/lit/ - Literature

>>16942847
Lies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MfVZaVAl_8

>heretic /lit/

>>16942847
You're in for a bunch of teenagers who pretend that they are Catholic traditionalists responding to your thread and calling you a heretic.

>>16942847
Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox are the only true Christian doctrines. The followers of the rest will burn in hell.

>>16942912
> The followers of the rest will burn in hell.
Why?

>>16942847
A load of satanic heresy.

>>16942900
You're welcome.

>>16942929
Here's why

>>16942912
There isn't a Catholic or Orthodox bishop living on this planet that would agree with your post.

>>16942945
Has no bearing on Protestants who are not in communion with them.

>>16942945
And this is a Catholic mass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL9tmkBS9K0

>>16942976
Catholics don't ordain women.

>>16942950
>>16942963
Cope

>>16942945
Protestants BAD
Kiddy diddlers(cathlocucks) GOOD

>>16942992
>Cope
There it is

>>16942900
Why everyone in the protestant rotten brain is pretending?

>>16942981
>>16942992
Protestants are not a monolithic group. Most are not in communion with each other. No one is going to accept responsibility for the things done by some group that they have nothing to do with. You all like to try this smearing tactic but it doesn't sway anyone because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Protestantism is.

>>16942963
protestants aren't in communion with anyone but Satan

>>16943007
MOM I POSTED IT AGAIN.

>>16943008
Because you constantly say bullshit like this >>16942912 that is neither Catholic or Orthodox doctrine, but just shit you made up because it made sense to your LARP brain.

>>16942976
>'Closing Eucharistic Liturgy at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress 2011'

So basically protestants in disguise. Hmm....

>>16943009
>Protestants are not a monolithic group
Yet those same protestants have the same validity than the rest of cult-tier bookclubs aka "Churchs" lel

Guys are there any books that will help me win in debates vs stupid atheists?

My mum during dinner just said that the bible should be considered a fairy tale and I couldnt win in debate vs her.
I'm hoping you guys have some book that will help me go all CRUSADER THEOLOGICAN on her ass

>>16943021
>>presider: Archbishop José Gomez
According to your theology this is one of the successors of the Apostles. Own to what you claim to believe for once, please.

>>16943020
>that is neither Catholic or Orthodox doctrine

>>16943027
Read the Greeks and then read St Thomas Aquinas

>>16943039
Show me any Catholic or Orthodox doctrinal source that makes the same claim as that post.

>>16942847
What's nice is that all you have to do here is post the institutes to get a million caths sperging out. The power of this book is impressive.
You're in for a nice reading. It's beautifully crafted and coherent, there's probably nothing that compares with regards to that.

>>16943055
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

>>16943086
I asked for a doctrinal source not a Wikipedia article.

>>16943114
There are doctrinal sources in that Wikipedia article.

>>16943141
Feel free to choose one so that we can examine it and see if it actually says the same thing as that post. Spoiler: none of them do.

>>16943154
>14. Certainly many remarkable authors, adherents of the true philosophy, have taken pains to attack and crush this strange view. But the matter is so self-evident that it is superfluous to give additional arguments. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo12/l12ubipr.htm
>FIFTH QUESTION
>Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
>RESPONSE
>According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

>>16942847
Excellent choice, OP, and congratulations on delving into the deep ocean that is Christian theology. After you're done, the only suggestion I have for you is to explore the Puritans. You can find the bulk of their works here:

https://banneroftruth.org/us/

I suggest pic related to get you started, this collection is currently for $45

>>16943262
shill post

>>16943262
I read the Puritans already. Burroughs, Brooks, and Watson are my favorites. I've just never read Calvin proper, only extracts.

I want to read more 16th century and 18th century stuff though if you have any recommendations.

>>16943262
Look at those books lmao. The appearance of spiritual devastation. Go be a man and read something actually spiritual.

Christian theology exploration should technically start with the bible. Read it with an accompanying text that explains the meanings and references that exist in the text that were lost in translation. For example, most of the names in the Bible aren't real names, but are hebrew words that are designed to say something about the person's character. Like "Adam" is "man".

After that, you start with the greeks. Reading Plato is a must, and Aristotle if you want to delve into Western Christian theology. Then read Neo-platonist texts. Then I would start with St John Chrysostom: he is one of the more practical church fathers.

From there, you can go on to whatever your goals are. But even if you want protestant theology, you must first read Augustine and Aquinas at the minimum.

>>16943330
Don't judge a book by its cover and all that.

Though truthfully they are much more dignified in clothbound.

>>16942912
You're only half right anon.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KOCkjEjFhw

>>16943364
What is best translation of BIble

>>16943364
Completely and utterly incorrect.
Reading the bible is a protestant meme that leads to heresy. Catholicucks and Orthobros have the writings of the Holy Fathers to interpret the Bible for them.

>>16943418
I think it depends on which accompanying text you will go with. I assume most "explanations" of the bible in English will be from the KJV or the Douay-Rheims

>>16943419
did you notice how I said "with an accompanying text"? You shoudln't try to read the bible on your own, that is a meme. But you *should* read the bible with a guide, who will explain to you what was meant here or there when it was written.

>>16943487
Wrong again. By reading the Bible you will inevitably introduce a certain amount of your own interpretation to the writing. And we all know that some random sperg reading it simply doesn't have the wisdom of the 2000 years of monks and priests who have spent the majority of their lives in reverence and contemplation of both God and the Bible.
It's best to read the Holy Fathers. And ONLY the Holy Fathers. Doing anything but that paves the way for lunatics like Luther.

>>16943517

>>16943419
>reading the Bible is a meme that leads to heresy

This is what Catholics actually believe

>>16943027
Just watch some William Lane Craig debates on youtube. Basically what you're gonna want to do is pressure them on objective morality and objective truth and on the creation of the universe. It's easier to start there than on bible specifics.

A: "Absolute truth doesn't exist."
B: "Is that true?"

A: "Do you really think some kind of God made this world?"
B : "So you believe that something came from nothing?"

As for the fairy tale point of view you'd have to really dive into specifics because she's gonna pull whatever miracle she can think of and doubt it so you'll need evidence for the resurrection and from there you can reasonably claim that if Jesus did indeed rise from the dead then it is safe to assume he did all those things.

>>16943517
Its best not to read the Holy Fathers at all. By reading the Holy Fathers you will inevitably introduce a certain amount of your own interpretation to the writing.
Just eat the wafer.

>>16943027
>>16943669
imo the best argument for religion is from Kierkegaard. I usually rephrase it like this:

Religion brings a lot to the table, even if it is false. Religion, first and foremost, adds meaning to whatever happens around you. People who aren't religious are missing out on a world of meaning that they willfully ignore. Do you feel like you want to live a life without meaning, or introduce an artificial surrogate ideology to fill that void?

>>16943685
Also acceptable.
You don't have to understand theology to believe in God and participate in the community.

Josephus, Philo, Eusebius

>>16943696
I don't think that's gonna be enough for most atheists, it wasn't for me at least. What initially got me to open my mind were refutations of atheist explanations for the origin of the universe and for objective moral laws. There is only one thing that atheism leads to, if thought out to its logical conclusion and that is anguish and despair. I would probably feed them some evidence for the resurrection and bring up Pascal's wager. I get you though ; you can't really go wrong with religion either way. If there is no God, then you have still lived a good life because even in a materialist world, Christian moral values and getting your passions under control will improve life tremendously. However, you will still need some faith, because you can't just make yourself believe something.

>>16943669
>>16943027
>>16943696
>>16944244
You neither argue nor debate. You don't need to sell your faith to somebody

>>16943703
Is that why you drag children into getting baptized into a religion they don't even understand?
John practiced believer's baptism which is how Christ experienced it.

>>16945205
> why you drag children into school when they don't even understand the workplace market?
Stupidest retort ever.

That said, if you're not gonna educate your kids in religion then baptism is pretty pointless, yes.

Any books on how to live a Christian life. I get reading the Bible but it'll take time to work through translation and commentaries

>>16942847
Avoid at all cost, if Christianity is what you are seeking for.

>>16942847
Later Calvinists were much worse than Calvin himself. I personally really don't like predestination, but it's interesting to read about

>>16942847
I like how you can see a book get posted once on /lit/ and then see multiple threads appear about that book throughout the week.

>>16943207
Not the other Anon. So this is actually dogmatic? Damn, really a retarded doctrine. You're mistaken on abstract matters of doctrine and led by good intent to worship the same God in a technically wrong way, you go to hell?

>>16945244
So your strategy is to sidestep questions?
I'll clarify what the other guy asked : why are you practicing baptism in a way that contradicts the tradition in the Bible, what changed from then to now? How is it meaningful for, why would God want one to be forcefully baptised?

>>16942847
Book 4 is the best part. Completely BTFO the Roman "Catholic" Church.

I've been really enjoying being in a PCA church. Totally simple and real experience. Great sense of community.

>>16943207
seems like an assertion is made about God not approving of sect with contradictory views. what scripture do u have to back this up? romans 14 clearly states christians will believe different things and can still be brothers assuming theyre non salvation issues

>>16942847
a fuckin snoozefest

>>16947540
It's all about the sacraments. No valid sacraments = no heaven for you.

>>16948369
Indeed. Very aesthetic.

>>16948378
There are several condemnations to heretics in the Pauline letters, come on.
>14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 16 But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. 19 But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
>Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
>10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. 11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. 12 One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
I could make a book with quotations like these.

>>16942868
Wait... I thought Baptists were Evangelicals, no?

>>16948440
Too bad for you the Catholic Church under three plus popes has condemned calling Protestants heretics.

>>16948440
Protestants aren't heretics.
-t. Pope

"There is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined." - Benedict XVI

>>16948440
I asked for issues not pertaining to salvation. thats why I Brought up romans 14. most of the verses dont even apply to the argument.

obviously in Galatians or Corinthians u can find a condemnation of those who preach "another Jesus" or who sin without wanted to repent.the body of Christ all believing the same exact thing never happened even within the early church

>>16948440
Per Archbishop Robert Barron, in the exercise of his ordinary magisterium, Lumen Gentium teaches that non catholics and in fact non Christians can be saved without becoming catholic per catholic teaching. Here is an example of him saying this

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HEkOV9LsCTo

>>16948452
>>16948476
They are technically heretics and they still are on the list of heresies of the CDF. They have better considerations compared to other forms of heresies, call it heterodox heresy if you like, I don't care. This laxity comes mainly from ecumenism, I am not exercising any ecumenism in 4chan as you may infer.

>>16948643
well then the burden of proof is on you as to why I should believe some random retard online about what catholics believe instead of the catholic church itself.

I mean really if the institution is so precious to you why don't you listen to them. I don't really care what your justification is but do you realize how stupid this looks to an outsider?

>>16948655
If I have a retarded cousin I won't call him retarded, I would try to avoid using the word even if he is retarded indeed. The same with Protestantism, which is the sense of the words of the Pope. When a pope focuses on the positive aspects of Protestantism, that doesn't exonerate you from any of your mistakes as a faith.

>>16948689
they also said I can stay protestant and not go to hell though

>>16948512
Barron is a bishop, not an archbishop.

There are great protestant theologians and suggesting that people like cs Lewis or kierkegaard are in hell now is insane to hear from a supposed Christian

>>16948697
ok but that distinction means nothing practically and theologically. And archbishop typically is just in a more metropolitan area.

>>16942847
I don't know, why don't you ask your magic sky man about it

>>16948689
Pope Francis practices ecumenism with heretics such as Kenneth Copeland and Paula white. if he is friendly and considers them brothers in the Lord (his actual words) and is the vicar of Christ (supposedly) why wouldn't u atleast consider it?

>>16948786
Maybe he has considered it and that's the conclusion he reached, retard?

>>16948792
wow sounds like a private judgment to me wtf is he a pr*d?

>>16948812
>private judgement
That is not a theological term, retard. Stop making shit up and attributing it to Catholics.

>>16948820
why don't you tell me what other terms i'm not allowed to use in posts lol. also feel free to explain why some larper chudding online is a better source about catholicism than the pope.

>>16948792
im asking why u wouldn't consider it considering you look up to this man as the literal representation of Christ on earth. for people who claim that someones a vicar of Christ catholics sure love to tell the pope how wrong he is on everything.

>hes only infallible when hes speaking ex cathedra

doesn't take away from the fact u think this man is your spiritual father yet your quick to throw him under the bus. prots treat pastor bob with more respect than alot of you catholics do with your vicar

>>16948414
Close but there's a little more.
You go to Heaven if you die with sanctifying grace. You get sanctifying grace through baptism (or desire to be baptized), and if you reject it through sin, normally you get it again through the sacraments. The sacraments, besides healing, building up, and initiating into the body of Christ, are how you get graces to go through your life without sin so that you die with sanctifying grace, and so not having them is really, really stupid.
>>16947540
The first part (no salvation outside the Church) is saying that people who are saved, are saved through the Catholic Church. It doesn't mean that everybody who is in Heaven was Catholic during their lives, but it does mean that everyone is Catholic in Heaven. And this is because the Church is one, united in Heaven and on Earth. Christ has one body, the Church is the body of Christ, so there's one Church.
The unity of the Church is important. It's what we physically participate in through the Eucharist. So if you don't celebrate and share the Eucharist, you aren't sharing in this unity. That's why protestants don't have Churches.
The term "in communion" seems a little abstract, but it isn't. It's saying that churches literally share Communion with each other, so they are united in the same Body of Christ.
>>16948691
That reasoning is retarded. It's saying that just because you're protestant, you're not necessarily screwed, ie, you might not knowingly be rejecting the Church. If you go to Heaven, when you are in Heaven you will be Catholic. If you knowingly reject Christ's Church all your life, you're really taking your chances.

>>16949035
Pope Benedict is saying that most protestants aren't obstinately rejecting the Church, and he says that's the defining characteristic of a heresy. Of course he knows that many protestants hold an enormous variety of heretical beliefs, but he's being nice here and focusing on the important aspect that they are validly baptized and the vast majority don't knowingly reject the Catholic truth. He's got a very good point in saying that in the 500 years of protestantism, we haven't quite figured out how they fit in the Church given that they are validly baptized, yet lack the other sacraments and the fullness of truth.
You've got a good point too, a lot of people are ridiculously dismissive of what the Pope says. Catholics ought to take him seriously. Anon's technically right in that they are listed heresies, but the Church's approach has been ecuminism, hoping to join in a meaningful discussion with them. I think some protestants have had some important things to say...although the vastness of the writings of the Saints make it a little silly for any Catholic to be reading them lol.

>>16949147
im against the catholic churchs teachings but I get mad when I see catholics try to crap on or discredit there own pope. I treat my own pastor with more respect than alot of these catholics treat the person they think is Christ representative on earth.

my main problem with ecumenism is the fact that the power of leverage would be in favor of the Catholic Church. my gripes with the church range from justification(the most important), mariology(the lack of scripture to back up its teachings), the papacy, and other things. I think the very thing the RCC is built upon is antithetical to what I believe and to change it would change the very nature of the church, something im sure theyre unwilling to do.

>>16949192
Fair enough. You're definitely right on respect and obedience to your superiors. It's a huge point in many of the writings of the Saints.

And yes, ecumenism has inherent issues. I know the teachings of the Church. I think it's the truth, handed down to us through tradition and made clear through the Holy Spirit. I couldn't, and wouldn't, be able to "negotiate" on them, and I don't have the knowledge to present them in another light.

Perhaps with organizations, there's more of a point to ecumenism than there is with individuals.

>>16942847
I am wondering how anyone can still believe in the Bible after 200 years of higher criticism has thoroughly dismantled it.

For all the theology books some of you have read, have any of you read Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier or Robert M Price? Two of which were former fundamentalist (i.e. not LARPers but intellectually serious people who attempted to integrate their Christianity into a coherent, logical system). You can't pretend those people don't exist and all the meanwhile proclaim Christianity to be true.

t. former fundamentalist

>>16949519
>Bart Ehrman
James White destroyed him in a debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moHInA9fAsI

""Higher criticism"" is a boogie-man used by people that actually don't understand anything about the textual transmission of ancient documents.

>>16949577
I have watched that debate three times. You don't really understand Ehrman's arguments.

In the debate White appeals to the "tenacity" of the text. Here is an evangelical fundamentalist much like White who debunks that idea.

http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/03/the-myth-of-tenacity.html

> ""Higher criticism"" is a boogie-man used by people that actually don't understand anything about the textual transmission of ancient documents.
This tells me you have read nothing on the matter besides standard apologetic works.

I would recommend you actually read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Furthermore it is important to highlight that the bulk of Greek NT manuscripts are from the 9th century onward. 7 centuries after the New Testament was penned.

the bible appeared in the form God wanted it to

>>16949612
>. Furthermore it is important to highlight that the bulk of Greek NT manuscripts are from the 9th century onward. 7 centuries after the New Testament was penned.

irrelevant.

>>16949519
You're a total retard and I just wanted to drop by to say that. Even in the world where I wanted to engage with your naive post, you literally mentioned Richard Carrier as a credible source, in which case you are too stupid to live.

Stop posting on lit. pol is more your speed.

>>16949690
Perfectly highlights how little you understand of the matter at hand.

It seriously weakens the trust we can have in the transmission and the reliability (how reliably it contains the original wording of the autographs) of the New Testament. Since there is plenty of evidence of fraud, forgery and people intentionally editing the text. You have very little to compare it with. You have an overabundance of manuscripts from a much latter period after centuries of editing.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-M4SveapDDY8/VWYSPMUt2aI/AAAAAAAABFY/gmnIWeB01ro/s1600/img_absolute_distribution_NT_MSS.png

There are only 4 manuscripts from the 2nd century. None from the first which is when according to conservative scholars it was written.

>>16949717
> You're a total retard and I just wanted to drop by to say that.
You are the moron with cognitive dissonance who likes to masturbate over theological minutia and pretend to be an intellectual.

> you literally mentioned Richard Carrier as a credible source, in which case you are too stupid to live.
You have absolutely zero idea who he is and what he has done. Guaranteed. You only know him from your tradLARPer Discord servers. You have never read any of his writings or works.

Carrier is a raper who thinks Jesus didn't exist when every serious scholar thinks otherwise.

>>16949851
It used to be a fringe opinion to say that Moses or Abraham didn't exist but now that is the mainstream opinion.

If you actually read Carrier's works you will see most of the premises of his arguments are the consensus of New Testament scholars. The vast majority of the NT scholars for example don't believe we can get back to the original wording of the autographa. Similarly the vast majority don't hold to the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Many take a late date of their composition. The vast majority believe that they were heavily edited in their infancy and are composed of different sources. For example only 7 of the 13 Pauline epistles are accepted as being authored by Paul of Tarsus. Finally, Carrier doesn't hold with absolute certainty that Jesus didn't exist. He is working from widely accepted assumptions in the field of New Testament studies and gives a probability estimate that there is a 1/3 chance Jesus existed.

>>16949870
Carrier is a literal wife beating cult leader who sells atheism in order to peddle his gay little leftist self help books where he is the leader of an atheist plus movement. You are a weak minded freak for falling for such a snake oil salesman when the entire world and all of academia recognize him for what he is.

Just stay away from the kool aid they're serving, freak.

>>16950168
I didn't ask for your schizo diarrhea. What self help books does he even sell? Stop pulling shit out of your arse. Dumbfuck.

>>16942847
You're in for reformation. Catholic theology is cancer. Even Catholics admit that the foundation of Calvins theology is irrefutable and does not have logical flaws.

>>16950569
Who cares what papists think anyway? The act of being in communion with the Romanist church just proves them to be predestined to hell. There's nothing you or I can do to change that, salvation is for the elect.