What can be done? Hope and pray that the next pope isn't so hostile to tradition.

And Gen-X is invisible once again...

And Gen-Xers are invisible once again!

Going by current trends that I've seen (NO parishes graying and dying out while TLM is packed to the gills with large young families) , I have to think there will be a return to tradition and a decline in modernism. I don't think Catholicism will be a cultural force anytime soon, but I do think there will be a small, faithful, well-cathechized minority that will keep the church, its message, and its mission alive.

Pretty much what BXVI predicted.

You'll have to pry my CD collection from my cold, dead hands.

Because he is.

He orders women to sit down, shut up, cover their heads, and obey their husbands.

I mean, it's no different even here on Reddit. Outside of this and a few other subreddits, conservatives (and sometimes even centrists) get dogpiled or silenced, while leftist views go largely unchallenged.

I certainly won't refer to a man who thinks he's a woman by a woman's name, nor would I call a "he" a "she," because I refuse to participate in a lie amd)or affirm someone's delusion. There's nothing merciful or kind in doing so.

It's fine by me. A kid can't go into adult store or buy a porn mag, so why not try to keep kids away from the online stuff? I mean, it's obviously easy to circumvent, but better something than nothing.

Also, not a 1A issue. No one's banning anything. You just have to show proof of age.

Maybe just don't watch it.

And if you really think you need to for some reason, use a VPN.

If the phrase "shit happens" ever suited a religious philosophy, it would be Taoism.

Shit happens. Sitting around and wondering if there's a reason shit happens doesn't stop shit from happening. So the best you can do is let shit happen, and then let go of it.

The river of life will carry you on to wherever it wants to carry you. You can fight the rapids or try to swim upstream, or you can just let go of your need to control things and go with the flow. The thing to remember is that the river isn't out to kill you. It's just doing what rivers do. It's the same with the universe. Sure, there may be malevolent forces at work somewhere out there trying to make our lives miserable, but in reality there probably aren't. And again, even if there were, what can you possibly do about it?

Anyway, the Problem of Evil ceases to be a problem when you let go of the idea that there must be some good and all-powerful being in charge of things who could stop bad things from happening and doesn't. If bad stuff happens, then it stands to reason that there's no good and all-powerful being out there, because a good and all-powerful being would be compelled to stop it.

That's how I've come to view things. It was the only way I could make sense of my own suffering. I hope it helps in some way.

Anyone who understands the catechism and Catholic social teaching realizes that to be a Catholic means you don't fit neatly, or even comfortably, within contemporary partisan political paradigms.

In a perfect world, the American Solidarity Party would be wildly popular and win elections. In an imperfect world, you have to pick your battles.

Among the two parties with a currently viable chance of winning, I tend to side with the Republicans. Not because I have any particular love for Republicans, but because Democrats have utterly lost their minds. They stand against basic decency, objective truth, and core Western values. I wouldn't vote for most Dems if my life depended on it.

Let your friend know that the Nestorian heresy was condemned 1,600 years ago.

Wokeness is just upside-down discrimination.

Adults can do whatever they want to their bodies -- but men still need to stay the hell out of women's sports and private spaces.

I have both, plus the more recent Revised New Jerusalem Bible.

The original 1966 Jerusalem Bible was based on an earlier French translation from the original languages. There's always been some question as to whether the JB itself was translated from the French or went back to the original languages and then checked its interpretation against the French. Either way, it's a fairly loose interpretation, tending more toward dynamic rather than formal equivalence -- which is to say it translates thought for thought rather than word for word.

The New Jerusalem Bible came out in 1985. Its editor makes a point in the introduction of stating that the NJB went back to the original languages, implying that the JB was in fact a translation from the French. The NJB tends toward a slightly more literal interpretation than its predecessor, but it still is far less formal than most modern Bibles. The NJB also lightly adds some gender-neutral language, which is absent in the JB: Generic "he" and generic "man"/"men" are used throughout the JB text.

Both editions have copious annotations. They take a fairly scholarly-historical approach to scripture, though not to the skeptical extreme that the NABRE notes tend toward. They also do a good job of explaining context and helping the reader find connections between different parts of the Bible. I find the notes to be an excellent study resource.

As far as the prose itself, I find the JB a very enjoyable read. It's very conversational, even poetic at times, without dumbing down the text. I think it strikes a nice balance if you're looking for something a little less strictly formal than, say, the RSV2CE (which is probably my favorite Catholic translation, but it can be a slow read at times).

One thing that a lot of people don't like is the use of "Yahweh" in place of "The Lord." Both the JB and NJB do that.

You may have heard that J.R.R. Tolkien worked on the translation of the Book of Jonah. His participation, from what I've read, was minimal, as other obligations took him away from the project.

I can't recommend the Revised New Jerusalem Bible. It tends to be even more formal than the NJB, but it leans pretty heavily into gender-neutral language, and the notes were severely stripped down.

But the 1966 Jerusalem Bible is a very enjoyable translation, in my opinion.

I think the idea that the TLM is filled with rigid reactionaries is as ridiculous of an overgeneralization as it is to say the Novus Ordo is filled with aging hippies who put ecumenism before catechesis.

I prefer the TLM because I gravitate toward beauty, ritual, and tradition. No other agenda behind it. But I'll still go to a NO if I can't make it to a Latin Mass or an Eastern Catholic liturgy. I just happen not to prefer it.

I picked up the Byzantine tradition when attending an Eastern Catholic church and thought the symbolism of the three fingers together (for the Trinity), two fingers down (for the two natures of Christ) was beautiful. I've done it that way ever since.

I really don't like the Novus Ordo either. The one closest to where I live is exactly as you describe: Graying and slowly dying out.

I don't know what part of the world you're in, but see if you can find an Eastern Catholic church. If you like Orthodoxy, you basically get the Orthodox Divine Liturgy in a church that's in full communion with Rome.

You say there's no TLM near you, but check to see if there may at least be an SSPX church.

"We promise we'll never abuse the power given to us. Your privacy is secure. Yeah. Honest."

[Image] 

They can only see the world through an oppressed-oppressor binary. And in their ideologically captured minds, Israel is an oppressor. Practically white.

I've seen a few websites over the years claiming that "the Vatican removed" a bunch of books from the Bible, and the list of "removed" books is always the deuterocanon... a.k.a. the books that Protestants removed!

The House could bring articles of impeachment against Garland, but I doubt it will actually do anything. This is mostly election-year theater.

If the Republicans want the tapes released, they just need to find a leaker.

Go the diplomatic route first: Explain that you think it's inappropriate to compel people to advocate for a social cause, no matter how good or righteous the people in charge might think that cause is.

If they need an example of why it's inappropriate, which honestly wouldn't surprise me, make any analogy you want to a conservative social cause: Would it be OK to compel everyone in the office to wear a pro-life pin, or put on an NRA ball cap, or display a Gadsden flag?

If that doesn't work, go to HR and force the issue. Say it violates your religious beliefs. That ought to get them to back down lickety-split.