The Immanentized Kingdom: Magnifica Humanitas and the Loss of the Ascension

Teofrastus · Jun 17, 2026

The latest papal encyclica, Magnifica Humanitas, represents the same secularized social vision that has long been adopted across much of modern Christianity. In contrast to this vision, Augustine rejected the notion of societal progress towards an earthly kingdom of God characterized by mutual understanding and humanitarian care. Defending this classical Christian view that the entire world stands under judgment, Douglas Farrow (Ascension Theology) argues that evil exists strictly as a parasite on created goods, such that its destructive potential scales with the greatness of the good it corrupts. Far from gradually disappearing through human effort, evil advances through parasitic progression and is bounded only by divine judgment. Thus, the highly integrated "good society" promoted by the modern papacy serves, paradoxically, to expand the potential for evil's parasitic growth.

Herein lies the problem: rather than opposing evil, the Church increasingly counsels moral compromise under the guise of pastoral understanding. This therapeutic posture manifests politically in demands for the passive acceptance of a mass migration threatening Europe with a social dissolution whose underlying vulnerabilities were starkly exposed by recent inquiries into the UK grooming gang scandals. The papacy is similarly incapacitated when confronting its own internal crises of corruption and clerical abuse; capable only of issuing empty platitudes, the institution consistently evades the confrontation of systemic evil. This passive stance directly contradicts the Apostle Paul, who explicitly admonishes congregations to purge the wicked from their midst.

This state of affairs is the logical culmination of a long-standing theological shift. When the historical reality of the bodily Ascension is marginalized, the Church loses its anchor in a transcendent, heavenly reality. Consequently, the Christian hope of a coming Kingdom is horizontalized, transformed from an eschatological expectation of divine judgment into a secularized project of earthly progress and social optimization. As the very title of Magnifica Humanitas betrays, the Church redefines salvation as a humanitarian enterprise, thereby gradually relinquishes its role as a sign of contradiction to the world. By treating political integration and social cohesion as the ultimate goods, the Church unwittingly prepares the ground for a simulation of the Kingdom, a diabolical counterfeit of the divine order. In this light, the modern ecclesiastical preference for therapeutic platitudes over moral confrontation is the inevitable outcome of an immanentized faith. Having abandoned the strict discipline of the Eucharist, which simultaneously proclaims Christ's real absence in the world and His real presence at the altar, the Church becomes highly vulnerable to mimicking the very structures of the secular state.

While the Vatican defends Magnifica Humanitas as a defense of the Imago Dei against technological dehumanization, the title's linguistic and structural echo of the Magnificat makes it highly vulnerable to the charge of anthropocentric pride. For those who hold to a strict, classical Christology, praising "magnificent humanity" at a time when the Church is already accused of collapsing into a secular NGO feels less like a defense of the faith and more like a theological surrender.

DaisyDay · Jun 18, 2026

Teofrastus said:
Herein lies the problem: rather than opposing evil, the Church increasingly counsels moral compromise under the guise of pastoral understanding. This therapeutic posture manifests politically in demands for the passive acceptance of a mass migration threatening Europe with a social dissolution whose underlying vulnerabilities were starkly exposed by recent inquiries into the UK grooming gang scandals.

Is immigration an evil that the Church ought to oppose?

Teofrastus · Jun 18, 2026

DaisyDay said:
Is immigration an evil that the Church ought to oppose?

Where, exactly, does the Bible teach that mass immigration is harmless or that nations are morally bound to support it? The biblical story points in the opposite direction. Scripture consistently affirms the legitimacy of distinct peoples, borders, and inherited homelands, and it repeatedly warns against the political and spiritual dangers of sprawling, multi‑ethnic empires. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Rome are not held up as models of harmonious diversity but as cautionary examples of what happens when imperial ambition dissolves the integrity of nations. The Bible commands compassion for the stranger, yes, but it never collapses that duty into an endorsement of demographic upheaval or the erasure of national identity. Its vision is one of ordered hospitality, not imperial multiculturalism.

Yoram Hazony, in The Virtue of Nationalism, frames political history as a struggle between imperialism (represented by Rome, Nazism, the EU, and globalist liberalism) and nationalism, understood as a world of independent and self‑governing nations rooted in shared culture, language, and historical memory. He argues that these are mutually exclusive visions of world order and that nationalism is the political model presented in the Hebrew Bible. Scripture, he claims, depicts an ideal of distinct nations with their own lands, mutually recognized borders, and limited covenantal obligations, but without any universal empire. Israel serves as the paradigm of this order, a particular people with a particular law in a particular land, and this pattern, Hazony contends, is the origin of the Western nation-state.

Nationalism, in his account, protects freedom more effectively than empires, since empires tend toward centralization, uniformity, and the suppression of local traditions. Nation-states, by contrast, allow for diversity between nations rather than enforcing homogeneity within a single imperial structure. Nationalism is therefore not a form of xenophobia but a form of political pluralism. Hazony also maintains that national cohesion is essential for democratic self-rule, since a functioning nation-state requires shared language, shared historical memory, shared moral and religious traditions, and a sense of mutual loyalty. Without these, democracy becomes unstable because citizens lack a common framework for deliberation and sacrifice. Democracy presupposes cultural cohesion.

Hazony further argues that modern liberalism, when universalized, becomes a new form of empire. It seeks to impose a single political model on all nations, it delegitimizes national particularity, it treats dissenting nations as morally defective, and it expands bureaucratic power beyond national accountability. In this sense, the liberal empire is simply the latest iteration of an ancient pattern. His thesis, in one sentence, is that a world of independent and culturally cohesive nation‑states is more just, more free, and more stable than any universal empire, ancient or modern, and that this vision is fundamentally biblical.

DaisyDay · Jun 19, 2026

Teofrastus said:
Where, exactly, does the Bible teach that mass immigration is harmless or that nations are morally bound to support it?

The Bible doesn't teach anything about mass immigration, however, it does admonish us to treat strangers amongst us kindly and charitably. Furthermore, whatever we do for the least of men we are doing for Christ himself. It does seem to say the nations shall be collectively punished for failing to keep His commandments, the 2nd Great Commandment is to love others as yourself.

Teofrastus · Jun 19, 2026

DaisyDay said:
The Bible doesn't teach anything about mass immigration, however, it does admonish us to treat strangers amongst us kindly and charitably. Furthermore, whatever we do for the least of men we are doing for Christ himself. It does seem to say the nations shall be collectively punished for failing to keep His commandments, the 2nd Great Commandment is to love others as yourself.

The Bible also says: "Do not be overly righteous... why destroy yourself?" (Eccl. 7:16). Rabbinic tradition interprets this as a warning against the "pious fool" whose goodness harms others, the good inclination twisted into pride, and excessive piety that violates justice or truth. "Goodness for its own sake" is sinful because it is goodness detached from God's order, and therefore a form of idolatry: worship of one's own moral image.

Christian moral theology stresses that sin is whatever defies God's revealed will, including when one's own "righteousness" becomes self-willed or prideful. Augustine emphasizes that virtue becomes vice when detached from right order and humility. His anthropology is razor-sharp: a virtue is only a virtue when ordered to caritas, the love of God. When ordered to the self, it becomes vitium, a vice. Thus, "charity for its own sake" is not charity but superbia, the primal sin, the self curving inward (incurvatus in se). This is why Augustine argues that even the pagan virtues are like splendid vices, beautiful on the surface but corrupt at the root.

Aquinas reasons in more metaphysical terms: the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity) are infused and participatory. They cannot be exercised "for their own sake" because their form is participation in God. Remove the form, and the act becomes materially similar but formally sinful. Thus, "charity for its own sake" is like trying to have light without the sun: it becomes a counterfeit.

The danger of "goodness and charity for their own sake" is not that goodness or charity are bad, but that when detached from their proper form, end, and measure, they cease to be virtues at all. They become perversions of virtue, what Chesterton calls "virtues gone mad" because they have been isolated from the whole moral organism. A virtue is not a free-floating moral energy. It is a form, a participation in divine order. When a virtue is severed from its proper end (such as God, truth, justice, or the good of the other), it becomes self-referential, self-justifying, and spiritually destructive. This is why charity for its own sake is not charity. It is narcissism disguised as benevolence. Chesterton's line captures this perfectly: when virtues wander alone, they "do more terrible damage" than vices:

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions. For in his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race—because he is so human. (G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, ch. 3)

Chesterton's diagnosis is that modernity is not too wicked but too good in the wrong way. It is full of truth without mercy, mercy without truth, charity without justice, and kindness without courage. This is precisely "goodness for its own sake": a virtue detached from the whole, wandering alone, and becoming destructive.

Goodness and charity for their own sake are sinful because they cease to be participations in God and instead become self-willed moral projects. Detached from truth, justice, and divine order, they turn into pride, sentimentality, or moral anarchy. Superficial humanistic morals are "virtues gone mad." Magnifica Humanitas is the perfect embodiment of this very pathology.

Pommer · Jun 19, 2026

Teofrastus said:
The Bible also says: "Do not be overly righteous... why destroy yourself?" (Eccl. 7:16). Rabbinic tradition interprets this as a warning against the "pious fool" whose goodness harms others, the good inclination twisted into pride, and excessive piety that violates justice or truth. "Goodness for its own sake" is sinful because it is goodness detached from God's order, and therefore a form of idolatry: worship of one's own moral image.

Christian moral theology stresses that sin is whatever defies God's revealed will, including when one's own "righteousness" becomes self-willed or prideful. Augustine emphasizes that virtue becomes vice when detached from right order and humility. His anthropology is razor-sharp: a virtue is only a virtue when ordered to caritas, the love of God. When ordered to the self, it becomes vitium, a vice. Thus, "charity for its own sake" is not charity but superbia, the primal sin, the self curving inward (incurvatus in se). This is why Augustine argues that even the pagan virtues are "splendid vices," beautiful on the surface but corrupt at the root.

Aquinas reasons in more metaphysical terms: the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity) are infused and participatory. They cannot be exercised "for their own sake" because their form is participation in God. Remove the form, and the act becomes materially similar but formally sinful. Thus, "charity for its own sake" is like trying to have light without the sun: it becomes a counterfeit.

The danger of "goodness and charity for their own sake" is not that goodness or charity are bad, but that when detached from their proper form, end, and measure, they cease to be virtues at all. They become perversions of virtue, what Chesterton calls "virtues gone mad" because they have been isolated from the whole moral organism. A virtue is not a free-floating moral energy. It is a form, a participation in divine order. When a virtue is severed from its proper end (such as God, truth, justice, or the good of the other), it becomes self-referential, self-justifying, and spiritually destructive. This is why charity for its own sake is not charity. It is narcissism disguised as benevolence. Chesterton's line captures this perfectly: when virtues wander alone, they "do more terrible damage" than vices:

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions. For in his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race—because he is so human. (G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, ch. 3)

Chesterton's diagnosis is that modernity is not too wicked but too good in the wrong way. It is full of truth without mercy, mercy without truth, charity without justice, and kindness without courage. This is precisely "goodness for its own sake": a virtue detached from the whole, wandering alone, and becoming destructive.

Goodness and charity for their own sake are sinful because they cease to be participations in God and instead become self-willed moral projects. Detached from truth, justice, and divine order, they turn into pride, sentimentality, or moral anarchy. Superficial humanistic morals are "virtues gone mad." Magnifica Humanitas is the perfect embodiment of this very pathology.

One wonders how such an argument would have affected The Great Commission.

Hans Blaster · Jun 20, 2026

I wondered how "humanities" or a bunch of latin was some how "current events", but it turned out to be nothing more than an attempt to smuggle national conservatism (the brother of national socialism, but with explicit dominance of religion) in to a conversation. SMH.

stevevw · Jun 24, 2026

From what I understand from the Popes article he is not really promoting a progressive kingdom on earth by passive acceptance of the worlds idea of justice and equality ect.

This is talking about Christians first being unified in the Eucharist of Christ. Then being ambassadors for Gods kingdom to the world. By reminding and helping to promote the goodness that reflects Gods kingdom. Grounding this in Christ.

I don't think this means working with NGO's or politicians to promote the worlds version of Gods kingdom. Rather to be like a guide rail in helping to bring basic justice, peace and help to those who are suffering. Which is basically exampling Christ. Here is a couple of parts I thought relate to this.

The Eucharist opens us to justice and sharing, with a preferential concern for those who are burdened by poverty or marginalization.

the Church — nourished by the Eucharist — is called to make visible a different paradigm, one that preserves human connections, gives a voice to the invisible and ensures that processes are aimed at respecting people’s dignity.

] the task of building in our time must place our relationship with God at its center. Our rule must be the acceptance of human limitations as a natural and positive reality, and should be characterized by shared responsibility and a language characterized by the Gospel.

In this task, we are called to assume an active role, without taking refuge in spiritual sentimentality or retreating into our own little worlds. We must be faithful to the truth, invest in education, cultivate relationships and love justice and peace.

As mentioned this is bringing a different kind of paradigm to the world. I think a destinction is being made.

Its just that Christians have to go out into the world to help others while also pointing out and exampling the true way. Without becoming like the world. Which requires innovative ways to show God in the current context.

But primarily grounded in Christs love that all are worthy to be saved. Without this then it becomes like the world.

Proverbs 29:2: "When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan"

Teofrastus · Jun 24, 2026

stevevw said:
From what I understand from the Popes article he is not really promoting a progressive kingdom on earth by passive acceptance of the worlds idea of justice and equality ect.

This is talking about Christians first being unified in the Eucharist of Christ. Then being ambassadors for Gods kingdom to the world. By reminding and helping to promote the goodness that reflects Gods kingdom. Grounding this in Christ.

I don't think this means working with NGO's or politicians to promote the worlds version of Gods kingdom. Rather to be like a guide rail in helping to bring basic justice, peace and help to those who are suffering. Which is basically exampling Christ. Here is a couple of parts I thought relate to this.

Indeed, while the policy proposals are clearly liberal-humanitarian, the Pope also invokes classical Christian metaphysics. The problem is that this stands in direct opposition to liberal humanism, as evident from his use of "rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem." The language sounds like a collective human effort to build a better world: moral progress through cooperation and social engineering, as if he's saying, "If we all work together, we can build the Kingdom."

He explicitly speaks of "building a city founded on the common good" and of "working together to make the City of God a safe place for returning exiles." In other words, we are called to rebuild Jerusalem, to "rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence."

This is theologically false. It's Christ's work, not ours. The Kingdom is given, not engineered; it's eschatological, not historical. The Pope tries to have it both ways, as if these are just two sides of the same coin. It looks like Christian theology is just tacked on to pay lip service to tradition, while his real advocacy is liberal humanism.

It's a bad metaphor, because Nehemiah 2-6 is just about restoring a devastated community, not about building a worldwide solidaric community for the common good. Israel and Jerusalem stand under judgment, just like every other nation on earth. In traditional Christian theology, Jesus Christ already sits on the throne of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the earthly Jerusalem plays no eschatological role.

Douglas Farrow explains that evil keeps growing by perverting the goods that belong to the church. This often occurs through clever, subtle parodies, like a virus that mimics the structure of healthy cells. Liberal humanism fits that description perfectly. It's like a virus that has infected Christianity worldwide.

At a time when the UK and France are falling apart because of their "goodness and generosity," the Pope warns against "identity-based and nationalistic reactions" and insists we respect the right to migrate, claiming "migration can become an opportunity for encounter and mutual enrichment among peoples." He sticks to "liberal principles" but throws in some Christian theology as window dressing.

stevevw · Thursday at 8:53 AM

Teofrastus said:
Indeed, while the policy proposals are clearly liberal-humanitarian, the Pope also invokes classical Christian metaphysics. The problem is that this stands in direct opposition to liberal humanism, as evident from his use of "rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem." The language sounds like a collective human effort to build a better world: moral progress through cooperation and social engineering, as if he's saying, "If we all work together, we can build the Kingdom."

He explicitly speaks of "building a city founded on the common good" and of "working together to make the City of God a safe place for returning exiles." In other words, we are called to rebuild Jerusalem, to "rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence."

From what I understand a destinction was made between the digitalised Ai and materialised world from the spiritual, divine and transcendence of Gods kingdom. It was bring this spiritual aspect to highlight Gods kingdom as the true way in such a world.

The Pope seemed to be criticising the negative influence humanism has caused in its unrelenting march towards control and treating humans like machines. Therefore the idea of human worth as Gods children and made in His image. This is one definition I found ironically with Ai.

The immanentized kingdom magnifica humanitas

This concept addresses the intersection of technology, spiritual transcendence, and modern sociopolitical philosophy. It primarily roots itself in the critique of "immanentizing the eschaton"—a political theory popularized by philosopher Eric Voegelin, which warns against the danger of attempting to create a perfect, utopian kingdom on earth using secular, political, or technological means. [1, 2, 3]

These philosophical and theological critiques explore how this modern phenomenon impacts society:

The Immanentized Kingdom: When technological utopians, transhumanists, or secular political movements attempt to build a flawless paradise on earth (often via AI, biotechnology, or digital immortality), they reduce the divine, transcendent promise of the Kingdom of God into a merely earthly, material project.

Magnifica Humanitas: This concept aligns deeply with Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, which cautions humanity against becoming "a new Tower of Babel." Magnifica Humanitas asserts that the human person has infinite value created in God's image, and warns that viewing people merely as productive, digital data points enslaves humanity to a closed, technocratic worldview. [1, 2, 3]

The Loss of the Ascension: The "immanentization" of human goals leads to the loss of the Ascension—the theological truth that Christ ascended into heaven, reminding humanity that our ultimate destiny, eternal hope, and true fulfillment lie in transcendence rather than earthly perfection. When we lose the Ascension, we settle for a purely horizontal, earthly existence governed by algorithms and human power. [1]

Teofrastus said:
This is theologically false. It's Christ's work, not ours. The Kingdom is given, not engineered; it's eschatological, not historical. The Pope tries to have it both ways, as if these are just two sides of the same coin. It looks like Christian theology is just tacked on to pay lip service to tradition, while his real advocacy is liberal humanism.

I don't know enough about his writings to know what he means. I have heard talk over whether the Pope was progressive.

I agree Christians should not engage in social engineering. Especially with secular partnerships as there will be a conflict of interest. I think traditionally Catholic charity worked independent of secular society. Don't adopt LGBTIQ+ for example.

Rather they support people where they are at. Offering aged and family care. Though its getting harder with State laws and regulations that force Christian support workers to adhere to ideas and beliefs that conflict with Christianity.

Teofrastus said:
It's a bad metaphor, because Nehemiah 2-6 is just about restoring a devastated community, not about building a worldwide solidaric community for the common good. Israel and Jerusalem stand under judgment, just like every other nation on earth. In traditional Christian theology, Jesus Christ already sits on the throne of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the earthly Jerusalem plays no eschatological role.

The world is also decending dying which was set in motion from the garden. I agree its not bring about a world kingdom through humanist ideas.

When the Pope mentions bringing about a new and differnt paradigm I am assuming he means Gods kingdom and not a worldly or humanist one. But certainly if its about socially engineering society to itself be the good. Be the community as one. Then this is wrong as the Christian community is seperate from the world and not of the world. There would be a conflict of interest in what is the basis for such good.

Teofrastus said:
Douglas Farrow explains that evil keeps growing by perverting the goods that belong to the church. This often occurs through clever, subtle parodies, like a virus that mimics the structure of healthy cells. Liberal humanism fits that description perfectly. It's like a virus that has infected Christianity worldwide.

Some say this is the Anthropocene age of humans as the superior species over the earth and nature.

I agree that as time has gone on the church has become more worldly and progressive. Its hard to tell the difference between secular society and a growing number of churches. It is like a virus as its hard to get out. There is always a counter to just about everything.

Thats why I think churches should stay out of politics and the secular social justice movement. Because the basis for the worlds social justice is different to Christians. Thats why churches and charities use to be independent and seperate from the State and we did not mix politics and religion.

Teofrastus said:
At a time when the UK and France are falling apart because of their "goodness and generosity," the Pope warns against "identity-based and nationalistic reactions" and insists we respect the right to migrate, claiming "migration can become an opportunity for encounter and mutual enrichment among peoples." He sticks to "liberal principles" but throws in some Christian theology as window dressing.

Yes I am beginning to see what you mean.

In saying that how do you think Christians and th church should navigate the world ?. Christ says we must help the widows and the poor. I think the church should step back and mind their own business. Sort themselves first. Get back to basics.

Teofrastus · Thursday at 1:44 PM

stevevw said:
From what I understand a destinction was made between the digitalised Ai and materialised world from the spiritual, divine and transcendence of Gods kingdom. It was bring this spiritual aspect to highlight Gods kingdom as the true way in such a world.

The Pope seemed to be criticising the negative influence humanism has caused in its unrelenting march towards control and treating humans like machines. Therefore the idea of human worth as Gods children and made in His image. This is one definition I found ironically with Ai.

The immanentized kingdom magnifica humanitas

This concept addresses the intersection of technology, spiritual transcendence, and modern sociopolitical philosophy. It primarily roots itself in the critique of "immanentizing the eschaton"—a political theory popularized by philosopher Eric Voegelin, which warns against the danger of attempting to create a perfect, utopian kingdom on earth using secular, political, or technological means. [1, 2, 3]

These philosophical and theological critiques explore how this modern phenomenon impacts society:

The Immanentized Kingdom: When technological utopians, transhumanists, or secular political movements attempt to build a flawless paradise on earth (often via AI, biotechnology, or digital immortality), they reduce the divine, transcendent promise of the Kingdom of God into a merely earthly, material project.

Magnifica Humanitas: This concept aligns deeply with Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, which cautions humanity against becoming "a new Tower of Babel." Magnifica Humanitas asserts that the human person has infinite value created in God's image, and warns that viewing people merely as productive, digital data points enslaves humanity to a closed, technocratic worldview. [1, 2, 3]

The Loss of the Ascension: The "immanentization" of human goals leads to the loss of the Ascension—the theological truth that Christ ascended into heaven, reminding humanity that our ultimate destiny, eternal hope, and true fulfillment lie in transcendence rather than earthly perfection. When we lose the Ascension, we settle for a purely horizontal, earthly existence governed by algorithms and human power. [1]

I don't know enough about his writings to know what he means. I have heard talk over whether the Pope was progressive.

I agree Christians should not engage in social engineering. Especially with secular partnerships as there will be a conflict of interest. I think traditionally Catholic charity worked independent of secular society. Don't adopt LGBTIQ+ for example.

Rather they support people where they are at. Offering aged and family care. Though its getting harder with State laws and regulations that force Christian support workers to adhere to ideas and beliefs that conflict with Christianity.

The world is also decending dying which was set in motion from the garden. I agree its not bring about a world kingdom through humanist ideas.

When the Pope mentions bringing about a new and differnt paradigm I am assuming he means Gods kingdom and not a worldly or humanist one. But certainly if its about socially engineering society to itself be the good. Be the community as one. Then this is wrong as the Christian community is seperate from the world and not of the world. There would be a conflict of interest in what is the basis for such good.

Some say this is the Anthropocene age of humans as the superior species over the earth and nature.

I agree that as time has gone on the church has become more worldly and progressive. Its hard to tell the difference between secular society and a growing number of churches. It is like a virus as its hard to get out. There is always a counter to just about everything.

Thats why I think churches should stay out of politics and the secular social justice movement. Because the basis for the worlds social justice is different to Christians. Thats why churches and charities use to be independent and seperate from the State and we did not mix politics and religion.

Yes I am beginning to see what you mean.

In saying that how do you think Christians and th church should navigate the world ?. Christ says we must help the widows and the poor. I think the church should step back and mind their own business. Sort themselves first. Get back to basics.

Helping widows and the poor is not an example of virtues gone mad. The pope's broader social and humanistic global project, however, fits that description precisely. As Augustine and Farrow both explain, evil feeds on the good, which means that acting "good" in an unreflective way can lead to terrible consequences. Liberal ideology is built on the principle of being good without thinking, as if moral sentiment alone were sufficient. As a result, it remains disconnected from the fullness of truth, justice, reason, and ultimately from God. We must not allow the virtues to wander on their own, because once they are severed from their proper order they run wild and become destructive, just as Chesterton warns.

That this humanistic‑liberal mode of thought possesses such immense destructive power is due to the fact that its rhetoric appears deeply compassionate and self‑evident. Yet this is nothing more than a thin veneer, an outward form entirely emptied of spiritual substance and intellectual depth. Humanistic liberalism is likely the most pervasive ideological delusion in the history of humanity, far more difficult to free oneself from than either Nazism or Communism. It silently infiltrates every sphere of society, including the Church, in a way that more openly hostile ideologies have never been able to achieve.

For the Church to return to its foundations is to reconnect Christian virtue with the wholeness of the soul and the wholeness of God. Virtue that is detached from the full picture becomes a source of evil and therefore becomes sin.

stevevw · Thursday at 10:40 PM

Teofrastus said:
Helping widows and the poor is not an example of virtues gone mad. The pope's broader social and humanistic global project, however, fits that description precisely. As Augustine and Farrow both explain, evil feeds on the good, which means that acting "good" in an unreflective way can lead to terrible consequences. Liberal ideology is built on the principle of being good without thinking, as if moral sentiment alone were sufficient. As a result, it remains disconnected from the fullness of truth, justice, reason, and ultimately from God. We must not allow the virtues to wander on their own, because once they are severed from their proper order they run wild and become destructive, just as Chesterton warns.

Yes I agree. That is why I was pointing out that when a Christian is helping the poor in society that this may sometimes be in conjuction with the same prupose by secular efforts. That unless you stopped and made a destinction that the acts a Christian is doing are different in the metaphysical sense. No one would be questioning this.

How can you destinguish between a Christian and non Christian say giving some water or food to a hungry person. In that sense the world and Christian efforts align and its good.

Its only when that good is then made the ideology. Is promoting a good that in truth is a falsehood that may promote the world over God. Where that line is is often difficult to make clear. In someays a Christian is to just turn up and help regardless of the context. Because they are not buying into the worlds ideas of good. Rather just putting Christs teachings in action whenever they see need. When Christ love moves them to help.

Teofrastus said:
That this humanistic‑liberal mode of thought possesses such immense destructive power is due to the fact that its rhetoric appears deeply compassionate and self‑evident. Yet this is nothing more than a thin veneer, an outward form entirely emptied of spiritual substance and intellectual depth. Humanistic liberalism is likely the most pervasive ideological delusion in the history of humanity, far more difficult to free oneself from than either Nazism or Communism. It silently infiltrates every sphere of society, including the Church, in a way that more openly hostile ideologies have never been able to achieve.

I liken this to modern day pharisees. The world promoting an outward appearence of good to virtue signal. Charity has been commercialised. Helping others out of love in Christ as a sacrifice is made a industry for profit.

Satan is a copycat. It looks the same but its a trojan horse. Its what we call PC and woke. The modern version of Gods law and order and Christs love. That we cannot see a clear destinction or that is is not being clarified between Christs church and the world is the red flag.

Teofrastus said:
For the Church to return to its foundations is to reconnect Christian virtue with the wholeness of the soul and the wholeness of God. Virtue that is detached from the full picture becomes a source of evil and therefore becomes sin.

Yes not half measures or misrepresentations. Tie it back to the good news of the gospel. That is the anchor. That is a clear difference to the worlds idea of good or the common good.

Teofrastus · Friday at 12:19 PM

stevevw said:
Yes I agree. That is why I was pointing out that when a Christian is helping the poor in society that this may sometimes be in conjuction with the same prupose by secular efforts. That unless you stopped and made a destinction that the acts a Christian is doing are different in the metaphysical sense. No one would be questioning this.

How can you destinguish between a Christian and non Christian say giving some water or food to a hungry person. In that sense the world and Christian efforts align and its good.

Its only when that good is then made the ideology. Is promoting a good that in truth is a falsehood that may promote the world over God. Where that line is is often difficult to make clear. In someays a Christian is to just turn up and help regardless of the context. Because they are not buying into the worlds ideas of good. Rather just putting Christs teachings in action whenever they see need. When Christ love moves them to help.

I liken this to modern day pharisees. The world promoting an outward appearence of good to virtue signal. Charity has been commercialised. Helping others out of love in Christ as a sacrifice is made a industry for profit.

Satan is a copycat. It looks the same but its a trojan horse. Its what we call PC and woke. The modern version of Gods law and order and Christs love. That we cannot see a clear destinction or that is is not being clarified between Christs church and the world is the red flag.

Yes not half measures or misrepresentations. Tie it back to the good news of the gospel. That is the anchor. That is a clear difference to the worlds idea of good or the common good.

Yes, pursuing Christian virtue "for its own sake" amounts to an ideologization of Christianity, and ideology itself is a symptom of the collective mental illness of our age. With the rise of humanistic liberalism, ideologies have sprung up like mushrooms from the soil of liberal society, and the proliferation never ends. Each of these ideologies defines "the good" by issuing a list of principles that must be followed, or else one risks social cancellation or worse. Liberal politics not only enables this development but often reinforces it, at times even supporting groups whose agendas are deeply illiberal.

It may seem far‑fetched to link liberalism with fascism, but that is precisely what Jonah Goldberg does in Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (2008). Goldberg argues that liberalism shares fundamental elements with fascism, even if, as a state ideology, it is less overtly violent than classical fascism. Ishay Landa reaches similar conclusions in The Apprentice's Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism (2009). Fascism did not arise as the opposite of liberalism; it emerged from within liberal thought and liberal practice itself.

If we cannot bring this universal liberalism to a halt, we will once again witness the collapse of democracy and the rise of a new authoritarian takeover. Liberalism is laying the groundwork.

Hans Blaster · Friday at 12:29 PM

Teofrastus said:
It may seem far‑fetched to link liberalism with fascism, but that is precisely what Jonah Goldberg does in Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (2008). Goldberg argues that liberalism shares fundamental elements with fascism, even if, as a state ideology, it is less overtly violent than classical fascism. Ishay Landa reaches similar conclusions in The Apprentice's Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism (2009). Fascism did not arise as the opposite of liberalism; it emerged from within liberal thought and liberal practice itself.

It is far fetched, which is why Goldberg's book is nonsense.

stevevw · Friday at 9:32 PM

Teofrastus said:
Yes, pursuing Christian virtue "for its own sake" amounts to an ideologization of Christianity, and ideology itself is a symptom of the collective mental illness of our age. With the rise of humanistic liberalism, ideologies have sprung up like mushrooms from the soil of liberal society, and the proliferation never ends. Each of these ideologies defines "the good" by issuing a list of principles that must be followed, or else one risks social cancellation or worse. Liberal politics not only enables this development but often reinforces it, at times even supporting groups whose agendas are deeply illiberal.

Yes sort of making the principles and ideology the truth or worship itself. As detached from its nature and source.

Teofrastus said:
It may seem far‑fetched to link liberalism with fascism, but that is precisely what Jonah Goldberg does in Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (2008). Goldberg argues that liberalism shares fundamental elements with fascism, even if, as a state ideology, it is less overtly violent than classical fascism. Ishay Landa reaches similar conclusions in The Apprentice's Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism (2009). Fascism did not arise as the opposite of liberalism; it emerged from within liberal thought and liberal practice itself.

I will have tyo check out these books. It sort of makes sense in that liberation has to involve some sort of idea about being liberated from some sort of oppression. Sooner or later this has to become a unified idea about how to tear down the oppressors to install whatever it is that the liberals believe is what will make things better.

Otherwise its just a perpetual rising up with no coherent basis. The liberal idea itself becomes the ideology which then will develop its tenticles of control to ensure the liberal way. All the time rationalising that its justified for the greater good. That they hold the truth and this needs to be enforced.

Teofrastus said:
If we cannot bring this universal liberalism to a halt, we will once again witness the collapse of democracy and the rise of a new authoritarian takeover. Liberalism is laying the groundwork.

Yes I can see that. The results of liberalism is the proof in the pudding so to speak. We have a rise in humanism and liberalism. At the same time we see a rise in controlling ideas and behaviour. The reality is in how it is expressed on the streets.

That's because despite the idea the reality and nature of how society should be ordered will always come down to control by force. How humans need to fill the void of order with their own ideas and that not all ideas will be seen as equal morally.

Teofrastus · Sunday at 3:33 AM

stevevw said:
Yes sort of making the principles and ideology the truth or worship itself. As detached from its nature and source.

I will have tyo check out these books. It sort of makes sense in that liberation has to involve some sort of idea about being liberated from some sort of oppression. Sooner or later this has to become a unified idea about how to tear down the oppressors to install whatever it is that the liberals believe is what will make things better.

Otherwise its just a perpetual rising up with no coherent basis. The liberal idea itself becomes the ideology which then will develop its tenticles of control to ensure the liberal way. All the time rationalising that its justified for the greater good. That they hold the truth and this needs to be enforced.

Yes I can see that. The results of liberalism is the proof in the pudding so to speak. We have a rise in humanism and liberalism. At the same time we see a rise in controlling ideas and behaviour. The reality is in how it is expressed on the streets.

That's because despite the idea the reality and nature of how society should be ordered will always come down to control by force. How humans need to fill the void of order with their own ideas and that not all ideas will be seen as equal morally.

Landa writes:

If truth be told, certain conservative critics of liberalism did occasionally emphasize, and with evident relish, the liberal responsibility for fascism. Leo Strauss, for example, one of the most important conservative voices in post-Second-World-War USA, regarded the rise of Nazism as a direct outcome of the leveling down brought about by liberalism, its indiscriminate dismissal of traditional values, its boundless permissiveness, and, most insidious of all, its blind faith in popular education and in mass democracy. The political science advocating liberal democracy, he wrote, "by teaching the equality of all values, by denying that there are things which are intrinsically high and others which are intrinsically low as well as by denying that there is an essential difference between men and brutes,... unwittingly contributes to the victory of the gutter" (Strauss, Liberalism - Ancient and Modern, 1968, p. 222). (p. 10)

stevevw · Sunday at 7:59 AM

Teofrastus said:
Landa writes:

If truth be told, certain conservative critics of liberalism did occasionally emphasize, and with evident relish, the liberal responsibility for fascism. Leo Strauss, for example, one of the most important conservative voices in post-Second-World-War USA, regarded the rise of Nazism as a direct outcome of the leveling down brought about by liberalism, its indiscriminate dismissal of traditional values, its boundless permissiveness, and, most insidious of all, its blind faith in popular education and in mass democracy. The political science advocating liberal democracy, he wrote, "by teaching the equality of all values, by denying that there are things which are intrinsically high and others which are intrinsically low as well as by denying that there is an essential difference between men and brutes,... unwittingly contributes to the victory of the gutter" (Strauss, Liberalism - Ancient and Modern, 1968, p. 222). (p. 10)

Wow this is insightful. Its almost like history repeating itself.

Pommer · Sunday at 3:53 PM

stevevw said:
Wow this is insightful. It’s almost like history repeating itself.

Fascism is the inevitable result of a society that’s become “too liberal”?

Hans Blaster · Sunday at 5:35 PM

Pommer said:
Fascism is the inevitable result of a society that’s become “too liberal”?

The crazy had to come out at some point.

stevevw · Monday at 3:44 AM

Pommer said:
Fascism is the inevitable result of a society that’s become “too liberal”?

Only in that we have real examples of how liberalism can become controlling.

By prioritizing individual autonomy and neutrality over a shared, substantive moral vision, liberal societies risk political fragmentation. Without a common set of values, they contend that the state's role shifts from fostering a shared good to managing conflict, sometimes resulting in coercive state power to maintain order. [1, 2, 3, 4].

Thats exactly what we have seen happening in recent years with progressive liberalism. How the State became controlling of the Insitutions and forcing people to follow an unreal ideology. Controlling information and going after dissenters who disagreed and making then conform.

Its the simple truth that where there is no common belief or basis for what is right and good then it will decend into control by force. Because in reality there needs to be a common belief in how we order society. No common belief and order to guide society then becomes control by force to ensure order.

That order is usually dictated by the State and ideologues who manage to push their agenda as State agents. Whoever has the most money or shouts the loudest or maneuvers into influencial positions will control how society is ordered.

The Immanentized Kingdom: Magnifica Humanitas and the Loss of the Ascension

Active Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Active Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Active Member

Future History Slab Carver

Reconstruction 3 will come

inquisitive

Active Member

inquisitive

Active Member

inquisitive

Active Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

inquisitive

Active Member

inquisitive

Future History Slab Carver

Reconstruction 3 will come

inquisitive

Similar threads