I grew up catholic. The abbot was automatically Godfather to all the first-born sons. This mattered still up to perhaps 2 generations ago. The first-born son was going to join the priesthood, as was the youngest son. Women were enslaved if they found no husband, or had children out of wedlock, or were an orphan themselves. It was a cruel and oppressive system for the most part, however, it still offered advancement. My grandpa mostly hated the clerics. He saw through the scheme. It is a scheme of oppression, and the mechanism is the same as it is today: Racism=original sin, guilt; Climate change and carbon credits=absolution. Curia calls pointing this out blasphemous, because it that their legitimization is a concocted one, a figment. They don't like that, just like the jews don't like it when you reveal what they do, and how they justify such.
The queen of England operates in this same fashion, only, in addition to being enslaved, she has no problem letting her subjects perish. I don't know much about the Eastern Church, so I appreciate your elaborate response.
My upbringing focused too much on the negative, the vice (sin everywhere you look, and you are born bad, and you are bad, bad, bad). Whereas if it focused on the positive, the virtue, I think my childhood would have been much happier.
Here is a list of platonic virtues, and listed alongside christian ones. https://pic8.co/sh/ZmBKmo.png
You're 100% on it. Original sin is a CREATION of the WESTERN Catholic Church. It's another innovation. And this is by their own admission, mind you.
After the first century the early church fathers started to define it, but those in the East and West took different approaches.
Both groups acknowledged that sin had entered the world through Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God’s command, but the Eastern fathers did not think guilt for that sin was passed on; rather, human beings in subsequent generations imitated their first ancestors’ misbehavior. The Western fathers, however, believed sin was passed on like a hereditary disease of the soul (thus the emphasis on baptism erasing the inherited “contagion of death,” to use St. Cyprian of Carthage’s phrase).
https://uscatholic.org/articles/201212/what-is-original-sin/
The Eastern philosophy just makes more sense. We live in a fallen world as a result of what Adam and Eve did, just like if there was a war, your children would have to live in that war torn world.
The creation of the doctrine of original sin put their entire theology on a crash course. The idea that sin could be "transmitted" and had to be removed is probably what gave way to other innovations they made like mortal sin. And it's the reason they had to create the immaculate conception as well. It's really wild to me, mortal sin. In their catechism No. 2181, they even say missing Church without good reason is a mortal sin. Can you imagine that? You live a pious life etc but you play hookie one week and then get killed in a car crash, well, you're going to hell. There's such an obsession with these technicalities and such. That's why Eastern Orthodox accuse them of legalism frequently.
The funny part to me is that Protestants also frequently accuse Catholics of legalism, but then their entire philosophy revolves around "sola scriptura". So you ask anything and they'll be like "well according to paragraph A subsection B of leviticus..." exactly the same way a lawyer would.
It's really fascinating going down the path of theological progression and seeing everything that led the Catholic Church to where it is now, and Protestantism, and everything else. How, as you said, it became a religion that revolves around sin instead of virtue. I went down that rabbit hole for a solid couple of years but eventually I was like "alright I think it's time to just live my life and stop caring about all of this". Now I am married with a son on the way. It was very interesting though.
I love philosophy and theology. This has been a very unexpected treat, you have fantastic instincts and you make all the right critiques, even though you don't seem to have solid knowledge on the specific historical background and the debate that occurred at the time. It's just further evidence that nobody has a monopoly on divine knowledge except God Himself. That's the mark of a true truth seeker and philosophical marksman, where they can still hit the target. Even if they don't know all the specifics they can often fill in the gaps themselves.
Honestly when I posted this I just expected to be called a Kike lover and dismissed. People like you are why I stick around. It will be fun to look at some of your other interesting posts and content.
Thanks yes I look forward to more discussion. I definitely lack a studious foundation. I have always had a deep reverence for truth, and my whole life has been a story of falling out with people who revere outcomes instead. It's not because I want to please anyone, even God, I just think it makes things more efficient, and more creative. I think it's important to point out the disingenuous nature of western christianity. The cabal relies heavily on collaborators, and these collaborators are curia (wasp & vatican), bourgeois, and whatever is left of nobility. That presents a vulnerable flank on which we can attack our enemy. Collaborators are weak, that's why they became collaborators, and that's where we can cut through the lines. The will be able to retain our unity without the fakes and collaborators.
(post is archived)