Natasha 🇻🇦

New video reviewing the feminism debate between Trent Horn and Timothy Gordon 😁 Link below ⬇️

St. Bonaventure: "Finally, human beings could not be completely healed unless they regained innocence of mind, friendship with God, and their proper excellence, whereby they were subject only to God. Since such a thing could not be accomplished except by God in the form of a

@Hyperdulia_ @beaverd Yeah, the Church has repeatedly condemned economic modernism Also, that verse is being quoted extremely uncharitably. You could literally argue that you shouldn't go to work, donate to charity, etc. because doing so would be a rejection of God's providence

Pope Leo is obviously not a communist, and communism isn’t what he’s describing here. He is condemning liberal capitalism that places profit margins as paramount over healthy free markets ordered towards the common good of a nation As per Catholic social teaching - the wealthy are morally obligated to give alms to the poor, it’s called being a Christian

Philippians 4:19: "And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus." the pope has just told everyone that their needs will be met by the wealthy, not God. What do the wealthy have that God doesnt? Nothing. Unless you are communist.

@WalmartThomist The blatant disdain for the youth aside, nobody is breaking down the Summa at a parish coffee hour with a bunch of boomers. Most likely scenario, the weird Gen Z e-thomist sits by themselves quietly while the boomers ham it up with one another

These sorts of articles are a cowardly form of virtue signaling slop that allow for “safe” and uninsightful criticisms of others to your audience without having to confront the problems they struggle with. It is safe to whine about men to women, Zoomers to Millennials, etc.

“We must hold fast the Christian religion and the communion of the Church which is Catholic, and is called Catholic not only by its own members but also by all its enemies. Whether they will or no, heretics and schismatics use no other name for it than the name of Catholic, when

RT @DoorDashThomist: St. Anselm: "When you render anything to God which you owe him, irrespective of your past sin, you should not reckon…

@danggerdan He claims it's Mosaic "in the sense that it contains traditions that go back to Moses", but he rejects the idea that Moses had anything to do with writing the text.

@ScholasticRose Did he say Moses was at least the foundational source behind the text? or was he like nah it was compiled over time by different authors? I like hearing his paranormal stuff so that kinda sucks

Planning a refutation video of Jimmy Akin's denial of Mosaic authorship and subsequent butchering of 1 Genesis

@madcowpanzer Yep

@ScholasticRose does he really

@CatholicPebble This happens because some of these people are “online personalities” rather than actual apologists. Dropping F-bombs in the name of Jesus warrants a reevaluation of one’s priorities. We are not godless, lawless heathens who make no effort to control our tongues.

I agree with the content of many Catholic promoters of patriarchy on here. I fully embrace the Church's perennial teachings on the specific and well established roles of men and women within the home and the society at large. I believe and accept what the popes and saints throughout the centuries taught on the matter. And yet, I strongly dislike a large portion of these patriarchy guys. Perhaps the reason is that they themselves do not embody the virtues of great men. With their use of profanities, calling everyone "ghey and phaggot", they sound far less like the great popes they often quote and far more like insecure 13-year-old Reddit atheists. They have a tendency to complain a lot; half of their tweets address the patriarchy and the other half are complaints about being cancelled or retweets of people they mock. In their battle against feminism, they are quick to form unholy alliances with heretics, schismatics and vile men of all walks of life. It's almost as if their goal isn't Catholic patriarchy but just their version of patriarchy. Often, they do not teach but chastise, they do not argue but insult, they do not distinguish between the opponents of good will who may be mistaken and those who are of ill will. It's all just "ghey" to them. I think if you're advocating for Catholic patriarchy, you should make sure to exhibit the virtues of a good Catholic man. This means suffering injustice well without constant complaints as well as having self-control with the language you use.

Nah

@ChildOfStThomas W

My roommate actually converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism this Easter lol. He made his profession of faith and was received into the Church.

@LizzieMarbach @SecretFire79 Their writings are not limited to theological treatises. There are also plenty of homilies you can check out.

@SecretFire79 Both scripture and church fathers are written in languages that are not English.

“Scripture is so easy when you read it in its original English”

John of St Thomas, Cursus theologicus, De fide, disp. 6, a. 2. In a. 1: “There is nothing newly defined by the Church and the popes pertaining to the faith which the Apostles did not know... No one can doubt that the Apostles knew all these things explicitly, since these definitions arise from the Scriptures of the same Apostles ... Furthermore, I think that, through infused knowledge, the Apostles knew the truths pertaining to the declaration of the mysteries of faith, while theologians have obtained such truths only through discourse… In the same way, I am persuaded that the Fathers, from whose writings the scholastics draw their own teaching, knew the truths that theologians grasp through discourse, and although they did not have so full an infused knowledge as did the Apostles, nonetheless, I believe that, moved by a special instinct coming from the Holy Spirit, they wrote many things pertaining to the teaching of faith and morals."

The hypocrisy is stark. The Reformed shout "unfair!" if you bring up the complete collapse of their instutions (Brito's denomination was established in 1998) or like points of history, but then they have the audacity to level "cultural" critiques against Catholicism.

@dionysiacum Chrysostom doesn't mess around

«A medida de alimento é a mesma para todos. Tem um só estômago a saciar. Tu, porém, que te sacias de iguarias, tens mais fezes.» — São João Crisóstomo (Comentários às Cartas de São Paulo, vol. 2, Homilia XL sobre I Coríntios XV, 34, p. 331.)

@PelopeAl41549 They never account for women's fertility, and the quantity of eggs decreasing significantly after age 30. But I guess most people don't see that as a problem, considering the "normal" amount of kids to have is 1-2. Then they just use contraception for years on end anyway.

Some people really live in a different world, because if I'm not married by 28 I'm killing myself

Been reading some more of Garrigou's work lately

"Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians." -St. Justin Martyr, Second Apology, ch. 13

"Quelle folie de ne vouloir pas penser à la mort, puisqu'elle est certaine et que notre éternité en dépend ! Mais quelle folie plus grande encore d'y penser et de ne pas s'y préparer !" Saint Alphonse de Liguori

@hearthkeeping I think modern standards on what constitutes a good mate are pretty vile. You are not seeking a lump of meat to gratify your flesh. But I would disagree that the discernment aspect is spiritually ugly. I think we are just detached from what is truly necessary in a godly man/woman

dating is spiritually ugly and contrary to human dignity no matter how much virtue you imbue into the practice. the disgust we feel but rarely name is a burden on our souls if we’re merely open to it in a serious capacity. you repeatedly must evaluate others and be evaluated yourself like livestock. sensitive souls recognize this as a deeply wrong way of seeing people that only exists in dating and job interviews. however, the sane recognize it as unavoidable; it’s unwise to waste time or heartbreak on someone who doesn’t meet our bare minimum requirements for a spouse. measuring someone’s potential value in your life in such a black-and-white way—even though we know it’s necessary and important to exclude the too old, too young, those who don’t share our faith, the bums, the unstable, those with contradictory lifestyles, and so on—conjures images of culling farm animals for their various ailments and inadequacies. we don’t hate the runt rabbit or the cow that doesn’t produce milk, but what must be done must be done. every time we open up to someone we’re romantically involved with, we’re putting our worth on a scale for them to measure. are we hot enough to be worth tolerating our quirks? are we fun enough during the good times to make the bad times worth enduring? is the baggage worth unpacking together, or is it better to roll the dice and hope for a better one next dm slide? our infinite personhood with all of its complexity and depth is distilled into a subjective, simplified pro-con list that can be expressed and conveyed over a short period of time. who you are is what they perceive you to be. no matter how incomplete or inaccurate, that perception takes precedence over reality. when things end, as they do more often than they don’t, anything shared or built together is now supposed to be entirely meaningless. the connection, any understanding, the conversations, the jokes, the pleasant memories, the unique human being before you made in the image of God, all meant to be unceremoniously discarded like takeout you find a hair in. none of those things will ever be replaced or recovered because people aren’t objects we can order a different brand of with slightly different specifications off of amazon. regardless of the flaws that led to things not working out, all of the goodness we found in that person is gone from our lives forever. on top of that, you know that these things are all worthless to the only other person who experienced them, and that you and your wholeness, too, are metaphorically a corpse disposed of in a landfill. this is part of the curse, i think. dating didn’t exist in eden. in the same way we respond to the sufferings of toil and childbirth, we often either turn a blind eye the horribleness of it or reject the goodness of the intended positive outcome. i don’t believe that it’s healthy or otherwise beneficial to either ignore how inherently contrary to truth, beauty, charity, and goodness this is, or to opt out out solely for fear of suffering these humiliations.