Catholicism Divorces the Faustian Soul: The Necessity of Vatican 2 and the Futility of Tradistan

[@matthewhamstein3811]

So you’re arguing that the council which changed the patristic perspective on the Jews, other religions and confessional states so that Catholicism could be turned into a western human rights NGO freed Catholicism from material matters?

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@matthewhamstein3811 I'm not speaking of the political machinations of Vatican policy, which has always been, and likely always will be, material in its outlook. I'm addressing the lived Catholic experience at the parish level. V2 changed catholicism for actual Catholics. Of course we relieve the poor at the parish level. The poor box is nothing new. But the typical parishoner couldn't tell you what an NGO even is.

[@LNR65]

He’s a Freemason…you really think he has the best interests of the Church in mind?

[@thomascaminito3252]

Really insightful video - thoroughly enjoyed this talk! 🙏♥ Given the kind of lens through which you're looking, I'd be curious to get your take on the LDS church as well as on some of the other Restorationist and otherwise "heterodox" Christian denominations.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@thomascaminito3252 Restorationist denominations such as Church/Disciples of Christ and Pentacostalism are a reaction to the strict biblicism that began to take protestantism outside the pale of historical Christian expression. The 19th century also birthed millenarian movements like the Plymouth Brethren, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witness and LDS. There was a growing anxiety about the apocalypse which seemed reactionary to the overall optimism of the gilded age. My take is that faustian extremes produced reactionary subcultures which never had the power to become dominant. They are nevertheless resilient because they continue to provide an alternative to the rationalist mainline denoms.

[@thomascaminito3252]

@@Catholic-Perennialist Nice! I generally find myself in agreement with your assessment, but I think the LDS church stands out considerably from those other groups. The feverish apocalypticism of groups like the JW's is not the predominant feature that stands out for me when I look at LDS theology. Their theology is remarkably idiosyncratic as far as Christian denominations go - in particular, doctrines like exaltation, divine progression, pre-mortal existence, matter/spirit identity, God's divine council, etc. Harold Bloom penned a fairly stimulating appraisal of the religion in “The American Religion”.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@thomascaminito3252 LDS is uniquely American, and it's millennarianism is not so obvious, partly because they prefer it not be too public. They're preparing to become a governing authority in a post apocalyptic North America. Their theology answers a lot of questions that were current in 19th century such as: the whereabouts of the lost tribes; the identity of the native Americans and their place in God's plan; the potential for life on other planets; America's role in prophecy; etc. Many of its historic claims do not hold up to scrutiny, so there's a whole LDS debunking movement underway, but that seldom destroys any religion because they can all be debunked to varying degrees.

[@thomascaminito3252]

@@Catholic-Perennialist 100% true. I was merely perusing through your channel, and it occurred to me that some of the unique LDS doctrines might be relevant to your channel's focus. Ties to freemasonry, a robust understanding of deification, open acknowledgment of polytheistic strands within the Biblical canon, pre-mortal existence, etc. - all that stuff strikes me as being enormously relevant to what you tend to discuss here. The theology takes much of what used to be esoteric within Christianity and seems to try to make it more exoteric. I don't see this in any other Christian denomination to such a degree. As for "debunking", people will certainly always find a way to rationalize defeaters away since ultimately what is in question is a plane of reality beyond all possible experience and cognition - any experienced and/or known fact or occurrence is always infinitely removable from whatever noumenal realities said fact/occurrence is purported to evince.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@thomascaminito3252 Very well said 👍

[@IlliterateBook]

Have you read “After Virtue?” I believe it’s something to look out for. I do agree with the Church that contraception is wrong, with an emphasis on the virtue of chastity and self control. What Gordon misses is the fact that you’re supposed to engage in the marital in order to grow in the virtue. He thinks you’re supposed to have s*x all the time and not develop self control.

[@BryanKirch]

This is where rudolf Steiner is so useful. It’s an enormous undertaking to study him but the underlying message is the exact antidote to this untethered impulse of that Faustian Soul. Id assume that Because you have a vast scholastic background you’d be able to understand him much more quickly than most. Then Tomberg bridges Steiner’s impulse back into the Church to allow a re-contextualizing of the One True Church. (In my opinion) all of these living spiritual elements from the east come over through theosophy and through Steiner then through Tomberg back into the church for those who want to partake. (Again my opinion) Most importantly is Steiner’s super sensible thinking. It’s the living thinking of the etheric. It’s true thought. All the “Ahrimanic” thinking that is materialism is countered by true spiritual thinking. True Thought is by its nature spiritual It’s alive it is something that flows into you from above instead of arising out of one’s “self”

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@BryanKirch You make a good point when you say that Steiner comes into the Church through Tomberg. Tomberg received the approbation of Balthazar, placing him within the mainstream of catholicism. I would like to see the Church develop along Tombergian lines of thought as it continues to move away from the dying faustian.

[@BryanKirch]

@@Catholic-Perennialist the way I experience it is different than what you described in your video but I do understand your logic and how you came to your conclusion. Most people aren’t ready for what Tomberg has offered as a path but it feels like the future potential incarnation of the church maybe 100 years out. I experience the Catholic Church as the fullness of all traditions that its job is to collect and distill Truth and make it accessible to all levels of awareness so that someone uninitiated could sit in the same mass as someone initiated and they’re all being fed spiritually but at different levels of awareness Someone sits there and sees Mary and joseph flanking the alter while someone else sits there and sees both Mary and Joseph but also the sun and the moon the masculine and feminine in its fullest incarnation Someone walks to communion and someone else walks to communion and sees souls standing in line for their personal judgment and personal salvation And on and on The current novus ordo can’t do that However the Latin novus ordo can offer that. The original design for the novus ordo was to be done in Latin with chanting with the readings in the native tongue I can’t go to a watered down novus ordo with guitars and be fed I feel like I’m being poisoned To have the fullness of truth everyone has to be able to be fed

[@BryanKirch]

@@Catholic-Perennialist I wasn’t aware of that fact about Tomberg. Where can I find that reference?

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@BryanKirch Later copies of his meditations contain an afterward by Balthazar who spoke very highly of the work

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@BryanKirch I attend quite reverent novus ordo masses. And yes, the symbolism for me is entirely esoteric while for many, or most, it remains exoteric. The reason that I remain catholic is precisely as you say, the Church is the repository of all metaphysical truth. As long as I'm not overly rigid in my interpretation the Church grows with my understanding rather than my outgrowing the Church.

[@KalelDias-b1u]

Excellent and original takes. I don't agree with the contraception stance, but thank you for the insights.

[@asurrealistworld4412]

Disposition isn't sinful in Roman Catholicism? I'm pretty sure the Orthodox confess getting angry for no good reason to their priest. Why wouldn't that be the same for RC? What is sin viewed as then? I've always understood the Orthodox view to be that sin does also mean turning one's mind against God not just overt actions arising from that. I mean aren't we trying to purify our mind/nous?

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@asurrealistworld4412 Ever try to confess anger to a priest? He won't absolve you because there's nothing to absolve. I don't make the rules

[@asurrealistworld4412]

@@Catholic-Perennialist I'm not RC. I've only talked to Orthodox priests. I don't get why that couldn't be something you can confess because we are trying to purify our nous from which sins of actions arise. Just confessing only solely overt actions sounds like it doesn't get to the deeper issue.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@asurrealistworld4412 In RCC theology, sin is an actum. Disposition is a path to sin, but if it does not lead to an act, there is no sin. I think it has to do with our emotions being operative apart from will.

[@asurrealistworld4412]

@@Catholic-Perennialist I'm still pretty shocked to hear that. I mean I guess some might see that as being less of a burden to have to examine one's mind in confession but it still sounds like it isn't dealing with a deeper spiritual issue. Purifying our nous, the renewing of our mind (Rom. 12-2) is such an essential part of Christian spirituality, of becoming more like Christ, of Theosis. Is it that RCs only confess actions in confession but purifying the nous is expected to be done only in private prayer and the other sacraments? It's just strange to me hearing this because I always understand confession to mean confessing sins of body, speech, and mind and neither do Orthodox only confess mortal sins as being distinct from venial sins, it is expected to not hold anything back and confess as much as one remembers.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@asurrealistworld4412 You'd probably also be shocked to know that confession as practiced today originated with Irish missionaries in the 9th century.

[@didymussumydid9726]

you've thought about this much more than I have and we disagree about the necessity of the second vatican council (seems like an "it became necessary to destroy the [x] in order to save it" situation to me) but there's no doubt in my mind that the schoolmen's epigonoi created a tremendous ossification through their own talmudic casuistry. some of the moral arguments of alphonsus liguori, which are so far out of left field, could only find traction in that kind of environment. some people find fulfillment in ticking all the boxes of requirements that have been built up over centuries, but their children wont. i think the real danger today for the novus ordo is in losing its own identity. the traditionalist revival could have been avoided through judicious frog-boiling application of ecumenist principles but either that was never the plan or the hearts of the (elderly) men involved are keen on making substantial changes in their own lifetimes. i cant tell you how many times i've heard trads whinge and moan about how all they want is a black african pope who would implement the ratzinger agenda again. and i think these people are overcomplicating the contraception issue. i'm not sure why. if you can't afford to have another child (like actually afford to expand your dwelling or devote the additional hours to childcare, not in terms of continue to buy luxury goods) or if the family's health is an issue, then just contracept short of abortion. if you are healthy and prosperous, it's obviously wrong to intentionally avoid pregnancy. this isn't even divine positive law, it's simply nature's iron laws. overall i think your considerations on this topic are valuable since it gives us an insight into what plenty of people must have been thinking since vatican I but only achieved in the 1960s.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@didymussumydid9726 As it pertains to V2, I consider "necessary" and "inevitable" to be interchangeable modifiers. I think the trads have it wrong in trying to freeze the Church in a moment of time. And the liberals have it wrong in trying to make the Church into a societal catalyst or a launderer of perverse lifestyles. The true soul of the future is still being born, and I don't know what it will look like. I'm not that prescient. But it will likely meet modern problems with workable modern solutions. This is something that traditionalism could never do. Catholicism is a survivor, just like I am a survivor. It will do what's necessary to remain relevant, continuity be damned. But this is nothing new. I think all men who live on the cusp of great change feel a certain anxiety. It used to bother me, but now I embrace it. I feel blessed to live in "interesting times."

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@didymus Yes, i dont fully condemn material concerns (feeding of the 5,000 etc.), but the common thread which runs through all corrupted christianity seems to be a preocupation with material concerns, such that faith could be jettisoned and the church converted into a secular agency. The Catholic Church maintains a balance of these features, but mainline protestantism is terminal in its material outlook.

[@BryanKirch]

Quick question. Are you married? Have children?

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@BryanKirch Married with a ton of kids

[@PeterBondeVillain]

Dear converts: First off, I love you and welcome to Christ's church! I understand the allure of traditional catholicism, especially because it is charismatic and claims to be the "real" catholicism. Please don't fall for it. It adds rules for you to follow which the faith doesn't require you to do. Please follow your heart and talk to your priest. Much love to you and your loved ones, Christ is King

[@sleepystar1638]

Dogmas are required

[@jomacoha7758]

Hogwash

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@jomacoha7758 Believe it or not, I've washed a few hogs . . .