Thomas Aquinas says you can beat your wife if she cheats on you???
>The wife can be corrected for her sin of fornication not only by this punishment but also by words and blows; wherefore if she be ready to be corrected otherwise, her husband is not bound to have recourse to separation in order to correct her.
How do Catholics defend this???

>>24478581 (OP)
Do you get your information concerning the bible from the dnc?

Wtf?? That's fucked up. He should kill her instead

>>24478581 (OP)
Man I was not aware about Christian doctrines being this based. Why is this not common-place today?

>>24478581 (OP)
Yeah, that's great. This is a literature thread. GTFO

>>24479639
what do you think Aquinas wrote anon

>>24479650
Share your absurd region somewhere else.

>>24478581 (OP)
>How do Catholics defend this???
You do realize they write books defending the inquisitions, tortures, and murders of their cult, right?

>>24479650
Atheists think all of 4chan is their safe space.

>>24478581 (OP)
Fascinatingly, according to Federici's book Caliban and the Witch, the official doctrine that a man had a god-given right to beat his wife was well-known in the middle ages, but almost never enforced. Peasant villages had gender-segregated labour, but it wasn't like later centuries where men worked together in a single workplace, while women did domestic labour in isolation, from other women, rather women's work was done on one side of town, while men's work was done on the other, so if a man actually *did* beat his wife, then she would turn up to the women's work the next day with bruises, and each of those women would then go home to their own husbands, with statements of grievances, resulting in the wifebeater being, himself, viciously beaten by the other men in the village the next day.

>>24478581 (OP)
>How do Catholics defend this???

It's indefensible. The punishment is too light. Augustine must be a cuck

>>24479846
do it again torquemada

>>24479124
I have him in a picture of Jesus for a reason along with St. Paul.

>>24479681
you mean religion?

>>24478581 (OP)
>Thomas Aquinas says you can beat your wife if she cheats on you???
I agree, beatings are far from enough for cheating wives. Beheadings or stonings should be on the table.

>>24481205
Kitsch.

>>24480511
since this is /lit/ what does Federici say about some wifeslut who fucked around? what does the village do with home wreckers if the cuck can't beat her

>>24480511
This means beating of the wife is a patrician aesthetic reserved for only those of sufficient caliber to not be slandered by a cackle of holes.

>>24481351
compliment or no?

>>24481205
>printing out a jpg of a saint at 10ppi

>>24480511
I don't think this is entirely accurate. While a man *might* face retribution for beating his wife, he might not. Particularly, if she deserved it, and others knew she did.

Our mores are different. We don't even beat murders and rapists and yet we lock people up vastly more often and for far longer and then encourage those locked up to beat and take rape each other. It's a pretty major theme in current "justice" that part of your punishment is getting raped in a "rape or get raped" environment, which is honestly far worse than a quick beating or time in the stocks.

>>24482141
Neither, it's just like saying "blue".

>>24478581 (OP)
Based

>>24481150
Not a Lutheran. You cathocultists are so embarassing, you're worse posters than the atheist fedoras.

And if you can even get past Luther and all the brainwashing your cult does about him, as if everyone who isn't in the Catholic boylover Mary-worship cult is a Lutheran; then the farthest you get is Calvin, and he was wrong too since Calvinism back-loads works.

It's just so hilarious to me how you self-righteous Pharisees who believe in a works-based gospel are some of the most evil and wicked and hateful people out there. But people who preach salvation by works have to set the bar extremely low, and you never have any grace with anyone because you don't even understand God's grace and you don't understand the new coveneant and since you're not saved you can't even understand the Bible itself which is why your cult has a catechism and why your lay people are told to "trust the experts" because it's a religion for mindless NPCs like you.

>>24478581 (OP)
Care to cite the work?

>>24482201
To my knowledge Federici was writing with comparisons being made to later witch hunts, which were vastly more horrible for women than the probability of domestic violence. While women's working conditions and the distribution of labour might have been more egalitarian than in the early modern and industrial eras, this doesn't mean they had equal standing with men. They just had more power than the women of the early modern period, and Federici is making the claim that the witch hunts were a measure to induce suspicion and reduce the status of women in society from what it was.
>what's that, you sat under a peach tree and the next day the tree died? No, the tree wasn't old as hell, you're a fucking witch!

>>24480542
Exactly. Jesus even says you can divorce for fornication, and she would've been stoned to death with stones in the aforetime.

>>24483788
>Calvinism back-loads works
wdymbt?

also you bodied that anon lmao

>>24484168
The witch hunts are exaggerated to a ludicruous degree. Far more women died of disease or famine in Europe in a less fortunate year than the number of women who died as a result of witch hunts through the centuries combined.

>>24484483
fun fact, in the salem witch trials, less than 25 witches were burned... some say as low as 18.
And now Harvard is doing studies on the health benefits of practicing witchcraft which totally isn't a real thing.

>>24480511
>resulting in the wifebeater being, himself, viciously beaten by the other men in the village the next day
Fucking simps, man

>>24480511
It's one thing to beat your wife for no good reason and an other to do it for adultery.

>>24485558
You shouldn't beat a woman unless in self defense, for any reason. She can't fight back. If it were you, you'd understand. The reason doesn't change this.

>>24478581 (OP)

Aquinas was fat. By Christians own standard (the physique check) all his writings are inadmissible.

>>24485563
adultery is a pretty serious offence, worse than a beating in my eyes. If people knew they'd get beat or killed for cheating then they'd probably be deterred from doing so. Especially if they have children - it's disgusting that they will ruin their child's life because they heckin need muh sexual gratification.
I actually agree with you that you shouldn't beat a woman, but I think an adulterer should be treated like a murder if they have children.

>>24485597
You just want society to stay together. That's not a bad impulse.
Don't let it turn you evil.

>>24480511
>Silvia Federici (Italian pronunciation: [ˈsilvja fedeˈriːtʃi]; born 1942) is an Italian-American scholar, teacher, and Marxist feminist activist based in New York.[2]
I'm very skeptical.

>>24485593
he was also 6'5 or something while most southern Europeans in the middle ages were midgets. I'd let it slide.

>>24484185
Calvinism teaches that there are different kinds of faiths and that a "saving faith" will always have good works but a "non-saving faith" doesn't have works. The only difference in the equation is works being included.

If someone is looking to their own works for whether or not they're saved, they're effectively trusting in works to prove their salvation instead of trusting in Christ alone. The Bible teaches that you can know you have eternal life if you believe on the name of the Son of God (1st John 5:10-13), it doesn't say if you stop sinning or go to church or do good deeds. Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly states it's by grace through faith, not of ourselves, and not of works; verse 10 afterward says we should walk in good works after we're saved (keyword being "should", not "must") and God expects and wants good works, but it's not part of salvation. God gets all the glory for saving us since salvation is the work that Jesus Christ did for us, it's not anything we can do for God, and the Bible says all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags to God (Isaiah 64:6) and Peter rebuked someone who tried to purchase the gift of God with money in Acts 8:20 (trying to buy the precious redeeming blood of Jesus with our filthy rags is basically an insult, none of our goodness or our wealth could ever afford something so priceless and valuable, and people often call Biblical salvation "cheap grace", but nothing cheapens the grace of God like thinking you could ever buy it with your filthy rags).

The Bible is clear in many places, but Romans 4 is probably the most clear on it, that God imputes righteousness without works (verse 6). Even if you don't do any good works, you're still saved as long as you believed the gospel. And verses 7 and 8 show that God won't impute any sin unto you going forward, but anyone who's honest with themselves will admit they still sin (because we're not Jesus, we're not sinlessly perfect, and salvation is by beleiving the gospel, not living sinless perfection which is impossible to attain while we still have the flesh anyway (or the Bible calls it "the old man")) and that is also expressed in 1st John 1:8, that if we say we have no sin we're only deceiving ourselves.
>Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
And you can read the context as well and it clarifies the verses people don't understand in James 2, because Romans 4 shows that Abraham was justified without works, because if he was justified before God by works, he could glory in his flesh. In James 2, he was talking about being justified in the sight of men, as well as profiting others (it's also written to saved believers, or the brethren). It doesn't profit others to have a dead faith that would tell someone naked "be clothed" but not give them clothes, they're not saved from hell for giving a naked person clothes, but it's a living faith that profits or benefits others.

>>24486430
amen. I appreciate the thorough response and I agree with everything you said because I believe what the Bible says. I think Calvinism's biggest pitfall is Limited Atonement in that they have to twist Scripture to make it fit in all areas where a Natural reader would conclude that Jesus died for all of mankind. And I've heard some good arguments against the other points although I think Calvinists get the short end of the stick sometimes in that their opponents are often less than charitable.
I'd like to play Calvin's advocate on one point, howeverbeit:
>that a "saving faith" will always have good works but a "non-saving faith" doesn't have works
By faith we can know we ourselves have salvation like the verse from 1 John you quoted, but there's no real way to know if anyone else has that same saving faith. So I've heard Calvinists say that works are an outward sign that someone else has a saving faith in that they are evidence of it, but not proof. That's my only contention, but I will keep an eye out for Calvinists acting that way. I do agree with some Calvinists who say that Luther was too hard on James, though. If James is Scripture then it can't be straw.

>>24483788
You people betrayed the Eucharist, you don't get to lecture anybody on fidelity to Scripture.

>For My Flesh is true food, and My Blood is true drink.

>>24487912
You betray God and His Word. You completely ignore everything the Bible actually says unless you can twist it to justify your cult, especially when it plainly says not to do what you practice as core doctrines.
>Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
>John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
And notice how he says "shall never hunger" and "shall never thirst" but you claim you have to eat and drink every single week or even more than that to be saved, since you don't care what the Bible says only what your faggot priest tells you to believe since you're an unthinking NPC.

Go ask Mary to save you, idiot. The Bible says only Jesus is the mediator and only Jesus is the savior. You don't care what the Bible says. And you don't even rely on God to understand the Bible and most of you cultists don't even read it at all, you just relegate all your thinking to some boylover in a dress you blasphemously call "father" despite Jesus plainly saying to call no man father.
>I. Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
>John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Your religion is just a cult for unthinking NPCs who want to "trust the experts". So much so, that even your priests are NPCs who "trust the experts" of the bishops, who aren't even married despite the Bible saying a bishop must be married.
>I. Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Just look at this blasphemous FILTH that Catholics actually believe in pic related.

>>24488022
>>24488025
Protestants are annoying nerds lol. Religion is just vibes and Protestantism has no vibes.

>>24488028
nta, but now I understand why all these young men are flocking to catholicism and the EO church.

thanking Christ I'm reformed

>>24483788
>not a lutheran

i'm guessing presbyterian or reformed baptist

>>24488047
>but now I understand why all these young men are flocking to catholicism and the EO church.
because they are impressionable and susceptible to sophistry? Anon made several arguments against RC doctrine and the response was "you have no vibes bro"

>>24488085
wrong, he's a methodist, he said he is not a Calvinist which is what presbys and reformed baptists are.

>>24488086
all the pageantry and flash lures them, it doesn't matter if the doctrine is lacking, because for these people it's just a vibe

>>24488091
ah, thanks. didn't actually read the thread, lol

>>24488093
>all the pageantry and flash lures them
ah i get you now, yeah you're right

>>24488028
>no rebuttal to a single point made
Catholics can't contend for the faith at all.

>>24488047
You're going to hell since you're trusting in works. You Calvinist snakes also can't just come out and say you're Calvinist, you have to claim "oh we're reformed" as if the entire protestant reformation was you Calvinist dogs. Your theology literally makes God the author of sin and child rape and genocide. Plus you fags have to infiltrate and subvert churches and bible colleges because you can't create any on your own. The only Calvinist soul winner you guys can even point to died hundreds of years ago too.

>>24488085
Then you're a retard because I wrote all this too >>24486430 which you probably won't even read because "hurr durr ur a prot xDD". Fucking retard.
>>24488091
You're another retard.

>>24488086
>Anon made several arguments against RC doctrine and the response was "you have no vibes bro"
That's literally all Cathodox ever post in response, some retarded garbage like this pic >>24488109. At this point, I'm conviced Cat-licks and Ortho-dogs are worse posters than the most obnoxious atheist fedoras.

The only reason I even bother writing or making an arguments to them is for anyone who might be reading as a third party, since they're just NPCs. As far as I can tell, 99% of Catholics are already reprobate, already rejected by God and beyond any hope of salvation. Just like the Mormons, when a Mormon leaves Mormonism, rarely are they getting saved by believing the gospel, they typically just become atheists/agnostics.

That's what false religion in the name of Christ typically does, they're exposed to the Bible and continually reject it and reject it and reject it, and they reject God's word, and they reject God's salvation, and eventually God rejects them; and they become a Romans 1 or Hebrews 6 kind of guy.
>II. Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

>>24488109
well you're in a bad mood. no need for name-calling.

>>24488109
>Then you're a retard because I wrote all this too >>24486430 which you probably won't even read because "hurr durr ur a prot xDD". Fucking retard.
No I'M the retard you wrote all that to. I responded here >>24487771 and I'm a protestant. My bad I thought you were the methodist from the other thread.

It's just so weird to me that pagan idolatry is so important to them. Like, imagine idolatry like the Catholic or Ortholarp idolatry being so important to you that you reject God's biblical salvation.

But as the Bible says, those that trust in idols are like unto them
>Psalms 115:4-8
>4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
>5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
>6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
>7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
>8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.

>>24478581 (OP)
do you disagree?

>>24488115
>The only reason I even bother writing or making an arguments to them is for anyone who might be reading as a third party
yeah, same

>>24488123
>those that trust in idols are like unto them
>>8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.
hits the nail on the head

>>24488119
>no need for name-calling.
Actually, there is. And I'm just following in the example given by Christ.
>I. Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Jesus had NOTHING nice to say about the religious hypocrites and promoters of false religion like the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and lawyers.
>Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Maybe you should try actually reading the Bible for once instead of your catechism and blindly following your priests, bishops, and popes into hell.

>>24488119
>well you're in a bad mood.
Gee, I wonder why I'd be in a bad mood when people are promoting lies and heresy and misrepresenting what I stand for and posting no-effort, shit-eating redditor, atheist fedora-tier replies.

Let's see the Bible, why did Jesus get angry?
>Mark 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

You are STIFFNECKED, and YOU ALWAYS RESIST THE HOLY GHOST
>Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

>>24488144
>>24488147
lol take a breahter bud

>>24488115
>calls Catholics annoying
>is actively spamming and derailing a thread
Still remaining catholic cause you niggas got no vibes like us

>>24483788
You cannot exchange money for indulgences. Crazy how we still need to explain this hundreds of years later

>>24478581 (OP)
Aquinas is addressing the question of whether a husband must divorce and excommunicate his wife for the sin of adultery. Not whether that punishment goes too far, but whether mercy is even allowed. Aquinas comes down on the side of mercy. He says that if she repents, that's the end of the story. If repentance is the result of words, that's wonderful. If words do not break through to her hardened heart, repentance may be the result of blows. That's still mercy, because if she insists on staying on that road and separating from her husband in medieval France, there's a good chance that she either starves or has to become a prostitute, and dies in her sin. If you aren't putting this hypothetical woman's eternal spiritual wellbeing over her temporary physical wellbeing, you aren't actually putting her interests first and are acting as her enemy.

Corporal punishment is not intrinsically wrong. And as the head of the household, it is not intrinsically wrong for a husband to administer it either to wife or to children. Those are countercultural ideas, but you cannot legitimately dispute them from within Catholicism. However, just because something is not intrinsically wrong does not mean anyone today has recourse to it. The death penalty is the most salient example. If the Church commands inaction even in a situation where action would not be intrinsically wrong, then you stay your hand. And if the secular authorities have banned an action, the action is not permissible except when it violates a divine command to act.

So striking one's wife to dissuade her from adultery is not wrong just because it could be misused by a man with an anger problem, nor because of a tautology that striking a wife is wrong. It's wrong because divorce is no longer effectively a death penalty to the wife, because the secular authorities have outlawed it, and because the Church has judged that violence and civil disobedience are generally not to be used to prevent others' sin.

>>24478581 (OP)
Yes? If anything you should be allowed to kill them.

You can hit your children when they misbehave. If a woman acts childish, a light tap. Not in her face though.

>>24481245
>>24478581 (OP)
you guys just look for excuses to beat women as an outlet for your repressed homolust. While I agree with Aquinas in this quote, your specific idea of beating your wife is unchristian and unbecoming of a man

>>24488028
>Religion is just vibes and Protestantism has no vibes.
Catholics proving once again that the lot of them are just pagans

>>24485593
>By Christians own standard (the physique check)

The fuck you talking about?

>>24489062

How do you not know? Argue with any Christian on X, and they perform a physique check (post selfie showing physique). If they're more muscular than you, they believe that makes them automatically correct. Are you not Christian yourself?

>>24488025
Shit you just made up.jpeg

>>24486385

I can find no source for that figure, but plenty saying he was so fat, sections had to be cut out of tables for him

>>24488123
Define "idol" in a way that doesn't ban all movies.

>>24488109
>You're going to hell since you're trusting in works.

Tell me you know nothing of Catholic doctrine without saying you know nothing of Catholic doctrine.

How come evangelical morons never bother to quote the fucking catechism?

>>24478581 (OP)
That is to say, if your bitch will take your beatings then you are stuck with her. So sayeth the lord.

I'm not so sure if this is intended to endorse what we call "wife-beating." That would seem to be contrary to the principle he gives in the very next article:

>Article 3. Whether the husband can on his own judgment put away his wife on account of fornication?
>...
>No one should avenge himself. But if a husband were by his own judgment to put away his wife on account of fornication, he would avenge himself. Therefore this should not be done.
>Further, no man is prosecutor and judge in the same cause. But the husband is the prosecutor by suing his wife for the offense she has committed against him. Therefore he cannot be the judge, and consequently he cannot put her away on his own judgment.

So, by that principle, it seems to be allowing corporal punishment as a means of correction in principle, but it should not be the husband who administers corporal punishment acting alone. On the other hand, if it were shown that wife-beating was otherwise endorsed by the Church in that time, Thomas Aquinas's words should be interpreted in that context.

>>24489069
What are the sources for that? Is it possible such stories were made up later just because they were funny and not because they are actually true?

>>24489064
Maybe don't your get theology from Xitter influencers? Instead I suggest to go to your nearest parish and maybe ask the priest.

>>24488121
>I thought you were the methodist from the other thread
NTA, but if you mean the "Was Buddha a Fedora?" thread, I'm the Methodist from that thread. I understand a lot of the frustration from the anon you're replying to, there's a lot of Catholics and Orthodox on this site, particularly on /pol/ and /his/, who clearly don't care about faith beyond its "based vibes". Still, I've also seen some sincere Catholics and Orthodox on this site as well, and as a Methodist, I frankly prefer a lot of their soteriology to that of most other Protestants (besides the works-based stuff, obviously). I don't think we need to dismiss all Catholics and Orthodox as pagan retards in order to dismiss some of their more ludicrous doctrines.
All that being said, I'm glad we're getting more Protestants on this board, because the "Catholic" larpers are insufferable. For instance, assuming that >>24488028 >>24488248 aren't just baiting, they clearly place the aesthetic "vibes" of faith over any serious theological objections one could have to Catholicism. Even if I interpret "vibes" as charitably as I can and assume they're talking about the non-conceptual, experiential aspect of faith, there's no reason to seek that mystical experience in the aesthetics of created things (church buildings, images, statues, etc.) instead of in one's direct relationship with the Holy Spirit. This is the biggest problem with Catholicism and Orthodoxy: they focus more on creations than the Creator, as can be seen in their blatant worship of saints and their images
>inb4 it's not worship, it's veneration
If we take the strictest definition of worship possible and define it as the offering of sacrifices (as many Catholic apologists do), I fail to see how they still aren't blatantly idolatrous. In multiple Catholic traditions, offerings are made to statues of saints, from Italians offering money to statues of St Anthony to Filipinos offering eggs to statues of St Claire. How can you offer a sacrifice of money or food to a statue of a creature and not find that the least bit idolatrous?

>>24488109
If you're not a Lutheran, Reformed, or Methodist, I'm curious to know what denomination you are. Anabaptist?

>>24489064
you spend too much time on the internet

>>24489993
>they clearly place the aesthetic "vibes" of faith over any serious theological objections one could have
Nigga. Jesus said you should know them by their fruits. You know if a fruit's good if it looks good, smells good, tastes good. Not by nerdy scientific dissection or by running it through a machine. When I go to a Protestant church I see people on the floor barking, speaking in tongues, and holding arm-wrestling contests. When I go to a Catholic Church I see Beauty and Reverence crystallised.

>>24490250
>Nigga. Jesus said you should know them by their fruits.
Correct, that's why it's easy to distinguish between churches on the basis of whether they worship creatures or not.
>When I go to a Protestant church I see people on the floor barking, speaking in tongues, and holding arm-wrestling contests.
You're talking about Pentecostals and other "Non-denominational" Charismatics, I agree that those services are irreverent. That says nothing about Mainline Protestantism, though.
>When I go to a Catholic Church I see Beauty and Reverence crystallised.
I'll fully admit that many Catholic masses are beautiful and reverent. But if you get so caught up in seeing the aesthetics that you do not fully hear scripture and internalize its meaning, the aesthetics are superfluous. I should mention that I was raised Catholic and attended many Catholic masses, where I witnessed firsthand how many congregants would get caught up in the architecture and the ceremony, yet barely pay attention to the liturgy. I think this is a problem among a lot of American Catholics (Tradcath larpers included), where they focus more on the historical tradition and the culture than on the actual tenets of the Christian faith.

>>24482208
agree.
>>24482141
rather than that being a compliment or not, it is rare. interesting. I wouldn't expect this. thank you for posting that framed picture.

>>24478581 (OP)

>>24491924
Jews took Judaism from Aryans though. Aryan paganism -> Zoroastrianism (monotheism) -> ancient Israelite religion

>>24491924
>it comes from Jews so it's bad
Do you apply this logic to the theory of relativity as well