Leftists still cling to Christian morality in a sense. You see rape is the biggest evil for feminism...

Virginity was still about property in the middle ages in Europe (christian).

Remember, people up until around 1500 couldnt read The Bible, it was in latin/greek. That was a whole big part of the protestant revolution.

Everyday people (christians) were not really concerned with the technicalities of virginity as it related to sin and holiness.

The theologians can promote a spritiual idea and it may end up being adopted by a society simply because its a practical idea.

In otherwords, they agree but for different purposes.

Focus on yourself.

Do you live in Pakistan?

I need to focus on myself and society.

I highly doubt you, in the year 2020, can know that peasants in the Middle Ages were all about “property” instead of virginity. It is well known that virginity is holy, even in the Middle Ages. Your claim requires evidence.

and yes the term is "virtue" and it is smart to applaud women for not being whores as it makes the whole "each man gets one woman" thing a whole lot easier.

Woman are social creatures and if society says not being a whore (being a virgin) is a good thing then they will be virgins till their married because they gain social approval from it.

Litterally almost every problem we have in society right now would be solved if everyone adopted strong christian beliefs.

Man has conquered almost all the other problems (hunger, disease, sanitation). all that remains is mans social ills.

see>Your claim requires evidence.
The evidence is almost no one knew what was in the bible up until a few hundred years ago. People went to church on sunday, the community leaders sent the message "no sex till marriage" and people listened and carried on with their day to day.

Sex was viewed completely differently back then it was for reproduction.

Today, only 1 in 1000 vaginal acts of intercourse results in a pregnancy. Back then it was like 1 in 40.

Debunking you in one sentence. Saying “holy virgin” means you respect virginity and because everyone was catholic in Western Europe, everyone knew the holy virgin. You would have to live under a rock in medieval Christian Europe to not get what’s all the fuss about virginity is. Face it, your view is modern.. and un-christian if I may add.

your original statement was

>because of Christianity that this act has been condemned

and im saying NO, it was condemed before Christianity. (thats a fact).

Christianity was an idea that went looking for a home and only found it in White Europe because it was already so similar to they way white people were practicing life.

Christianity is drastically different than the way middle easterners were living life 2000 years ago and thats why despite Christianity starting in the middle east it never took a strong hold.

Sorry I made a mistake. Because of Christianity this act has been condemned more strongly, I should have said. The hysteria about rape is really somewhat Christian. But that rape and the valuing of virginity are connected.. that’s my own theory. Take it or leave it. I see no other reason why the Catholic Church has declared it mortally sinful as opposed to Israelite law that made it a minor offense.

Virginity is a sacred thing. Purity is a blessed metaphysical and formal perfection of the immaterial soul. Also, post Vatican II Catholicism is still Catholicism, our ranks are just so inundated with heretical “Catholic”s and so many diocese pozzed by libtard bishops that it’s difficult to find anyone who actually adheres to the faith in a way that holds with the tradition of the Church without rejecting the validity (albeit severely abused) of the Council. Also, if any of you are SSPXers, I think we may soon a reconciliation between our ranks. Much points in that direction as of late.

Attached: 9D6D0389-4BBE-4A49-80DE-028DEAAA94E1.jpg (640x699, 149.82K)

>Israelite law that made it a minor offense.
wasnt there stipulations that the guy had to marry her, or pay her father off or something.

But rape is really really bad for a few reasons
1. lack of paternal assurance
2. lack of discretion after woman has been raped (once a girl is raped its hard to convince her to not be a whore)
3. theft from fellow man
4. In olden days a daughter is a mans most prized possession, a possession that can increase peace and cooperation with neighboring tribes by offering her to marriage. A daughter can turn strangers into family. (sons are not possession, but daughters litterally are and are given to men for marriage)

I accept this viewpoint, I’m a sedevacantist myself but not in the sense that I think normally ordained priests and such are invalid (if they’re not heretics)..Francis and many others before him have shown themselves to be heretics so sadly that guy cannot be had faith in.. but to say that the new rite of ordination is invalid is a big thing I’m not ready to do. It might be invalid, that’s what I keep in the back of my head.

>SSPXers,
unfortunately im in the southwest and there will be a sspx service every once in a while in a rented church then it shuts down.

There is a latin mass near me though.

No sure sure, but the attack on chastity and virginity especially virginity, is first as a reason why it’s bad. Everyone should agree with that I think.

Feminists love rape. They fantasise about it. They want to do it with strap ons and molesting school boys. They don't care when muslims, their favourite politicians or other fashionable group do it. Tape is just a tool in their playbook to weaponise against Christians who find it abhorrent.

Nah man the second Vatican council is definitely heretical, it is. No catholic can accept it. Religious liberty is condemned, false ecumenism is condemned, nostra aetate is deeply heretical.. etc

God is pouring out grace in a bundance recently. I know a lot of catholics who are rapidly realising the vatican 2 sect is not the catholic church

255768475

Cool. I’m always intrigued whenever a Catholic speaks up on this board, considering that most of my Rad-Trad friends regard this as a cesspool of degeneracy. The Institute of Christ the King and F.S.S.P. are pretty based, and we’re making headway. The liberal boomers are dying off and the youth are significantly more traddy. Once gen z replaces the current priesthood, I think there will be a major reversion to pre-council ways. Also, the Vatican has recently been making noise to the effect that SSPX was never in actually schism.

Attached: 6CDC0D72-30BC-403C-B909-F6D0B71E1270.jpg (1024x768, 120.87K)

I'm coming for dat boi pucci, OP... Whether you like it or not.

> in a sense
you mistyped *by all means, user.
leftism is secularized christianity, they both are grounded on the emotive ideal of egalitarianism, magic love between all people, and hatred towards indigenous identities

Vatican 2 Nostra aetate 3 "The church regards with esteem the muslims. They adore the one God" (then mentions how they reject Christ.

Lumen Gentium 16 "they [the muslims] along with us adore the one God who will judge mankind on the last day"

The vatican 2 religion worships the demon Allah not God. The church has never regarded with esteem the abominable sect of mohamed.

If jp2 is a saint then the koran he kissed is a 3rd class relic to be venerated. Thankfully he's definitely in hell for never publicly repenting his public apostasy and idolatry like at assissi.

Attached: 1581637797586.jpg (259x194, 7.47K)

Cardinal Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity: “… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics.”

Meanwhile, mortalium animos, Pius ix: “ for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it,”

And the guy even adds, this was abandoned by vatican ii

Certain FSSP priests consider the novus ordo sacraments to be positively doubtful. Canon law says positive doubtful sacraments must be avoided unless in danger of death.

The FSSP get their "orders" from positively doubtful novus ordo consecrated bishops.

Well okay, there was certainly a lot of weaponised ambiguity and dangerous language, and the council was infiltrated by Freemasons and Communists at the time; nevertheless, the Holy Spirit still guides the church. Notice that there were no doctrinal changes Ex Cathedra from the council. Liturgical changes were effected, but no teaching itself was actually changed, subtracted, or added.

Attached: 34A4A1F0-AB3D-4D60-BF60-233A94CA02C6.jpg (236x236, 15.27K)

which canon law?