What's the most Veeky Forums religious order?

How do you define dogma?

Zoroastrianism is not a religious order.
Protestants don't have sanctified persons or priests so they don't. An order is a group of priests with a certain modus operandi and style like the Jesuits or the Dominicans, who have various approaches to spirituality or theology and what they choose to focus on on their lives, such as teaching, labour and produce of beer/cheese, philosophy and so on.

A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. In Catholicism they are formalised and proclaimed as such.

I was thinking the FSSP. I visited their seminary, and all the seminarians were awesome. I got the feeling that some of the higher ups in the Fraternity didn't like me too much though. I think because I can't go to a Latin Mass every Sunday. My hometown only has a SSPX chapel. :/

although I really like the local Carmelites here. They're really awesome.

a dogma to me is a set of beliefs that is professed as undeniably true and one that refuses and suppresses other interpretations or views

Are there any Catholic dogmas that suppress scientific discovery?

no

Veeky Forums what's that word you guys always say to describe a direct line of communication to God? As opposed to intercession (which is idolatry).

So when I ask how religious dogma is opposed to science the answer is that it isn't?

It suppressed scientific thought up until the 17th century. Have you never heard of Galileo or Descartes?

Intercession isn't communication. I believe the word you're looking for is prayer. We pray to the saints to ask for intercession just as we pray directly to god. Prayer is the act of communication itself.

I've heard of them but forgive my ignorance, I'm not aware of how they were suppressed by the church. Could you explain?

I'm sure there's a term for it, born out of the need to distinguish the Christian idea from the Catholic (praying through priests and saints).

I'm quite certain most of the seminarians didn't get it until they joined. After all, until 10 years ago there were less than 100 in the Fraternity. For most SSPX is the only way to get a regular Tridentine. I'm going to one in 10 minutes and it's because a priest is visiting for 3 days.

The Catholic church adopted Aristotlean cosmogony and philosophy and suppressed any thoughts outside of this circle. It got to the point where every scientific phenomenon was explained away by essences. Galileo was put on trial and condemned by the church for putting forth a heliocentric model of the universe. Descartes followed soon after and was actually scared to publish his works because of the example set by Galileo. descartes pretty much broke the ancient method of thinking. That is why he was so against Aristotle and that is his significance

When did Christianity become separate from Catholicism? The late second century when prayer to saints was already widespread? How many of the Church Fathers were in fact not Christian? How did a retarded monk in the 16th century somehow revive it?

I'm sure that's not the whole story, but I've heard both Aristotle and Descartes and a few essays on the matter. Basically, thought was restrained to syllogisms and Aristotle's causality before Descartes came along and blew everything out of the water his with explanation of logic, reducing everything to intuition and deduction.

Let me set some shit straight. First, the Catholic Church did not condemn the heliocentric or sun-centered view of our solar system. According the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at this time in history "there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. Many scientists in Galileo's time accepted ancient Greek arguments for a stationary earth, arguments that had not been refuted. Today we can use satellites to prove the earth rotates around the sun, but five hundred years ago the question was far from settled. In fact, Galileo thought the planets orbited the sun in a perfect circle, whereas they actually have an elliptical orbit. Because of this, Galileo's theory could not account for all the observable movements of the planets, which is one reason Pope Urban VIII urged Galileo to treat his theory as tentative. Unfortunately, Galileo chose to mock the pope in his work Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems, in which a character named Simplico, which means "simpleton" in English, represented the pope's views Galileo also claimed that Scripture would have to be reinterpreted in light of his findings, a conclusion that lay outside his area of expertise. Both of these missteps led to his famous trial in 1633.

Contrary to popular belief, Galileo was not tortured, but was found to be "under suspicion of heresy." According to his friends Francesco Niccolini, Galileo was placed under house arrest but was given a servant to attend to him until he died of old age. Pope John Pail II later apologized for any injustices committed against Galileo during his trial and reaffirmed the positive relationship between Church and science.

I don't know enough about Descartes to refute what you say regarding him but considering how wrong you are about Galileo I can't trust your judgement.

History revision.

>The Catholic church adopted Aristotlean cosmogony and philosophy and suppressed any thoughts outside of this circle.
Not until the late 15th century. Aquinas was not nearly as much of a solitary point of reference as it may appear to unread philistines such as yourself, as we've also had Bacon, Ockham, Bonaventure, Albertus Magnus, Scotus, Eckhart and a few more names, most of them being opposed to Aristotelian thought in a lesser or greater degree.
>It got to the point where every scientific phenomenon was explained away by essences.
If you read memes from the enlightenment about the science of the, then already renesanse instead of the primary sources.
>Galileo was put on trial and condemned by the church for putting forth a heliocentric model of the universe.
It wasn't even related to the heliocentrism as such. He wasn't the first to propose it.
>Descartes followed soon after and was actually scared to publish his works because of the example set by Galileo.
Descartes was a fervent Catholic who wrote his most famous work on behest of the jesuits, if you actually read his work you'll see it there.
>descartes pretty much broke the ancient method of thinking. That is why he was so against Aristotle and that is his significance.
During that time Platonism was much more popular, Plato having been recovered after centuries alongside the Stoics and the epicureans.
History of Philosophy vols 2 and 3 by Copleston cover this very well.

Dude burned on a stick for giving the heliocentric model of the earth. Bruno.

Oh fuck off with this greentext shit

>Descartes was a fervent Catholic who wrote his most famous work on behest of the jesuits, if you actually read his work you'll see it there.
I see him prostrating himself before the church in his letters and read accounts of him being terrified to publish his works, and only doing so at the behest of his friends.

The fundamental tenet of Christianity is a personal relationship with God. Catholicism is anathema to this. It's always about intercession this, public penance that, confession, walk up to the pulpit and read from an edited book that the Bible says damnation to anyone who edits the Word, etc. It's always about doing things in public or calling on something other than God. Maybe it's a natural delineation of the way that Adam and Eve became ashamed and hid from God if you want to look at it that way. Point is, Luther's revival of the orthodox Church was an inevitability.

He also denied a couple of other minor things like transubstantiation, Mary's virginity, the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity.

If instead of taking the mans words at face value, you insist on "reading between the lines" then how do know your not just reading into it what you want it to say? In other words how are you preventing your anti-Christian bias from affecting your conclusions?

No, Bruno was burned for belonging to an underground homosexual satanist conspiracy circle. (And I ain't even joking, those were some wild times back in the 16th/17th century.)

Do you have any quotes or sources to back that up?
So Christianity really was lost from the 3rd to the 16th century and every major figure got it wrong before him? Interesting thesis.

Mostly pantheism, and coming from that the rest.
Apparently they still are with Cardinal Coccopalmerio lol
I haven't read this before, have you got any interesting texts on this?

The church lives inside the hearts of its believers. There were always Christians the world over that didn't agree with Catholicism.

The difference between then and now, is that people know how to read, and with that advent Catholicism has shunned any form of liturgy in order to keep up the longest running pyramid scheme in history.

I've never heard of scientists burning people for refusing to believe in atomic theory.

I've never heard of any religious people burning others for refusing to believe in atomic theory either.

Was it the monophysites, the arians, the albignesians, the mohamedans or the gnostics?

Did the analogy really go over your head or are you being purposely dense?

I'm very dense. Could you explain to me what I'm missing?

The church was okay with burning people for refusing their beliefs of adopting others. Even if he wasn't just burned for believing in a heliocentric universe, why was he burned for being a homosexual satanist?

No scientist cares if you believe in a flat Earth and refuse to believe in gravity.

Atheists out REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>choosing belief systems and truth based on a bunch of stuff you happen to like the idea of.

Why do millenials do this?

>The church was okay with burning people for refusing their beliefs of adopting others

I can't make sense of this and according to this guy Galileo wasn't burned at all for believing in a certain scientific theory . I don't know of anyone ever being executed by the Church for not believing in a scientific theory.

I also don't know who you're referring to that was executed for being a homosexual satanist but if this did happen this doesn't refute my point, which is that the Church doesn't execute people for disbelieving scientific theories. They executed people for disagreeing with divine revelation.

It's much more complex than that. The Jews didn't adopt the views of the Catholics, neither did the Orthodox not the Muslims nor many other groups, even heretical ones like the Janesists, but non of them got burned on the stake. It was also not a particularly common way of executing anyone.
You also seem to believe in a very stupid dichotomy, between the scientists and the Catholics, as if these were diametrically opposing and not completely different and overlapping categories, from which most of your retardation stems.

>They executed people for disagreeing with divine revelation.
Have you read Whose Justice Which Rationality by Alsadair MacIntyre? It has a magnificent section on this and it was executing public heretics, but not solely because they disagreed with the divine revelation. It's related to the good of souls as the chief good.

not orthodoxy
orthodoxy doesnt have official positions so much as it declares certain positions anathema. 'negative theology'

FSSP? Is that the Latinization of SSPX?

No. It's kind of encouraged sort of under the lens of "discovering the miracles of god's creation". Pope Francis was a chemist until he received his call to serve the Lord.

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
*tips cross* *throws holy water* Have at you!

/thread
Religion pretends to give objectively true answers when in reality it's impossible to do so. Into the trash it goes.
>inb4 "y-you just have to take some parts to heart and leave other parts out!"

nah. it's the SSPX but not irregular.

Catholicism is the thinking man's religion.

Most of Catholic dogmas were proclaimed as anathemas as well. They are positive when you write them down in catechisms and so on.

>science
>no suppressed thought

F R A T E R N I T A S S A C E R D O T A L I S S A N C T I P I I X

>you would read a wide variety of religious, scientific, and philosophical texts, meditate daily, and develop your own worldview.

You'll just end up having a extremely shallow understanding of many religions, producing yet another surface-level perennial universalist tract that's neither comforting or developed.

Regularisation when?

I don't really know enough about the various orders to pick one so I base my preference purely on the habits they wear, so the Dominicans win.

The Dominicans are the Harold Bloom's of Catholicism, The Jesuit's are the Irigarayians.

dominican rite is nice

Valentinian Gnosticism

The Dominicans are based as fuck. They also tend to be extremely doctrinally strict and attempt to cohere all things to the Traditions of the Church. They are more or less the ant-Jesuits. There is also a friendly feud between the Dominicans and the Jesuits. Here is a fun little joke between them:

>What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?
>Well, they were both founded by Spaniards, St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits.
>They were also both founded to combat heresy: the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants.

>What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?
>Well, have you met any Albigensians lately?

nah Cathars are better

A man walked up to a Franciscan and a Jesuit and asked, "How many novenas must you say to get a Mercedes Benz?" The Franciscan asked, "What's a Mercedes Benz?" The Jesuit asked, "What's a novena?"

Carthusians are most based desu.

the new one

Trappist Monk like Thomas Merton?

>friendly feud
>friendly
ha! ... ha ha!

>no suppressed thought

It astounds me how convinced people are by the purity of science. What exactly has changed about modern people allowing scientists to rid themselves of self-deception, manipulation and tyrannical tendencies? Is it the fact we've now jumped on the train of inevitable progress?

to be honest it's all about your own life-world. this doesn't mean you're absolutely bound to whatever church you attended the services of most frequently in your childhood, it just means that you can't treat all religions as a character select screen. start reading, start going to local temples and monasteries, and start talking to people.

but objectively, the jesuits.

OSB

But there are lots of different apples as well as other kinds of fruits like apples and oranges! Also don't forget the vegetables and other kinds of foods!

Checkmate Christposters.

The Jesuits are anti intellectual heretical socialists.