“Christian nationalism” should evoke images of crucifixes, rosary rallies, and liturgical processions, not the constitution, billy graham and cowboy hats

lol

“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly.” - Pope Innocent III’s Professio fidei proscribed to the Waldensians

professions of faith, btw, are largely considered categorically infallible by virtue of the manifest intention for the sake of which they’re promulgated, ie informing the universal Church of what conditions are necessary to remain Catholic

Innocent III’s magisterium is just as “living” as Francis’

Therefore, the question is not which pope currently wields the Magisterium, but which magisterial teaching is taught at a higher level across time, should there exist a contradiction at the non-definitive level

This should be an axiom: the living magisterium ≠ the current magisterium

Perhaps there exists no contradiction between the current Pope and any of his predecessors. One could make that case, but if there exists one, this would be the way to navigate those waters

One thing is for certain: the Divine promise given to Peter ensures there will never exist a contradiction between a Pope’s definitive, ex cathedra teaching and another’s definitive ex cathedra teaching

What is possible however is for there to exist rare instances (relative to Church history) of non-infallible, merely authoritative papal teachings contradicting

Therefore, there must be an intelligible way to discern the way in which a Catholic must act in such instances

don’t let the judaizers win!

https://twitter.com/aapologetics/status/1560203280587919363?s=21&t=nNeiMhy_kCxtdmSmsjFxhg

“[W]hen God loves, all He desires is to be loved in return; the sole purpose of His love is to be loved, in the knowledge that those who love Him are made happy by their love of Him” -St. Bernard of Clairvaux

unfortunately gonna have to push back the stream one more week, so they’ll be returning on the 28th instead :/ sorry guys

There’s profound spiritual insight in St. Thomas’ metaphysics that can easily get overlooked

If you take his teaching on existence seriously, you begin to realize that the most seemingly mundane of all facts, namely, the mere fact of our existence, is actually a sublime portal into the Divine, because every creaturely act of existence (referred to as esse commune or common being) is itself nothing other than that creature’s mode of finite participation in the pure, unlimited Act of existence that, in its unrestricted purity, is none other than the very essence of God

Thus, every divisible moment of one’s existence is itself an active call from God to partake more and more fully and intimately of that Divine presence one already participates in by virtue of that act of existence

lfg https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2022/august/archaeologists-in-galilee-unearth-ancient-discovery-linked-to-apostle-peter

The biggest disagreement I have with Destiny isn’t even about race or 9/11– it’s that I’m thinking about Heaven and Hell, and he thinks about taxes and public works

Tomorrow night around 8:30 PM EST I’ll be back on cozy.tv/classicaltheist beginning a series exploring the Four Last Things (death, judgment, heaven, and hell)

Fr Bonaventura Hinwood on why a Catholic ought to reconcile the unity of all mankind with the reality of racial differences

Streaming tonight on cozy.tv/classicaltheist at 8:30 EST covering the Four Last Things (death, judgment, heaven, and hell)

Make sure to send any questions you have (doesn’t have to be related to the topic) to classicaltheistmedia@protonmail.com

Going live momentarily!
cozy.tv/classicaltheist

Not that I’m going anywhere, but if my online presence is remembered for anything I’d like it to be remembered for popularizing the argument for the Incarnation I’ve articulated over the years, as I think this is a necessary piece of the puzzle when it comes to effectively evangelizing non-believers

Historical arguments for the resurrection are crucial, of course, but if it all comes down to a set of contentious historical probabilities, it may come across as insufficiently equipped to convince someone to overturn their entire view of the world

It’s important to supplement the historical arguments as indispensable as they are with philosophical ones in order to build a logical bridge between the classical arguments for God’s existence and the central doctrine of the Christian Faith.

If it can be successfully argued that the God of classical theism would plausibly unite Himself to a human nature given who He is in relation to the Cosmos, then one can with much more ease come to the realization that this has been fulfilled in history as reliably witnessed by the the Apostles and Evangelists. These men went to their deaths not for any philosophical abstraction, but for their own claim to have witnessed the historical, risen Christ in the flesh, Whose claim to Divinity just so happens to cohere perfectly with what can already be plausibly hoped for by way of reasoned metaphysical argument

You can watch my presentation of this argument here:

https://youtu.be/Zp7gAm6TxFw

https://youtu.be/eLj6W-jMF_k

“God is not offended except by our acting contrary to our own good” - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, Book III, 122

Catholic political theology can basically be summed up by the simple maxim that a society is best if it designs its laws and norms in such a way as to make it easier for the members of that society to get to Heaven and to avoid Hell

put in another way, if you’re Catholic you believe that even the trees, oceans, sun, moon, and stars participate in and are governed by the same God Who became Incarnate in Jesus Christ, head of the Church

would it really make sense, then, to, on a structural level, want human society to be the only exception to this cosmic pattern?

this is why liberal Catholicism is incoherent to its core

we can draw inspiration from the past, but we have to be guided by timeless ideas to create a new way of getting along for our own time. we have to be dynamic, resilient, and innovative