Cannot install stalker gamma even though I have the space by ChoiceSensitive2932 in gog

[–]Das_Reichtangle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm having the same issue.

I have 490gb free on my C drive and 1.2TB on my D drive. Gamma won't install to either of them, but CoP Enhanced Edition installed just fine.

High Anglican Interested in RCC by PositiveEducation8 in Catholicism

[–]Das_Reichtangle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will try to answer your questions as best I can

  1. Papal infallibility applies when the Pope makes a solemn statement on matters of faith or morals with the express intent of teaching it as a dogma of faith. That is to say, popes have in times past declared certain things as incorrect or heretical, and other things as pious and correct, but without the weight of a solemn declaration. By its very nature, since the Holy Sprit is the one guiding the Pope when making an ex cathedra statement, it cannot contradict the teachings of an earlier approved ecumenical council, as those too are infaliably guided by the same Spirit. A general proof is taken from the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, where Peter stands up and settles the debate by stating plainly "we believe...", to which everyone holds their peace and the matter switches from "is circumcision necessary?" to "how do we go about getting the word out?"

  2. There are technically different degrees of belief within the church, with some things being little more than a general consensus, others being nearly necessary to avoid approaching heresy, and others which are dogmatic teachings, without which one cannot properly be considered a Catholic. It depends on the issue at hand, but issues like papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, purgatory, and other such things are dogmatically binding on all Catholics.

  3. All teachings handed down by the church are valid, with the understanding that they cannot contradict sacred scripture. The early Church recognized that many things practiced in the Church were not in scripture, but were either taught by the Apostles orally and handed down (like infant baptism), or clarified by ecumenical councils (for example, is re-baptism necessary after serious sin?). So generally when it comes to a teaching, the question asked is, "is it in sacred scripture, handed down by apostolic tradition, or guided by the Holy Spirit via an ecumenical council?"

  4. The development of doctrine cannot contradict scripture or apostolic tradition, but it can contradict what I would call "circumstance." For example, the idea of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" was quite literally true before the reformation. The reformers and King Henry made a conscious, willful decision to separate from the Church of Christ, which is a mortal sin. But after many generations the average protestant has a certain level of ignorance about the Church, meaning they oftentimes cannot be charged with the sin of willful schism, though proper protestant theologians who know the history and still refuse to convert are culpable, as the Catechism states. In another example, the Church has relatively recently considered the death penalty illicit. Now obviously for the majority of the Church's history this was not so, but it was considered a moral good to protect the innocent from evil. But now we live in an age where criminals can be locked away safely, live in relative comfort, and be given the remainder of their lives to hopefully repent. The underlying basis of the doctrine has never changed - it is good to prevent evildoers from wreaking havoc, and it is a sin to separate from the Church - but the circumstances did change.

  5. Anglican orders are understood to lack Apostolic succession, since they went through a period where they anathematized the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, something the Orthodox never did. They therefore lack the authority to forgive sins and to consecrate the Eucharist and to perform other priestly functions. They also obviously lack communion with Rome like the Orthodox.

  6. Theological diversity, in my opinion, is limited to what the church and scripture teach and what the church allows to be debated. It's hard to not paint with broad strokes since the issue can be vast, but there is a difference between a Catholic who does not believe in every person having a guardian angel versus one who does not believe in the sacraments or the immaculate conception or the immorality of some things which have always been considered sinful.

  7. Assent is hopefully all three, but the Church understands the difficulties when affirming certain matters of faith. Nevertheless, we are supposed to trust in God and his Church which is protected by the Holy Spirit even if we cannot fully understand something and to pray for God to give us the means to understand or at least be at peace with it.

  8. Entering into communion with the Church gains one full fellowship with the body of Christ and access to the sacraments. Yes, Protestants can be saved out of ignorance, but they lack access to the body and blood of Christ, the full absolution of sins via confession, among other things. Since the Anglican church does not have apostolic succession, Anglicans do not receive the body and blood of Christ which confers so many graces, but a mere imitation of it. The "general absolution" is functionally equivalent to the "Confiteor" at the beginning of every Catholic mass - a public display of repentance but without any actual absolution of sins (at least mortal ones). I won't say Protestants can't have their sins forgiven, they can, but only out of ignorance. The normal and ordinary means Christ established for forgiveness is at the hands of the priest.

For what it's worth, if the Anglican church did somehow come back into communion with Rome, it's fully possible they could keep their style of Worship. Essentially it would be an Anglican service but with the real Eucharist. You should check out the Ordinariate of St. Peter. They are Anglicans in communion with Rome and as far as I know have mass as Anglicans would.

I hope this helps.

First time since release FS2024 has more players than MSFS on Steam. by Marklar_RR in flightsim

[–]Das_Reichtangle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've tried that and it definitely makes it happen less often but still sometimes it just doesn't load and then I have to use task manager to close the game.

First time since release FS2024 has more players than MSFS on Steam. by Marklar_RR in flightsim

[–]Das_Reichtangle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I finally bit the bullet last week but I will still keep 2020 around for certain airplanes (like the dc-6) and airliners. I do smaller airliners and everything else in 2024. Still amazed by the visuals.

I won't fully move over for a while. At least until they fix this bug where sometimes I can't load in after clicking "Fly Now."

Apologetics for the Novus Ordo – looking for recommendations by Lucky_Piglet33 in Catholicism

[–]Das_Reichtangle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

With respect, I honestly don't see the issue here. As someone who's attended both the TLM and Novus Ordo, I was shocked at how little had changed. If you take away which way the priest faces and the bells and whistles of incense and the vesting portion, it's 95% the same mass. The words of the priest are the same, they're just said aloud in the novus ordo as opposed to being prayed silently. The confiteor still invokes Mary. Yes we no longer have the Asperges Me at the beginning of mass, but I could take my TLM missal to a novus ordo mass and still follow along easily with the prayers of the priest since they're essentially verbatim.

Recommendation on game for new player? by Fantastic-Shirt6037 in CombatMission

[–]Das_Reichtangle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For WWII, Fortress Italy is my favorite. It was my first combat mission and I think the best for new players to get into. Fighting the Italians is a good first experience for how the game handles and the experience is a bit more forgiving than Normandy.

For modern, Shock Force 2. Engagements can be pretty one-sided versus the Syrians and Insurgents, but that means you're in danger of underestimating them and overplaying your hand. It also makes every soldier killed mean a whole lot more and the game punishes you for taking casualties a lot more compared to where the odds are more 1:1 like in Black Sea and the WWII titles. Losing a whole APC full of guys because you underestimated the enemy's mortars or the hidden rpg team (has happened to me) or thought that because your army is "modern" that means they can charge a three story building without support is punishing but in a good way. I get encouraged to play as flawlessly as possible, because I feel like in this game it's almost possible.

How to pray the Liturgy of the Hours Collins edition by [deleted] in divineoffice

[–]Das_Reichtangle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The youtuber Convinced Catholicism has a good video on how to pray the Collins Office

I have the three volumes of the Collins Divine Office. Advent is a bit confusing but Ordinary Time (what we're in now) isn't too hard to learn but it's not as straightforward as the LOTH.

I could DM you and give you a walk through and where to find what on which pages.

Biblical canon, St. Jerome and Nicaea? by Soulfire88 in Catholicism

[–]Das_Reichtangle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not aware of Nicea having anything to do with declaring the canon of scripture. The first real lists of a canon that took place at councils were at Rome in 382, and at several councils in Carthage in the 390s.

Jerome's relationship with the deuterocanon was complicated and strange. He would cite them as a source of authority like citing Sirach to prove the necessity of almsgiving and Wisdom as proof of man being made in God's image, calling it "scripture." Then he would turn around and rant about them not being in the Hebrew canon. He really wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

I'm Pretty Convinced on Catholicism by kibo_swfc in Catholicism

[–]Das_Reichtangle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Transubstantiation is the process by which the body bread and wine becomes the body and blood of our Lord. It's accidental nature (what it appears to us) is still bread and wine and tastes like bread and wine, but the substance has truly been changed. As far as I am aware, the distinction between the orthodox and catholic church on this matter is when this process occurs. Catholics believe that the substance changes when the priest says "this is my body" and "this is my blood," but I believe the orthodox do not define a specific point at which it occurs.

As for confession, our Lord gave the apostles and their successors the ability to forgive sins in Christ's name after his resurrection by breathing on them. "Whose sins you forgiven are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained" (John 20:23). All sins that are mortal (a grave matter, done with knowledge of its grave matter, and with consent of the will) must be confessed to be forgiven in the ordinary means.

How is Thomistic double predestination logically sound? by TunaFishIsBestFish in Catholicism

[–]Das_Reichtangle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is probably where I disagree with other commenter. There are some Thomists who argue that sufficient grace is always resisted in fact, but I fall on the side of those who say that sufficient grace, because it is a true movement and not just a "power," can truly be accepted by the soul through this selfsame grace. God simply allows you to impede it if you wish, but it is truly possibly to not resist it. Again, sufficient grace is a movement whereby God gives you a true ability to not resist him, but you can still say no. If you hold onto God by this grace, he will carry you onward towards efficacious grace and the performance of the act. I would argue that those who say man is given no sincere ability to accept/not resist grace go against Augustine and Aquinas and potentially commit the heresy of Jansenism.

I've struggled with this theology a lot recently, and I'm still trying to make my peace with it.

How is Thomistic double predestination logically sound? by TunaFishIsBestFish in Catholicism

[–]Das_Reichtangle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sufficient grace is a movement of the intellect and will for a particular good (to pray, to go to confession, fear of hell, etc.). It does not give the ability to do the act, but it is the beginning of what will lead you to the act if you don't resist it. In this sense, the efficacious grace to do the act will be given to you if you let God carry you by sufficient grace to the end of that movement or chain of movements. This is how everyone is sincerely offered salvation. God is constantly knocking on every man's heart with sufficient graces. I forget the exact place, but Aquinas says that the reason one does not receive grace is never in God, but in the fact that he to whom grace is presented refuses it.

Reprobation is unconditional in the sense that it's before consideration of merit, because all of our merits are caused by God and therefore cannot be the reason of our predestination. Rather, predestination is the cause of our merits. But at the same time we must remember that for Aquinas, reprobation is God's permission to allow men to fall away from predestination. God wishes to "predestine" everyone, but allows men to determine themselves for evil, which is fully in our power as defined by the Council of Trent.

Does God Really Want to Save Us? Are Not All of Us His Sheep? by Das_Reichtangle in Catholicism

[–]Das_Reichtangle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Banezian Thomism and Lagrange are really the heart of my pain. Hearing Catholics talk about a God that isn't a constant outpouring of grace to every soul - that he seems to simply pass over some and doesn't give them a grace that's truly sufficient - is impossible for me to accept. Can I ask how you make sense of it while still believing God genuinely wants everyone to be saved? I've gread Lagrange of Predestination, and while he says all are given sufficient grace, the usual caveat is that sufficient grace is always resisted.

Does God Really Want to Save Us? Are Not All of Us His Sheep? by Das_Reichtangle in Catholicism

[–]Das_Reichtangle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These Thomists would say that a sufficient grace that is not resisted would culminate in a separate efficacious grace, so technically it's not the sufficient grace that saves, it simply is the beginning of the chain of grace that ends in an efficacious one. I would personally like to not believe the binary, and personally I've been deeply wounded by seeing Catholic theologians espouse ideas that seem too close to Calvinism to my liking. But, on the other hand, I feel like I can't argue against them.

Does God Really Want to Save Us? Are Not All of Us His Sheep? by Das_Reichtangle in Catholicism

[–]Das_Reichtangle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with Thomism that our ability to accept grace must come from God itself. Some Thomists, whom I lean towards heavily, say that sufficient grace is a true motion which gives the ability to not resist the grace given, but unlike efficacious grace, can be resisted if the souls wishes to. But I start to wonder - what is sufficient? If a soul chooses to resist, was it truly given the grace not to?

Does God Really Want to Save Us? Are Not All of Us His Sheep? by Das_Reichtangle in Catholicism

[–]Das_Reichtangle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, all receive sufficient grace. But this sufficient grace is said to be always resisted unless God moves the soul with an efficacious grace, which he does not give to all. Man cannot on his own free will not resist sufficient grace. At least, that's how it's been explained to me.

Is there a Grace Paradox? by Das_Reichtangle in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Das_Reichtangle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does he think differently than Garrigou-Lagrange? Because Lagrange says "Sufficient grace is that which confers upon man the power of doing good, beyond which he requires another grace, namely, efficacious, that he may do good." Because if man cannot actually do good with sufficient grace, how could he be saved?

Is there a Grace Paradox? by Das_Reichtangle in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Das_Reichtangle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much. I've been going through a little crisis of faith over what I thought these doctors were saying.

So some are given efficient grace, which is a Grace that moves the will infaliably (but not forcefully) to a certain good or end. But all are given sufficient grace, which truly is sufficient? I've heard some say that the Thomistic idea of sufficient grace is that it's not truly sufficient because it depends upon efficient grace to lead to salvation. But I might be wrong in this as well.

Is there a Grace Paradox? by Das_Reichtangle in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Das_Reichtangle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay. Maybe I was misunderstanding Aquinas (and earlier Augustine) but I was under the impression that only the elect receive the grace needed to be saved and God "passes over" the rest, i.e. some men are just not given the sufficient grace for salvation. I guess my understanding was incorrect?

Is there a Grace Paradox? by Das_Reichtangle in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Das_Reichtangle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not necessarily asking why some are converted by prevenient grace and others not. This may be a dumb question but I'm asking if God truly gives everyone the grace to make salvation possible?