/lit/ - Literature

>>10042240
so, does any fellow here have a link or even the name of the concise summa theologica (pic related) in italian? I don't even know if it exists actually, but I can't find it anything related to it...

>>10042252

It's the Compendium theologiae ad fratrem Reginaldum socium suum carissimum or Compendium of Theology.

>>10042252
>>10042401

You might be interested in this. It has the Latin side by side with the English.

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm#1

>>10042401
>Compendium theologiae ad fratrem Reginaldum socium suum carissimum
yeah, thats it. just can't find the italian text online, sadly.

>>10042420
thanks, thats interesting.

>>10042240
Which book written by an intellectual covers the entirety of Christian soul.

By that I mean to clearly see in the writer text the effect which concept of transcendence had on his brain and that he went trough a long effort to actually change his mind according to the core teaching of Christianity.

The only book that I could find which indeed covered the entirety of this Christian mind on a similar level of Marcus Aurelius meditations which manage to cover the entirety of ancient Greek soul is Augustine: Confessions.

>>10042240
Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

>>10042252
Always check out Libgen first. It usually has a lot of italian stuff.
It even has Iota Unum, but only in Italian.

RECOMMENDED

>GENERAL

The Bible (Ignatius Study Bible Recommended)
The Catholic Catechism

>accepted English versions of Bible

NABRE
Douay Rheims
RSV

>THEOLOGY

>novice

Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger
The Last Superstition by Edward Feser
The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
Mere Christianity
CATHOLICISM by Robert Barron
Outlines of Moral Theology by Francis J. Connell

>intermediate

Scholastic Metaphysics by Edward Feser
Natural Theology by Bernard Boedder
The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson
Real Essentialism by Oderberg
Against Heresies
City of God
Christianity for Modern Pagans
Intention by Isabelle Anscombe

>advanced

God: His Existence and His Nature by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
Apologia Pro Vita Sua
Summa Contra Gentiles
Summa Theologiae
On the Incarnation
The Didache
The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church
Divine Names by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite


>SPIRITUAL LIFE

>novice

The Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales
Story of a Soul by St. Therese
The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton
Nihilism - Fr Seraphim Rose

part 1/2

part 2/2

>intermediate

The Interior Castle
Spiritual Exercises by St. Ignatius
Dialogues by St. Catherine of Sienna
True Devotion to Mary
True Devotion to the Holy Spirit

>advanced

The Cloud of Unknowing
The Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross
The Desert Fathers
The Philokalia
The Ladder of Divine Ascent
New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton
The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis

>MEMETICS

Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World by Rene Girard
I See Satan Fall Like Lightning by Rene Girard

>HISTORICAL/BIOGRAPHICAL

Rome Sweet Home
The Long Loneliness by Dorothy Day
After Virtue
Christendom I: Founding of Christendom
Theology and Social Theory by John Millbank
Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy by Bernard Williams
Life of St.Anthony by Saint Athanasius
Life of St Francis of Assisi by Saint Bonaventure
Silouan the Athonite by Archimandrite Sophrony
The Autobiography of St. Ignatius Loyol
The Formation of Christendom by Christopher Dawson
The Dividing of Christendom by Christoper Dawson

>FICTION

Don Quixote
Diary of a Country Priest
The Divine Comedy
Paradise Lost
Silence by Shusaku Endo
A Canticle for Leibowitz
Faust
Les Miserables
The Canterbury Tales
The Man Who Was Thursday
The Brothers Karamazov
A Man for All Seasons
The Pillars of the Earth
The Lord of the Rings
The Chronicles of Narnia
Lord of the World
Parzifal
Joseph of Arimathea: A Romance of the Grail
The Arthurian Cycle
Quo Vadis

>>10042562
One of my professors is currently writing a book like this. A history of the soul from the pre-socratics to contemporary Christianity.

>>10043160
Should probably add New Jerusalem Bible to that list

And specify RSV-(2)CE

>>10043160
>>10043213
thank you for not having "an exorcist tells his story" on your list. Its always on those meme charts and its so dishonest that I can't take seriously anyone who would advocate for it to be read

>>10043213
>>10043160
Someone should make a pictoral versions of this for maximum aesthetics

>>10043429
We'd need someone with mad ms paint skills.

How hard is Summa Theologiae? I've been raised catholic, but I've never actually gotten into any serious theology. I assume it'll be above my head, so I'm thinking of starting on something like City of God and building my way up

>>10043160
Well shit. I didn't know you posted on /lit/ too.
How are you, brother? I haven't seen you on 4pol in ages.

>>10043825
Neither the city of God not the Summa are good as starting places. To do theology first start with the Greeks and spice them up with some mystical stuff like Kempen, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and so on, going chronologically with the Church Fathers, could also be a rewarding experience. Read Augustine once you've read at least the most important Plato dialogues and some Church Fathers. As for Aquinas, that's a whole other story and you'd need to read tons of Aristotle and reading secondary lit like Copleston and Feser.

>>10043825

If you can read On Being and Essence and understand it you're ready to move on to the Summa. If you fail that litmus test it's probably best to focus on Aristotle, particularly Physics and Metaphysics. Keep in mind that Aquinas wrote more than the Summa. His biblical commentaries sermons are unfortunately neglected by a lot of people. They can be difficult to read but they don't require a lot of the prior knowledge that his metaphysics does.

>>10043825
>How hard is Summa Theologiae?

It is a reference manual, so not meant for casual reading. But in terms of reading it generally, you need a knowledge of Greek thought to make sense of it or many terms would be totally lost to you. For instance, "motion" is different from modern thought and Greek thought.

If you want an introduction to serious theology, I would recommend Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser. It intorduces major concepts and contends contemporary criticisms.

>>10044348 is generally correct, but On Being and Essence is a difficult test as-is. Do not start there.

But hey, man. Yeah, I post everywhere. I'm originally a /v/ tripfag. I'm... busy, though. Doing personal work at home between work for businesses. /pol/ got a large swathe of Redditors and posters from other boards during the election and it's made Catholic Generals not a big thing at all. Moreover, it's become a trend to think that the Christian/Catholic identity on that board CAME from the migration in during the election. It's ridiculous.

>>10043216
This sounds awesome, give me his name so I can bookmark it and check for update- tell him to keep going. It's like he's a genius and knew what was literally missing for most people library.

Christian music list. The first list is modern music, the second is hymnals and more traditional music.

>Marvin Gaye's "God is Love"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA7C815I104
>Woven Hand's "My Russia"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbUXbMn2zfc
>Woven Hand's "Consecration"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwCK8pFZ0M
>Om's Pilgrimage Album
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK6wJUNirbs
>Sufjan Steven's "No Shade in the Shadow of the Cross"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx1s_3CF07k
>mewithoutyou - Sun and Moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mor7syiTSE
>Young Oceans - ONLY YOU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imEvd1ck4fs
>Bobby McFerrin's Joshua
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DRketdk07o
>Psalter's Lord's Prayer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3rT8YVJERk
>Janelle Monae's Victory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ6wkOO_MEA
>Johnny Cash's God's Gonna Cut You Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht7mxF9XZiA
>Nick Drake - Pink Moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPbWMvQwroo
>Mary Lou Williams - Anima Christi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fv14RFfRLA
>Dr. C.J. Johnson's "You Better Run"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bchmhIdZgys
>Judee Sill's Heart Food
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI7sOZQaSkI
>Dave Bixby's "Free Indeed"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhHBGRr2XDE
>The Revolutionary Army of the Infant Jesus' "Beauty After the Fall"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcbJFvje29A
>Podnieś Mnie Jezu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbhIHF3SHm0
>Baba Yetu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiHDmyhE1A
>Audrey Assad's "Restless"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuhYZrn4flo

>>10044830
Traditional Music

>Veni Veni Emmanuel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRi1GDoaQu4
>Agni Parthene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8XE3j_c0U
>Je Nai Nan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL1lxH7s3Cw
>Come Now Font of Every Blessing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1bSlS6OWTs
>A nice collection of South Pacific Island hymns from the movie The Thin Red Line
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A1Z5CEXDM4
>Hail Mary in Latin, done in song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihNVhFA_X3I
>Hallelujah Chorus done suddenly in the public
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp_RHnQ-jgU
>Heyr himna smiður
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4dT8FJ2GE0
>Jezu Chryste Panie Miły
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dymL1-ckMwg
>Ludu mój ludu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orZo6JesM_E
>Cидить Mикoлaй y кoнeць cтoлa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGwaO0ZVzM
>Fiez-vous en lui
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJCl6ylgwCU
>Mass in D major, Op.123 "Missa solemnis"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFor50sjEaw
>Krzyżu Święty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlIG5gNa-Oo
>Taize Alleluia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-jOgH0PP2I
>O Dniu Radosny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MROPDOKkKd0
>Dies Irae
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlr90NLDp-0
>Deum Verum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK5AohCMX0U
>NON NOBIS DOMINE, SED NOMINI TUO DA GLORIAM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb9ro4IQqi8

I'm going to read the bible as I'm sick and tired of not getting biblical references, I also want to understand all the beautiful artwork inspired by it.

Is it OK to start reading the New Revised Standard Edition (Anglicised)?

>>10044850
Just read Luke-Acts, and the epistles which scholars approve are actually written by Paul.
They're the only books with a nice style of writing and which are not boring and you might even learn something that will last.

>>10044850
I recommend not picking up the Bible by itself and begin reading it beginning to end as the Bible is a collection of books of different genres, structures, and authorships so without understanding what the texts are and some references thoughout it could do more harm than good.

Your version is fine except that it leaves out the books from the Old Testament that Protestants removed. If you want a very good Bible I'd recommend the Ignatius Study Bible.

If you want the basics and the more important stuff, I will expand on >>10044877 and say to read:

>the Gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke, and John. All four being eyewitness testimonies of the life of Jesus tied with histories that were known of him.)
>Acts (Acts of the Apostles. The followers of Jesus after his death.)
>The Epistles. (Everything else in the New Testament besides Revelations. These are letters written by the church fathers, primarily a new figure named Paul. The authorship is questioned by some scholars on some of these books but they are all attributed to their authors by the church.)


These are the most accessible, though having the study bible would have additional aid there.

>>10044877
I'm having a fun time reading the book of Job. After this I'll read Luke.

>>10044910
Yeah, I've decided against that, I've also switched to the Catholic version of the NRSV.
After I finish the book of Job I'll read the gospels.

>>10044830
>Om
Might as well recommend Batushka

Did anyone who directly knew Jesus write anything?
Seems like every single book in new testament is written by people one generation after Jesus died, and most people that were contemporary with Jesus were already middle age or old...

Is new testament 100% a creation of later men? Have any of the 12 Apostles actually existed?

>>10045394

The earliest books were written likely written within 20 years of Jesus' death. One of the reasons why it even took that long is because there was no urgency among the apostles because they thought was ending soon. Now even if it wasn't the case that the earliest books were written within 20 years it still doesn't really matter. Christianity is not a religion of the book, meaning the bible is not the sole rule of faith. Its part of a greater tradition that is passed down from Jesus to his apostles.

With that said Peter did have direct contact with Jesus, the apostles actually existed, and of course the New Testament is a creation of later men. I've never heard of any historian or scholar claim otherwise.

>>10045394
Yes, 2 of the evangelists knew Jesus personally if I remember my exegesis correctly while the other two were writing under the apostles.
I'll have to look it up to be sure.

>>10045524
Look and provide me your sources..

I've checked for over a year all the scholar sources and my argument above resumes all I've learned.

>>10045502
The earliest gospel if WE'RE generous is 70 ad - more than a generation late after Jesus death.

And it's not written by an Apostle, actually most books in new testament are under anonymous author, except James and just some of Paul letters particularly, but they invented Christianity so to speak, it's expected for the to actually exist...

It is pretty clear for me and a stone has been lifted from my soul forever, I no longer have to bother with any element of Christianity - it does not reflect the supernatural truth of our reality - we have to dig deeper.

>>10045659
So it doesn't reflect any truth because you don't know who wrote it? That is some really strange reasoning.

>>10045667
It already did not reflect any truth to me and in its structure was absurd anyway.

I only at stage one believed out of fear and tradition of my nation.
At stage two only because I've assumed Jesus could be God in human form and that's all matters.. if Jesus indeed rose from the dead - nothing else matters... but there are countless element that link to Jesus and so on.

Anyway my dear friend, I don't care anymore - It was a great cause of pain and wasting time for me... and now I'm 100% free, I will never again flip a single page of Christian theology, apologetics and so on...

I have to finnish Saint's Augustine tho because it's not necessarily good, it's puerile actually - and very basic ideas are presented there - but it covers the totality of Christian soul that book so it's worth to read, memorize and inventory- because Christianity, its truth aside is a valuable part of our History and the direct predecessor of our modernism.

And after ancient greek civilization apogee and end culturally speaking with Marcus Aurelius - meditations, only inside Christian literature we could find a soul such as detailed and comprehensive that touched philosophical matters, and that soul is carefully summarized by Augustine in his confessions.

Thing is my journey with Christianity as a theology, as faith has ended forever - I'm happy to no longer feel my mind locked down.

>>10045659

I didn't say the earliest gospel was written 20 years after Jesus, I said the earliest books. The earliest dating for James is A.D. 38 which is less than 20 years after the death. Galatians is A.D 48, 1 and 2 Thessalonians is A.D. 50, and so on. These are all within one generation of the death of Jesus.

Most of the books of the New Testament were not written by anonymous authors, or at least they weren't dictated by anonymous authors. If you're going to keep asserting things like this you need to provide reasons to believe they're true. I'm well aware of the alternative and secular theories of these books dating and authorship and I'm trying to goad you into providing them because I a lot of them are poorly reasoned or come off as wishful thinking. The traditional authorship and dating of these books are extremely defensible from a scholarly perspective.

>>10045687
What's the point of posting here at all then? If you are forever done with any engagement with Christianity? If you will never again read anything Christian and if it's puerile?

> Catholicism says spirits have free will
> Catholicism says spirits have to decide for or against the gospel before they become good or bad
> Catholicism says don't interact with spirits at all
> mfw all the spirits have nobody to preach the gospel to them
> mfw catholics don't seem to ever believe in neutral spirits

Nobody will respond to this because nobody believes in spirits even though they're real according to canon.

>>10045394
The apostles existed, the gospels have their attributed authors as their primary authors. The epistles of John are known to be legitimate, and it's heavily likely Acts was written by one of the apostles.

>>10045709
>> mfw all the spirits have nobody to preach the gospel to them
Angels

The secularists on this board are so disappointing. They come in here asking questions and pretending they want to learn or understand but they're really just looking for a reason to rant about whatever stupid shit they believe in.

>>10045709
What do you mean by spirits? Angels?

Feser was on Klavan's show today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lttBSO3zLA

>>10045745
I'm most excited about the killer sex robots in this show.
Also the audio sucks.

>>10045709
You seem sort of mistaken here. Knowledge of the gospels isn't what is spoken about here, your disposition to God and His will is. God's Law is innate to us though so it is never an issue of not being informed.

And "neutral spirits" makes no sense conceptually.

>nobody believes in spirits

Well I'm not learned on the subject but I know better than to understand it in substance dualism terms.

>>10045745
"It would be so fun to deport those people"
I bet it would, the show is real funny.

>>10045762

> And "neutral spirits" makes no sense conceptually.

Why? There are neutral humans.

>>10045798
No, no there weren't. There were those who died in the grace of God or outside of it.

>>10045807
There aren't*

>>10045793

Yeah I like him. He can be pretty /lit/ too, like when he narrated Al Gore meeting Ivanka Trump like a Gothic novel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raAzmDczRAo

>>10045807
>>10045813

Ok well I must be reading the Catechism wrong and also I can't take that position seriously. I guess I'll just go back to being a magician.

>>10045824
We can sort it out for you if you wish to present your disagreements. I'm at work but will get back to you.

>>10045829

I actually don't even know how. You've undermined the trust I had in my ability to read and understand the catechism. I should probably just throw it away now.

>>10045843
Honestly, where did you even read anything like the neutral spirits?

>>10045853

I didn't. I just inferred it because it's logically necessary for them to exist if they have to become either good or evil following a decision. The very act of becoming implies a sequence of events in time, therefore neutral spirits. Do you fault my logic? It's very basic

>>10045862
The idea that sequences in time imply neutral spirits is a non sequitur. A spirit would have to be immaterial for starters.

>>10045871

I don't follow. Spirits aren't subject to time? Even subjectively?

>>10045879
It's not important for the question, a spirit must be already good or evil, as a human or an angel, the "neutral" existence is the one we have now. Angels focus themselves on God (or don't) in the moment of all creation so they can't be neutral a priori and men either die in the grace of God or outside it, meaning their souls descent to Hell or go to Haven or Purgatory in the moment they die.

>>10045893

Alright, I can understand that wrt angels but I still can't reconcile myself to that doctrine about what happens to mortal beings who die or died.

>>10045903

Also from experience it seems like most spirits are neutral or at worst kind of assholes but not evil.

>>10045843
You cite where you thought you read that in the catechism, of course. What in the world, man.

>likely read something wrong or assumed something based on a text you read
>"better give up think I can read it altogether"

You're being ridiculous!

>>10045798
How are there neutral humans? You seem to be implying a worldview that you presuppose when speaking about doctrine. I want to know what that is so we understand each other.

If we sort this out then I can effectively answer your question.

Good morning lads, cheers for the responses

>>10043961
Awesome, I'm already in the process of getting GREEK'd.
Thanks for giving me a groundwork of where to start.
>>10044348
I'd love to read and understand Aquinas one day, but I see now that I've got plenty of homework to lead up until I can understand him.
>>10044821
Good to speak to you again. I hope everything is all good on your end.
Would you say that Scholastic Metaphysics covers topics in a chronological order from which the ideas and philosophies occurred, or in a format designed to genuinely teach the concepts in a logical way? (not sure if my question makes sense. Can't quite express it clearly).

>>10045709
Catholics say prayers for the neutral spirits all the time. You pray for your ancestors and your descendants pray for you. I imagine purgatory is kinda like being trapped on Earth with unfinished business. Do we still believe in Limbo tho? I always thought that was a silly term but a useful concept.

>>10046782
Doing excellent. Despite the work I finally caught up with all of Twin Peaks and its been a great time.

Scholastic Metaphysics doesn't do any philosophical history but rather introduces the philosophical tradition from its basic elements to its more fundamental major concepts and defends their validity against modern criticisms. Primary in this is a definite for natural purposes in nature. It is formatted to teach these concepts in a logical way.

>>10046844
There really should be a definition by >>10045709 for "neutral spirits".

I'm not sure how you got such an odd view of purgatory. Limbo has never been doctrine but a popular theoretical concept to explain those without mortal sin while defending the importance of baptism.

How do Catholics scripturally argue against Paul's soteriology in Romans? Primarily the Protestant favorite "faith, not by works" and "dead to the law" verses?

>>10043825
Peter Kreeft's Summa of the Summa is meant to replace a college class on the subject, between edited readings and footnotes

>>10046881
>I'm not sure how you got such an odd view of purgatory.
Idk. I believe in ghosts n stuff. Don't you? Demons and angels too... I pray for all lost souls. I do not presume to know who is in heaven and who is not. I think Origien's theory that even the devil might be saved is not as heretical as people claim.
>Limbo has never been doctrine but a popular theoretical concept to explain those without mortal sin while defending the importance of baptism.
It's rich mythology.

Begum ORDODOX you cucks

>Wisdom from Mt. Athos: The Writings of Staretz Silouan
>Ascetical Homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian
>Writings of St. Maximus the Confessor
>Writings of St. Gregory Palamas
>Wounded by Love by Elder Porphyrios
>Nihilism by Seraphim Rose
>Unseen Warfare
>The Arena by St. Ignatius Brianchaninov

>>10046931

What is the Protestant position on salvation? It helps to be as clear and specific as possible because I don't know where you're coming from and there's a lot of confusion that needs to be cleared up before a conversation like this can take place. A lot of Protestants are erroneously taught that Catholics believe we can be saved by works alone, or that we can "earn" or "merit" our way into heaven by our own efforts apart from grace and faith in Jesus.

Typically it's claimed that faith alone is a key teaching in St. Paul's letters, Yet Paul used the word faith and similar words over 200 times in his letters, but never once with a qualifier alone or only. Clearly, St. Paul did not make sola fide a central part of his teaching on justification, because neither he nore anyone else ever heard of the idea until Luther invented it in the 16th century. Paul does reject "works of law," (Rom 3:28) which refers to the Mosaic Law and circumcision.

In contrast to the idea of faith alone, St. Paul teaches that faith without love amounts to nothing (1 Cor 13:2) but "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6) is vital. The faith that St. Paul preached is no mere intellectual assent, but the obedience of faith (Rom 15; 16:26), which includes the total response of the believer to Jesus in love.

There is only one sentence in the entire bible that has the words "faith" and "alone" in the context of justification. It is explicitly rejected (Jas 2:24): Let's consider the whole passage:

"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? ... So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even demons believe - and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by [good] works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see faith that was active along with works, and faith was completed by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled which says 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas 2:14, 17-24).

The words of Jesus are decisive on this subject. A young man came to Jesus and asked "What good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" (Mt 19:16). Jesus didn't say , "You don't do anything. The only thing necessary to gain eternal life is to accept me as your Lord and savior." Jesus' reply was specific and right to the point: "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17).

What is some great Catholic fiction written in the 20th Century? I mostly know the English Catholics, like Chesterton, Evelyn Waugh, and Graham Greene. Also Tolkien, but he's very different than those guys. Who else is good?

>>10047131

Read this if you haven't already

So what did you think of this, /clg/?

>>10047131

>>10046931

>How do Catholics scripturally argue against Paul's soteriology in Romans?

Catholics would find Paul's soteriology in line with their own and would find Protestants just misinterpreting it. >>10047089 has an excellent post on the matter of soteriology.

The Catholic position is justification comes from faith perfected by works. Simpler said, salvation is by faith and works.

>>10047062
>Don't you?
Not at all in the same sense. I see no reason or effective argument for spirits wandering around in this world. This would imply substance dualism, which I'd reject.

>>10047078 >pic related

>>10047183
How would spirits imply substance dualism? There is no spiritual substance being postulated, just the transfiguration of matter to convey the appearance of spirits. How do you explain apparitions of the virgin?

>>10047131

How about Flannery O'Connor?

>>10047200
>How would spirits imply substance dualism?
Spirits inherently don't. However, "spirits" isn't the
subject of the question. "Ghosts" are. The concept of ghosts, much like how >>10046844 states purgatory, is the idea of wandering entities in this reality. My comment you're responding to is specifically against this view, which I thought you were speaking of.

>>10042252
What did he exclude from the short version?

Who else doing the 54 Day Novena?

With Valentin Tomberg's works (Meditations on the Tarot, Lazarus Come Forth), Michael Martin's (The Submerged Reality), and Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, are we witness to a new Catholic school of mysticism?

>>10047349
Holy shit anon. Never heard of these guys before. Reading reviews now and practically creaming my jeans. Practically covers all my interests. Tell me more. Recommend me more.

>>10047349
>Tarot
>Catholic

Have you guys read any good books related to Christian asceticism? Fictional, non-fictional. Doesn't really bother me.

>>10047349
>>10047426
>>10047513
"mysticism" is always unorthodox bullshit behind a mask of orthodoxy. Christian mysticism is like saying "dry water".
Remember, best way to hide a lie is between 2 truths

>>10047589
What about saints, like Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Hildegard von Bingen, Faustina Kowalska, John of the Cross and so on?

>>10047608
what about them? they aren't god or inspired apostles

>>10047608

You're wasting your time. Don't bother.

>>10047618
Yeah I guess.

>>10047580
Laurus

>>10047618
>>10047624
great argument
good job at leading the blind

>>10047589
I'll never understand people who claim to be Christian but deny the mystical aspects of it, and the miraculous aspects as well. It's not some ethical system like Confucianism, it's a religion. It involves the divine and the otherworldly. It would be suspicious if there wasn't a mystical element to it.

>>10047634
I didn't deny that, I denied EXTRA-biblical mysticism
please do not put words in my mouth again

>>10047629

If you say so, friend. Good looking.

>>10047634
He's a Protestant. What do you expect?

>>10047641
>>10047643
>I believe it because I want to, not because it makes sense

>>10047580
>Getting into it:
Introduction to the Devout Life

>Well into it:
Dark Night of the Soul

>Deep into it:
Ladder of Divine Ascent

Catholic arguing 101

>>10047643
>"hes just a protestant"
>>10047618
>passive aggression
>>10047634
>Misrepresenting your beliefs, usually making embellishments like "you don't pray to mary... you consider her a whore or something!?" "you don't believe in asking saints for intercession.. so you think its wrong asking friends and family to pray for you?!" and "you believe in salvation by faith alone... So you think someone could rape and murder all they want but then just say 'I believe in Jesus' and boom they're saved?!"
>>10047608
>quotes from everyone and everything except the bible... except of course the one single verse Catholics are capable of using, James 2:24

>>10047668
>meme arrows

>>10047668
I know it's hard to believe, but arguing with Protestants online who are ruled by meme phrases like extra biblical isn't exactly the most rewarding experience worth anyone's time.

>>10047680
>>10047677
well you'll notice I was being nice and inquisitive up until
>>10047613
and then YOUR brothers provided me those shitpost examples out of nowhere. so it wasn't the Protties fault THIS time, my dear friend.
Idk, I guess they got frustrated cause they didn't know how to answer or something

>>10047668

>>passive aggression

No, I was being sincere. It is an actual waste of time.

>>10047687
well you're on /lit/ so I'm going to assume you've got plenty of it to waste

>>10047618
How in the world could you justify this?

>>10047349
>>10047426
>Catholics literally using the phrase "holy shit"
>no reverence for the word holy
>>10047608
notice Catholics love circle jerking about their deep wisdom and learning but shrink away when confront byyy.....
>>10047613
common sense

>>10047613
They are the words of saints.

>>10047726
and your catholic brothers and sisters in this thread are too aren't they?
doesn't mean they're infallible inspired apostles
if theres something more I'm missing, I'm happy to hear it. I actually like you 2bh

>>10047730

>and your catholic brothers and sisters in this thread are too aren't they?

What a ludicrous response. This is sports fan tier mentality.

>>10047732
>What a ludicrous response. This is sports fan tier mentality.

What a ludicrous response. This is sports fan tier mentality.

>>10047735

t. triggered memeperson

>>10047730
>and your catholic brothers and sisters in this thread are too aren't they?

No...?
A saint is someone the church has declared in Heaven by their teaching authority. They serve as models for the Christian faith and thus would have been inspired.

>>10047742
so is there no saint in the history of the church who has ever contradicted another saint?
seriously inquiring here so hope you don't mind being bombarded with ?'s

>>10047744
In regards to teaching in regard to the faith and morals, no. They are inspired. It couldn't all be inspired if it didn't the touch on the same truth down the ages.

>>10047744
There probably were plenty who had different views on various subjects, but the binding authority is related only to the interpretation of the scripture where they are in agreement with the Doctors (saints of greater authority) and in as much they are in agreement with the scripture and the magisterium. I'm not sure where you could apply contradiction though, but there certainly was disagreement on various subjects. As Wolfsheim said, they are holy men and women who serve as models, not absolute authority.

>>10047753
so could you give me a couple examples of the mysticism taught by the saints in the anons example that aren't taught, at least explicitly, from the bible?

>>10047764
>but the binding authority is related only to the interpretation of the scripture
>As Wolfsheim said, they are holy men and women who serve as models, not absolute authority.
so basically they are no different than what a protestant would simple consider a good/sound teacher?
what separates the authority of the doctors with those other saints, in what way is their authority greater?

>>10047770
A Protestant is a priori a heretic, therefore he could not have any authority whatsoever. Saints were people who we know are in the grace of God, but yes they are teachers. Nobody is forced to be a thomist because Aquinas was a saint, or subscribe to any particular theological position of any saint just because he was a saint, but is free to do so based on the fact that it is more often then not good and correct, unless it contradicts something which is an official position of the Church. For example Aquinas did not hold that Mary was conceived immaculately, that is without original sin, preserved by God so that she may carry Christ, but that she was cleansed of it later on. This is incorrect and he made a mistake, but as his belief in the Trinity is a part of where he agrees with all the other Doctors he is preserved from error in that.
Doctors are saints of great influence who have been elevated to that position by the Church, there's I think around 30 of them. Most famous are Augustine and Aquinas.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Thomas Aquinas. The metaphysics is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of aristotelian language most of the proofs will go over a typical reader's head. There's also Thomas's teleological outlook, which is deftly woven into his ethics - his personal philosophy draws heavily from the natural law theory, for instance. Thomists understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these proofs, to realize that they're not just correct- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Thomas Aquinas truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existential catchphrase "Truth is equal to Being" which itself is a cryptic reference to Augustine's theological masterpiece The CIty of God. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Thomas Aquinas's genius unfolds itself in front of their eyes in the Summa Contra Gentiles. What fools... how I pity them. :joy: And yes by the way, I DO have the bi-lingual complete edition of Summa Theologica. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the thomistic babe' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

https://youtu.be/NzUMfVpugq4

>>10047513
The original Marseilles Tarot is full of Catholic imagery. Anyway that book isn't New Age or divination, see

http://corjesusacratissimum.org/2013/12/meditations-on-the-tarot-and-the-vatican/

>>10047426
Look up Gornahoor, they're big into this stuff

I just ran into this and I thought it was hilarious. This idiots quotes Elihu from the book of Job and thinks its coming from God himself, and in doing so misses the entire point of the book. Elihu wrongly presumed that Job's suffering was God's punishment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-3SxSRExkY

>>10047765
Sorry, I had to sleep. It was getting late.
I suppose you mean explicitly doctrine in this scenario, however. Mysticism is primarily about describing the spiritual path so much of it is personal examination, psychology in relation to it, or practices such as Lectio Divina.

In terms of doctrine, think the perpetual virginity of Mary or Mary's assumption.

>>10047770
There would be no difference as being a saint means you are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

>>10048361
bump for Gornahoor

>>10046714

> You cite where you thought you read that in the catechism, of course.

I'm a schizophrenic homeless person so I have a hard time finding sufficient space/time/sanity to sit down and play the reference game. I've read the first 275 pages of the book and I thought I was developing a general understanding. If my general understanding is wrong at this point then I'm not sure why I should continue reading.

>about to go on my first date with a boy
>bible i ordered weeks before i met him arrives the day before
>mfw i still went anyway
is it wrong to know of god's existence and not care? i've had a couple religious experiences in the last year but i'm a lazy guy, and i can't be bothered with religion

>>10048521
You'll be more interested in a few years after you fall into the pit of despair of the sodomite lifestyle.

>>10048530
but going 'back' to god after that feels cheap, it makes me look like a jerk
can't i just make peace with god and accept my punishment?

>>10048542
No, you die in grace or outside it. It's pretty simple.

So apparently this is a thing

>Sehnsucht took on a particular significance in the work of author C. S. Lewis. Lewis described Sehnsucht as the "inconsolable longing" in the human heart for "we know not what." In the afterword to the third edition of The Pilgrim's Regress he provided examples of what sparked this desire in him particularly:
>That unnameable something, desire for which pierces us like a rapier at the smell of bonfire, the sound of wild ducks flying overhead, the title of The Well at the World's End, the opening lines of "Kubla Khan", the morning cobwebs in late summer, or the noise of falling waves.

I got the same feels when reading about the Well at World's End, and from Chesterton's poem A Child of the Snows. Anyone else get this?

>>10048542

You were never with him in the first place

1. There's no such thing as an insincere belief.
2. Belief in dogma is inherently stupid.
3. It's impossible for an intelligent person to sincerely believe in something they know is stupid
____________________________________
4. Those who profess to believe in dogma are either stupid, insincere liars, or uneducated.
If this lack of education is deliberate, then this lack of education signals intellectual dishonesty. At any rate, the only true believers of religion are slaves, and the religious community consists of them, those who wish they were them, and those who exploit both. Real character consists in virtue, which requires active will. Virtue is often guilded vice, but this is because every virtue is contextual: suicide, murder, adultery, these things are in one case virtue and in another case vice. Only the man of intelligence, character, and will can discern when and where this is the case. And since willing cannot be taught, or untaught, he is perpetually separated from the slaves. See how he is treated when he tries to join the flock: with suspicion, jealousy, and hatred. He can learn to mimick and repeat whatever he likes but he can never unbecome what he is. If he turns into this skid he can become a grievous wolf, who in truth the Christian community loves, needs, and longs for like a BDSM fetishist longs for abuse.

Christianity is the blackest of black magick and the most satanic of all religions.

>>10048879

Belief in dogma is inherently stupid. Dogma is defined as established opinion. The belief that gravity exists is dogma. Therefore the belief that gravity exists is inherently stupid.

>>10048893

dog·ma
ˈdôɡmə/Submit
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Different theories of gravity are scientific in character and thus in principle and in practice refutable, so no, it fails on the "incontrovertibly true" test.

But this is sophistry at a deeper level. Dogma is inherently stupid because it is shallow. It is logic that permits no additional logic. It is ABC which admits of no further letters in the alphabet and indeed reacts with hostility to their introduction into the discussion. With rare exception, all Christian apology is just elaboration. A perpetual and nearly schizophrenic Ide Fix that goes on and on and on in grander and more masturbatory terms. Your religion is stupid because it is built for those of low character. You should just admit it. There are plenty of bible verses that establish this exact thing. It's easy to spin as a positive. The fact that your first instinct wasn't to do so reveals that the real motive of your religion is jealousy. Willing cannot be taught.

>>10048911

*Idee Fixe

>>10048893
You just got dictionaried son!
Atheists 1
Christians 0

>>10049025

I was going to shitpost with him but I got bored

Why

Why did you change the fourth commandment?

Who told you that was ok?

>>10049107
Respecting your mother and father?

>>10049134
Ah, right. You guys changed more than just one commandment into to justify idol worship. Our numbers don't line up.

But let's just stick to one: the Sabbath commandment. Why did you change it?

>>10049148

The Sabbath never changed, we just don't worship on that day anymore. Instead we worship on the Lord's day. Observance of the Sabbath is comparable to circumcision, so if the apostle abolished the one they would do away with the other. See Gal. 5:1-6.

>>10049170
Except circumcision is part of the Mosaic Law, not the Ten Commandments. I agree the Mosaic Law is no longer binding.

Can you give me any evidence that Sunday is the Lord's Day?

>>10049190

I could give you a lot actually

>The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225])

>Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Savior who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection" (Commentary on John 2:28 [A.D. 229])

>And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day . . . in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food" (Apostolic Constitutions 2:7:60 [A.D. 400]).

>The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished" (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300])

>"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).

>"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

>>10049218
Ah, sorry. I forgot when speaking to Catholics I need to clarify that my doctrine comes from the Bible.

Now, could you provide scripture showing that Sunday is the Lord's Day?

>>10049231

I can't do that because it's not a biblical doctrine. Could you find in the bible where it says that all true doctrine needs to be found in the bible? If you like I could give you reasons why that isn't true, that Jesus gave authority to the apostles to make these sorts of decisions on matters of faith and morals.

>>10049239
Well let me see. Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus is quite clear on not messing with the Law. And we know he's talking about the Ten Commandments because he then goes on to magnify them.

So, why did you change the Sabbath commandment, when Jesus very clearly states not to mess with the Decalogue?

>>10049253

Yes, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. I'm not sure how you get from this that all true doctrine must come from the bible. Like I said if you're interested If you like I could give you reasons why that isn't true, that Jesus gave authority to the apostles to make these sorts of decisions on matters of faith and morals. Also that these apostles are protected from teaching error.

They changed the day of worship for many reasons, one in particular is that they wanted to honor Jesus who died on Sunday. They can do this because they were given the authority to do so by Jesus.

>>10048911
I am at work but will sort this out for you when off.

>>10049269
So, you're saying Jesus contradicted himself, no?

In the passage I gave you he said the Law wouldn't change until heaven and earth disappear.

You're saying he also said that the apostles could change the Law if they so please.

So which is it, Jesus?

>>10049287

No, the law hasn't changed. It has been fulfilled which is why we now worship on Sunday. And no, I'm not saying that the apostles can do and change as they will. Whatever they bind and loose on earth is bound and loose in heaven so they're protected from teaching error because who is Truth can't lie.

>"The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation" (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]).

>>10049306
>because God who is Truth can't lie

I really should start proofreading

It's very interesting how Wittgenstein became very popular with Catholics, but for the very same reason Protestant philosophers ignore him.

>>10049306
First, not interested in your Catholic Bible commentaries.

Second, do you know what "fulfill" means, in this context?

>>10049334

Fulfill as in mark a turning point in salvation history. To usher in a new covenant by completing the purpose of the first. Why aren't you interested in what the earliest Church fathers believed?

>>10049334
Are there any texts in the world which are self explanitory and self interpreting?

>>10049346
I'm interested in the Bible, thanks.

And no, the Greek most literally means "to give full meaning to"

Otherwise the text would read "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to change them."

Literally is a contradictory statement if you use your definition.

>>10049348
Yes. The Bible interprets itself. Any interpretation which contradicts other passages is not the correct interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20

>>10049382
If the Bible interprets itself why is there so much disagreement? Who got it right for the first time? Clearly it wasn't the first 300 years of Christian writers.

>>10049382

"To give full meaning to" will work too. Jesus gave full meaning to the old covenant, he fulfilled the law. I don't see what the problem is.

I'm still waiting for you to find in the bible where it says that all true Christian doctrine must come from the bible. If you oppose apostolic succession and the idea that the apostles have to the authority to change the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord's day that would be something that you know and have ready to share. How do you even know that the bible is the word of God unless somebody with the spiritual authority to declare it so, did so?

>>10049388
There was much disagreement within the first 300 years. Some had it right, other's had it wrong. Some were right on some things but wrong on others.

There's disagreement because God allows it and Satan is actively working to lead people away from the truth.

>>10049411
So, who had it right?

>>10049382
>The Bible interprets itself.

Imagine if every American had the authority to decide what the US constitution means. Each person could do as he wished, saying that his actions fell under his own interpretation of "freedom of religion" or "freedom of association." What would come of this approach? Anarchy. Fortunately, the founding fathers created an institution called the Supreme Court that was entrusted with interpreting the Constitution. That way, through the court's decisions, a uniform legal code would be created that would treat all citizens equally. Just as a personal interpretation of the constitution would lead to chaos for the rule of law, relying solely on one's personal interpretation of the bible as a guide to Christian doctrine leads to chaos for the rule of faith.

If Americas founding fathers were wise enough to foresee the dangers of individuals engaging in private constitutional interpretation, then wouldn't the church's "founding fathers," or Christ and the apostles, see the danger in relegating Christian authority to private biblical interpretation? We read in Peter 1:20 that "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation," and the author later warns his readers that some passages in the bible are "hard to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16)

>>10049401
If he changed the law, as you suggest he did, he effectively destroyed it in and created a new one. Which is a contraction because he said he came not to destroy the law.

How do you determine who has spiritual authority, if not for the Bible?

Your argument is: the Bible is holy because the early church said it's holy and they are holy because the Bible said they are and the Bible is holy because ...

>>10049436
So who had the authority before the Bible was finished? The New Testament wasn't written until 60 or so years and it took 30 years to get to the first Gospel.

>>10049420
Not the RCC

>>10049433
What authority does the supreme court use? They interpret the constitution through it's literal meaning (well, some justices do), and if their declaration contradicts another part of the constitution they know it's wrong interpretation.

>>10049450
Yes, but who did? Clearly the Bible wasn't interpreted correctly for what, 1700 years? At least as far as the day of celebrating the Eucharist and adherence of the laws from the Old Testament. For a self interpreting book, it wasn't easy to get it right.

>>10049449
Jesus has authority, always did and always will. Anything that contradicts his word is against his authority.

The authors of the Bible did not change the Decalogue in any way. Anything that was taught after is no longer in the realm of God's word and is potentially against Jesus's authority.

The books chosen for the Bible were not arbitrary. Only those that could be affirmed as apostolic or direct associates thereof.

Also your dating is off. The epistles were written much earlier than 60 years after.

>>10049436

I'm not saying the law was changed, I'm saying it was fulfilled. The bible doesn't tell us everything, and one of those things that it doesn't tell is who in the modern day has spiritual authority. One way that we can find out who has spiritual authority is by looking at the succession. Is the lineage traced from one of Jesus' apostles? Then he has spiritual authority. Evidence for this succession is found all throughout the bible, here's some examples:

>Apostolic succession is evident in the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. They "appointed elders [bishops and priests] for them in every church, with prayers and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believe" (Acts 14:23).

>In his second letter to Timothy St. Paul laid out the generational program for apostolic succession that was practiced by the Apostles and their successors, and is continued to the present time: "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you [Timothy was a second generation of Christians] have heard from me [Paul was of the first generation] before many witnesses entrust to the faithful men [the third generation] who will be able to teach others [the fourth generation] also (2 Tim 2:1-2).

>By the end of the second century, apostolic succession was understood as the sure indicator of orthodoxy. St. Irenaeus of Lions, writing against the Gnostics around the year 180, affirmed "the tradition of the Apostles," was safeguarded in the unbroken line of succession of those men who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors. He placed the greatest importance on the successors of St. Peter in Rome.

My argument is that Christ not only rose from the dead, but that he established a Church built on the apostles (Matt. 16:18-19, Eph. 2:20). The successors of the apostles, or the popes and bishops who inherited the apostles' spiritual authority, were then able to authoritatively declare the bible to be the word of god. This is not a circular argument, in which an inspired bible is used to prove the church's authority and the church's authority is used to prove that the bible is inspired. Instead, it is a "spiral argument," in which the bible is assumed to be a merely human document that records the creation of the divinely instituted church. This church then had the authority to pronounce which human writings also had god as their author.

Protestants, by rejecting the Church reject this authority. Their position and yours is essentially that the bible is inspired because the bible says its inspired and that is circular reasoning.

>>10049471
You're right, for about a thousand years it was only allowed to be interpreted by the RCC clergy. It's no wonder the true interpretation took so long to come out.

I would say that the apostles had the correct interpretation. It never went away, it was just illegal to have an interpretation other than the one given by the RCC. So there were always correct believers, they were just under persecution and in hiding and we don't have their writings during that 1000 years,

>>10049480
The New Testament is not the Epistles. The New Testament was finished around 85-100 Ad, which is what I said.
And then there's a problem of what Jesus actually said. They didn't understand him for hundreds of years and if they did they were small and egstinguished groups. He's real hard to get, so I'm real interested which of the Fathers understood him, or early writers. To who should I look for guidance because the devil preventing me from enjoying the self interpretation of the Bible.

>>10049488
So, to be clear, a pope has spiritual authority any cannot teach wrong?

>>10049506

He can't teach error in matters of faith and morals.

>>10049504
You look to the writings of the Bible for your questions on the Bible.

>>10049509

See, when the pope teaches something in direct contradiction with what Jesus says, I'm forced to pick between Jesus and the pope.

>>10049498
That's not true because not all Fathers were clerics and some even fell from the Church. There were also those who were excommunicated and whose writings we have in at least secondary sources and fragments. You also had the Eastern Orthodox after, and the tradition before the schism. Even after freeing themselves from Rome they still couldn't get it right. The Ethiopian Church, which was separated from Rome for centuries and before the East/West schism also didn't get it right and they had nothing to do with the Catholics. Same is with the Syrian church, they regained connections with the papacy only recently and were free of their totalitarian control in the world where you had to wait months to get a letter and that had numbers of various cults that had plenty of time to leave correct interpretations like the Cathars and the Bosnian Christians. So out of all of this, where many were outside the grasp of the pope, who did get it right?

>>10049522

If the pope taught something that appeared to be a contradiction with something that Jesus said, then you would be required to accede to the pope because you misunderstood Jesus. A true contradiction wouldn't be possible because the holy spirit protects them from teaching error, just as Jesus promised. If theoretically the pope tried to contradict the true teaching of the Church while ex cathedra he would probably die, if it could even get to that point.

>>10049510
But I keep getting them wrong, please guide me to what Jesus REALLY said. As I've said, Satan is keeping me in the hands of the papists, who will show me the light? Every time I read the gospels I seem to read what the Catholics want me to read! The self interpreting nature of the Bible escapes me. There must have been a person in history who got it mostly right first, who was he? How does Jesus enlighten him and not me?

>>10049542

Jesus came to earth and for some reason decided to let us suffer in darkness and false teaching for 1600 years before the truth finally came out.

>>10049532
I don't know every single church's beliefs fully fleshed out. I just know what the Bible says. I don't think every single thing taught by the RCC is wrong.

And just because they weren't part of RCC doesn't mean they're totally right.

The only true church is the remnant church, as the Bible describes in Revelation.

>>10049539
But when the pope says the ten commandments have been changed and Jesus says they're not to be changed until the end of the earth...

>>10049552
>But when the pope says the ten commandments have been changed and Jesus says they're not to be changed until the end of the earth...

The pope didn't say that the 10 commandments were changed. I don't know why you keep saying that. That green text filled with commentary and quotes from the early fathers that was posted earlier will explain what that means.

>>10049547
It was longer than 1600, after all the first Protestants also didn't have whatever they had at Saturdays and also didn't follow the prescriptions of the old testament and so on. I'm trying to identify an identifiable person who officially got it right.

>>10049552
But people disagree about what the Bible says. Please help me identify one person, other than you who wrote something that got it completely right for the first time in history, considering it's self interpreting and God fires an enlightenment laser into you or Satan prevents it. The laser keeps being blocked for me. I interpret it differently. Save me.

>>10049542
You don't need to be an exegetical genius to understand Jesus when he says the commandments are not to be changed.
Wherein do you read the worshiping of Mary as co-mediatrix?

There were some who had it entirely right, the apostle Paul, is one.

>>10049586
But I clearly do need an exegesis genius because nobody understood Jesus until you, maybe a bit before. Even the people who knew the apostles and were their students didn't get it.

I think I've had my fill of Protestantism for the day.

>>10049613
I'm honestly having so much fun.

>>10049586
>Wherein do you read the worshiping of Mary as co-mediatrix?

Before we get to that we need to find out whether or not all true beliefs must come from the bible. Do you have any reason to believe that they do?

>>10049619
Do you have any reason to believe that they don't

And I've got an answer prepared for your "binding and loosing" quote.

>>10049595
Maybe I wasn't clear. There have always been people who had correct interpretations.

>>10049634
You still haven't provided an example of a single one. It shouldn't be a problem, as the Bible interprets itself.

>>10049638
A single what? Person who interprets scripture correctly? Anyone writing under the influence of the holy spirit. Such as Paul, Peter, James, and others.

>>10049634

As far as I know the bible doesn't say that the bible is only source of true Christian doctrine so why should I believe that it is? My default position is to trust the people that Jesus founded his earthly Church on.

>>10049648
So there hasn't been a single person after the apostles who understood what Jesus meant?

>>10049648

Who interprets them?

>>10049658
Who interprets church fathers?

>>10049654
There have been many. No reason to think their names should be known.

>>10049650
Where does it say to trust the apostles?

>>10049678
So only illiterate or untalented unknown persons understood Jesus? God is quite impotent if he can't get a single true follower to spread his word in 2000 years.

>>10049678
>Where does it say to trust the apostles?

In Luke 10

Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

>>10049690
No. Why would you think that someone with a correct interpretation is illiterate?

The word was being spread, in spite of it being illegal and them facing persecution for doing so .

God must be incompetent for allowing "his church" to get destroyed during the French Revolution, and the teachings of his church to get destroyed during the Reformation.

Surely God had a guarding angel protecting the vicar of Christ from Napoleon's army?

>Protestant
>Reddit spacing

It's like poetry

>>10049694
This is indeed circular reasoning.

Bible is trusted because apostles say it's trusted and apostles are trusted because the Bible says they're trusted and the Bible is trusted because...

>>10049712
>Surely God had a guarding angel protecting the vicar of Christ from Napoleon's army?

Where do you get this idea of a guardian angel from? That's not biblical.

>>10049718
I don't even knnow what that means.
Is this reddit spacing?

Or is it

Like this

>>10049725
Matthew 18:10

When the angel freed Peter from prison, was he not a guardian?

Surely the vicar of Christ would be guarded.

>>10044910
>the gospels were written by eyewitnesses

>>10049721

I explained earlier but I'll repeat myself. The bible is originally assumed to be a human document which records the institution of a divine church, this Church then had the authority to declare which writings also had God as their author.

1. Historical writings record the institution of the a divine church
2. Church then declares historical writings to be divinely inspired

A circular argument would be me presupposing that the bible was inspired, which is what protestants do.

>>10049712
Because no one ever wrote down the correct interpretation. Or if he did, not evem the true followers know of it. Then it must be incredibly awful in terms of writing or how convincing it is. And spreading the word hasn't been illegal during the Roman times any more than it was for the Catholics, and they left so so many writings, while they were being crucified and thrown to the lions. So, please provide one author who understand it all. I want to be able to place a year on the first person after the apostles who understood the word of God and presented it to the rest of us.

>>10049737
>When the angel freed Peter from prison, was he not a guardian?

How do you know that's not a one off thing? I don't see how you can get the idea that an angel is constantly guarding somebody from that.

>>10049752
So the people who founded his church trust the Bible alone and so will I


>>10049754
All of the saints at the church in Philadelphia, according to Jesus, had it right

>>10049779
But none of the Philadelphians write?

>>10049791
I'm sure some wrote. May have been lost. Doesn't matter though, the writings we have in the Bible are sufficient to interpret the Bible

>>10049806
But it's hard to believe your claim that the Bible is enough to interpret the Bible when you can't point to a single person who interprets it right and only the Church in Philadelphia of all places got it right. And where would you lose them? Spanish Inquisition in 21st century america?

>>10049816
You lose ancient writings because papyrus doesn't last forever.

It's hard to believe your claim that only the RCC can get it right when what the RCC says directly contradicts what Jesus said.

I don't think you need a perfect interpretation to be saved. Maybe I should've stated that earlier. Jesus mentioned nothing about correct interpretations being a requirement for salvation. Just faith in him.

So I believe many Catholics will be saved. Only those willfully sinning will be liable to judgement.

But when I read doctrine that clearly contradicts what Jesus said, I can be sure the interpretation is not correct.

>>10049855
So, there's no fully correct interpretation at all, aside yours. I'm glad we've finally established this. Or at least no interpretation known to the word except yours. All the correct interpretations other than yours have mythical status and cannot be confirmed in any way.

>>10049875
No. I'm still learning a great deal. I just know what Jesus said, and when something clearly contradicts I know not to accept it.

I'll leave you with this

http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/catholic_church_error.html

>>10049881
Very strange that a self interpreting document doesn't have a single person who understood it. Quaint that the words of Jesus can mean whatever the fuck you want, unless you are a 21st century American. Only then do we get what Jesus REALLY meant and what REALLY contradicts him.

>>10049902
Read the link

And have a nice day

When did the ordained stop fighting in battles/wars?

>>10050821

They never stopped.

>New American Study Bible Revised edition Student edition
Is this any good? I found it on my shelf.

Recommendations for poorly catechized catholic? I've read Pope Pius x catechism.

>>10048509
Well "general understanding" is more than just a single concept. Just cause we said you're wrong about one aspect doesn't scrap your whole project. If you explain what you mean by "neutral spirits" it'd be fine to assist you. It could be a simple issue.

>is it wrong to know of god's existence and not care?
Yes, but the significance depends on how you understand God. From a theistic personalist view it can be argued as permissable to some extent while for classical theist views you're just fucking up.

>>10048879
>>10048911

>2. Belief in dogma is inherently stupid.

This is incorrect. If the validity of an authority as authoritative can be argued for then the authority's proclamations follow from the evidence and thus is rational inherently. Catholicism has a long, long history arguing for specifically this.

Your argument is based on a false premise. Further, your argument for the stupidity of dogma is nothing but rhetoric disguised as argumentation.

>the rest

Nietzsche you need to go home. You have no idea what you're talking about and Scheler sorted you out quite some time ago.

>>10049382
>The Bible interprets itself.
Evangelicalism keeps getting stupider.
That makes no sense at all. The vast, vast majority of terms in the Bible are not defined by the Bible, nor is the biblical canon itself defined in the Bible.

>>10049718
This recent migration during the election was pretty terrible. Nothing but r/atheists and Evangelicals/non-denominationals.

>>10049738
The authors attributed to them are the primary authors of the texts.

>>10051129
From >>10043160 I'd recommend:

Understanding the basics:

>Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger

Theology Basics:

>Scholastic Metaphysics by Edward Feser

Reference Manual:

>Catholic Catechism and commentary sources if needed.

Spiritual Life:

>The Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales

>>10042240
Any good Christian books on animal suffering? I just finished C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain and his discussion of animal suffering was a bit disappointing, I'm hoping there's a better answer somewhere.

>>10051150
There's a brief comment by Belloc in one his essays where he says that the British are weird and sentimental for wanting to imprison people who beat up cats and whatnot, seeing as they lack rational souls. Beyond that I got nothing.

>>10051345
Well I don't agree with that sentiment at all, so that's disappointing.

>>10042240
Isn't God dead? I thought that was common sense.

>>10051375

What does it mean for God to be dead?

>>10051345
I'm a bit at a loss at Belloc. Does stewardship mean nothing to him?

>>10051375
Something tells me you're not sure what you're saying here.

Remember: the Church has a monopoly on interpreting the Bible because the Church put the Bible together.

Has there ever been a Catholic response to Nietzsche's Ideas?

>>10051531
Yes, quite a lot. And non-Catholics explaining how his view is mistaken. Anything in particular you wish to speak about in his views?

>>10051531
Yes, dozens. Girard, Chesterton and MacIntyre are probably the most famous. But for the most part teenagers overstate his importance and expect tomes dedicated to only that.

>>10049881
Why is this using false quotes so much?
And I am still at a loss, the Catholic Church is clearly wrong of course, but nobody else is right.

>>10051070
I ask because of this

Are they any good jobs for laypeople with the church?

>>10052662
Are there* fuggg

>>10052662
Teaching mostly. Writing for various Church news sources. Speakers, assistants to bishops.

What do trad Catholics make of stuff like this?

>>10051385
It was an offhand comment in an essay about something else so IDK

>>10052749
I'm sure some trad catholics support open borders, universal heath care, and other left-wing political views, with the exception of things the unambiguously go against church teaching. TradCath =/= Pat Buchanan paleocon.

t. TradCath who is a Pat Buchanan paleocn

>>10052573
If a Bible has an imprimatur it's okay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur

>>10051140

I haven't read Nietzsche.

By neutral spirit I just mean a spirit that isn't or isn't yet an angel or a demon. The catechism says that angel is a role, not a type. Which means there are types of spirits. If there are types of spirits, it seems to me like some of them would be otherwise than angels or demons, but that's just my intuition as a magician.

>>10052924

Also, I reject all arguments from authority except as heuristic devices. If a being superficially matching the description of the Christian God spoke to me, I would not accept his word on authority.

>>10052892
It just baffles me too how they claim Jesus was an immigrant when in reality he was just traveling within the Roman Empire. I keep seeing this argument over and over again from leftist churches.

I can't begin to tell you how many of my Catholic friends growing up were pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-immigration (whether illegal or legal), and so on.

I could never become an evangelical or whatever, but the leftism of the Church completely alienates me. How can I receive Eucharist from a priest or bishop who is destroying my country?

>>10052749
Anyone who likes authority, law, order and equity will probably dislike the American bishops.

>>10052949
>destroying my country
God before country, my friend.

>>10052949
"Catholic" in the US is often a label for ethnic identity, just like Jewish is, hence pro-choice Catholics. Lapsed protestants just identify as Americans. Lapsed (or heretical) Catholics keep the Catholic label to signify that they're also Polish/Irish/Italian/Hispanic/etc.

Catholic bishops who support mass immigration aren't destroying America. Politicians, bureaucrats and corporations who support mass immigration are destroying America, and bishops cozy up to them due to a combination of weakness and ignorance. An American bishop has no real influence over politics.

>no Mauriac
>no Claudel
into the trash i goes

>>10052924
>By neutral spirit I just mean a spirit that isn't or isn't yet an angel or a demon.

Angels and demons are understood to be the same type of thing ontologically. The difference - the difference of role as you said - is their disposition to God's will. Other spirits - such as say our disembodied souls - are in no neutral position but rather are parsed by their connection to God's will as well.

>I haven't read Nietzsche.

Are you the same person who spoke of jealousy?


>>10052937
This isn't an argument from authority. An argument from authority would be:

>A is an authority on a subject
>A says B about a subject
>So B is correct

With 'authority' being someone who is well trained in knowing the subject. Meanwhile what I'm saying is:

>The Christian worldview and historic claims are true
>the historic claims involve A being given the power to make true statements about a subject
>A declared B about that subject
>So B is correct

You could call A an 'authority' but it is not used in the same sense as someone who is just trained in knowing of the subject. And I do know that the first premise is a massive step but this is what is thoroughly argued for by the Catholic Church over history.

>>10053572

Alright well, I don't make that first step, but I admit the logic is valid. And yes, I'm the same person who posted the bombastic apparently Nietzschean statements.

I'm willing to accept Christ as a magician and as a philosopher but not as a prophet, I suppose. I know it's all or nothing and so that doesn't win me anything, but it's still where I stand.

Besides which, if being "separated from God" means being separated from those who invoke him, by the principle of "as above, so below," then on the basis of the poor character of such people, and the comparatively good and valuable character of all the artists, poets, philosophers, intellectuals, and scientists who have rejected this God, it seems an easy decision to make, and only a slightly harder one if hell is more than this and actually involves torture.

>>10053597
I'm pretty sure the average Catholic is less likely to be a pedophile or whateger than the average OTO member or whatever magical order you prefer to christianity.

>>10051472
Uh ... even today different sects accept different books as canon. Hardly a monopoly.

>>10047724
Plenty of these guys are genuine searchers who are curious and trying to figure things out. Most are noobs though who probably havent even gone to Church let alone entered it as catechumens. To use them as examples of Catholics to then use as strawmen to belittle Catholics is very wrong, in many different ways. I do underatand your frustration but you shouldnt go about it this way. Thats why you get some retarded occultist talking about tarots and little kiddos jumping on it like it were an ice cream truck. Tarot and other things like it are demonic and outlawed by the Church and it is a sin against God to participate in such things.

>>10053685

I'm sure that's not true. And if it were, the disparity in sample size would probably negate any significance, since there are enough Catholics that the number of Catholic pedophiles probably evens out to about average for the total population. Although just anecdotally, it seems like the numbers among clergy are much higher than average. Same with physical abuse, psychological abuse, and so forth.

>>10053351
These are the chief representatives of the Church, which is what bothers me. I believe the Church is correct on doctrine, but shouldn't they also be supporting the sovereignty of the US and the right to secure its borders?

>>10053526
I think you underestimate the power of religious leaders, but I agree with you on the ethnic identity bit.

>>10053748
I'll concede that an American Pope could greatly effect US politics if that somehow ever happened

>>10049522
I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16: 18)

What does this mean?

>>10053742
>Tarot is a sin
Aw man... now I gotta confess again. This is why I left the church in the first place, too much restriction. How is tarot demonic? It's just cards, can't be any worse than playing any other card games. Philosophy can be evil. Is it wrong to read philosophy? I don't necessarily dig that.

In any case, if a book that speaks of unorthodox subjects can draw people nearer to Jesus is that wrong?

>>10053747
>Although just anecdotally, it seems like the numbers among clergy are much higher than average. Same with physical abuse, psychological abuse, and so forth.
And that makes you want to go join something smaller and more cult-like? At least Christians have strength in numbers and look up to a valuable role model in Jesus who healed the sick and preached compassion. Magicfags think the paragon of virtue is being a heroin addicted shit eating faggot* who preached violence and elitism**.

*Aleister Crowley
**Source: The Book of the Law

>>10053861
Reading philosophy is different from practicing what false philosophy teaches. You weren't reading about it, you were practicing it. It's not just cards, it's an occult practice that rests on the power of things not of God.

>>10053792
His church will never be stamped out. There will always be at least one true Christian.

Hades (translates literally to "the grave".

So if the church is never to be overcome by the grave, it means his church will never die. That seems like the most straightforward reading of it.

>>10053891
>rests on the power of things not God
Pray tell, what are these things? As far as I can tell, all I am doing is shuffling cards and drawing them. Are there demons involved in every game of chance? Essentially that is all I am doing, playing a game. I try to make a coherent story out of the random cards that pop up. Helps jog the creative juices.

>>10053884

He wasn't recreationally addicted to heroin, he used it as a prescription, which was period appropriate. And it's unlikely you understand Liber al vel Legis, but since discussion of the text is forbidden, I'm not going to get into it.

I can look up to Jesus without being Christian, and as a bonus, I can look up to every other virtuous person too without contradiction.

Christians have no strength in numbers.

At any rate, I literally couldn't join most denominations if I wanted to since I'm transgender so the catalyst for my self-exploration is Christian stupidity and violence. I guess I should thank you for that in a sense.

One can be a magician without joining an organization.

>>10053899
Ah ok dude thanks for clearing that up

>>10053899
A contra intuitive one considering nobody understood it like that until recently (and mythical pre protestantism protestants that never wrote or left any evidence don't count either), contrary to what a Church meant for the early chriatians and a strange thing to put emphasis on, as it means that the Church will be overcome by the gates of Hell because the Church cannot be one person and it would also mean that for all intents and purposes that Hell would win.

>>10053906
Oh. You're trans. That explains the mental illness. Tough stuff. Can be a lot of suffering. I wish you good luck! Personally, I wish there could be some serious theological discussion of trans biology and psychology and how it relates to philosophy of mind and philosophy of the soul. I believe that such debate could lead to a more enlightened policy than our current campagn against it.


Even so, I would insist that Christ is more than a mere virtuous person but the personification of virtue and holds more value as a role model than any other individual though certaibly not precluding having others as well.

In any case, I found the occult scene to be very degenerate but maybe that's your thing. You might say "at least they're not holier-than-thou hypocrites" but I'd say "striving for something higher than yourself and trying to overcome your past mistakes doesn't make you a hypocrite, it makes you a good human."

>>10053937
The Metaphysics of Identity over Time by Oderberg, D.
150$ for the ebook or just libgen it.

>>10053928
Your belief that you cannot interpret scripture and must leave it to the pope comes from your interpretation of a scripture.

>>10053949
Oh I can interpret the scriptures well enough, just within the continuity of Catholicism. And to be fair, the pope here doesn't play as large of a role as the Fathers, papal documents are mostly condemnations of error or affirmations of what the Fathers teach.
It helps me with having an epistemic basis for my belief, grounded in something and supported by someone substantial.

>>10053971
"See this verse, it says only we can interpret scripture correctly. We just interpreted it that way, the correct way. So, sorry, that's what it says."

-Catholic Church Leadership, long ago

>>10053979
There's a lot more to it, and I can actually point to known persons who argue, of course correctly, on why a particular verse means what it does and how it fits the context. It's better than being the sole known proper interpreter of the Scriptures.

>>10053989
The Catholic leadership declared sole authority on final interpretations. They declared this on an interpretation of scripture. If you don't see how that's a problem, I don't know what to say.

I'm not the sole known interpreter. As I said, I Ieft the catholic church when I found contradiction between the Catechism. There are literally millions of people in my denomination that share my views.

>>10054021
Which domination? Which millions? And I understand you all agree that there essentially was no true Christianity (that anyone can trace in any way) before the 16th century (well maybe in the 60 years of Christ's redirection), but the problem isn't what's wrong, but what's right, because nobody seems to agree on the clear and self interpreting meaning of virtually any passage.

>>10054106
The millions of people in my denomination agree on interpretations. And we agree on many things with other protestants, and even on some things with Catholics.

There has always been true Christianity since Pentecost. I've said this numerous times now. True Christianity isn't within a denomination, it's full faith in Christ.

Now, when a denomination contradicts Christ, I steer clear of it. Does that mean I think everyone in that denomination is doomed? No. Many are sinning in ignorance. But some have realized the errors that their church teaches and yet don't leave because of family tradition or other reasons. For those people, there are no more sacrifices.

>>10054149
But so what's wrong with Rome? You don't think Peter was setting that up? Why not become Greek Orthodox? The Bible was written in Greek, surely that is the purest interpretation or at least closest to original intent.

>>10054164
We have people who can translate Greek. That's not an issue.

The problem with Rome is as such:

http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/catholic_church_error.html

>>10054202

I don't know why you keep linking this website, it's stupid as shit.

In one part it argues that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the "rock" on which he would build his church. They point out that the word used for "rock" is the Greek 'petra'--meaning a large rock--whereas the name he gave to Simon was the Greek 'petros', meaning a small rock. He says that Jesus meant, essentially, that Peter was a little pebble, and Jesus was the boulder from which the church would rise up.

There are several problems with that interpretation. First of all, Jesus probably did not speak Greek in this exchange. It is very likely that he spoke Aramaic, and his words were later translated into Greek when the gospels were written. In Aramaic there is only one word that could be used for "rock": 'kephas'. In Aramaic, there would have been no distinction between Peter's name and the Church's foundation.

Still, a critic might press the point, noting that the holy spirit inspired Matthew to employ two different Greek words in his written gospel. But Matthew did not have much choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so 'petra' would certainly be the right choice; but 'petra' is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon's new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus Matthew, guided by the holy spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, 'petros', to render Peter's name, 'Kephas.'

>>10054202
But why get rid of the liturgy? Is church service just a game to you? Who cares what corrupt popes do? That's like saying the average american is evil because trump is correct. So was hillary. It's more a problem with people seeking power regardless of organization than anything to do with the community of believers.

>>10054246
*Trump is corrupt not correct

>>10054234
"So let's not get too hung up on whether Peter means a ROCK or STONE"

Here is the paraphrasing, given the Catholic interpretation that Peter is the rock:

"Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself to have firmness and strength of soul, and metaphorically like a rock and so suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the Church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the Gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.”

You evidently didn't read that, I guess. You assumed his interpretation didn't make Peter the rock, which it does.

>>10054246
What do you mean get rid of liturgy? We worship together weekly.

>>10054202

Go to bed Geoff

>>10054287
Not even close.

>>10054295

Close to what?

>>10054302
My real name. I don't know what historical Geoff you're comparing me to. Or if you genuinely think I'm someone named Geoff.

>>10053716
My argument is that Catholicism is right and they are wrong, since the Catholic Church is the One True Church and they are not.

>>10054315
Says who? The Catholic Church?

Really compelling

>>10054323
I think the collected weight of writings and evidence works in the Church's favor. I might also cite miraculous revelation, but that's another matter.

>>10054334
Opinion noted. The only writing I care about in my Christianity is the Bible. And to say Catholic teaching is in sync with the Bible ... well.

>>10054351
Again, your Bible was put together by the Church. The reason there is a Bible at all is the Church. In fact, one might argue that the Church is the true leavings of Christ in this world. He didn't come down here and leave us a Bible. He came down here and founded a church.

>>10054370
He did found a church... the Christian church.

And no, the reason there's a Bible is because God wanted there to be one, tyvm.

>>10054378
The holy spirit?

What's some good literature on Christian art? I don't just mean picture books, would like to read into the understanding behind it

Atheist here, does anyone know if something like an encyclopedia exists for everything related to Catholicism? Like, differences between a church and a cathedral, or about the different "steps" during mass like Host consecration and all that.
Please no Wikipedia, if such a thing doesn't exist it's fine.

>>10054378
Catholic church prevented all sorts of gnostic heresies. You are piggybacking on the shoulders of giants and claiming it is your own two feet.

>>10047928
Nothing personnel, kid

>>10054439

The Didache provides details and instructions for various rituals. The Catechism would be useful to you too.

>>10054439
Usually they have a little book in the pews that explains everything.

>>10047928
I hate every single variant of this pasta

What are some good websites to discuss or read analyses of the bible?

Why do Catholics take so much pride in declaring heresies?

Notes for whoever makes the new thread. Pick a new picture, add suggestions, and correct the spelling error in theologuy (sic).

What are the chances that Tolkien becomes an official saint?

>On Saturday 2 September, a Traditional Low Mass was held at the Oxford Oratory to mark the anniversary of the death of world-renowned Catholic writer & philologist JRR Tolkien (+ 1973). The Mass was offered, however, not for the repose of Tolkien's soul – but rather praying for his Cause for Beatification to be opened.

>Many Catholics might be surprised to learn that anyone would consider the author of ‘The Lord of the Rings’ a serious candidate for sainthood, or indeed that he was a Catholic – which is a very sad indictment of the levels of knowledge and understanding prevalent among the faithful today. For within his most famous work alone are to be found deep and profound meditations on temptation, vocation, redemption and grace; unmistakable echoes of Our Lord's Farewell Discourses, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension; and the most distinctly Marian language that it would be possible to use to describe fictional characters.

>The Mass itself was fittingly celebrated in Tolkien’s old parish church (dedicated to St Aloysius) with his granddaughter among the congregation. The Provost of the Oratory, Fr Daniel Seward, spoke in his short homily of Tolkien’s devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, describing it as “the great romance of his life – though I'm not sure what Mrs Tolkien would've made of this!” Years earlier, Tolkien biographer Humphrey Carpenter vividly described the scene on saints’ days when the author, “not an early riser by nature”, would wake early without fail to attend Mass before beginning his busy day of academic and family duties. A look at the sheer volume of his published work, which even now continues to hit our bookshelves anew, serves only to make such devotion seem all the more heroic. To say nothing of the fact that I personally have found such overwhelming spiritual quality in his earlier works of mythology that my inclination upon finishing a chapter is to bless myself!

>After Mass (and lunch at Tolkien's later watering hole the Lamb & Flag), a group of us went to Wolvercote Cemetery to pray the Rosary for Tolkien’s beatification, the repose of the souls of his family members (including his eldest son Fr John Tolkien buried nearby), for an end to abortion and the conversion of England – together with the Beatification Prayer composed by the online group campaigning for his Cause to be opened. Also buried nearby is the writer Stratford Caldecott, for whom Tolkien’s works were instrumental in his conversion to Catholicism.

>>10055249
So they want to make him a saint because he went to church?

>>10055264

>Many Catholics might be surprised to learn that anyone would consider the author of ‘The Lord of the Rings’ a serious candidate for sainthood, or indeed that he was a Catholic – which is a very sad indictment of the levels of knowledge and understanding prevalent among the faithful today.

This part was talking about you.

>>10055249
Fake a miracle from praying to him if you want him in the roster.

>>10055316

It doesn't quite work like that but okay.

So here's my (abbreviated) journey so far as far as Catholicism is concerned. I want to preface this by saying that I am not trying to tell you or anybody else what they should do with their faith.

I had a K-12 Catholic education. Some of the highlights of this included being more or less forced to read all the time because the idea of this particular group of IHM nuns centered around literacy in order to recite the Psalms, etc.

I can't say this was an immediately negative thing but I would be lying if I said I preferred Numbers to Swiss Family Robinson.

Most of my teachers were nice laypeople. They fostered my literary curiosities and even now inform some of my tertiary moral values. In highschool I was a library guy and got into Vonnegut, Rushdie, and others.

I had already gone through an off and on altar server thing. I held onto it until the cases in the local diocese broke and my parents pulled me out. I can't blame them.

To this day I have friends who are active in the Church. I find them to be good people, generally, though we often disagree about politics. As we have gotten older though, they have accepted me despite my openly being an apostate and my bitterness about the loss of my early faith has faded.

I wish from time to time that I still had the same kind of faith I did when I was a child.

>>10055361

(Samefag)

In my life today, I don't mind being a person who can say that they were raised Catholic. I actually hold it as a point of pride recently,

>>10054694
REMINDER!!!

>>10055367
I am like you but better.

I was raised Catholic and apostated but found my way back through the Greeks after majoring in philosophy. Neoplatonism, man.

Maybe read Lectures on Divine Humanity by Solovyov? He was a Russian Catholic. Hegelian. His lectures were attended by Dostoevesky and Tolstoy.

>>10055367

(Apologies for wasting post space, I accidentally hit post.)

Cont'd

I actually hold it as a point of pride recently, however, I can't say in truth that I can go back to that child-faith and tell you the things I thought back then and believe them.

I am not a person who will ever go back to the Church but I would like to think that the concept of Christ as my Best Friend is still a concept that informs some of the things I do as a human being. As in, it informs what I think of as a good friend in terms of selflessness and some of those other lessons.

I find all of these things to be inescapable. Even though I would call myself a weak atheist, the concept of the Catholic God that I was inculcated with occasionally informs my thoughts.

>>10055361
>>10055407
>>10055410

STOP DOUBLE SPACING

>>10055249
It would be nice if a writer made it at some point. Tolkien and Chesterton seem like the best bets.

I'm still waiting on Newman to be made a saint. He's been beatified, but he needs one more miracle. Maybe I'll pray for his intercession on something.

>>10055414
>someone uses line breaks to make reading easier
>lmao reddit amirite?

>>10055416
>Maybe I'll pray for his intercession on something.
I'm imagining the look on the devil's advocate's face when you explain your condition was degenerate robot KLHL virgin.

>>10055422
Are you telling me that I can get a gf by praying to Tolkien?

>>10055428
Well, I figured Newman, but it might hold more sway with Tolkien.

>>10055407

Neoplatonism is cool, but when a system fails and a million or so kids get sexually assaulted because of it and then the same person who told you God is everywhere and is present in everybody all the time then tells you that it's all a government conspiracy while you see kids you met from other schools at the dances start to come out with some allegations while the whole thing comes down makes you feel a little fucked up.

I'm not an infinite being and I'm not here to say whether God is here or not, but if he is and he's present in me then he'll know exactly how I think.

>>10055461
It's a fallen world. What do you expect? Is there some test you can take to determine whether you are going to commit egregious sins in the future? Only God knows that. And he has a plan. Even when it doesn't seem like it.

>>10055461
>muh six gorillion molested kids

>>10055623

Eh, you're right likely. My old friend Christ will tell me what he meant by putting himself in that fellow who read all the books then lost it and raped Eric. He knows what Eric went through. He was there for all of it.

>>10054149
Name one (1).

>>10055986
One what?

Why not two Catholic threads? We certainly need more of them!