/lit/ - Literature

obligatory :^)

>>10818077
>no Culture of Critique
Pseud Trads leave.

>>10818077
got more french infographs?

>>10818020

The encyclicals of Gregorius XVI Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X are pretty good.

Human genus, mirari vos, quanta cura etc

>>10818020
Any rec's on traditional Monarchy, like a medieval one? I cannot accept the false base of America and it's bloody beginning.

>>10818627

Donoso Cortes "catholicism, liberalism, socialism" maybe?

I recommend Felix sarda Y salvany "liberalism is a sin" to repress feelings of tolerance.

What's you guys doing for Lent? I am doing nofap and reading the Imitation of Christ daily. Just went to confession ash wednesday as well. Feels good to be in communion. I'm also quite lucky that my local cathedral does latin high mass every sunday as well. Comfy :^)


Book I suggest:

Metaphysics: The Creation of Hierarchy (Interventions) - Adrian Pabst

>>10818655
No main social media platforms, wardrobe is limited to 7 items of clothing, and go to Adoration at least once a week

>>10818642
I'll check out the second one; thanks doode

>>10818655
Daily rosary and showering in cold water.
For a book... David Jones' Anathemata. Also been reading some Thomas Merton and homilies of St. John Chrysostom.

Got this

Any anti-capitalist Catholic lit? I've been trying to see if my politics can be squared with the religion or I should just go back to cultural catholic agnosticism.

>>10818827

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

>Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism, which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative.

I don't know too much about Distributism, but you may want to check it out.

>>10818827
Leon Bloy and Georges Bernanos if you like edgy anti-bourgeois Catholic fiction/essays.

>>10818839
Another anon but this sounds exactly like my type of thing. Starting today.

>>10818627
>I cannot accept the false base of America and it's bloody beginning.
So what is a king to you then?

>>10818827
>choosing a religion based on politics
This is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on 4chan

>>10818827
Simone Weil

Does Woke Space Jesuit visit /lit/?

>>10818827
Read Marcel Lefebvre. The true church was always against communism and socialism is nothing but the foot in the door. This is also why before the Modernism took foot, only the truly deserving got help, not thoes merely to stupid or lazy to compete.

>>10819115
>damned be the poor and lazy
Ah yes, my favorite beatitude.

>>10819171
Don't worry, there's also been plenty of condemnation of unfettered capitalism. Check the sources on distributism, Aquinas on theft to avoid starvation, also Rerum Novarum/Centesimus Annus.

>>10819171

Nothing has done more to lift people out of poverty than free market economics and nothing has done more to impoverish people than the centralized distribution of resources. You're not going to guilt people with a basic understanding of history into supporting your 1930's vision of economics.

>>10818883
I was addressing our amendments and human rights are fictions. Monarchy was the norm for thousands of years and for example the right to life is legitimate because "thou shalt not commit murder," it's a loose thought, but you see what I mean? I would prefer a monarchy, but in general I want a government that is strictly founded on Christian principles.

And how might a king be legitimate? I would say by the Catholic rite of coronation

>>10818020
catholic church launders drug money and harbors pedophile cliques, church fathers rampant homosexuals, church steals land and wealth from the nations it converts, church has secrets in archives it won’t share, pope has intelligence services that cooperate with mafia, jesuits spied on every nation, caused regime changes and assassinated people, church is soaked in blood money

>>10819196
>>10819196
Capitalism is pretty good. But if it is evil, it would be clear that God crested good out of that evil

I do like capitalism tho. People act very altruistic even though the system doesn't require it at all.

Gospel of Wealth by Carnegie is a wonderful read about this stuff

>>10819209

>>10819196
nothing has done more to impoverish a people spiritually and socially than capitalism, no system of fraud and coercion has been devised that allows banks and politicians to collude to steal massive wealth from workers on this scale. there are no free markets, this is propaganda, economists use this word like the church does heaven and commies do a stateless classless society, they are selling you something which you can never have. reminder that free market is not possible, exchange and property are fraudulent and coercive acts/institutes. you cannot in good faith barter over land someone has already claimed you cannot in good faith negotiate for resources you don’t have precise knowledge of and its almost certain the person exchanging knows more about the resources than you, you cannot have a free market based on artificial scarcity induced by security forces working on the behalf of property owners. you cannot have free markers based on interest and hedging bets, you cannot have free markets where currency whether commodity or fiat, is being manipulated by the people exchanging it for goods, you cannot have a free market where parcels of property are sold at incredible rates for incredible returns that impoverish the renter, you cannot make more than a property is worth off of a renter, which people do constantly, there are many who have paid more in mortgage or rent than their property is worth or the vast majority of its value, and be having a free market interaction, this is fraud, you are lying about the value of the property and your ownership’s ostensible legitimacy is fallowed. you cannot under any circumstances have people collect taxes from the people you exploit and then have those taxes spent on services you disporoportionately benefit from without fraud and coercion. Free markets do not exist, it is a way of masking fraud and coercion, there are no PMC’s as strong as states and the one’s as strong as States are states. all states are coercive, all market interactions are fraudulent. nothing gained from exchange, speculation, rent seeking or the collection of revenue from workers’ labor is non-fraudulent in nature. the 10 billion in profits from 500 million in overhead with limited liability to deflect lawsuits and giant mechanisms for protecting the rich from losing their wealth, the rich don’t go poor like the rest of us, principal investment is also coercive and fraudulent, does not constitute anything like reciprocal input of ten thousand workers producing the ten billion in revenue. the owner is never ever, at the highest levels of business and finance, producing the value of laborers and the owner is always one hand in the revenue bucket the other in the stock and currency markets, manipulating the value of currencies, goods and services in their favor to manipulate the market and to raise their net worth so they can leverage politicians and banks to their favor. this is not a free market, just fraud

>>10819220
you support an evil institution that systematically rapes young boys, facilitates(d) the international drug trade, participates in human trafficking, spies on politicians and involves them in child molestation black mail rings, sold indulgences, has assassinated political enemies, steals billions and tries to hide its wealth in private offshore accounts. you are immoral, your church is evil and if there was a god you would burn in hell for supporting the catholic church, you are deceitful, your words are outrageous lies and you should be begging for forgiveness from your community for trying to advance such things as catholicism, a yolk we have only just escaped

>>10819209
If you want to make christians doubt or change you need to do it in a different way, insults won't work either. I don't even think historical arguements would be enough. If anything offer them an alternative.

>>10819259

I am not reading that. You have to write better.

>>10819290
Man he gave you a thought out post; the least you can do is read it

>>10819274
I don't really care, non of what you said is true, child molestations in higher in public education than the church, You have falled for ideological indoctrination of the public media trying to install a globalist atheistic state, like Stalin. You should read some history about Sovjet Russia and what they made upo against the church. Pretty much the same shit. You're a naive fedora. This will be my last reply. You're a waste of time.

Why did keynesianism and in certain cases nationalisation of resources work out so well? It's almost like the free market doesn't fix things.

>>10819316

Being verbose isn't equivalent to being well thought out. Whatever it is, it's very poorly communicated. Look at this in particular:

>reminder that free market is not possible

This is the start of a sentence. Who talks like that? It's greentext without the green.

>>10818627
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

>>10819350
>truths
>self-evident
There are no self-evident truths. And I don't mean for that green text to come off as condescending.
An example would be
Person A: there's a force, gravity
B: How do you know?
A: it is self-evident

Self-evidence tries to define the ideal man through our imperfect nature. This is why truths(in regards to morality) are justified by the metaphysical, specifically God. Believing in a moral system justified by God is totally legitimate. You cannot question the legitimacy of it; you can certainly question the legitimacy of God's existence though. But it logically follows from God's existence(personal one) to justification of moral beliefs. The same would be true if we were to pretend if God was real(seems like JBP doesn't believe but knows the concept of God is important. I havent paid much attention to him anymore tho, could be mistaken).

>>10818144
Kys. MacDonald isn't a Catholic and he's a huge fan of the Jews. Read e Michael Jones instead. The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit will always be Superior to culture of critique.

>>10818827
E Michael Bone's Barren Metal.

>>10819206
I see. Thanks for replying - I wasn't sure if you meant that you disagreed with the premise of the Constitution (which you already addressed in your post), of if the notion of a state founded by violence was at issue.

>>10818020
>traditionalism
>heresy tolerated

>>10819435
Oh too, the part about the "Creator" in the DOI. The founding fathers were deists. The God they believed in had no characteristics other than creating the universe 2bh.

>>10819565
If there heretic is destroyed, he cannot be converted. This is a missionary religion, after all.

>>10819562
Well on the foundings of America, I am not sure if it was just to revolt. I want to do my homework on whether it actually needed to happen or not. I've heard that only 1/3 of colonists wanted to revolt and it was all the rich guys(founding fathers) who were at the forefront

>>10819576
>if you don't tolerate them they win

>>10819576
>there
DAMN it.

>>10819578
I would say that it's a good example for monarchists about how badly one can make a mess of things. It all goes back to one of the old issues any king (vested with sufficient authority) has - how to give redress to the grievances of the people? This of course leads to a whole other line of questions.

>>10819576

I don't see any Cathars hanging around, do you?

>>10819583
Hahaha that is a whole nother can if worms, huh?

As I did say before, if not monarchy, definitely any government that is strictly founded on Christian principles where they are immutable to the society

>>10819582
If you're familiar with the structure of Inquisitorial trials, you'll find I'm hardly being merciful in the contemporary sense when I say they should not be destroyed.

>>10819597
Heresy never dies, anon.

>>10819597
Shame desu. Cathars were pretty interesting lads.

>>10818144
You clearly don't know shit my dude.
Céline, Bardèche, Ryssen and Faurrisson are quite a bit more caustic when it comes to the Jewish Question.
Look at that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WoF6bJZ1ro

>>10818541
I have this one too

>>10818827
Meinvielle's Concepción católica de la economía / Concepción católica de la política / anything with fascist corporatism basically

>>10818838
democratic, to the trash

>>10818839
Bloy is very bizarre and messianic/heretic, see http://wordpress.catholicapedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Barbeau_Raymond_-_Un_prophete_luciferien_Leon_Bloy.pdf
As for Bernanos, he's a bit too much of a Christian Democrat.

>>10818891
>Weil
>Catholic
she was a Marcionist at best

>>10819115
Archbishop* Lefebvre fought mainly against philosophical and religious liberalism, he was no economist.
For a good critique of communism, Meinvielle is good for that, but any good thomist manual will do.

>>10819551
Good.

>>10819435
I was arguing with my with my black southern baptist roommate about the veracity of the Bible among other quibbles with religious overtones.

I was gobsmacked by his statement that believing in god and accepting jesus as a personal savior, though necessary for acceptance into Heaven and the avoidance of dammanation, is a completely amoral act. Is this a common belief? He's also laughed off scientific consensuses like evolution and basic physics and how their efficacy has a propound relevance to things he regularly uses and benefits from on a daily. He's also a moderately successful law school student.

>>10819665
Would do you mean by amoral?? If you could elaborate; I'll gladly respond!

And lol, he may be a good law student, but the sciences are completely different. Being smart in law does not give one the authority to be knowledgeable in another subject. Einstein was a brilliant physicist/mathematician, but a fool in regards to philosophy and theology.

I'd like to add that the Catholic Church is probably the most scientifically forward religious institution, with the same attributing the actual religion as well. We as Catholics are encouraged to believe on a rational basis; but we exalt the faith because it is genuinely higher. Faith is suprarational as Bishop Barron puts it. To respect rationality is not to belittle faith. It's like a lowly servant presenting a gift to the king.

>>10819659
I like Bloy knowing full well he's probably too edgy for his own good. I take him as a good ironist and polemicist. As for Bernanos, he definitely was anti-fascist in the true sense of the word, but to call him a Christian Democrat associates him too much with, I dunno, Merkel. This is a guy who would say "Hitler has forever dishonoured anti-semitism."

>>10819736
Bishop "Vatican 2 was the greatest meeting of minds in history" Barron? That one?

>>10819736
>I'd like to add that the Catholic Church is probably the most scientifically forward religious institution

This is complicated. Not necessarily wrong. Catholic theology still totally depends on a literal interpretation of the biblical creation narrative. Church doctrine is that you don't have to take the narrative literally, but the theology they're working on is totally based in a literal interpretation of it. They're trying to have their cake and eating it too; but for all intents and purposes, they don't discourage believers from accepting the scientific consensus, which puts them a step above many Protestants.

Of course, it was the Reformation breaking away form the Church that allowed the intellectual climate that led to those scientific advances. Protestants are now often more scientifically "backward", but the Church fought bitterly against the expansion of scientific knowledge, and historical knowledge that undermined biblical literalism, at the time.

>>10819756
I said Christian Democrat not like Merkel but the Action Catholique kind of one.
Him and Bloy are pretty good writers though, I can give you that since I really like their style.

Also forgot
>>10818827
>anti-capitalist Catholic lit
La Ville by Claudel (The City: A Play)

>>10819771
>the Church fought bitterly against the expansion of scientific knowledge
>he fell for the 'Dark Ages' meme
Daily reminder the romans contributed jack shit to science, the greeks succeeded out of a lack of things to do and that proper, rigorous science only became possible within the thought conditions created in the Renaissance.

>>10819319
I'm not an atheist I don't worship the Church is all and the Church has exceptionally high rates of child abuse, considering its authority in the third world we can only wonder how bad it really is. I'm not an atheist and the "globalists" want a new faith not an atheist world
>>10819321
they haven't, business cycles still exist and the State is as incompetent as the market is vicious
>>10819290
it was for the people and i'm sorry you are illiterate
>>10819316
I can speak for myself
>>10819539
>he's a huge fan of Jews
I don't think anyone would write a book that is a handbook for a neo-Goebbels and be a philo-Semite anon. I think this is probably a way of deflecting critique of the books ideas and conclusions which, if we look at how its used by its proponents, are biological antisemitism with extermination as its logical conclusion. Do you see any philosemites on this board talking about it or virulent totalitarian anti-Semites?
>>10819597
LARPing is fun, pretending to be things is fun especially murderous old dead things

>>10819788
I'm talking about the early modern period into modernity. The Church was very much against advances in astronomy, biology, geology (quite an important issue, as it began to undermine things like the flood narrative, not to mention the age of the Earth). They were also very much against the beginnings of academic study of the Bible, historical and textual criticism.

>>10819805

You're not interesting enough to reply to so many people, especially when you have nothing to say.

>>10819825
Do you have much evidence for that? Nonliteral genesis interpretations were accepted by Augustine and Aquinas both. And Catholics were behind huge advances in biology and astronomy both.

>>10819845
this is of itself almost a contentless reply, why are you so concerned with the form of my replies? Isn't this the second time you've shied away from what I've said?

So far a capitalist who can't read, a christian who doesn't understand globalism, someone who speaks for other people, a person who thinks Keynesian economics can resolve market contradictions and the problem of State incompetence, a Kevin MacDonald Sophist trying to sneak in biological antiSemitism, and a Christian who is pretending that they're an inquisitor. You think I can't reply to all of them? I did just that
>nothing to say
really why are there arguments and opinions in every one of the replies? Wouldn't that constitute something to say? Or is it more you don't want me in this thread reminding Catholics, Fascists and Capitalists of their hypocrisy? Does it disturb the mood and flavor of your COMFY anon? Is that really what's happening? So far no one has adequately attempted to engage me, and since I've broken no rules I'll keep posting. You can eat a stick of dynamite and burn in hell for all i care faggot

>>10819825
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism
>be an Inquisitor back in pre-enlightenment Italy
>this Copernicus dude releases a book saying the earth goes around the sun
>ok.jpg
>Brahe makes some pretty good counterarguments
>comes this Galileo dude
>he defends Copernicus without really giving good arguments for it
>the Pope gently admonishes him for it since the literal interpretation of scripture goes against it
>he stops for a while, great
>then Galileo, in his infinite autism, writes a book making fun of the Pope while also introducing nothing new to dialogue
>unbelievable.png
>he gets a slap on the wrist in the form of house imprisonment
>four hundred years later a bunch of autists talk about him as if he were a great martyr for 'science' or whatever and you're now a cunt

>>10819825

You really ought to expand your horizon as far as history goes. I don't mean that as a put-down in any way because I used to believe the same shit.

>>10819867

There's something really off about you

>>10819884
people who are afraid of discourse tend to bury themselves in social signaling, I would imagine if I was like this I would just ignore what people wrote, accuse them of being atheists or call them "off" but that's not stimulating to me. I'd rather engage as long as I can bear until there is nothing left within me, even if neither side has moved an inch. Call it a will to life or maybe masochism

>>10819895

You're seriously nuts. I wasn't having any sort of conversation with you. All I did was reply about you replying to so many others and you start talking about all this crazy shit.

>>10819859
>Nonliteral genesis interpretations were accepted by Augustine and Aquinas both.

This is an exceptionally misleading statement. When Augustine warned against literal interpretation, he was talking about things like believing the "firmament" in Genesis to be a literal dome above the world with water behind it. He wouldn't go that far. He also allowed that the "days" of creation may refer to some indeterminate amount of time other than a literal 24 hour day. But he absolutely believed in the literal creation *narrative* in Genesis, and it is all throughout his writings and theology.

Aquinas is the same. I mean, you can read his theology -- his ethics are all about appropriating Aristotelian teleology, with the proper teleology of man to be that of his original state in Eden before the Fall.

There seems to be this popular idea that the great Catholic intellectuals like Augustine and Aquinas had a rather modern, non-literal interpretive framework. This is very incorrect. If you read their works, you will see the literal creation narrative, and the general historical biblical narrative, was fundamental to their theology.

>>10819920
recursive use of the social signaling technique is another sign of panic and suffering. again, is what I've said making you feel uneasy? are you disturbed by my presence? I wonder how I come off, not that it matters, but from a point of analysis and self-awareness it intrigues me. Do I interrupt something in your mind or open something up that you don't want to look at? Pray tell

>>10819948
We get it. Catholicism triggers you and everyone must know it bothers you.

>>10819960

Nothing you say is bothering me I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never accused you of being an atheist or a capitalist or a Keynesian. You seem to think you're engaging in some high level discourse with people and I think that's a little spergy but it's no sweat of my back.

>>10819977
Entirely incorrect, I feel quite positively about Catholicism.

>>10819982
but you have replied multiple times and even progressed from trying to silence to accusing me of being off my rocker? wouldn't that constitute being disturbed? also its fair to assume that you are the person i'm replying to from above in the thread.
>you seem to think you're engaging in high level discourse
and you seem to think i haven't engaged in discourse at all. all is not as it is purported to be aye lad?
>no sweat off my back
haven't you replied 3 or 4 times already becoming progressively more specific in your responses which would require increasing focus? Why the need to derail from what I was saying? If you don't like the reply and it doesn't mean anything wouldn't you just hide or report the reply instead of engaging in what is now a discourse? Especially if you thought I was crazy, you respond to the premises of my statements as if they're semi-legitimate. No one would do this if they thought their interlocutor was crazy and uninteresting. but here you are

>>10819999

You're like a crazy dude at a bus stop. I'll stop and listen to you take about going to the moon and I'll even reply but I won't try to have a serious conversation because it would be impossible. This >>10819825, as far as I know was my first interaction with you and from the start you were ranting and raving about totally unrelated things and accusing me of accusing you of things. Do you understand why somebody like me might think you're nuts?

Also what does it even mean to become "progressively more specific" in my replies?

>>10820054

I meant to say this was my first reply to you >>10819845

>>10820054
You keep saying crazy, what exactly have I said that's crazy? Also interesting that you are a catholic, I had thought you were just a lurking anon but you were already arguing for the faith in this thread. Why is it that you aren't interested in what I've said? Other anons were, and none of them accused me of being "crazy" which would imply that I can't tell what is real and what is fantasy, I don't think in any of my replies I have done that. I made a mistake, you are right, you were not the Capitalist anon who I figured what responding as a rhetort to my polemic but a polemic is not a sign of insanity, everything in the polemic was actually argued for with reasonable logic based on an understanding of the market economy system.
>ranting and raving
I don't think I was raving, and ranting is just a way of avoiding saying "talking" which is fundamentally what I did.
>unrelated things
well I thought you were the capitalist anon which was a mistake and then I was clarifying what I was responding to as an argument to rebut your claim that I wasn't interesting and had not said anything of value. Clearly you were wrong, there was content, it interested you and others and is further evidence of the soundness of my statements. Really peculiar that a catholic is calling a critic crazy but what do I know about social signalling?
>do you understand why a catholic with a vested interest might call the strongest opponent they're facing crazy to prevent others from encouraging further responses from them?
yes
>progressively more specific
each of your responses has become more involved and precise. the initial one's were rhetorical, these are now argumentative

>>10820107

Who said I'm Catholic? This is perfect example of the crazy shit you do. Now you're doing this autistic greentext shit. Sort your life out man.

>>10819948
How exactly do you mean this, then? If they understood the days, the ordering of events, of the creation narrative to be non-literal, what literal narrative are they clinging to?

>>10819884
>uuhmm creepy?? uggh...

fuck off roast

>>10820128
That Adam and Eve were literally the first created humans, that those literal humans ate a literal apple, that they were literally expelled from Eden. That all humanity descends from these two literal people. That this literal act of eating an apple is the actual cause of the biological phenomenon of death. That Adam and Eve as the literal first created humans did not have any of the human vices -- that things like sexual desire, selfishness, anger, covetousness, etc. are not products of natural selection, but metaphysical corruption of the human nature present in Adam and Eve, the literally first created humans, about 6000 years ago.

This was fundamental to the theology of Augustine and Aquinas. You can read their work and see.

>>10820125
>Who said I'm Catholic?
I assumed you were because the initial cited response in your previous reply was catholic apologetics. If that post was not made by you and was purely a mislink then my apologies I suppose you are not Catholic, though it'd be interesting if you were, though not necessarily relevant.
>This is perfect example of the crazy shit you do
Trying to establish identity and continuity is the opposite of crazy, especially if one is fully aware they could be mistaken and admits as much
>Now you're doing this autistic greentext shit.
what do you mean? it exists so we can have rigorous debate and discourse are you opposed to precision?
>sort your life out
i am sorting it out, this is what I do until the evening

>>10820171
6000 year idea is a modern evangelical fundamentalist idea..

>>10820238
Correction* it became popular in the 20th

Was developed in 17th century by Ussher, an Anglican

But it is still clear that Augustine and Aquinas did not believe that about the age of the earth

>>10820238
No, this is a popular misconception. ALL Christians held to the idea of creation dated from about 4000 BC until modernity.

Here's Augustine himself in no uncertain terms:
>They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.
From City of God
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120112.htm

ALL Christians before modernity, including the greatest intellectual philosophers and theologians, held to a literal creation at around 4000 BC, until modernity.

>>10820171
It wasn't ever seen as literally an apple, as far as I've ever read. Just that there were first created humans, and they fell to temptation. The timeline is also not particular to their theology. Catholics aren't fundamentalists.

Also, about the only capitalistic tenets essential to Catholicism are private property/enterprise- Jesus was a carpenter, after all.

>>10820275
>Jesus was a carpenter, after all.
that doesn't lead to the conclusions of private property and enterprise which are basically the fundamentals of capitalism

where in the bible is one of the teachings: start new businesses

usury is prohibited as well so how is one to do that

>>10820263
Just as a scientific point, though, it had no theological significance. Even where Genesis was understood literally it was not essential in any doctrine that it be so.

>We must obey the vicar of Christ except when I disagree with him then he isn't a real pope
Really makes you think...

>>10820263
Huh, didn't even know that! Interesting.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that all of Augustine's or Aquinas's theories or traditional beliefs are dogmatic? If you didn't say it or imply it, let me know

>>10820290
That's sedevacantists and Trad Catholics need to suck it up and start grooming Cardinal Sarah for Pontiff

>>10820280
>local council Carthage (419), confirmed by ecumenical council Nicea II (787)
>Canon CIX. That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body--that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.
>Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX. Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.

>>10820312
Well, how this relates to the current doctrine of the Church is very complicated. It is NOT Church doctrine that the faithful must believe the biblical narrative to be literal. However, Church doctrine pertaining to matters of sin and salvation, the explanation for why sin and evil exists, the justification of a potential afterlife punishment, the reason human nature is what it is -- all these answers are very fundamentally dependent of the Church's philosophical tradition which is fundamentally dependent on the literal reading of the scriptures that pre-modern theologians worked with.

>>10820326
And by literal do you mean scientific?
The idea of two first human beings being created checks out with mongeneism; the papal encyclical, Humani Generis says something along the lines that Catholics may believe in a distinct creation of man and woman or that through God's provision, evolution occurs. And one could add to these encyclical that ensoulment happened when the first two humans were born.

The actual place of Eden, we aren't entirely sure where.

All of this exegesis on Genesis seems so convoluted, but who expected it to be simple anyhow? All of these things dont seem to be out of the ball park considering the capabilities of God and it was long long ago

>>10820325
That doesn't even contradict current teaching, though. When Man was given a rational soul, it was through our own sin that mortality and concupiscence have hold. That is still taught. It doesn't require a literal apple tree, just what's said in Humani Generis.

>>10818020
Basil the Great - On Holy Spirit
Ambrose - On the Holy Ghost
Augustine -- Confessions, City of God
Aquinas - Summa Theologica
Anselm - De Concordia
John of the Cross - Ascent of Mount Caramel
Hildegard of Bingen - Liber Divinorum Operum

>>10819805
Listen dude. The entire book of Culture of Critique is: "here's all the wicked and bad shit the Jews have done....and why we must be more like them!".

As I said read or watch E Michael Jones instead. MacDonald is a moron.

>>10820669
Thanks anon, found something for myself.

>>10819435

bump for more content

i think i might be bi but dunno how to integrate it into my character, meaning i still realize heterosexual love is superior physically, mentally, biologically, theologically etc and i still wanna have a wife.
Probably has to do something with my trauma so what should i do next?

>>10822432

Just don't act upon the gay or lust after men. There's really no good way to integrate those desires into your life.

>>10822457
ok, i never intented on acting upon those thoughts.
i actually find gays repulsive and am fairly scared of gay people.
I just wanna be 100% straight and without those wrong thoughts harrassing my conciousness.

>>10822469
>I actually find gays repulsive and am fairly scared of gay people.
You need to stop right there. Let's recognize that homosexual acts are literally evil, first. But seriously, you better be really fucking careful that you don't go thinking:
>wow, I am so much holier that gay men
>I find those sinners disgusting

That will be classic display of pride. This is one sin that really infuriates me—let us pray it is righteous anger—, because it is such a blatant act of pride and hatred; and it's really an act of cafeteria Catholicism that some trad's don't even realize that they are doing.

So again, you better make sure you aren't the man who throws the first stone right after Jesus states "he who is without sin shall cast the first stone."

Do not point out the sins of others to judge them and hate them. Point out their evil to save them. We must all call evil repulsive and grotesque. But do not call call the children of God repulsive. Let us not spit at the image of God.

Just read the first Roman Father of the Church, and also its best, Tertullian. You'll like him. He doesn't like compromise too much.

As someone who will probably die never believing that Jesus rose from the dead, am I bound for hell?

>>10823194
I'll pray for you tonight, anon. :(

>>10822955
> Gilson is Protestant/Catholic
> Kierkegaard is Orthodox/Protestant

what

>>10818020
GK Chesterton
Charles Péguy
Ronald Knox

>>10823194
With the Orthodox, there's possibility that you're saved. Catholic and Prot, no, you're doomed.

Orthodox aren't as legalistic in their ability to judge who clearly is or is not saved.

>>10823382
>>10823194
Catholics hold that salvation is very possible as long as it's "invincible ignorance"- ie if you have good reason to believe it false. They also reject passing sure judgment on any individual, just holding that some sins, if unrepentant, are mortal.

>>10818827
Is there even any capitalist Catholic lit?

>>10823885
Not much that's very capitalist. A bit of opposition to pure socialism, both as anti-private property and collectivist and as predominantly atheist.

>>10818827
Liberation theology is huge in Latin America

Who /Desmond Fennell/ here?

>>10823827
>Catholics hold that salvation is very possible as long as it's "invincible ignorance"

basically if you're raised in an environment where you never heard of the catholic church. so thats what? those tribes in the amazon?

Outside the church, no salvation. Not baptised? Definitely damned. Practicing Orthodox? You resist papacy therefore mortal sin of schism. Damned. etc etc

>>10824305

Nothing can be said definitively other than if somebody is saved it's through the church whether that person realizes it or not. An official baptism isn't strictly necessary because there could be a baptism of desire.

>>10824371
>a baptism of desire.

but doesn't the person have to be in contact with a priest for that to happen? baptism of desire is only if you die before your scheduled baptism date

>>10818020
"Protestant" > "Catholic" > "Orthodox"

>>10824392

Yeah it's mostly about catechumens but there's no reason it couldn't extend to people who would have desired baptism if they had interacted with a priest.

>>10818144
>Modernist pseudo-science of "evolutionary psychology" that denies free will
>Trad

Peter Dimond - Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation

Reminder that if you endorse "baptism of desire", "baptism of blood" and especially "invincible ignorance", you will definitely go to Hell.

>>10824444
Is "traditional" a synonym for "imbecilic"?

>>10824458
There's no hell tho.

>>10824463
Most trads are just larpers and don't have bad intentions. When it comes to internet trads it gets closer to weaponised stupidity, sure.

>>10824436
You are a heretic. No saint/doctor ever believed in invincible ignorance. Even the few saints/doctors of the Church who believed in baptism of desire, which is incompatible with dogma, only applied it to catechumens who weren't yet baptized, but they needed to believe in the essential mysteries of faith. Baptism of desire is an error held by a few saints, invincible ignorance is a heresy only held by modernists from the end of the 19th century onwards.

how do catholics even justify the split from orthodox christianity? i want to be catholic cause im white but man im so much more into orthodoxy

>>10824484

Where is said that baptism of desire is limited to catechumens?

>>10824493
>i want to be catholic cause im white

>>10824511
>tfw no french catholic qt

>>10824530
C'est qoui je veux en ma vie

>>10824499
What are you talking about? Of the few saints who believed in such a thing, all also believed that you can't be saved without believing in the essential mysteries of faith. Saint Augustine, the one Church Father who can be quoted in favour of that, also rejected it in many passages, saying that not even catechumens can't be saved if they weren't baptized.

>>10824499
It's explicitly stated in the Athanasian Creed: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

>>10824305
Invincible ignorance was accepted by Aquinas and Origen. Plus, you know, there's the biblical and basic moral notions of not maintaining full guilt for less than ideal actions done in good conscience- faith of the centurion, etc.
>>10824484
Literally in the catechism.

>>10824826
Not true, invincible ignorance was not accepted by Aquinas, liar. Aquinas asserted that, if someone deserved it, God in his divine providence would make a way for him to get to know Christ, i.e., having the faith. Let's see exactly what he said:

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection‐ “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies‐ It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”

That is completely different from invincible ignorance, which asserts that people can be saved who do not have the catholic faith, members of false religions and even jews who reject Christ.

Here's clear rejection of such a concept:

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”

>>10824826
Looks like you've found the LARPers

Guys: just accept that you were wrong and apologize. Next time too, if you aren't sure what the teaching is—rather than being mistaken—, just admit that you do know. Say you'll get back to the anon or whoever after you do some research.

>>10824826
Also, Origen rejected that people can be saved without water baptism, see:

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants… there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.”

Stop lying.

In regards to the Bible, you're being a protestant by reinterpreting it contrary to what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that these people will not be condemned by their lack of faith, but by their other sins. Being that, they will not get to know the faith because they did not deserve it (because of their sins). That's the reason they will be left in ignorance and perish for all eternity.

Also, what catechism are you even talking about. (By the way, no catechism is infallible).

Men must remain in the sacraments; God may save souls outside the sacraments, for He is not restricted to them.

>>10824826
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

This refutes your heresy, you can't argue against it.

>>10824884
Heretic, you took this piece of theology from your own ass. This is what all modernists do, you people say that what the Church has dogmatically defined is not necessarily true because God is not bound by it. This is incompatible with Catholic dogma, it is equivalent to say that God is a liar, since he said that he won't save non-catholics and non-baptized people.

>>10823194
there is no Catholic god so no, you won't go to that hell no
>>10822579
>you'd better be careful
woah oh no
>>10822432
stop watching porn, you won't think about males if you are only being aroused by women
>>10820990
I don't believe this at all, I really don't

>>10824903
>since he said that he won't save non-catholics and non-baptized people.
"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Catholics have crawled so far up their own ass that it's hard to believe. I can't help but despise you.

>>10824903
>Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino

See Lumen Gentium 16
And CCC 846-848

>Heretic, you took this piece of theology from your own ass.
You ought to be nicer and rid yourself if that wrath; offer it up instead during the Lenten Season.

And how did Jesus save the Penitent Thief? More than likely He was bit baptized. Too, what makes you think that God's divine providence is limited as such?

>>10824826
Am this person, switching away from cell phone so I can actually be somewhat coherent.
>>10824846
Liar? Come on, don't start getting this pissed off. I'd define the point of "grace has been revealed" rather differently - if someone has no knowledge, or, in many cases, false knowledge, of the faith, then they are brought up "as among wolves"- so he "who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason" is able to be saved. Argue the terms used, sure, but don't call someone a liar for a different reading of the passage.
>>10824864
Can't actually find the relevant passage from Origen, I'll concede that he may very well have not supported that. But CCC 846-847 (literally 1992 Pope John Paul II's CCC) seems to support my point well enough that accusations of heresy (what is this, the inquisition on 4chan?) is farcical.
>>10824903
Actively chosen heresy, schism, or apostasy obviously are condemned. The Pope Gregory XVI quote refers to that, whereas the second is best understood through the catechism as mentioned above, or, say, through St. Justin Martyr: "“[Those] who lived according to reason [logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them."

Im working on a list of Christian lit, specifically poetic narratives. You guys got any suggestions? I ran out

>>10825363
David Jones' Anathemata is another nice Christian poetic work.

>not believing in the literal existence of Adam and Eve

What kind of shitty Catholics are you guys?

>>10825363
>Ash Wednesday
>Not Four Quartets

The dove descending breaks the air
With flame of incandescent terror
Of which the tongues declare
The one discharge from sin and error.
The only hope, or else despair
Lies in the choice of pyre or pyre—
To be redeemed from fire by fire.

Who then devised the torment? Love.
Love is the unfamiliar Name
Behind the hands that wove
The intolerable shirt of flame
Which human power cannot remove.
We only live, only suspire
Consumed by either fire or fire.

>>10818020
read stirner

>all these anachronistic discussions

>>10824493
go into orthodoxy...i mean, have you been to a catholic new mass? what the fuck were they thinking when they made that...

the orthodox theological perspective on many issues is more intuitive and appealing. orthodox theology lets you get on with being a christian, whereas catholic theology requires a lot of mental gymnastics and takes a beat-down from modern philosophy.

>>10826315
I've noticed this as well, im new into my studies into orthodoxy, and already i feel like im studying basic theology. https://youtu.be/7jvap4ItDlk vid related. Is, what i was learning last night, you start to see how the west went down this secular hell route very early on. I've gotten my orthodox study bible very recently, now the only thing limiting me is finding an orthodox parish.

>>10819284
>christians
I thought we were talking about Catholics, aka the Whore of Babylon?

>>10826356
>now the only thing limiting me is finding an orthodox parish.
Enjoy getting told to go somewhere else because you're not Greek or Slavic.

>>10826375
catholics always have the most desperate arguments against the orthodox.

orthodox churches are by no means ethnic enclaves and no one will ever tell you to go somewhere else. and the fact is that even catholic parishes were ethnic enclaves until the 1960s.

i attend a greek orthodox church and theres a few russian, indian and arabs. nobody gives a shit. you'll only stick out if you're young because it's mainly old people.

>>10826419
>catholics always have the most desperate arguments against the orthodox.
I'm not Catholic and it wasn't an argument.
>orthodox churches are by no means ethnic enclaves and no one will ever tell you to go somewhere else.
Search a bit and you can find examples of this happening.
>i attend a greek orthodox church and theres a few russian, indian and arabs.
Wow, people from other countries that have Orthodox churches. You don't say.

>>10826441
see, desperate argumentation against the orthodox

>>10826458
It's not an argument. I don't give a fuck if someone joins an Orthodox church, but they're going to have to deal with ethnic issues and being disparagingly labeled a "convert" (as opposed to ethnic "cradles") and all other manner of shit related to not being an immigrant from the old country.

>My interpretation of arbitrary axioms is true because I use certain arbitrary axioms within this arbitrary axiom to prove my arbitrary axioms!

Good god, what did Constantine do to the world

>>10826465
But hey, at least it will be fun at your parish's Hellenic Festivals or whatever events they hold where they celebrate their ethnicity.

>>10826465
i go to an albanian ortho church, and im of western european descent. nobody cares, and i feel extremely welcome. there are russians and even serbians there as well. im on my way right now, actually. i know a greek who goes to a russian church, too.

>>10826498
Pointing out other Orthodox ethnicities going to a different Orthodox church doesn't mean anything; it's just a fact of the diaspora. It's nice that you found a place that's accepting but the denial that people do get turned away because there are parishes that are literal ethnic clubs isn't doing a service to anyone.

>>10826465
>>10826504
that doesn't exist though

>>10818627
>traditional Monarchy
Erich Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

>>10826967
Thanks my guy;

Any specific work of his that discusses monarchy? What about critique of classical liberalism and or democracy and or republics?

Bump

>>10826356

>you start to see how the west went down this secular hell route very early on

Yeah, it's not like the East fell to totalitarian atheistic secular communist regimes!

Gosh darn secular Westerners!

>>10826940
Are you sure?

Here's a point of contention: why are there so few African and Asian Orthodox? If they're not an "ethnic club," why haven't they joined the Catholics and the Protestants in carrying the Gospel to the far corners of the Earth?

>>10818020
Why read about obviously made up nonsense

>>10828340
All religions are ethnic clubs to be fair.

>>10828364
Not Catholicism.

>>10828340
>why are there so few African and Asian Orthodox?
because the orthodox church commands fewer resources than its catholic and protestant counterparts, and culturally orthodox nations were never colonial powers a la Spain or Britain.

>>10829666
But why not send missionaries out, all the same?

>>10829669
they do
http://pravoslavie.ru/53813.html

>>10819274
>you support an evil institution that systematically rapes young boys, facilitates(d) the international drug trade, participates in human trafficking, spies on politicians and involves them in child molestation black mail rings, sold indulgences, has assassinated political enemies, steals billions and tries to hide its wealth in private offshore accounts

Huh...you just described Zionists kikes...

>>10824463
>>10824468
psychology as anything other than an extension of biology is made up and is largely just social engineering

>>10825363
Dream of the Rood

>>10818896
Definitely not

>traditional catholic
If you were actually traditional or even a real catholic you would recognize that the seat of Saint Peter lies vacant since 1958 and that the apostolic succession is over. Those are the last days.

Is this the best english catholic bible?

http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=51714C093CE3E62E2535602D93102C78

>>10824903
>unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives

It's possible for Christ to reveal Himself to someone when they are unconscious and near death.

Such as for Anton LaVey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nWt_U2gEEI

https://www.christian-faith.com/quotes-of-dying-atheists-and-god-haters/

>>10831902

For the New Testament there's nothing better. For the OT check out the Little Rock Bible.

This guy destroys eastern "orthodoxy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yngXv5q5FzE&index=27&list=PLanUCrXt8Hy5xD9kIXQq4uhWUllZy9eGt&t=0s

>>10832061
>65 bucks

nope, unless you can find me a pdf/epub/azw3

>>10832087

I think you're looking at the wrong thing. Here it's only about 20 dollars

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Rock-Catholic-Study-Bible/dp/0814626793/

>>10832105
>2700 pages

nope

>>10832149

If you're just looking to add some notches to your Goodreads numbers you probably shouldn't bother with the bible or anything else worth reading, really.

>>10832168
I don't have the time to spend on a 3000 page book buddy

>>10832381
You can read it in under a year if you read a mere ten pages a day.

>>10832381

Okay. I don't know what you're telling me for.

>>10832073
lol straight retarded

>>10826465
If you're from an historically Catholic or Protestant ethnic group, and not from a historically Orthodox ethnic group (or married into such a family), then you should only become Orthodox over Catholic if you have extremely strong and well-supported (not meme) opinions about the (fairly small) differences between Eastern and Western theology and side with the East.

EO can (not always) be a cheap way for ex-Protestants to hate Catholics despite being 99% Catholic.

>>10826356
You don't need a Masters to understand the Baltimore Catechism. "Intro to Eastern Orthodoxy" is going to be simpler than the Summa. Eastern theologians use complex reason all the time.

>>10818020
This thras is so cringey. Holy shit get your GED first or actually go to college. Fucking weeblet brainlet who goes on 4chan, gets brainwashed by posts, and somehow thinks reading Ulysses is going to make him into something. No.... You are damn useless.