/lit/ - Literature

I got a nifty book.

Reposting from previous thread:
What's the best to explain the bits in the OT where God demands the Israelites to genocide the original inhabitants in their future nation? Is it good because it's His will?

leave, filthy pedophiles

Alright lads, rec me a Portuguese theology book

>>13191435
You may as well go to a Portuguese forum and ask for an English book. What are you thinking?

>>13191485
There are +220million native Portuguese speakers, with a majority being Catholic. I bet a few uses this site as well. Not everyone is a mutt

>>13191688
Yeah I'm sure there's a lot of them, as evidenced by all the replies you're getting. Don't be a knob head.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-03-13/more-than-one-third-of-catholics-consider-leaving-church-amid-sex-abuse-scandal-study-says

I honestly don't understand why "Catholics" are leaving the church after these scandals. Was there Catholic faith just some sort of identity they wore like clothes on Sundays?

>>13191692
To be fair, I've got more replies than anyone else in this thread. But why are you here anyway? Just to sperge out? I wonder if you would have had the same attitude, had I asked for works in Spanish, Italian or any other language with meme-tier book titles, known by everyone

>>13191796
I'm not sperging out, I'm point out how stupid it is to ask for non-English books on an English forum. You haven't got any replies because this is an English forum.

>>13191796

he's right lad, you need to let it go

>>13191836
Alright then, take care guys

>>13191744
Probably because retards like you don't understand that people with kids hate pedophiles so much they'd burn the entire church to kill them. God 4chan Catholics are delusional

>>13191920
Trust me, no one can hate pedophiles more than me. I simply don't understand how one abandons their faith because of the actions of evil people in the church.

> they'd burn the entire church to kill them
You don't seem to understand what the church is. Every living Catholic on earth makes up the church and carry its traditions. The pedophiles who entered the congregation attacked the church directly.

The church would have disappeared in 1100 if people "burned the entire church" for the actions of evil by priests/cardinals/popes.

Finally, if you believe we should destroy institutions that promote pedophilia then why are you not for burning down Hollywood media centers and liberal activist centers. After all, the next frontier for sexuality politics is pedophilia and if the trans movement has taught us anything, will succeed unless Christians stop them.

>>13191377

very cool dude. based jesuit. wonder how much he learned about Confucianism. read a bit and tell me how it is

>>13191378

read re old v. new covenant

>>13191744
>Was there Catholic faith just some sort of identity they wore like clothes on Sundays?

Yes. American Catholics are notoriously awful, and I say this as an American. Remember, they all flouted Humanae Vitae and continued to use birth control, and they were fucking proud of it. Online Trads can be kind of cringy, but at least most of them seem somewhat committed to actually obeying the Church's teachings.

And the worst part is that America is the dominant imperial power right now, so the shittiness of American Catholics gets spread around the world.

So far reading the Bible I find the scriptures seem to align more with the Orthodox than any other group personally.

>>13192230
I was just telling you why people aren't too keen on associating with an institution that covers up pedophilia. Threatening to leave makes the church actually have to do something instead of just transferring pedophiles around.
>the new frontier of sexuality politics is pedophilia
Dude people used to publish full frontal nudity of children in magazines. Stances against pedophilia have hardened in the west.

>>13191378
It could be that those areas were completely infested with nephilim. The same areas would see the presence of demon activities during the time of Jesus. Of course that's just a hypothesis, but it's interesting to think about

Book of the New Sun is one of my favorite things that I've ever read, and it's obviously soaked in Wolfe's Catholicism. What is some other good Catholic sci-fi?

>>13192316

Canticle of Leibowitz

>>13192281
what translation

>>13192281
In what way?

Just finished Chesterton's "Orthodoxy," lads, what a great read. I've been on the fence about returning to the Church for a while but it might be time.

>>13192369
Nice one brother. Good to see old blood taking the zog goggles off and get ready to smash degeneracy again. Deus vult, welcome back soldier.

>>13192397
My god that's cringe.

>>13192472
What do you bet he's not even Catholic, just a larper who just likes the aesthetics?

>>13191378
It's also important to realize that the phrase "devote to destruction" and the like used in the conquest narratives are exaggerations that are common to other cultures in the ANE. We see this in the Bible itself when we see a people pop up in the narrative when a few chapters earlier it said they were "devoted to destruction."

>>13192316
The Space Trilogy by C.S Lewis
Love in the Ruins by Walker Percy

>>13192283

This would make sense if Catholics viewed the church as some sort of membership club. However, Catholics believe the church is the best path to salvation and is the actual spouse of Christ on Earth. Leaving the church for a Catholic is the equivalent of saying no to Christ, His Mercy, and salvation. One thing is actively demanding transparency and excommunication of pedophiles by halting donations or public criticism, another is abandoning what you believe in to make a statement.

>>13192274
I have to agree here. A lot of catholics in America seem to be pseudo-catholics that "identify" as Catholics but, for all practical purposes are not. Stephen Colbert an "open Catholic" recently did a whole monologue on being pro-choice after the Alabama laws.

>>13192830
Catholics aren't leaving to make a statement. They're leaving because their trust in the church has been broken in a traumatic and visceral way. You're separating the institution from the doctrine, but many can't since the institution is the source of the doctrine.

>>13192369
Welcome back friend!

Has anyone read pic related? Is it any good?

>>13191360
:)

>>13191360
I just want to know that God is real so that I can believe. What do I do?

>>13192934
Anon, you'll probably get to the point where you KNOW God is real, not in the same way that you know other things. Instead, its like seeing bits a pieces of God everywhere, acknowledging certain intellectual and spiritual truths, and eventually getting to the point where it seems that any additional "evidence" will be redundant. You either take the leap or you don't. Proof can't do the work for you, because ultimately, if you want to believe then any proof will suffice, and if you don't want to believe then you will find error with even the strongest defenses. Take your time anon.

>>13191378
From what I understand, God needed to protect Israel from invasion and idolatry until the coming of Jesus. The nation needed to have a semblance of purity. Killing was valid.

>>13191435
You could search for Plínio Correa and Orlando Fedeli works. Both of them were borderline schismatic cult leaders, but you can have some good insights.

When is God going to purge the faggots?

Has anyone here gone through RCIA program? I was raised Lutheran Missouri Synod but have become dissatisfied with it.

What's hell actually like? If I'm gonna go there I'd like a description at least

>>13194149
First of all, no one knows if they are going to go to hell and certainly not if they have lots of time left in their life. The Saints have talked about the subject much better than I could.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FzUJl-wB1s
That YouTube link is an audiobook of a lengthy sermon on hell.

I want to fuck a nun and cum in her bun!

>>13194303
>First of all, no one knows if they are going to go to hell
I'm an unrepentant sinner, a non-believer, and I'm not baptised. If the Christian god is real, then I know where I'm going.

>>13194322
Well you don't know how your life may change between now and the end of your life.

>>13194338
Well I'm glad to know I won't become some smug 4chan catholic at least

>>13194360
Only the Church possesses the charisma of Truth.

>>13194360
>wanting to go to hell this bad you get pissed at a dude giving you a shred of hope

>>13194379
>>13194378
fuck off smugs

christian chantards

lol

>>13194360
>>13194387
You never know. St. Bartolo Longo was a literal Satanic Priest before he converted because of the Rosary. Catholicism aside, you never know how your life will take you.

Are there any saints or priests who have struggled with suicidal thoughts?

>>13194413
Well I hope I will never debase myself into Catholocism

>>13194458
I don't understand why you entered this thread, then.
There's no satisfaction to be found in baiting people or in asking after something which one really has no interest in. All you've done is lost an hour of your time.
Are you afraid to genuinely consider the idea of God existing - or to make posts on an anonymous image board without being half-ironic about everything so that you never really have to risk expressing your real thoughts on a matter?
Why ask after the conditions of a Hell you do not even believe in, unless you feel some slight possibility that it might be true?

>>13194680
you think im locked in this thread? a few shitposts don't mean shit

>>13194707
then why even keep replying, if you don't care?

>>13194718
(You)s

>>13194722

>>13194441
Even having suicidal thoughts is a shameful sin. Repent.

>>13194731
This. "mental illness" is nothing but a sorry excuse for being a sinner in the mind.

>>13194680
>There's no satisfaction to be found in baiting people
m8 if that were true 4chan would not exist.

>>13194782
notice I used the word "satisfaction" and not "fleeting pleasure."

>>13194441
St. Therésè of Lisieux comes to mind. St. Teresa of Calcutta was also known for her unhappiness. St. Dymphna is the patron saint of mental disorders and St. Jude is the patron saint of lost causes and desperate situations.

>>13194831
Saint Jude is great, I've prayed for his intercession numerous times before. He has a nice novena, too.

Gay men make me fucking sick. How dare they have relationships and openly mock God with their "romance" and futile attempts at monogamy. When will Francis take a more hardline stance? Instead of this boomer "who am i to judge" nonsense?

>>13194846
Catholicism is cool because its like the ancient greeks with all the demi gods and shit

>>13194731
You can't control the thoughts in your mind. Trying to force out thoughts that are naturally arising is just going to make them stick around longer. The sin only comes if they are acted upon or though upon in some sort of fantasy/lustful longing. Shaming him for an already bad situation will just make it worse. It almost appears as if you are trying to bait, but I've seen people legitimately say this, so I'll respond legit.

>>13194847

Cucktholics are pagan blasphemers.

>>13194846
Of course a cucktholic would pray to mortals instead of Christ Himself only.

>>13194914
>"pope" francis
Not that this is wrong but I don't trust this guy for a second. This is probably a ploy of some kind to garner hate for the faith.

>>13194939
Pope Francis is a lot more trad than he comes across as being in the press, mostly because the press loves to manipulate his words to serve their anti-Catholic agenda.

Fuck, "Laudato Si" is extremely reactionary if you actually bother to read it.

>>13194922
I suppose you too have never asked another person to pray for you. Asking saints for intercession is always done with a Christocentric understanding.

>>13194939
>a ploy to garner hate for the faith
>by making a correct statement

I have my complaints about how the Holy Father too, but you're engaging in some really unnecessary mental gymnastics.

Anyone else here love the Carthusians?

>>13195202
This. Pope Francis is totally orthodox, the only problem is that he's a weak leader and communicates to the modern world in a really muddled way.

>>13195281
They are, admittedly, pretty cool. I love deeply devoted monks.

My personal favorite order is the Dominicans, though. They love academic theology and they love the Rosary, two of the things I enjoy most about being Catholic.

>tfw apostate cradle catholic hermetic theosopher
I always feel bad when I go to Church on Christmas and Easter. My mom is totally brainwashed and insists the entire family comes. I usually go to confession first so I am not disobeying the rules of the eucharist. I have stolen eucharist once or twice though as a child in private school. Black masses conferred no benefit same as the high and low masses that preceded them...

>>13194846
Okay, can someone rationalize prayer logically? This also relates to miracles.

If God is omnipotent/omniscient, then why would he bend the laws of physics to accommodate your request? This would imply that somehow his creation is imperfect, that he "changes" things for you. This is not even to get into the incredibly trifling prayers for parking spaces and good test scores. To believe that he would intercede in your behalf is not only obvious wish-thinking but egocentric and ludicrous.

Think of all the horrible atrocities that have occurred throughout history. Or a dramatic yet reasonable example; a little girl praying before/during she is raped and murdered. Undoubtedly this has occurred, why were her innocent prayers unanswered? There are so many more events, when someone must have prayed to the point of madness, only to receive blank expressionless darkness.

The only logical answer is that god moves in mysterious ways (or the always popular that god wanted the little girl to live with him in paradise). Senseless.

The unending and immense deaths from child birth, both child and mother. The prayers. Can you even contemplate how people must have prayed throughout history and been left abandoned? Please don't let my child die of cancer? Please bring my love back to me. What were they doing wrong? The prayers. Seems sort of, arbitrary does it not?

God, I pray for this, or that. The insanity and stupidity only stem from here.

So I'm in cafe right now, there are Protestants in front of me talking shit about Catholic concept of saints on how they worship humans or something

>It takes a great deal of courage to be a priest down there. From what I hear, it's quite a demonic part of Australia. A recent episode I'm sure you've heard of: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-03/catholic-priest-removed-from-tasmanian-church/10967746
That was a strange episode. Actually, truly strange because Abp. Julian Porteous is a rather orthodox bishop, at least when I lived in Hobart, and welcomed the Notre Dame Priory

Is there really a point in praying for dead if that person is in heaven or hell, not purgatory anyways?

>>13195431
May you tell us about black masses? Also, it's never too late.
>>13195560
I've heard if you pray for those in hell their suffering slightly decreases.

>>13195481
>The only logical answer is that god moves in mysterious ways (or the always popular that god wanted the little girl to live with him in paradise). Senseless.

What's so senseless about "God moves in mysterious ways"? It's the answer to your problems and there's really nothing wrong with it. God does stuff we don't understand; or, he does stuff we don't understand at the time, but do understand later. What's wrong with this idea? God is beyond our fathoming. Why do all of His actions have to make sense to humans?

>>13195585
Because I could use that answer to remedy any conceivable problem I have, attributable not only to any religions inquiry but any conceivable question.
Because the line between mystery and absurdity gets blurred.
Because sense is important. It's what separates us from the beasts.
Because it's a worse answer than "I don't know" when taking on the most profound questions.
Because it's a non-answer with dire implications.

>>13195645
But the flip side of that, of course, is that sometimes God DOES answer our prayers. Sometimes God does give us what we wanted even when it seems impossible. And sometimes He gives us something we weren't expecting, but which nonetheless changes our life for the better. The mystery of God's interactions in our lives does become rather nonsensical if God is actually silent. But the thing is, He isn't.

Thinking about how God is sometimes extraordinarily spooky. Growing up in CCE as a kid never really prepared me for that. "Fear of the Lord" isn't just some nonsense expression.

>>13195653
God DOES answer our prayers
This is a non-sequitur. You'll find that when you convey messages of this ilk, there is not much of a rebuttal. But it's not because you've convinced them, but because you haven't presented anything more than an opinion.

Note that I could insert my "God" into your usage of God and my argument would be equal(y poor).

>>13191360
Explain the trinity using only scripture pls

>>13195749
John 14:15-16 NLT
>“If you love me, obey my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, who will never leave you.

Why should I become Catholic?

>>13194441
Job wanted to die I guess.

>>13195481
>If God is omnipotent/omniscient, then why would he bend the laws of physics to accommodate your request?
providence can unfold in more than one way/Jesus prayed for his cup to be taken from him, implying that it's not totally futile

>>13195560
Idk about Catholics but for the Orthodox it has something to do with the Final Judgment not having occurred yet.

>>13195757
So if I love one aspect of god, this aspect will prompt another aspect to take care of me by sending another aspect?

bump

Is it sinful to enjoy Bach?

So here's a question. If a terrorist was holding hostage and got sniped by SWAT (right in his brain) there's no point in praying for his soul since he most definitely died in mortal sin and went to hell?

>>13196790
lol why

>>13196850
His music is Lutheran and with Lutheran themes.
His Cantatas may as well have been written by Satan himself. Just listen to BWV 12, it is blasphemy.

>>13196836
>>13196790
It's a sin to ask dumb questions

why are catholics so hate filled?

I'm gonna pose something only real/serious catholics can address.
Matthew 23:
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

The only explanations have sounded like drivel so if anyone can seriously address this it would be most helpful. Thank you in advance.

>>13197551
I don't think it's a problem at all, it's just protestants doing what protestants do best, misread scripture. If you think about it for a minute, why is Matthew 23 taken so literally by protestants but not the verse which commands us to pluck out our eyes if it leads us to sin? Something different is clearly meant by "father" than what protestants wish it to mean.

It's made absurd just by accepting their interpretation, because what is a rabbi? A rabbi is a spiritual teacher. Your parents are spiritual teachers while you grow up, Peter and Paul were spiritual teachers, and Paul literally refers to himself as a father or spiritual teacher in 1 Cor. 4:14–15. We're to" call no man father" because there is only one God who is the father. It ultimately means we're not meant to treat anyone else as God. I know protestants aren't too big on reading the Old Testament but people making that mistake was a recurring problem and something that needed to be fixed by Jesus.

>>13197551
Look at Mt. 28:19; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11.

It's clear that Christ enjoins them to go forth and teach. There are also numerous instances in the NT when Peter, Paul and John refer to men as their "children" in their role as spiritual fathers. The Church follows this custom of the apostles by calling priests "father".

Reason would have it that Christ is speaking hyperbolically, speaking against the Jews who take pride in their honorific titles and warning against gurus and cults of personality.

>11 The greatest among you will be your servant
Indeed, look earlier at Mt. 20:25-27. Since the time of Pope Gregory I, the pope has taken the title of 'Servus Servorum Dei', Servant of the Servants of God.

>>13197235
Sometimes it's exhausting dealing with the fact that evil has been trying to destroy the church since its inception

>>13197691

Jesus affirms Subjective Monism, that is to say that men think and act wholly, that the Self is not emergent from interactions of parts, but thinks and acts as one. A common denominator of the Gospels is that body parts have no agency through "instinct" or "Id", thus cannot offend you. A literal interpretation could very well reveal that Jesus is prescribing NEVER cutting anything off, as per his broader rebuke of "Newtonian" justice. Not to mention his insistence on repenting rather than disowning and scapegoating, that you cannot cut YOURSELF off and have to come to terms with your own mistakes.

The second part of your reply makes little sense since, yes, your parents and such do purports themselves your teachers and, yes, Jesus says you should affirm them as equals, "brothers", instead.

>>13197691
You're starting rather heavily handed by suggesting that I'm Protestant instead of struggling Catholic, which is tantamount to name calling. Secondly, mentioning the plucking out of one's eyes is obfuscatory because that passage is about self control, and unrelated.
>8: But 'you' are not to be
>10: Nor are 'you' to be
But
>9: And do not call anyone
Does this not make for an explicit directive regarding 'others'? (single quotations used in place of italic)

I do see where you're trying to come from but I'm humbly going to disregard your input because it's poorly thought out. God Bless.

>>13198198
I didn't call you a protestant, I called that interpretation protestant. You're hyperfocused on this verse about plucking eyes that you're missing the bigger picture, well, in you're case you're not even interacting with the picture and looking for a reason to dismiss it. So be it, you can't be helped.

>>13198220
One sentence addressing, back and forth from the passage YOU referenced. So, no, calling me "hyperfocused" on it is objectively inaccurate. And this response proves that you're unwilling and unable to address the issue. So be it, you can't help.

>>13198229
I'm not calling you a spaz when I say you're hyperfocused. I'm saying you're focusing on small things to the exclusion of the main point. I literally gave you a verse where Paul refers to himself as a father. Is Paul a heretic? That's what I mean when I say that accepting the protestant interpretation makes it ridiculous because Paul is obviously not a heretic.

I think you need to chill out and stop being so offended at everything.

>>13198250
>Is Paul a heretic?

Not that guy, but yes, incidentally.

Why does nature seem to be demonized or vilified? Is it just the association with paganism/the devil? Although some mystics retreated to nature, ultimately it contain associations with spiritual temptation and devilry.
I used to be interested in mainstream Christianity, even went to church once or twice, but I found it regulated divinity down to humanity. It robbed nature of any possibility to manifest positive sacred exteriority. The divine is in a close proximity to humanity, a closed relationship, and must manifest in humanity which I find narcissistic in a way.
I have been flirting with polytheism, but am not going to do anything definite until I have sorted my thoughts out.

>>13198250
Bruh. I'm wondering where you get off honestly...

Me: This verse says not to call anyone your Father. Help?
You: Protestants be Protestanten. Why don't they cut out their eyes too, huh??
Me: What does that have to do with calling someone "Father"?
You: Stop hyperfocusing on the eye plucking. Ugh you just don't want to listen.
Me: I'm not, but you're not helping.
You: Look I'm not calling you a spaz (just thinking it out loud by mentioning it). Stop being so sensitive, chill out.

Yikes.

>>13197696
This is actually the reply I was looking for. Still not 100% on everything, but this shines some light on things. Thank you.

>>13198304

"Living", that is to say bestial, Nature and "dead", that is to say grossly Phenomenal, Nature are not the same. The former is superimposed onto the latter.

>>13198331
Did you only read the first few sentences of my original reply? That would explain it. You didn't respond to the point which I repeated, so I must have struck a nerve. I think you're looking for any reason possible to internally justify ignoring what I say and it's very transparent. That's why you keep looking for things to get offended over rather than discussing substantive points being made.

When I talked about eyes being plucked my only point was that it's possible that "father" doesn't mean what protestants think it means, and in your mind you turned that into my entire argument because you're not actually interested in having a conversation.

>>13198357
That is why in polytheistic religions, there are both living natural elements that can become markers for divinity and what you term 'dead' phenomenon that can become host to the divine. Nature in this system has great potentiality for the intrusion of the sacred in a directly physical and positive way. The wrath of fickle gods proves their true otherness to man, similar to the God in the OT. The humanity of God and his direct relationship to man, though symbolically satisfying for its own reasons, seems to have purged nature of the positive elements to its abject otherness and sacred potentiality.
All that remains is the potentiality for negativity in Nature, which usually is portrayed as demonic. Is that what you are saying?

>>13198304
>Why does nature seem to be demonized or vilified?
This is not a Catholic notion in the least. The beauty of creation reflects the infinite beauty of the Creator. Each creature possesses its own goodness and perfection, because for each creature it is said: “And God saw that it was good". The Genesis account is a procession which culminates in Man and is all ordered towards the adoration of God. And so on and so on.

>>13198331
Welcome

>>13198466
That is before creation becomes corrupted though. Edenic nature is something that no longer exists.

>>13198376
You are objectively wrong, pedantic and judgemental. Pax Christi tecum sit.

>>13198546
Oh well that settles that.

>>13198501
God created the universe and it is really real, true, good, beautiful, and one. This is basic doctrine. The Church doesn't teach that Man is totally corrupted, and does not teach that the rest of visible creation is corrupted. That is the teaching of Luther and Calvin: that Man is so totally depraved that he cannot freely choose to cooperate with God's grace. The Church teaches that Man is wounded, or deprived of his original holiness, not altogether corrupt and bad. If that seems unfortunate, there's also some Good News.

>>13198677
So is all nature sacred? It seems to me that only man, and human-influenced objects such as the artifacts, can be sacred. It doesn't represent a true otherness because it is a closed relationship dependent on man, and is one of man extending his self-ness onto the physical world which is essentially dead. It seems to me that aside from the primary manifestation, which is Christ, nature itself lacks the capacity to manifest sacrality and divinity apart from human action because God lacks physicality. He lacks a physical presence in creation. Is that true or am I misinterpreting things?
From the way I see it, to boil down my concerns concisely:
- polytheism represents a special relationship of true communication (true otherness) between Man and God(s). Man exists in a world of otherness that defines himself, and nature becomes capable of generating the divine. God exists apart from man and does not need man, which makes the relationship gratifying for man.
- Christianity deifies man, God is man and is in a closed relationship with humanity in that He has a divine plan for - and is intensely interested - in man. Man exists in a world of himself, built for himself. God's Will is an extension of Man outward, exerting himself on creation which lacks any essential otherness. This leads to narcissism, where one drowns in the self, because there is only self.

>>13198264
>the absolute state of protestants

>>13198407
>>13198775

Something about the idea of Classical Elements not only symbolizing Subjective states - Air-Intuition, Fire-Thinking, Water-Feeling, Earth-Sensing - but the states actually becoming the Elements in Aeonic or Ideal Nature, bilaterally, the eye through which God sees Man is the same as the eye through which Man sees God and such. Providence and Phenomenal consecration made most simple. In straying from, or forgetting about, or refracting out of God, Man still corresponds to Nature but makes it malignant as per God's lenience.

>>13192274
This.

>>13198775
I think you have a lot of misconceptions here. I'm also not sure I fully understand you and I think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church could give you a clearer answer. If you want, take a look at these parts:

Part One: The Profession of Faith
--Section Two: The Creeds
----Chapter One: I Believe in God the Father
------Paragraphs 4,5,6 / Creator, Heaven and Earth, Man

The Catechism is all online at the Vatican's site and others. I don't wanna brush you off but I think that's a little deep for me right now.

>>13198976
You need help, bro.

:thinking-emoji:

>>13192316
Not Sci-fi but lord of the rings has a good chatholic message.

>>13199064
Is he begoming gadolic?

Any books about an atheist who found the faith? I've heard CS Lewis is great babby tier Catholicism and may have been an anarchist, maybe he has written on the subject?

Also how does one accept the whole concept of following the Church's teachings, full stop?

I get (of course not as much as a believe does) the concept of the word of God, but as someone trying to approach the faith it is difficult to understand putting so much trust in the output of what is ultimately a human institution, no matter how holy it aspires to be.

The reason I am thinking about the above is that a Christian coworker of mine recently commented on my moving in with my girlfriend.

I am very committed to this woman. I will likely propose.

To me, living with one another before taking the leap is something we owe one another. Yet from what I read this is, if not sin, an act against the teachings of the Church.

If the fundamental issue with cohabitation is the sin of fornication, that is another topic I struggle with.

I am sympathetic to the idea that society takes to casual an approach to sex, the risks associated with it, and its existence as a means to reproduction and the family. Yet the framing of all premarital sex as sin is difficult for me to understand completely.

I am trying to approach such things from a places of openness. I am wondering if there is a "why" of some of these positions beyond just saying they are the word of God. I am sure many thinkers have put thought into why some of these acts are sinful, and how they specifically bring evil into the world.

>>13199027
Thank you for the reading recommendations. It has solidified my perceptions in some areas, but has led to further doubt in others.
In respect to the relationship between God and Man, and Man's relationship to nature, my views are unchanged. The Catechism states "the glory of God consists in the realization... and communication of his goodness, for which the world was created"; that "of all visible creatures only man is able to know and love his creator", and "to human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of 'subduing' the earth and having dominion over it". Not only does this highlight the closed relationship wherein man and God do not represent a true otherness, as they have an essential relation (otherness would lack even this relation), but it also confirms my suspicions about creation as man imposing and expanding the Self. I find this narcissistic and am not in the position to accept this.
I disagree with this particular passage: "creatures exist only in dependence on each, to complete each other, in the service of each other"; this severely limits again alterity. On the contrary, I am inclined to believe that although things originate co-dependently, they exist independently. Whereas this seems to be saying that things originate independently, during Creation, and exist dependently.
My primary doubt is now with the problem of Angels; angels, according to St. Augustine is the "name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel.'" And elsewhere the Catechism there is the passage "Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. " So in a world of spirits who can operate towards the Good, can polytheistic Gods advance who advance Good be considered angels?

>>13199645
Yea, there is a hierarchy present in visible creation of which Man is the summit. Christianity is not pantheistic and we believe humans alone to be made in God's image. Animals and trees don't have self-knowledge, cannot know their Creator, and cannot give themselves to another. They are here with us to help sustain and develop life and were gifted to us freely out of God's infinite love and desire to share. They have souls but their souls are not rational.

Now, Man's purpose and vocation is to take that gift and offer it right back to the Creator in our own acts of love, sacrifice, and self-giving. This is the Trinity: Lover (Father), Beloved (Son), and Love (Spirit). Man is a bridge between the material (body) and the spiritual (soul). Christ is the bridge between Man and God. In the Psalms it is said that creation praises God, and it does. But how does a tree praise God if it has no voice? Through us. We perceive it's beauty and praise its maker. The tree itself is not divine though. God is both transcendent and immanent, which is to say he is present in creation but he is not creation itself. He is the very act of being, without origin or end, entirely simple in substance, nature, and essence.

We believe that everything that is good is by the grace of God. We are helpless on our own. God is love, and love is to will the good of the other as other. If this seems narcissistic to you, than I don't think I understand you, which might very well be the case as I am a brainlet when it comes to phenomenology or psychology or whatever you're trying to reconcile with Christianity. Also, no, polytheistic gods cannot be angels. They don't exist as far as Christianity is concerned. I hope I'm being helpful.

>>13199354
>Any books about an atheist who found the faith?
Dunno about Catholicism, but Antony Flew an atheist philosopher who developed the no true Scotsman fallacy wrote a book a saying that he changed his mind about God.

>>13199354
Depends on what perspective of atheism you are coming from. Child Atheism, Communist Atheism, Scientism-influenced Atheism, Satanist Atheism, Apathetic/Hedonist Atheism and all the sorts of Atheism are going to be coming from extremely different perspective. Narrow down what perspective you are interested in and perhaps me or someone else can help you.

The Catechism is the best source for brief overviews. They will give you the basics of the Church's reasoning. If you want more, plenty of modern of theologians have gone in lots more depth. The main reason for as to why fornication is prohibited is, damage and undermining the family unit (aka people in their 30s who just want to have sex and have no interest in marriage), increased spread of venereal disease (rather obvious), lack of commitment, allowing oneself to be moved by passion instead of committed love, etc. It's important to understand the Church views marriage as a holy sacrament and the fruits thereof are to be approached with humility. Essentially, anything that leads one away from God is prohibited. Pre-martial sex that leads one towards virtue and Godliness is pretty much impossible. It's just done for pleasure and as such, has no transcendent value. If you truly love a person that much, just get married to them and then there is no issue.

>>13199645
>>13200380
Thinking more on it, it's best understood looking at Christ, as per usual. Our religion holds that a single man is worth more than a thousand galaxies. That worth can be gauged by the price God deemed it worth paying to redeem him: his own infinitely beloved Son's life.

If you believe that a thousand galaxies are worth more than a man's life, I would urge you to reconsider, because it means that you have done away with the value and dignity of human beings. If you're a man of history, there are plenty of examples of where that kind of thinking leads.

How can I reconcile my Catholicism with my distrust of multiculturism and non-white immigration?

>>13200743
There's no contradiction there. A culture has the right to maintain its own values especially when immigration isn't out of necessity and is only as a result of economic frenzy. Spiritually speaking, a man is always best in his homeland. There's only a disconnect when you begin to devalue the people and claiming that Christ died for one race more than another etc.

>>13200743
You don't need to. I'd rather have redpilled men like you in the church, than bluepilled sodomites and negros.

>>13200742
It seems all grossly narcissistic and anthropocentric, which has caused incalcuable damage to 'creation' not to mention the physic damage it has caused the contemporary human subject. I do not Catholicism, or Christianity is for me if that is the case. Who honestly would say they are worth more than thousands of galaxies teeming with life, and with the same words claim to be humble? No thank you.

>>13200944
do not think*

>>13200944
Eh, other people criticize Christianity for being too selfless. You can't please everybody, but it IS for everybody. Keep reading. Don't just take my word for it.

>>13200944
I'm not the poster you replied to and I have no comment on what you said, but you might like to read Pope Francis's Encyclical on the environment if no anon has said it already.

Genuine question: why pray to the saints? or ask saints to pray on your behalf? Why not always pray to God directly?

>>13198304
All Spiritual Traditions have, within their purest metaphysical expressions, viewed nature as a means to an end, not an end in of itself. To view anything of the sort as a pure end in itself without any correspondence to higher things is to be completely negligent of the metaphysical order, religion aside.
I have never seen nature demonized in Christianity and I wish to know where you found such experiences from. If anything, Monasteries tend to be in secluded areas for the very reason that they are intimately connected to nature and its silence. However, make no mistaken this nature and silence is for a higher end: spiritual transformation. You are mistaken if you think that the nature cults of the past aeons were nothing but profane plant worship. The natural symbolism is used because it provides a vivid connection for man to higher things, not because plants are simply pretty things or nature is nice. In the highest levels of Pagan initiatory rites, just as with any other spiritual tradition, Catholic, Islamic, Hindu, etc. there is no sentimental bourgeoisie "naturalism" or anything of the sort. It seems your emotions are impacting your theology instead of the other way around. The environmental crisis has material origins and thus, so too has material solutions. Pure Spirituality is on a different plane than that of nature, even if it does to some extent escape the manifest, material order.

I am confused as to what other ways revelation would be made manifest outside of man. There can be no revelation to animals, or if such things do occur, we have no way of knowing about them. I suggest you go to a rural monastery and attend a service there. You will likely get much more out of it; the only Christian Churches that vilify nature are probably boomer-tier ones. Tell me what you think of this response.

>>13200448
>Depends on what perspective of atheism you are coming from. Child Atheism, Communist Atheism, Scientism-influenced Atheism, Satanist Atheism, Apathetic/Hedonist Atheism and all the sorts of Atheism are going to be coming from extremely different perspective. Narrow down what perspective you are interested in and perhaps me or someone else can help you.

I suppose it's the last vestiges of a scientistic atheism. I am not opposed to the idea of God at all, but I find difficulty in the varying conceptions of God across faiths and thoughts. I am drawn to something more like Spinoza's conception of God (as I crudely understand it). So maybe in typing this I have given myself a path forward, Catholic responses to Spinoza.

>It's just done for pleasure and as such, has no transcendent value. If you truly love a person that much, just get married to them and then there is no issue.

>It's just done for pleasure and as such, has no transcendent value. If you truly love a person that much, just get married to them and then there is no issue.

This makes a lot of sense. I think I have a baked-in assumption of total caution when it comes to marriage (make sure you can live together, test the waters, etc.) as opposed to an assumption of total commitment (love is labor, it works now, make it work forever).

Thanks

can't wait for summer to be over so all of you toxic cunts stop shitting up the board 24/7

>>13200742
>If you believe that a thousand galaxies are worth more than a man's life, I would urge you to reconsider
How do I reconcile this with the fact that I would gladly die to save a great work of art

>>13201475
I don't think that cuts the mustard of martyrdom.

>>13201279
There's nothing toxic about creating a thread for discussion and keeping it contained in that thread.

Is a "personal relationship with Jesus" a Protestant meme? I cannot find where it originated.
In general I feel the language we use nowadays comes off as flippant,disrespectful and devoid of reverence that was employed in the past.

>>13201688
>I cannot find where it originated.

John.

>>13200944
Check out Fr Thomas Berry

>>13201058
Saints don’t have a special ontological status, they are traditionally considered as ‘mediating’ between man and God. They were people who excelled in the imitation of christ in their life, something every Christian should aim for. I believe they’re nothing but examples of how one can try to follow Christ.

Filioque, Augustinian Shield, Papal Infallibility, Vatican 2, Immaculate Conception, the list goes on and on.
Why are you heretics against yourself? Read the fucking ecumenical councils you call infallible.

How do I come to grips with the fact that all of the Catholicism's top leaders are either raping little boys or flaming liberals (the pope)?

>>13202621
The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. What they do doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Genuine question: Why is god considered good when Christianity is entirely built upon the idea that humanity is inherently awful and if you don't follow a strict set of guidelines to get rid of your awfulness you'll face an eternity of torture and suffering?

>>13202635

That is Paulism.

>>13202635
>Christianity is entirely built upon the idea that humanity is inherently awful
False premise

Stop spamming this board with your awful /pol/stianity threads.

>>13201058
What we can infer from James 5 is that there are people whose prayers are more effective than ours. Secondly, we are bothered by events of this world while saints are constantly praising the Lord, so they pray for you when you aren't praying. Also, Jesus said to pray for our enemies and Paul prayed for other people and asked for people to pray for him. Saints are alive.

>>13202729
Go back.

>>13202738
Go back where? I don't give a shit about your juvenile 4chan tribalism. It's fucking pathetic.

>>13202635
You first need to define what's good and evil. God is the source of all goodness and everything that goes against him is evil.

>>13201688
The whole "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship" comes from the Second Great Awakening.

>>13201688
sermon on the mount 'I never knew you; depart from me'

>>13201115
You misinterpret what I mean. Nature in polytheistic religions become laden with the potentiality for the divine. An element of nature can be, on its own, a house for divine spirits or associated with a particular God. For example, in ancient Greece there were sacred groves to particular gods. In Shinto, there is the idea of holy elements of nature that become a house to the kami; this exists in a similar form as manitou in Native American religions. This transforms nature into a house for the Other, which is truly distinct from man because there is no closed relationship. It is not 'profane plant worship', rather in monotheistic religions that are not pantheist nature is profaned because only the human sphere is divine. Nature goes from an ambiguous sacred space that can generate the divine, to a mere collection of material objects, as you stated.
>I am confused as to what other ways revelation would be made manifest outside of man
I do not understand why man is the complete center of creation. The catechism states creation exists for man to be communicated revelation, which arrives in Christ in a human form. I appreciate Christ's spiritual teachings. However, this human-centric way of looking at things is dangerous because it leads to a limitlessness, and it is through limits that satisfaction and self-hood can be marked. Moreover, in terms of Levinas, this does not create the potential for a true communication with alterity. Compared to religions such as Hinduism, where there is a vast world of beings and gods higher than humanity, which also have the potential to receive the religion's teachings.
> but you might like to read Pope Francis's Encyclical on the environment
I will look into it.

>And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Paul quoting Epimenides and Aratus during the Areopagus sermon is a top-shelf biblical /lit/ moment.

>>13192329
Good choice.

>>13203215
>Nature in polytheistic religions become laden with the potentiality for the divine
That still exists in Christianity, hence my comment on monasteries and their specific location among nature.
>For example, in ancient Greece there were sacred groves to particular gods
There are Marian grottos and other outdoor shrines dedicated to certain saints still in Catholicism. This obviously isn't as widespread with modern industrialization, but it exists and certain areas/flowers/animals still have very potent symbolic potential for spiritual tradition, especially in Marian devotion.
>pantheist
>polytheism
I would be careful using such a sharp divide with your religious classifications. Ancient Greeks never used such terms to classify their worship. Especially, Pantheism. Such a term is anachronistic when applied to ancient religions and evokes some notion of Spinoza's ideas. Everything was not viewed as God in ancient religions. The world is a manifestation of God, but not god in of itself. Hence why in the Bhagavad Gita, it is said that man is God but God is not man. This same idea is echoed in patristic Christian writing. "God became man for man to become God." God and man aren't equivalent, but due to man having his being dependent upon God and the infinity thereof, it as if he becomes one with him in union. For more on this, read Guenon's Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta.
>man is the complete center of creation
Within our world, that is the hierarchy of being. You can rationalize it however you wish, but man is endued with properties that no animal has. Even pious pagans like Cicero acknowledged that man is superior than the gods in a way since while he is faced with problems, he can overcome them. The gods are simply not faced with such problems in general.
Regardless, there are still angels, demons, and other non-human entities in different spiritual states than man. Man has the highest endowed meaning of any being on earth, but whether he uses it is another question.
>vast world of beings and gods higher than humanity,
In Hinduism other beings are not necessarily higher than humanity. They are simply within a different state of being. Much of what can be said about such beings can also be said about the Angels in my previous statement.

Does God suffer?

>>13203682
I did not use Pantheist to characterize Greek religion. I used it as a modifier to discuss "monotheistic religions that are not pantheist" in relation to perceptions on nature. A pantheist monotheist thinking would be akin to transcendentalism and seek the divine One through nature. Do not think that I characterize Greek religion as pantheist. They are polytheist because they have more than one God, whether or not they identified themselves with a word that didn't exist at that time is meaningless for the current purposes.
> it is said that man is God but God is not man. This same idea is echoed in patristic Christian writing. "God became man for man to become God."
God is not Man, and Man is not God. The ambiguity of this proximity in your example is exactly what I disagree with and claim as narcissism. The harsh distinction that is maintained by religions such as the hellenic religion is something I admire; though certain heroes in myth can become Gods, it is at the annihilation of their humanity (such as in the myth of Herakles), and hero-cults of the ancient Greeks make a clear distinction between worshiping Heroes, who now reside in the underworld, or a hero-turned-God, who is no longer human. I will look into this Guenon's book if you truly think it would convince me otherwise.
>Within our world, that is the hierarchy of being. You can rationalize it however you wish, but man is endued with properties that no animal has
In Christianity, this is the case. However, the idea of transmigration of the souls allots a spiritually equal standing on animals, plants, even inanimate objects in some beliefs, and as I have stated previously, nature has the potential to generate the divine or, to clarify, spiritual types of creatures who are on equal or greater standing with man. I agree that man has the inherent potential for realizing liberation that other creatures - even Gods and beings higher than humans in this cosmological hierarchy - lack, but to say this warrants the belief that creation exists for man to rule it lacks perspective and humility. And perhaps my idea of liberation is incompatible with Catholicism or other forms of Christianity, which I regret because I highly admire the spiritual teachings of Christ.
>In Hinduism other beings are not necessarily higher than humanity. They are simply within a different state of being.
If it is simple different states of being and not inherently higher, why do you insist man is the complete center of being?
> Even pious pagans like Cicero acknowledged that man is superior than the gods in a way
If he did so I presume it would be a rhetoric flourish. Man's inferiority to the Gods is the common theme of classical tragedy, which was performed as a chiefly religious function. Take for instance the myth of Pentheus, who presumed himself the better of the God Bacchus.

>>13204033
It's very unclear what you are arguing. How is it narcissism to claim that man is not God. If anything that is humility. If you want harsh distinctions between man and God, why would you like polytheism, especially Hinduism, where beings are in constant change of state, gradually passing from one to the next.

> idea of transmigration of the souls
Even in Hinduism man is held to be the greatest of beings with regards to his spiritual efficacy, as you have stated. When the Bible says man has dominion over the land, that does not mean he is to do anything he pleases and trash it. Just as a benevolent king has valid dominion over his subjects, yet still treats them with respect, so should man with nature. The King is at the center of his kingdom, but that doesn't mean it is morally acceptable for him to completely disregard others. He deals with them according to their respective natures and predispositions, just as man should due with creatures of lower manifestations. Just because the Bible does not talk about ecology doesn't mean man should do whatever he pleases. However, the Bible explicitly does elaborate on themes regarding man not being the center of the world, having humility, etc. It's simply that much of the literature was written in a desert environment without modern industrial pollutants that little needs to be said. It's obvious they would have to protect their environment, lest they die of famine.

>If it is simple different states of being and not inherently higher, why do you insist man is the complete center of being?
I was referring to Hinduism there. I do not believe in multiple gods and if I expound on the doctrine of religions to prove a point, I don't necessarily believe it to be true. But within Hinduism, there are beings within multiple different states of being, some above man, and some below, as you realize. I never said that man is the complete center of being in either Hinduism or Catholicism. God is the supreme center and everything is manifestations thereof. However, within all manifestation there is hierarchy and so insofar as man is the closest being to God, he is the highest. I'm not sure what the issue with this is. Are you coming at this from a democratic/liberal standpoint, or perhaps a vegan/environmentalist one?

The Guenon book I talked about was moreso just pure metaphysics, so I am unsure now if that is what you are looking for. It doesn't deal at all with the environment.

>>13204033
It seems like you'd prefer Catholicism to be more pagan, which is hilarious because the other complaint that gets lodged against Catholicism is that it is TOO pagan. i.e. >>13194918

>>13204123
>It's very unclear what you are arguing.
I am trying to reconcile what my thoughts are concerning this. Please see my post here >>13198775, which I still think is the primary notion of what I believe at the moment.
>How is it narcissism to claim that man is not God
You earlier said "man is God but God is not man". Did I misinterpret what you said?
>why would you like polytheism, especially Hinduism, where beings are in constant change of state,
I don't particularly like or know much about Hinduism. My current interest is more in Greek religion with some knowledge in Shintoism. I do not profess myself to be knowledgeable in anything, which is why I am here, however in both of these religions, while humanity as a category - or rather the qualities specific to humans - is looser as it may also extend to the natural world, the border between Humans and Gods is clearly defined compared to monotheistic religions such as Christianity, in which as you stated 'God becomes man so man may become God'. Also, the divine has greater physicality and can appear in the physical world, whereas the primary physicality in Christianity is Christ, after which God no longer can manifest clearly in the world, being an Ideal and transcendent of creation. The world becomes essentially empty of sacrality save in relation to Man, as in the case of artifacts of the saints.
>Even in Hinduism man is held to be the greatest of beings with regards to his spiritual efficacy
In Greek eschatology, although man has the potential to one day overthrow the Gods like they did the Titans, this is close to an impossibility currently, and to contest with the Gods is to become victim of their divine wrath. Rather than an Ideal punishment, such as hell, which has no physical being in this world, divine violence in this sense intrudes into the world and completely annihilates. It is obscene otherness. The God of the New Testament is familial, a crucial feature of Christ's humanity is the disavowal of otherness.
>Just as a benevolent king has valid dominion over his subjects, yet still treats them with respect, so should man with nature.
A king does not have a true conversation with his subjects. A king dictates. Man in this sense dictates nature, which again in this case is a cache of material objects to be exploited. If nature represents an Other which may represent an equal ability or greater, then man is no longer a king and is thrust into a true conversation, which necessitates this civility that can only be assumed in the first case.
>However, the Bible explicitly does elaborate on themes regarding man not being the center of the world, having humility, etc.
The catechism states that creation exists for man. Man is the center of creation in that he is its primary focus

>>13202635
Because God didn't leave us in our awful condition but become incarnate and assumed our nature so that we may become divine through his grace.

>>13204123
>However, within all manifestation there is hierarchy and so insofar as man is the closest being to God, he is the highest. I'm not sure what the issue with this is
My primary concern is that this renders the human project one of merely extending his self, encountering himself, rather than forming self-hood through a relationship to true alterity.
>democratic/liberal standpoint, or perhaps a vegan/environmentalist one
I don't understand what you mean by the first two in relation to my concerns. But to clarify I am vegetarian, as I do not believe in unnecessary killing, however in Greek religion blood sacrifice to the Gods was common. I would admit a primary concern for me is the loss of our natural environment in favor of completely human ones. Although I am still forming my beliefs and am hesitant to put full faith behind them, I would like to believe that the natural world is spiritually significant as it is untouched by human actions.
It is at the point where I am overflowing the thread, and I will rescind from posting. I will read the recommended texts others have given, and if I am still confused I might lodge another question a few threads from now if these are still up.
>>13202045
I missed this post. He seems like an interesting figure, I will look further into this.

>>13204407
I think you might enjoy St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of ecology and animals, who is a wildly popular figure with Catholics and the namesake of the Franciscan religious orders, known for their vow of poverty. 'The Little Flowers of St. Francis of Assisi' is the classic collection of his legends and G.K. Chesterton also wrote a good biography of him. You often see his statue in people's gardens, typically holding a bird in his palm and preaching to it.

>>13204371

You could have just read this: >>13198976

>>13204523
I apologize for saying so, but I did read that post and found it incomprehensible.
>>13204514
I will look for this book on his legends. Thank you.

>>13204755
>mfw i've ascended to hegel's level where people find my arguments unassailable on grammatical grounds alone

כבוד לאלו שאוהבים את אלוהים, ואת בושה על מי להתנער ממנו.
Honor to those who love God, and shame on those who shun Him.
כבוד לאלה לציית לרצון של אלוהים, ובושה על מי לבגוד באלוהים.
Honor to those who obey the will of God, and shame on those who betray the God.
כבוד לאלה המבקשים היא על אדיקות, ובושה על אלה המחפשים אלוהים.
Honor to those who quest is for piety, and shame on those who seek Godlessness.
כבוד לאלו שמכבדים את הוריהם, ובושה על אלה שמכעיסים אותם.
Honor to those who are respect their parents, and shame on those who dishonor them.
כבוד לאלה המסייעים אחד לשני, ובושה על אלה שמחפשים רווחים על חשבון אחרים.
Honor to those who help each other, and shame on those who seek gains at the expense of others.
כבוד לאלה ישר, בושה על מי לסחור שלמות עבור רווחים.
Honor to those who are honest, and shame on those who trade integrity for profits.
כבוד לאלה המקיימים ערכים נוצריים ומאבק קשה, ובושה על אלה המתפלשים בזבזנות ובהנאות.
Honor to those who uphold Christian values and hard struggle, and shame on those who wallow in extravagance and pleasures.

What's the Catholic stance on sites like libgen? It is technically just an online library where copies of the book, once validly bought, are made. No one is stealing since it is just copying the text for personal use, not to redistribute it.
However, I do understand that sort of reasoning is a bit of a cope. I don't really want to give up reading a lot of cool books I couldn't obtain otherwise, but I don't want to be mortally sinning and doing harm against someone's livelihood. I don't really know what the right way out is.

>>13205820
Theft

>>13205820
If they're dead or the work is in a library near me or it's insanely expensive I justify it.

>>13205888
okay what about listening to music on youtube

allow me to intrude upon your larp for a second

some useful links to go along with pic related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQmMFQzrEsc (don't be intimidated by the long-run time. it's well worth it if you want to see a systematic dismantling of the christcuck meme, but even the first five minutes of it are enough)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gYuSjjN8-A (a briefer dismantling)

>>13205955
>larp

>>13205923
Immoral if the artist doesn't agree with it

>>13205820
Copyright postdates Christianity.

>>13205955
Hey David, your book is shit. You're a fucking joke, mate.

>>13206025
>virtually no support from scholars
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JjcWkhqScBI

>>13205998
That's true, although the same basic principles of property rights are pretty universal throughout time. Although to counter that, you could say it's pointless to try and say you own an idea anyways. So I don't know.

>>13205888
Care to elaborate

>>13205966
>he actually believes all this shit
almost sad

>>13206043
Ownership of an idea is purely human law, never recognized by Allah (swt).

Dostoevsky claims the Catholic church is Satanic because they fell for the third temptation of the devil (when he he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth if he fell down and worshipped him). Makes sense to interpret the Catholic church having a nation-state in that way,
as this means they possess earthly power they should not have.

What is the Catholic church's defense against this accusation?

>>13206058
Dostoevsky is slightly confused. Christianity, once it became the state religion of Rome, certainly considered Christendom a united polity, ecclesia and Ummah mean the same thing. Dostoevsky wrote that because he was disturbed by Vatican I, and also because of the torture employed by Rome to extract testimony, which was absolutely barbaric and satanic but no doubt Dostoevsky learned about it through Protestant polemics (which tend to exaggerate).

>>13206041
>dude this pop atheist said Jesus didn't exist so he didn't lmao
Arguing Jesus didn't exist is the atheist equivalent of arguing evolution is wrong; there's plenty of evidence that contradicts your stupidity and every expert in the field would laugh at you. Look up "the historical Jesus" sometime and you'll find that there are tons of atheists who admit that there's sufficient evidence to prove Jesus was a real person.

>>13206047
Not as sad as you coming into this thread with your fedora on

>>13205955
>>13206041
The fact that you have to rely on a self-published hack like David Fitzgerald shows that your argument is void of any actual merit. You're as embarrassing as the Christians who read Joel Osteen. Run along back to /r/atheism.

>>13205955
This only strengthens my faith lmao.

>>13206279
>this only makes me retreat into my delusion more since i can't offer a refutation
not surprising.

>>13206300
You want me to offer an argument to someone who shows no reverence or humility? If you want to have an honest conversation, try stepping into the kingdom and seeing what the air smells like instead of standing outside throwing flippant stones at the gates.

bump

>>13205955
>>>/lit/thread/S13174156#p13175514
>Empiricism is not even the polar opposite of Reason, it is an Epistemological joke. You can only make any one Empirical statement by exempting everything but your object of inquiry from the rigors of Empiricism. The method and evidence itself would be just as suspect as the object and not only in need of further and separate Empirical rigor, but in need of MORE Empirical rigor, and the secondary method and evidence therefrom in turn in need of even more, and so on and so forth.

>>13205955
>>13207331

"History" in particular is the worst offender since it is not even Empirical proper. There is neither a single literal Historical Object nor a single common denominator of Historical inquiry. A joke with no punchline.

>>13191360
shut up

>>13205955
>>13207331
>>13207369

Also, one for the Catholics:

This argument is curiously integral to Theology itself. The New Testament being qualitatively different from the Old Testament is a deliberate rebuke of "History", the "arrow of Time", bottom-up Phenomenology, Marxist Materialism, etc. That the Son is not genealogically distinct from the Father, but HYPOSTATICALLY so. Neither being into becoming, nor becoming into being, nor becoming into becoming, but being into being.

>>13195801
It's the same. There is a particular judgement that is an account of a person's life, which occurs after they die. Then the final judgement. Also no one is in hell right now, though many will be after the last judgement, which is why people pray for the dead because it is actually efficacious. If they were damned we would have no need to pray for them. You can give an extreme example like, "This guy blew up and orphanage then jerked off on the pope before committing suicide" but even then because it is impossible to grasp the full extent of Christ's mercy, and how far he is willing to potentially forgive, we cannot say anyone is definitely in hell. At best we can say they are in grave danger of hell.

Happy Feast of the Ascension, bros

>>13196836
Yes

>>13207310
I once knew a priest that loved this painting. He worked in finance when he was a layman, and had a copy of this on the wall of his office.

>>13208860
You too friend! I wish my diocese celebrated this feast on its proper day, and not on Sunday.

Anyone have a good rec for a pocket NT? Is the KJV really worth getting or should I go with a more recent translation?

>dude just have faith lmao
>don't question anything or you'll burn for eternity bro!

what a stupid religion

Reminder that not only do God and Man not contradict each other, but neither do Incarnation and Docetism.

>>13209685
excellent assessment of catholicism

>>13207331
>>13207369
>>13207413

No replies from either of you? Pitiful clowns.

How does God feel about the majority of living humans going to hell?

>>13211472
How would any us know who is going to hell or how God feels about it?

>>13211472
You can't understand His will so don't even try.

>>13211586
>How would any us know who is going to hell
Aren't there a bunch of requirements to not end up distancing yourself from God? Surely it can be worked out from that; like atheist gay men who are in relationships, aren't they bound to burn?

>>13211597
>muh muhsterious ways

>>13211670
You don't know what's going on in peoples heads. Whether they repent or are suffering from some infliction which makes them act the way they do. That's why we don't believe every suicide is in hell. We're not God, meaning we don't see all ends so we can't judge people in that way.

>>13211682
Don't you need to be baptised, see a priest etc to officially repent?
What if you don't see any evil in one of your 'sins' but strive to be good otherwise?

>>13211756
Yes you need to be baptized but not necessarily. There's a baptism of desire for people were going to get baptized and there's possible exceptions for people who never an opportunity to get baptized because they were never introduced to the church, like uncivilized tribal's in South America.

This stuff really isn't difficult or complicated. You have an opportunity right now to either accept the Church or reject it, you can either accept God or reject him. You're not going to be able to reject God on earth and weasel your way out of hell, and why would you even want to avoid hell at that point? Why spend eternal life with somebody you don't want to be around?

Off all the possible things that could be talked, "X likes to do Y are they going to hell" or "Is X a sin" is the most boring shit possible. It's hard to believe they're even being serious.

>>13211837
I always rather felt that to put one's life under that kind of scrutiny is itself a kind of sin. It certainly isn't living.

>>13211807
I don't reject God, I just lack faith for the Christian Church. I see nothing that makes it any more valid than, say, Islam. If God is real, which I am unsure yet somehow faithful of subconsciously, then I submit to and accept him.
I can't just go get baptised as a 'just incase' thing.

>>13211837
It may sound wild, but some people care about their soul more than "hurrr francis is a numale cuck lmao"

>>13211875
If you don't believe in the Church then what the hell does it matter where they think you're going when you die? You're asking the wrong questions. You should seek the truth and maybe ask for reasons to believe the Church is true. Nobody wants you to get baptized as a "just in case" which probably wouldn't be valid anyway because it's borderline presumption.

The Catholic Church is true so if you honestly seek the truth you'll find your way in.

>>13212231
For some reason I 'feel' kind of drawn the the Catholic and Orthodox Church, it's hard to explain as it's not entirely rational, but I still go to those of those churches when I have questions.
Forgive me for continuing the same line of questioning, but what if I died before I found the truth?
I will cover Christian works in my readings mind, I'll be reading the Bible soon.

>>13212352
You'll burn for all eternity along with everyone else who doesn't pay attention.

>>13212385
Attention to what?

>>13212416
Anyone who tells you things, because you obviously have trouble listening since you keep asking the same question over and over again.

>>13212385
Well, okay then, i'll just burn for eternity

>>13212352
Very few people have some sort of epiphany wherein they "find the truth." Faith, spiritual development, and intellectual understanding occurs over a long period of time. Continue to read and see where your desires take you. The soul is more than just a rational faculty and so, it is to be expected that your spiritual predispositions are not easily to reduced to simple rationale. . However, the more you know, under Catholic doctrine, the more you are responsible for. This isn't meant to be some burden (for Jesus says that ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set ye free), but no longer can you claim spiritual ignorance if you understand and desire the faith, but don't adopt Catholicism. If you die while unbaptized in a state of unrepentant sin, I will be frank and say that such matters are very dangerous to the judgement of the soul according to Catholic doctrine. It is not so much a judgement of God that you will incur, but rather, you yourself are telling Jesus you do not want him. Hence why many Saints say that those in Hell have judged themselves and sent themselves there through their own desire.

Of course, as other anons have said, it is impossible to know for sure the state of the soul after death. Follow your conscious and investigate the Church if you soul longs for it.

>>13212385
Based.

>>13212385
Fucking this. Tired of all these basedboys with the same fucking questions, either accept Jesus or burn with the other degenerates. Simple as.

>>13212429
Even though I don't fully believe (yet?) should I aim to get baptised? I don't want to do it as a 'just incase" as I feel sort of drawn to it on I guess a spiritual level, and I don't want to leave it too late

>>13212529
Do what you feel called to do. If you think it is just some sort of romantic/youthful impulse, keep reading and increasing your familiarity with the faith to make a more rounded decision. However, if you feel that you have an authentic desire, however small it may be, acting upon it will give you great spiritual fruits. (This is akin to the parable of the Mustard seed from the gospels; the smallest seed can contain within it some of the greatest potential if acted upon). Another good thing is that, even if you do not decide to get baptized, Catholic Churches offer RCIA classes for adults that will help you to understand more about the faith and make a better informed decision. That is probably a good option to pursue regardless of what you end up deciding since there is no major commitment, at least where I live.


then baptism is obviously something you should do. However, as you have stated yourself, the efficacy of the sacrament will depend upon your disposition. If you

>>13212953
Forgot to delete that last sentence. Whoops

>>13191744
>Was there Catholic faith just some sort of identity they wore like clothes on Sundays?
Yes, in this narcissistic age everything from religion (or lack thereof) to diet is a badge to be worn on display.

>>13194111
I completed it this Easter and would definitely recommend going through it.

Vedicfag here.
Can any give me any in the Bible to back up reincarnation not being real?
And no Hebrew 9:27 as far as I can tell isn’t claiming there is no reincarnation.
The Bible seems pretty mute on the idea but wasn’t it believed by Jews and most people during the time of Jesus?
Wouldn’t he have like told them this is wrong if it wasn’t the case?

>>13191744
What's hard to understand? The church made the doctrine and they no longer trust the church so they no longer believe what it says and leave.

>>13212529
Don't get baptized. It won't stick. In a few years you'll realise you don't really want to be be Catholic and leave, and feel resentful that you wasted your time.

>>13214187

It insists on incarnation subsuming the "re", and that you could do it again but wouldn't want to.

>>13214400
So basically Jesus is taking your karmaic debt?

>>13211472

Probably angry at the sullying of Scripture with Doctrine.

>>13214408
What does that mean?

>>13214187
It seems to me that the whole force of Scripture shifts against or away from transmigration, no? I'm not sure it needed to be elaborated on.

>>13192934
God is Being and Being is (real)

Honest question: What does Catholicism in the United States look like to those who are not American?

What do you lads think of CS Lewis as an apologist?
I know he wasn't Catholic, but I'm curious to get the opinions of Cathbros.
Not a Christian myself, but while I found his prose and writing style quite enjoyable, his argumentation is generally not that impressive.

>>13216291
He's alright. I don't the understand why he's such a lightning rod for some people. Books like Mere Christianity are an introduction to a Christian thought so it's not meant to be taken as a scientific essay with comprehensive arguments. It was originally a radio broadcast so temper your expectations.

why is the number 7 so recurrent in genesis?

Is liking Bach sinful?

>>13216767
Post it a dozen more times

>>13216785
I haven't had an answer.

>>13216808
No it's not a sin, now piss off.

>>13216767
https://youtu.be/3C0SztMI9-4

>>13216755
I think it's referring to the creation which took seven days. It symbolically represents a completion or totality which is why you'll see it a lot in genealogies, as in "these are the seven generations." Ancient genealogies are rarely complete or exact since the paper at the time was so expensive, but they're completed in a literary way by using the number seven.

>>13216767
Yes, because I say so :)

are there catholic gnostics?

What do you guys think of the Rosary? It's been pretty central to Catholic prayer life since it first came into being, and it's supposedly getting more popular among young Catholics again.

>>13191360
Have any of you read Kierkegaard's Works of Love? Did they give you more hope? I already love God a lot, but I like to read books that explain that feeling, and I like to read about people who have experienced it.

>>13217312
Be honest, how many of you are LARPing?

You're on 4chan for God's sake, there's porn here, sexual pictures of girls, gore, hate, sinful dialoge and more. How do you justify being a wholehearted Catholic/Christian and participating in this community, when it is almost objectivly better not participating on this website?

>>13217590
I see this sort of sentiment all the time and it's so bizarre. Just because we have a higher standard than the world doesn't mean we can't participate in the world. Jesus used to have dinner with tax collectors and prostitutes so why shouldn't we? We're not called to be invisible.

>>13217590
I don't watch porn, I'm straight therefore those pictures of women do nothing to me, I don't watch gore and even if I did accidentally, how would that be bad for my soul? How would that be a sin? If anything they make me cry. I try to not be hateful, and when I catch myself being hateful I feel bad about it, and I've never rejected God here. How can I be larping? Why can't you just believe? Not only in God but in love and nice things? Your reply has made me very sad. Who do I have to justify myself to? God knows my intentions and what's inside my heart, and my heart is at peace.
Please don't be mean to me again I was simply asking about a book

>>13217662
This reply has made me sad.
Probably only because you're a woman; if you were male I'd likely harass you and be cruel.

How does one pray properly?

>>13217292
I pray it every day and made me stop masturbating and commit less sins. I also think it genuinely transformed the environment I live for the better.

Why does god say in the old testament that the law is forever, and jesus says that he fulfilled the law, and now it is abolished? I dont understand this. When i look at jews they say that jesus did p ractice the law and that there is no reason not to practice the old testament law anymore, that jesus never stated against it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOAd3sGft4c
Where is the error?

>>13216755
In the tripartite dimension of manifestation, the three pointed cross has 6 sides. From a center point, there are 2 lines emanating from the middle forming the height, 2 lines forming the width, and 2 for the depth. So in total, there are 6 lines and one center point. In total, this adds up to 7. This three pointed cross represents the totality of manifestation in all modes. The horizontal plane of the three dimensional cross represents the totality of a particular state of the being, likely within the individual domain. The vertical line of the cross, forming the center pole, represents the correspondence between the higher and lower states of being. Thus, the symbol of the cross in this three dimensional manifestation is the perfect symbolism by which to show the relationship between the divine macrocosm and the divine microcosm. The number 7 signifies this unity of manifestation; the reason God rested on the 7th day was that there was no manifested line, hence it forms the middle of the cross. St. Clement of Alexandria talks about this within his books related to sacred numerology and the symbolism of the cross on not only a historical plane, but in the mystic plane as well. After all, there can be no contradiction between two different interpretations of the same symbol since they each exist within their own domain, separate from the other, yet still related due to the hermetic principle of analogy. This is only one of the most basic explanations of the number 7, there are many more that were known to the ancient Christians, especially those of the Alexandrian Catholic tradition whose knowledge has been completely veiled from the western, profane mindset.

>>13217716
Ultimately there's no wrong way to do it but for me I like to take advantage of the long tradition of written prayers that have been passed down for us. There's morning prayers, afternoon, night, before meals, prayers for the days of the week, and so on. If you can think of something there's probably a prayer for it. If you're looking for something more intense and meditative then the rosary is an obvious choice but the chaplet of divine mercy is popular too. You can take from these as it fits you and make them a regular part of your day and it'll become easier to improvise.

>>13218030
>>13217716
I know this probably gets asked everyday, but what is the point in praying? does it actually achieve anything? or are you just letting God know you care?

like i always get people on here telling me they'll pray for me, what does that actually do? do they think their prayers will make me more likely to go on the path towards christianity?

>>13218039
It feels good

>>13218039
On a purely practical level I've noticed that since I've started praying at regular times of the day, I'm a lot less tempted to sin. I think it's because I'm reminding myself of God and what I'm meant to be doing and I think that's really what prayer is for. It's to change your disposition towards God.

As far as why people tell others that they're going to pray for them, I can't tell you precisely because I don't know. I suppose it's to mimic heaven where we would be in full communion with each other but I don't know.

Sermon on the mount > ten commandments

Mary worship is creepy

>>13218059
for my part it's kind of nice when someone says they'll pray for me, it seems rather considerate and compassionate and does bring Christianity to my mind in a positive light
as long as it doesn't follow 'you faggot degenerate soiboy' ofc

>>13218030
WTF is this? People actually say a bunch of prayers back to back like a mantra?

>>13218100
Yeah it's a type of meditation. Apparently it's pretty good for your brain.

>>13217662
Didn't mean to reply to you, was suppose to be an open question, all apologies friend.

how do I escape addiction?

>>13218123
Do you think of anything while doing it? Do you say it out loud or just think it?

>>13218395
For the rosary yes, we meditate on the mysteries listed on the lower right corner. You can say out loud or not.

>>13218406
Interesting. Does your mind wander or are you good at strictly mediating on those mysteries?

>>13218415
At first it was a problem but it gets better with practice. It almost is a skill.

>>13218386
Pray the rosary.

>>13192927

I've never personally read it, but I have heard so much praise about it.

>>13218100
The Rosary is actually an incredibly powerful prayer and there are thousands of stories throughout the centuries of the very strong effect it has had in the lives of the people who pray it. Of course, anecdotes aren't always trustworthy. But there sure are a lot of them.

How can I adequately understand the hypostatic union? It's my main issue with Catholicism

Read Flannery O' Connor
Just thinking about The Life you Save May be Your Own brings me to the verge of tears

>>13217750
nice

>>13218640

>>13195481
>If God is omnipotent/omniscient, then why would he bend the laws of physics to accommodate your request?
Why would you let your son have a cookie only if they said please? Why would you only buy him an xbox if he got good grades? Why would you give him a bad look if he didn't thank you for it?
>his would imply that somehow his creation is imperfect, that he "changes" things for you
We don't exist for the universe, the universe exists for us. We are the pinnacle of creation. Just like moving a frame in a movie is meant to perfect the final cut that is published, so are our life experiences (and the universe in which they happen) meant to perfect us spiritually to become one with God.
>Undoubtedly this has occurred, why were her innocent prayers unanswered?
How do you know it was unanswered? Life doesn't end at death. Her prayer doesn't have to be answered while she is still on earth. People may not get what they deserve in this life if God plans it this way for reasons that we obviously cannot know (just like we don't know the why of most things, ever, not even contemplating God into the picture), but that changes in the afterlife.
>The unending and immense deaths from child birth, both child and mother. The prayers. Can you even contemplate how people must have prayed throughout history and been left abandoned? Please don't let my child die of cancer? Please bring my love back to me. What were they doing wrong? The prayers. Seems sort of, arbitrary does it not?
This is based on a metaphysics of "pain bad, pleasure good" and therefore by principle fallacious. Meditate on the suffering of Christ and you'll find hints of why suffering is a necessary part of this life.

>>13207845
Orthodox just confuse Purgatory and Hell. Hell is definitely not empty even now. You can pray for those in Purgatory, but for those in hell there's no effect. That said, it's still good to pray for someone, as you cannot know for sure they are in hell instead of Purgatory

>>13214187
There is one single "reincarnation", for those that are written in the Book of Life, and that comes after the end of the world. You get a new, perfected body and live in the new earth.

>>13195281
I do. I really like the idea of the vow of silence. I also save any carthusian monk image i find.

>>13201058
You never ask your mom/dad/friend to pray for you cause you have a certain issue you wanted to get fixed?

>>13201688
Its a protestant meme yes. I completely agree with the second part of your post. Sadly they started using these meme terms (example is jesus is my friend) in my church more often

>>13217590
>to be christian is to be a perfect man who doesnt "waste" his time on 4ch and to be without sin

>>13217312
I once tried reading kirkegaard books (works of love isnt one of them though) but his books were really hard for me because of the language barrier. So i dont really know.. but you wont lose anything if you read a chapter of it online then buy it if you liked it or something

>>13220069
No I've never done that and that doesn't really happen here in my experience
>>13202731
This doesn't say anything about praying to people in Heaven

>>13220179
Jesus is the God of the living and not the dead. If we're meant to be praying with people on earth there's no reason we shouldn't be praying with the people living in heaven.

>>13220203
If people living in Heaven are eternally praising the Lord what reason do they have to help us on earth that the Lord isn't occupied with? If they are eternally praying for us what's the point of praying for their aid?

>>13220231
Well what's the point of praying for anyone at all, even on earth? God is everywhere and he doesn't need us to do it. The reason we do is that we're commanded to love our brothers and this applies even to those in heaven. Prayer is a way to do that.

>>13192397
at least part of the hate "christians" get in this board is justified by posts like these

>>13192934
you don't get to know if God is real unless God wants you to know. If you keep this up you will die before you find it out.

>>13220179
We (orthodox) view asking a saint to pray for us just how we usually ask the priest/family memeber to pray for us(which we do here)

>>13220263
This is not a Catholic belief. We can know God exists through reason by the natural law which is written on all men's hearts.

>>13220247
>love our brothers
But Catholics aren't praying to, for example, Mary just to say I love you. They also ask her to:
>>13218030
'Pray for us ... that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.'
>even to those in heaven
Where in the Bible is this stated?
>>13220264
I haven't finished reading the Bible yet, but is there any part that mentions asking the souls in Heaven to pray for you in the same way we are told to do on earth?

>>13220272
then how come there are brilliant authors, properly equipped with logic, that have read theology and philosophy extensively remained atheists? cold logic means shit compared to actually feeling it

>>13220293
Not everyone is going to accept God or his revelation. Is this news to you?

>>13192934
>>13220263
>>13220263
>>13220293
>>13220299

See: >>13219744

>>13220291
All prayer is an act of love. What is your problem with asking Mary to pray for us and to desire us to act as we should? That's literally what that prayer means. As far as where that's stated in the bible, that's a false premise. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that all true things are found in the bible. We don't need the bible to tell us not to fly planes into buildings just as we don't need the bible to tell us to pray for other people.

>>13220299
then I'd argue it can't be done by reason alone, because if it could there would be no need or point in accepting or rejecting.

>>13220315
This is nonsense

>>13220311
>What is your problem with asking Mary to pray for us and to desire us to act as we should?
In those prayers they're asking something of Mary. That doesn't happen when you pray for others or have others pray for you. If you're going to pray to someone in Heaven for aid why not Jesus? I'm not trying to aggravate I want to know more.
>As far as where that's stated in the bible, that's a false premise.
Then where does it come from? How do you know what teachings are correct if you're open to recieving it from anyone?

>>13220344
When you have others pray for you, doesn't that require you to ask them to do something for you? Asking them to pray for you is asking them to do something.

To pray for somebody or with somebody is to pray to God and this precisely what people in heaven are doing. They're acting in communion with each other to praise God. Acting as people in heaven do can't be wrong.

These teachings on prayer do incidentally come from scripture but the point is that not everything that is true will be found in scripture because Jesus didn't come to earth to establish a bible, but he came to establish a Church with the authority to teach on these matters.

>>13220318
yes it is, not trying to come off as someone who knows anything, on the contrary, I'm ignorant on the matter

>>13220418
It's not a matter of what you know, it's that things you say don't make any sense.

>>13220451
>talks about X without knowing pretty much nothing about X
>It's not a matter of what you know

>>13220392
>When you have others pray for you, doesn't that require you to ask them to do something for you? Asking them to pray for you is asking them to do something.
If those in Heaven are already praying for us what's the point in asking them to pray for us?
>To pray for somebody or with somebody is to pray to God and this precisely what people in heaven are doing. They're acting in communion with each other to praise God. Acting as people in heaven do can't be wrong.
My question isn't whether praying for each other is right but what the point is in calling on saints in prayer.
>These teachings on prayer do incidentally come from scripture but the point is that not everything that is true will be found in scripture because Jesus didn't come to earth to establish a bible, but he came to establish a Church with the authority to teach on these matters.
Do Catholics believe Church doctrine is infallible?

Anyone read Plantenga's works?

>>13220486
You don't have to quote me so much, dude. It's an eyesore and I don't have any problems figuring out what you're responding to. It'll also make it so you don't have to ask the same question multiple times in a post.

One of the goals of prayer is to change your disposition towards God and when you ask somebody to pray for you, in a way you're changing your disposition towards them as well. Since prayer is an act of love, you're making yourself more receptive towards the love of other people. To be in heaven with God in other people is to be in perfect love which each other. It's worth partaking in that as much as we can while on earth.

As far as doctrine being infallible, yes. If it's infallibly taught. When Jesus established Peter as the foundation of the Church and gave him the keys, he promised to protect him and the apostles from teaching error.

>>13220587
What does 'infallibly taught' mean? Aren't there bad popes?

>>13220598
It means a teaching "from the chair" where they come out and say that this is an authoritative teaching, and even bad popes can make them. Peter himself sinned right after being made the rock by denying Jesus and later on in Acts, Paul reproved Peter for not practicing what he infallibly preached when it came to eating dinner with gentiles. So there's a long history of bad popes and we know that not everything they teach is meant to be taken as authoritative. When they're teaching with authority it's explicit.

Marcion of Sinope is the only patristic theologian worth paying attention to. Utterly BTFO non-Gnostics.

I don't know why variations of this image come up when you image search him though, as it clearly says 'O A[gios] Loukas'.

>>13220621
But doctrine that was once authorative has changed hasn't it? For example, wasn't it relatively recent that the Church said Jews aren't to blame for the crucifixion?

>>13220668
I wouldn't call the attitude towards Jews an authoritative doctrine. Some doctrines will change in the sense that they become more explicated or defined as we learn more about them. Doctrines like confession or marriage have developed and been instituted in different, but they're essentially the same. One of the things that complicates these things is that there's usually not an authoritative teaching on something unless there's a controversy and a need for it.

>>13220692
Has there never been an authoritative teaching that was made wrong by a later one?

>>13220700
If there is one I would leave the Church.

>>13220716
Damn I'll have to read more about it

For anyone who prays the rosary where did you get your rosary beads?

>>13220753
You can buy rosaries all over the place. There's a bunch of nice but cheap ones on Amazon. Keep in mind that you don't actually need on in order to pray the rosary. It's just a tool to help you keep track of the 10 Hail Mary's while you're meditating so can even use your fingers. Some people will just take a piece of rope and tie 10 knots into it.

>>13220179
Revelation 5:8 and Revelation 8:3-4.
Saints are alive in heaven and they present our prayers to God.

>>13220700
Look at Amoris laetitia and all the drama that ensued.

new bread
>>13221425
>>13221425
>>13221425