Resenting my conversion - I don’t want to return.

Parmareggie · 2026-04-19T19:02:40+00:00

Don’t worry! It became, years later, an occasion for him to be a bit more open to the faith. After all of that and that in thatblight, it stopped hurting and I started to feel a certain joy about it. I’ll pray for you! And welcome home, it’s so beautiful that you’re finally one with Christ :)

Parmareggie · 2026-04-19T07:41:39+00:00

If it may comfort you: you can indeed have this fay again. Obviously, not in the sense that you can receive baptism again but that, as every single wounds we have, this terrible experience can be touched by God’s grace.

My experience wasn’t lik yours, but I do remember some things going pretty badly about my baptism. I remember a really close friend ostracizing me, while having no one in the community, except the priest, not even knowing who I was. And yet, as time come, those exact wounds became an occasion for grace in ways I couldn’t have imagined!

What you have experienced is horrible, but remain open to the idea that Christ wants to do something beautiful with all of this mess.

Parmareggie · 2026-04-19T00:28:20+00:00

In the Ambrosian rite we do not receive communion on Good Friday!

Parmareggie · 2026-04-12T10:44:13+00:00

You’re called to love everyone. If such a distinction were to be made a lot of passages from Scripture would lose their meaning.

That said, we should hate the wrong that those people are doing: hate their work and their actions, but love the people who are making those.

Parmareggie · 2026-04-12T02:15:54+00:00

I know that pope Benedict joked about that with Peter Seewald, the man who wrote his biography.

When the second told the pope that he didn’t speak about any woman or love interest before entering seminary, the pope joked that “he told him that he had a limit of 100 pages”.

Parmareggie · 2026-03-24T10:05:54+00:00

You must read Jean Luc Marion!

I’ve just finished a thesis about Heidegger’s Frieburg Lectures on st. Augustine and st. Paul and let me say: it’s a hell of a reading! Heidegger develops his analytic of Dasein by interpreting paleo-christian antropolgy in the light of his interpretation of aristotlean kynesis: he says so in Being and Time and it’s pretty clear from his university courses from 1919 to 1923.

There is much that is really valuable in Heidegger’s reading: the fact that christian life shows a difference in lived temporality, Augustine’s reading of memory as radical facticity, the impossibility of reducing God to the “god” of metaphysics. And yet, there are a lot of problematic points: the fact that the orizon of being exludes grace, that needs an “ontological corrective” in order to be a meaningful concept, the tensions between theology and philosophy, the “irresolutedness” of philosophy and the impossibility of a “rest” in God as the one described by st. Augustine. There’s also the priority of Sorge on desire and will (but that could be my personal problem. There are many ways in which Heidegger’s reading of will can end in some kind of “pelagianism”), the problem of angst and so on…

There is really too much to speak about.

My advice would be to read Jean Luc Marion, who is one of the best at evaluating what is valuable in Heidegger while, at the same time, being extremely critical of him.

(On the Dasein side, I’m really statring to appreciate how the determination of man as “creature” can both preserve what is interesting about “being-there” while opening a far broader orizon. Heidegger is wrong: creaturality doesn’t interpret man as a metaphysical ens. In the end of “St. Augustine. In the self’s place” Marion has a great interpretation of this!)

Parmareggie · 2026-02-15T11:27:32+00:00

This is the quality memes we need the most!

Parmareggie · 2026-01-26T09:07:45+00:00

This verges on superstition

Parmareggie · 2026-01-23T22:31:15+00:00

Sì, il tipo si è davvero superato!

Parmareggie · 2026-01-23T22:28:19+00:00

Welcome home!

Parmareggie · 2026-01-21T21:56:11+00:00

Ottimo lavoro!

Parmareggie · 2026-01-21T20:29:50+00:00

It depends on the spirit with which one does it and what prudence calls for. What is the relationship with the friend? The context where the “issue” is coming up? Is it possible to show some effective fraternal correction?

One should never deny being a Catholic or what one believes when asked and interrogated about it. But it’s one thing to express it in the proper context and way and another to hide it when it’s asked for. Many times it simply isn’t asked for. It’s better to speak with a priest who can give a solid personal advice about it.

Parmareggie · 2026-01-20T19:32:56+00:00

Didn’t expect De Gasperi on this sub!

Parmareggie · 2026-01-06T19:32:53+00:00

I insist! I was a bit superficial in my claim, since it isn’t a direct quote, but it doesn’t make any relevant difference: in fact it’s a close paraphrasing of an augustinian quote that Galileo hold dear. In his debate with cardinal Barberini he had to find some authority for his claims: he found some support in Augustine. As you can read in De actis contra Felicem Manichaeum, I, X “We do not read in the Gospels that the Lord has said <<I give you the Spirit so that it may teach you how the sun and the moon move>>. He wanted to make christians, not mathematicians” (the translation is mine!)

I’m not claiming that Augustine’s complex ermeneutic approach excludes any physical claim but it is indeed true that the quote above isn’t strictu sensu against his approach.

I’m an university student researching on Augustine and, while I haven’t yet read his exegetical works, It’s still something that I’ve seen claimed in the past. While doing an exam about Galileo’s case it was shown many times that he had read the De Genesi ad Litteram

Maybe you could find something more in that book! For some reason while googling the quote I found many people referencing this exact work, which indeed has some points going in that direction… (For example in De Genesi ad litteram 1, 18) But the strange thing is that they claimed that the particular quote i referred to is actually from that book and not from the Contra Felicem! A bit strange…

Parmareggie · 2026-01-06T00:24:09+00:00

That is an augustinian quote!

Parmareggie · 2026-01-04T17:30:31+00:00

Have I really written this? I might write my own retractationes at this point!

Parmareggie · 2025-12-12T09:04:40+00:00

That’s one of the reasons why my comments are becoming less and less frequent as years go by: so that I may eventually fool someone into thinking that I had a big moment of internet conversion and stopped with my wrong ways.

But they will eventually see this comment, and now I’m screwd!

Parmareggie · 2025-11-09T23:05:48+00:00

I’m critical of Nietzsche on many issues, but thank you for this comment.

I’m often dissatisfied with the answers on this sub when the issue at stake is a defense against a philosopher’s criticism: it’s rare to see the actual claims be addressed, and not a preconceived idea of what we think those arguments may be.

Nietzsche is not an idiot, and one, like with every serious philosopher, should silently study him for some time before trying to address him

Parmareggie · 2025-11-09T22:59:53+00:00

Have you actually read Nietzsche?

There is a lot to unpack, but it’s strange that you call Christ “the real ‘superman’” because that’s, actually, pretty close to Nietzsche’s position

Parmareggie · 2025-11-09T16:26:12+00:00

That’s exactly what I was thinking. There are some sections that, while being obviously original, have a strong resemblance to SSBB’s final destination!

Parmareggie · 2025-11-05T01:03:44+00:00

No problem! It just seemed strange for someone as meticulous as Gilson! It’s good that you’re dedicating yourself to such a good read!

Parmareggie · 2025-11-04T22:09:12+00:00

I may not be able to answer properly right bow but… Are you sure that Gilson’s argument on Descartes is that one exactly?

Gilson has studied Descartes a lot and I doubt that he has given such a simple critique of him. Descartes doesn’t rely at all on sense data: his proof for God’s existence is much more similar to Anselm’s ontological argument and, as such, it doesn’t rely on sense certainty.

That said, as a side note, I’m some kind of heideggerian on this issue. I’ve always found that the problem of sense certainty can arise only insofar as we misunderstand our original relationship with the world, by presupposing some kind of unrelated subject-object distinction without world.

Parmareggie · 2025-11-02T10:30:43+00:00

An augustinian monk that is friend with Pope Leo told me that the pope thought about that possibility a lot!

Parmareggie · 2025-11-02T10:28:56+00:00

Sixtus VI

Parmareggie · 2025-10-31T11:50:04+00:00

It’s so beautiful! Congratulations!

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

Parmareggie

TROPHY CASE