS.

Modernist Theology

Doing X is impossible for me. But God does not demand the impossible. Therefore, doing X is possible for me.

MODERNISM -

Modernist theology reasons from a concrete human situation to a conclusion about God's revelation.

--> From particular to general.
--> INDUCTIVE.

"Man reveals the truth about God."



...And now you know why since Vatican II, there has been placed so much emphasis on man, on human dignity, and on "Christian anthropology".
 
An example of Catholic theology vs. Modernist theology...

Catholic Theology

God does not demand the impossible. Doing X is impossible for me. But God demands that I do X.

CATHOLICISM-

Catholic theology reasons from truth revealed by God to a conclusion about how man must act.

-> From general to particular
-> DEDUCTIVE

"God reveals the truth about man".

VS.

Modernist Theology

Doing X is impossible for me. But God does not demand the impossible. Therefore, doing X is possible for me.

MODERNISM -

Modernist theology reasons from a concrete human situation to a conclusion about God's revelation.

--> From particular to general.
--> INDUCTIVE.

"Man reveals the truth about God."



...And now you know why since Vatican II, there has been placed so much emphasis on man, on human dignity, and on "Christian anthropology".
It´s always God who reveals truth about anything. How could it be man? This would be a denial of God. Of course God can use man to reveal itself. Man revealing God???? Man can only be an instrument. The pole now pisses on the dog? nonsense.

I believe the emphasis on Human Dignity was more about not repeating the mistakes of nazism or communism. Specially for Pope John Paul who had witnessed communism. Somehow this leads to a more open stance on freedom of religion. Which I honestly think shouldn´t exist in western countries. Or be severely reduced. I would only admit christianity. Any christianity. Like it was before. And some converted jews to make things fun.

I don´t want to kill or hurt jews or muslims. I want to convert them. And if they don´t. They have to pay. But it´s a slippery slope. One thing is making them pay more tax for the shit they do. Another is sending them to camps (I don´t know what happened in camps. Nobody knows. But jews did leave central Europe running scared. So whatever happened wasn´t a good thing).

A jew or muslim have human dignity. But they are wrong. And their religion is shit. And only produces shit. And I don´t want their shit around everywhere. But I have to respect they´re humans with inherent fundamental rights (one of them is pyisical integrity) which can never ever be violated.

Freedom of religion is not a part of natural law. It´s superficial. Natural law is fundamental premises. Like a constitution. It has basic premises (physical integrity for sure one of them).
 
Last edited:
Nope that's why we join SSPX.
In order to remain Catholic, it is absolutely necessary to stay away from the Novus Ordo. The problem with the SSPX is that while rejecting certain aspects of the new religion, they still recognize value and authority in the hierarchy that gave us Vatican II. The integral profession of the Catholic faith demands that we stay away from the Novus Ordo and from the SSPX. Catholics should seek valid and LICIT Sacraments, if they wish to preserve their faith intact.

I believe in the Holy Catholic Church. This is the article of faith which the SSPX - all the false "trads" who recognize Francis and his Vatican II predecessors as legitimate popes - have turned into an empty name.
 
Dismas was not justified by the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. In order to be saved in the Mosaic Covenant, you had to keep the Law perfectly. Something Dismas clearly didn't do as he was being crucified for theft. That's why no one is saved by the Law because only Jesus ever kept the Law perfectly. Dismas was saved just like everyone else who ever was saved: on the basis of God's grace given through Christ in the New Covenant. Water baptism is not necessary (for salvation), as is clearly seen in the case of Dismas.
St. Dismas died under the old dispensation. The old covenant equivalent to baptism was circumcision. And it's very likely he was indeed circumcised. The sacraments of the New Law, such as Christian baptism and the Eucharist, are part of the New Covenant, which was not fully in place until Jesus died and Ascended to glory. (Heb. 9:15-18, Acts 19:1-6). Thus, you cannot use Dismas as an example of salvation without baptism. Moreover, when he died, he went to hell with Christ, the limbo of the fathers, and remained there until the resurrection of Christ - then ascended with Him. His salvation patterns after a holy person in the Old Testament, like Abraham, David, etc. St. Dimas was not saved by faith alone, he also confessed his sin, he proclaimed Christ's innocence and kingship, he admonished the wicked, he begged Christ for salvation, suffered and died with Jesus; confession of sin, profession of faith, spiritual work of mercy, penance and suffering, true contrition. Through the mystery of the water and blood flowing out from the Lord’s side, he received the sprinkling that gave him the forgiveness of sins. Our Lord gave him a special remission of all sin and even temporal punishment due for it, above and beyond the standard terms of salvation.

Baptism saves you. (1 Peter 3:21)
 
St. Dismas died under the old dispensation.
I see no reason to accept dispensationalism, let alone the Catholic-modified version of it. There is no clear Biblical case for when the various dispensations end and begin. I find covenant theology to be more than sufficient.

The old covenant equivalent to baptism was circumcision.
According to you, yes. According to Colossians 2:11, no. Being born again is the New Covenant fulfillment that the Old Covenant circumcision pointed to.

Moreover, when he died, he went to hell with Christ, the limbo of the fathers, and remained there until the resurrection of Christ - then ascended with Him.
Different debate. Interesting one, but not relevant. "Today, you will be with me in Paradise." You think that's hell?

His salvation patterns after a holy person in the Old Testament, like Abraham, David, etc. St. Dimas was not saved by faith alone, he also confessed his sin, he proclaimed Christ's innocence and kingship, he admonished the wicked, he begged Christ for salvation, suffered and died with Jesus; confession of sin, profession of faith, spiritual work of mercy, penance and suffering, true contrition.
Sure, because everyone who is saved is saved in the same pattern. God's Grace received through faith alone, the non-imputation of sin. That's Romans 4 describing Abraham and David. None of them were saved by keeping the Law perfectly, neither was Dismas.
He said good things after he placed his faith in Christ, but it is not as though he was righteous before he placed his faith in Christ.

Our Lord gave him a special remission of all sin and even temporal punishment due for it, above and beyond the standard terms of salvation.
So Dismas gets saved by faith alone but the rest of us got to go through the Catholic sacraments? There is only one way of salvation.

Baptism saves you. (1 Peter 3:21)
"Not the removal of dirt from the flesh [water baptism] but the appeal of a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ [Born again/spiritual baptism]."
 
Where's the "Orthodoxy: Criticism and Debate Thread"? Lol. Not trying to stir up trouble. Just saying. Kind of unfair. I wouldn't actually like to see the thread because I figure it'll just spread division like this one and the Prot one, but just simply to comment that there isn't one. This creates an online bubble and isn't realistic.
 
Where's the "Orthodoxy: Criticism and Debate Thread"? Lol. Not trying to stir up trouble. Just saying. Kind of unfair. I wouldn't actually like to see the thread because I figure it'll just spread division like this one and the Prot one, but just simply to comment that there isn't one. This creates an online bubble and isn't realistic.

I think it's because there are more active E.O. Christians here than Protestants and Roman Catholics. The Protestant thread has become Protestantism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy, with plenty of criticism of E.O. coming from our spirited Protestant posters. Roman Catholic criticism of E.O. comes from a different perspective. Perhaps the mods should change the name of each thread to "E.O. vs. ...".
 
Last edited:
We can agree on Peter being the rock yes?

Just because Peter set up a bishop on Antioch does not mean the bishop is leader of the church considering Peter put him in that position while he was still alive.

Peter then took up his role as mortal leader of the Church in Rome - so his successor should take up his work in that location.

Of course there is a line of succession in Antioch as well but these are less significant due to the primacy of Peter and the fact that he did his ministry in Rome.

Some would also argue the fact he died there and that Paul also died there. It isn't so much the death itself so much as that this was the last place he presided over and therefore the successors should continue from there.

So I actually went to my Bishop and presented your objections to him, word for word, and got a real response:

The Antiochian line of succession is more significant, because Antioch isn't just the First seat of Peter, but also the seat of Paul! It's the only Church that was seat to two Apostles, the most significant ones, the First and the Last Apostles.

On top of that, since Antioch was the First Church, it means it is the Master Church, the Church that teaches all others, and we know what Jesus said about Masters and Teachers...

Matthew10:24 "A student is not greater than his teacher. A servant is not above his master."
Luke6:40 "A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher."

So it is impossible for the Second seat of Peter to be above the First seat of Peter. For the Church of Rome was the student's of Antioch's, and the student cannot surpass the teacher.

The result of this is that the Catholic Church continues to hold special reverence for the Church of Antioch, and has been primarily trying to reunite the Churches through the Church of Antioch, since we share the same founder.

From 1980: https://www.vatican.va/content/john...f_jp-ii_spe_19800514_patriarca-antiochia.html

1984: https://www.vatican.va/content/john...ents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19840623_jp-ii-zakka-i.html

Then in 2001 John Paul II came down to Damascus in a pilgrimage: http://syriacchristianity.info/PZakka/popeatdamascus.htm

And even Pope Francis continues this dialogue to this day:



God willing, this dialogue bears fruit - just let go of the Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction, come back to the brotherhood of Apostles, and the two brother Churches who are the leaders of the Christian world, can unite again with a massive restoration of the faith worldwide.
 
Last edited:
So I actually went to my Bishop and presented your objections to him, word for word, and got a real response:

The Antiochian line of succession is more significant, because Antioch isn't just the First seat of Peter, but also the seat of Paul! It's the only Church that was seat to two Apostles, the most significant ones, the First and the Last Apostles.

On top of that, since Antioch was the First Church, it means it is the Master Church, the Church that teaches all others, and we know what Jesus said about Masters and Teachers...

Matthew10:24 "A student is not greater than his teacher. A servant is not above his master."
Luke6:40 "A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher."

So it is impossible for the Second seat of Peter to be above the First seat of Peter. For the Church of Rome was the student's of Antioch's, and the student cannot surpass the teacher.

The result of this is that the Catholic Church continues to hold special reverence for the Church of Antioch, and has been primarily trying to reunite the Churches through the Church of Antioch, since we share the same founder.

From 1980: https://www.vatican.va/content/john...f_jp-ii_spe_19800514_patriarca-antiochia.html

1984: https://www.vatican.va/content/john...ents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19840623_jp-ii-zakka-i.html

Then in 2001 John Paul II came down to Damascus in a pilgrimage: http://syriacchristianity.info/PZakka/popeatdamascus.htm

And even Pope Francis continues this dialogue to this day:



God willing, this dialogue bears fruit - just let go of the Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction, come back to the brotherhood of Apostles, and the two brother Churches who are the leaders of the Christian world, can unite again with a massive restoration of the faith worldwide.


Taking Bible quotes out of context to push a certain line of thinking in regards to Antioch doesn't seem a very strong argument to me.

What you said about Peter and Paul - the primacy of these figures - has some weight. What did they do in their lifetimes? They left Antioch to set up the church in Rome. The direct successor to Peter in Rome then has greater significance due to primacy of Peter.

' ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]'
 
Taking Bible quotes out of context to push a certain line of thinking in regards to Antioch doesn't seem a very strong argument to me.

What you said about Peter and Paul - the primacy of these figures - has some weight. What did they do in their lifetimes? They left Antioch to set up the church in Rome. The direct successor to Peter in Rome then has greater significance due to primacy of Peter.

' ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]'

Peter and Paul built the Church at Antioch, which was the First Church. Peter only left Antioch, much later in his life, to help teach the Romans. And a student is not above the teacher. So the primacy of Peter starts with Antioch before going to Rome. That Rome was given ecumenical importance as "first among equals" was a political designation, not a theological one.

Your own Popes understand this, cognitive dissonance notwithstanding, otherwise they wouldn't be meeting with Antioch for over 50 years now.
 
Peter and Paul built the Church at Antioch, which was the First Church. Peter only left Antioch, much later in his life, to help teach the Romans. And a student is not above the teacher. So the primacy of Peter starts with Antioch before going to Rome. That Rome was given ecumenical importance as "first among equals" was a political designation, not a theological one.

Your own Popes understand this, cognitive dissonance notwithstanding, otherwise they wouldn't be meeting with Antioch for over 50 years now.
Not only do the modern popes understand this, but they even explicitly deny Vatican I in the Chieti Agreement (especially paragraph 19) and the Alexandria Declaration. Moreover, the early ecumenical councils specifically define Rome as important because of being the capital of the Empire, which is why these same ecumenical councils later give similar authority to "New Rome", the name these councils give for Constantinople. This is also why the Patriarch of Constantinople was granted the title "Ecumenical Patriarch". "Ecumenical", like in "ecumenical council", is the same for "universal" or "For the entire Empire".

Trads who haven't read Vatican 1 (or any of the early ecumenical councils) though still think that (within their religion's system) they can define truth and tradition with greater weight than the pope and with greater weight than ecumenical councils (which is why they think they can reject their own Vatican 2).
 
Even today Catholic Church still sets the pace. But Protestantism(jew) filth (conservative Protestants are Roman Catholics with a different name) will engulf everything. Orthos don’t stand a chance.
Ok so you’ve said this on another thread. How are Protestants “Jews.” I’m genuinely interested because I’m not shy to unload on our upper class Protestants. I find them part of the problem. I just see them as heterodox. Calling them Jews seems a stretch
 
Peter and Paul built the Church at Antioch, which was the First Church. Peter only left Antioch, much later in his life, to help teach the Romans. And a student is not above the teacher. So the primacy of Peter starts with Antioch before going to Rome. That Rome was given ecumenical importance as "first among equals" was a political designation, not a theological one.

Your own Popes understand this, cognitive dissonance notwithstanding, otherwise they wouldn't be meeting with Antioch for over 50 years now.

Peter had greater authority than the bishop of Antioch after he left and so the line of leader of the church continued with him in Rome.

Catholic popes understanding the importance of Antioch (since Peter did set up a seat there as well) and visiting it does not negate the primacy of Rome nor does it seem like an act creating a huge amount of cognitive dissonance.
 
Peter had greater authority than the bishop of Antioch after he left and so the line of leader of the church continued with him in Rome.

But by logical extension the first Bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, had more authority as a teacher than the Bishops set up in Rome at a later date.

And, in fact, everyone today holds Ignatius, the First Bishop of Peter and Antioch, as an authority when justifying Apostolic succession, including Rome. Thus Antioch continued to hold the teacher status long after Peter in virtue of being first: as a Church and from Bishops.

Everywhere in the Bible, whoever comes first has more authority than those who come later; hence why Paul says Men are to have authority over Women because they came first.
 
But by logical extension the first Bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, had more authority as a teacher than the Bishops set up in Rome at a later date.
That’s something else. The idea of the keys of St. Peter is what causes papal infallibility. The Patriarch of Antioch never once claimed infallibility using the same logic as Rome. He has every right to invoke Petrine imagery too.
 
That’s something else. The idea of the keys of St. Peter is what causes papal infallibility. The Patriarch of Antioch never once claimed infallibility using the same logic as Rome. He has every right to invoke Petrine imagery too.

Because the keys do not grant infallibility. The Church of Antioch sets the example for all other Churches as the First Church of Peter.
 
Back
Top