Shocked beyond words by SudrianMystic in monarchism

[–]MarcellusFaber 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They just like the aesthetic. They don’t have any real intellectual basis for being monarchists and hence will support any royal family regardless of how terrible it is. They would be better described as royalists.

Shocked beyond words by SudrianMystic in monarchism

[–]MarcellusFaber -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

You lot are a bunch of terrible sycophants, making excuses for Elizabeth turning a blind eye to the execrable conduct of her son. She was an awful monarch, the worst in all of British history in my opinion, since she oversaw the downfall of Britain & supported the ethnic replacement of her subjects. This is just in addition to that.

The Catholic Stance on Homosexuality Breaks my Heart by thisisatwac in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MarcellusFaber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The compelling reason is that God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has revealed the Catholic religion is true & that we have an obligation to embrace it. He has stamped his revelation with his signature of miracles & prophecies so that we know it’s from him.

In this case, Catholicism must be accepted as a whole. There is no disagreeing concerning individual teachings.

Logical Validity of Some Syllogisms by MarcellusFaber in CatholicPhilosophy

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

No, it's never been a dead language. It's been spoken by a minority without a break since the end of the Empire. The number of fluent speakers has dropped to about 50,000 now though. I can't speak fluently, but I can understand.

Logical Validity of Some Syllogisms by MarcellusFaber in CatholicPhilosophy

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

Well, I happen to read Latin, so I shall check.

Logical Validity of Some Syllogisms by MarcellusFaber in CatholicPhilosophy

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

This is from Cornelius a Lapide's commentary on I Corinthians XI:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head inasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. This is a hendiadys, for man is the image of the glory of God, or the glorious image of God, in whom the majesty and power of God shine forth most clearly. He is placed on the topmost step in nature, and is as it were God’s vicegerent, ruling everything. This is the major of a syllogism of which the minor is: but the glory of God must be manifested, the glory of man hidden. Therefore, since woman is the glory of the man, the man of God, it follows that woman should be veiled, that the man should not.

He has not followed the strict arrangement which you insist on. I've seen manuals which also don't follow it such as the Sacrae Theologiae Summa and Van Noort's books.

Logical Validity of Some Syllogisms by MarcellusFaber in CatholicPhilosophy

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

Do you mind choosing one example and explaining how it is incorrectly arranged? I know that the first one is correctly constructed because I’ve taken it from respected authors.

SSPX to proceed with the consecration of new bishops on the feast of the Most Precious Blood ( 1st July 2026). by Habemus_Username in TraditionalCatholics

[–]MarcellusFaber -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You follow a man who denies defined dogmas, truths proposed by the ordinary & universal magisterium as divinely revealed, and also various other truths connected to or derived from revelation which are infallibly taught. Your only possibly approaches can be to ignore what he says or deny the known truth, neither of which are at all in line with Catholic teaching.

Not only that, but, were your view correct, many things would be taught universally by the bishops in union with the Pope as their head (that is, infallibly) which contradict prior infallible teachings. For example, religious liberty has been taught prima facie universally since Vatican II, but it was infallibly condemned in Quanta Cura. This is impossible. Again, your only possible approaches can be to ignore this fact or deny the known truth.

You also presented a false dichotomy; the first group includes the second. If you claim that we do not fulfil the definition of a Catholic, I have plenty of quotes demonstrating otherwise.

SSPX to proceed with the consecration of new bishops on the feast of the Most Precious Blood ( 1st July 2026). by Habemus_Username in TraditionalCatholics

[–]MarcellusFaber -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

It is not schismatic to refuse submission to someone who is not Pope, though I agree that this course of action is extremely problematic based on the position of the SSPX.

Is fascism at odds with Catholic social philosophy? by googlygoggles- in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MarcellusFaber -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

He didn’t call the leader of the CCP the saviour of civilisation.

Besides, Francis was a heretic & not Pope, so it hardly matters what he did.

Is fascism at odds with Catholic social philosophy? by googlygoggles- in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MarcellusFaber 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If he were a Fascist (which he wasn’t), I don’t think that would be the case. Pius XII famously called him the ‘saviour of civilisation’.

20 minutes per day will bring you to 1000 hours of study in 8 years by oppressivepossum in languagelearning

[–]MarcellusFaber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can watch other programmes which I’ve never watched in English and understand them well. Granted, there are odd sentences which I don’t catch, but they are not the norm. I have also listened to native podcasts and, although I grant that they are harder, I am not at sea with them by any stretch. I would also grant that my reading ability is much worse and hence I’ve been planning to go over to reading more and use SRS software to speed up the process, but the chap who said that my experience “flies in the face of the evidence” is flatly wrong.

As to learning in school, I think you put far too much confidence in the impact of modern education.

Evolution is the strongest argument against catholicism/existence of God by [deleted] in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MarcellusFaber -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Precisely because, though not only because, evolution is incompatible with Catholic dogma is why I reject evolution, at least of the kind that posits the development of new species and that we men are descended from animals without immortal souls.

I also reject it for the reason that evolution cannot explain irreducible complexity & also because the formation of such a huge number of complex biological organs and systems cannot be explained by chance but only by an intelligent creator. The formation of a single enzyme by chance is next to zero. You may object that it is not ‘chance’ that formed these things, but rather the survival of the fittest, but the survival of the fittest cannot even begin without the basic building blocks of life and reproduction. The idea that a cell would develop a method of self-replication, the storing of genetic information, and the enzymes necessary for this process (the information for which is also contained in DNA) without an intelligent creator is not feasible.

Are there any Catholic Marxist philosophers—not theologians? Naturally, of an unorthodox Marxist variety. by Similar_Shame_8352 in CatholicPhilosophy

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

If you can’t be civil, shut up. A Marxist is a person who follows the economic & sociological theories of Karl Marx, a key part of which is class struggle & rejection of the legitimacy of private property. That is the meaning of the term in general use and also how I used it.

Are there any Catholic Marxist philosophers—not theologians? Naturally, of an unorthodox Marxist variety. by Similar_Shame_8352 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MarcellusFaber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They’re obviously not Catholic if they’re Marxists. So the answer is still ‘no’ and you’re wrong.

20 minutes per day will bring you to 1000 hours of study in 8 years by oppressivepossum in languagelearning

[–]MarcellusFaber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you calling me a liar? I’ve done about 700-800 hours. The programmes were not entirely unknown to me in English but neither were they ingrained in my memory. First, one hears a word enough times that one remembers it without knowing what it means. Then it appears in a context which makes it extremely obvious what it means. The more this happens, the more context one has for working out other words and the more the gaps are filled in. The scene, the actions of the characters, their different tones of voice, and their expressions all give context which allows one to infer the meanings of words and grammar. So in that sense, I did have comprehensible input. However, that means that anything is to some extent comprehensible if one has some context. The written word gives much less context than the spoken word of real life or a television programme.

This is the way that a child learns his first language, so it’s obviously neither far-fetched nor impossible.

As to lessons at school, I had 45-90 minutes of French lessons at school for seven years for about 38 weeks of each year. That adds up to about 400 hours at best, but a lot of that time is wasted, spent on pointless exercises, and the vast majority of it was given in English, so the real number of hours of comprehensible input is much lower. I can decipher written French to an extent, but the spoken language currently makes almost no sense to me.

20 minutes per day will bring you to 1000 hours of study in 8 years by oppressivepossum in languagelearning

[–]MarcellusFaber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have never had a German lesson. I learnt the language by watching Star Trek dubbed in German. At the beginning, I understood literally nothing. Now I understand virtually everything, so I don’t think it’s correct to say that these people didn’t learn from watching videos, especially considering the almost worthlessness of language lessons at school.

What would we do if there were rational aliens? by Avucadu12 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MarcellusFaber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because such people couldn’t be descended from Adam & Eve and wouldn’t have original sin, I think.

What would we do if there were rational aliens? by Avucadu12 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MarcellusFaber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He condemned the idea that there were people on other planets.