/lit/ - Literature

>>17325973
1st Book of Moses

>>17325973
confession of st augustine

>>17325973
Canaanite Myth and the Hebrew Epic
Complete works of Plato

The Ancient Near East Vol 1 and 2 by Pritchard
Complete works of Maimonides (to understand the heresy that occurred, and the original faith)
The Origin of Heresy

The Christian Schism in Jewish History and Jewish Memory
History of the Catholic Church by James Hitchcock
Catholicism by O'Collins

>>17325973
Read the Bible and work on daily prayer. With the Bible, read the Gospel of Mark, then Luke, then Acts of the Apostles and carry on through to the Apocalypse. To understand how to pray and what to pray for, I would read The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis and get a Rosary. Additionally, read the Catechism of Pope Pius X; this is in a question and answer format and short. Read all the recommendations at the same time, or if you want to read one thing at a time: (1) selected gospels, (2) Acts, (3) Catechism, (4) Imitation of Christ, (5) continue the Bible. You must pray and pray the Rosary. When praying the Rosary, without knowledge of the mysteries (found in the Gospels), it is vocal prayer alone and not vocal-mental.

>>17326117
I’d say my list is better as context and understanding of Christianity, but these are very good recommendations for Christian literature. Thomas Kempis especially, he’s fantastic.

How do I return to the Church, Catholicbros? I bought myself a rosary and found my old Catholic bible.

I want to repent and live a more holier life.

>>17326246
Go to Confession

>>17326278
Weekly? or whenever I can?

>>17326208
I'm assuming OP developed in a religious household. If OP is an agnostic/atheist or grew in a non-religious home, then I would agree that your list is superior. When I was younger, Plato removed the filthy physicalism and determinism from my mind, so yes, if you're an atheist, OP, unironically start with the Greeks and understand the Church's history.

>>17326407
Go now because you obviously need to. Don't worry about the future, it'll take care of itself.

>>17326407
Read about the Saint's love of Reconciliation. Realize its importance and be humbled. Without it and the Blessed Sacrament, we lose our safeguards against mortal and venial sin. Read the Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales and the Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis. Without these two Sacraments, we are damned; when you learn of their importance, you'll want to confess whenever possible (even if it is over sins of the past). Dominus Vobiscum. Sancta Maria, Dei Genetrix, ora pro nobis.

>>17325973
Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin.

>>17326422
Okay, I will. Thank you.

>>17326470
Yes, I wish to understand the rationale behind Catholic customs too, thank you for the good post anon.

>>17325973
Catholic lit means millions of books. Wanna get more specific? If it comes down to prayer and spirituality, I do like Jacques Philippe's books. Not too short nor long books on becoming more "pray-ful"
Anybody mind passing by my thread about Thomism and how it dismantles extintentialism et al.?

>>17325072

Basically you need the New Testament, a catechism, the Imitation of Christ and a missal. Plus you need to see a priest.

>>17325973
Literature as in fiction, theology, philosophy of prayer books?
I'm a practicing Catholic and have been reading Catholic fiction from a while now, look to Gene Wolfe, Chesterton, Flannery O'Connor, Shusaku Endo and Huysmans.

it's been a while since i was on /lit/, and forgive me if i oversee a meme, but why are you always referring to the sources if someone asks for "where do i start?" shouldn't be the first question here "well, what do you know so far?" start with the first book of moses p.e., like what, seriously? well, why dont you recommend to read it on hebrew if you already start this bs.

>>17326246
Have you received the sacraments?

Abandonment to Divine Providence

>>17327941
Seriously interested in how Catholics would deal w/ a situation like this. Wouldn't divorce be acceptable at very least?

I'm no Catholic so I'd slaughter that little nigger in a heartbeat. Lmao

>>17328256
Divorce is not acceptable under any circumstances according to Catholicism

>>17328267
Really? Surprised I never knew this.

>>17328287
well to make sure you dont fool around it is forbidden to marry a second time

>>17328256
You are not allowed a divorce, but a marriage might be null in the first place or you may live separately, without any obligations to one another, but without the ability to remarry.
Personally, I could never live with the shame of the whole world knowing my wife is a cheating coal mining whore. But, there could be no allowed relationships downn the line.

>>17328267
>what is an annulment
pretty sure 2021 Catholics can get annulled sorta easy

>>17325973
Chestertons Father Brown stories.


also Friedrich Nietzsche to realise most of his standpoints are catholic and be confirmed in wanting Luther to be burnt.

In any case, NEVER read the bible.

>>17328324
An annulment requires the marriage was invalid from before it began, like for example if the husband had lower social standing or income than the wife expected

>>17328267
>>17328287
Divorce is not desirable, but it is permitted in some circumstances.

Where the rubber meets the road is a validly married Catholic, if divorced, cannot then remarry in the Church.

>>17326246
Follow the precepts of the Church. Receive the eucharist, go to confession, go to mass, etc.

>>17328354
>Divorce is not desirable, but it is permitted in some circumstances
Incorrect, you have no clue what you're talking about. It's always considered sinful and not recognized.

>>17328256
Im a Catholic but id never presume to speak for all catholics. It would seem to me that while it is necessary to accept and in time forgive your wife. You are under no obligation to stay and raise the bastard. Divorce is not allowed but dissolutions are. You would speak to your priest and your case would go through the ecclesiastical court and most likely end up being dissolved or annulled. Im not entirely sure if you would be allowed to remarry after this or not but im inclined to say no. In the end, she is punished for her infidelity and you are punished for choosing a poor wife

>>17328256
The way a Catholic would’ve dealt with this before Vatican II is that the husband would have left the wife and taken the kids (if the husband is not an adulterer also), but not divorced. The husband would of course have to forgive her at some point, but forgiveness does not mean that the husband should continue to have her in his life, that depends on him and the repentance of the wife. If the wife is truly Catholic she would have to repent pretty hard, probably by going to live in a covenant for some time.

>>17328486
Show me one case of this

>>17325973
Buy a Latin-English missal and study the prayers. First, memorize your prayers in English. Then, move onto the Latin. Try Ave Maria (gratia plena!).

Catholicism is probably the most retarded belief system out there.

>>17328591
Mins explaining why? Low-effort posters should be shot on sight.

>>17328642
Starting with the OP?

>>17328374
It's not true that divorce is absolutely prohibited. Look at this Catholic Encyclopedia article. The article is probably at least 100 years old at this point, so canon law might not be exactly the same, but the general principles are probably the same.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

>The Catholic doctrine on divorce may be summed up in the following propositions:

>- In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated;
>- Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute divorce under certain circumstances in favour of the Faith;
>- Christian marriage before consummation can be dissolved by solemn profession in a religious order, or by an act of papal authority;
>- Separation from bed and board (divortium imperfectum) is allowed for various causes, especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy on the part of husband or wife.

So the Catholic Church provides not just for annulments, but divorce without remarriage (divortium imperfectum) in certain situations, or, in other circumstances, divorce and re-marriage where, unlike an annulment, there is dissolution of a valid marriage.

>>17328690
That's called seperation (which is what divorce means in Latin)

>>17328591
If that's true, then why aren't you Catholic?

>>17328675
The OP is asking a question, not making a retarded affirmation you dumb monkey.

>>17328696
It's called divorce, and it is permitted in certain situations. Saying that "divorce" is not permitted in Catholicism is false and an over-simplification. Saying that Catholicism "prohibits divorce" without any qualification leads to false beliefs like

>>17327941
>>17328267
>>17328314
>>17328374

>>17328591
The existence of a hierarchical career Church goes against everything Jesus taught. Their rites are obscene and obviously pagan in origin. Transubstantiation is so retarded it is offensive.

>>17328957
Luther burns in hell and he knew it long before he died.

>>17326564
>Yes, I wish to understand the rationale behind Catholic customs too

Try reading: Thomas Howard, Evangelical is Not Enough. A short book that explains the Catholic approach to the liturgy (with the liturgy being an ancient form that is really quite alien to all modern and contemporary sensibilities).

Maybe try listening to this. It's a great conversion account that may help to get you fired up about your own renewed faith:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-bz4kRtCQI

A book that I found very helpful when, some years ago, I underwent a transition to being a minimal sort of Catholic to a more engaged believer is: Fr. Raphael Simon, Hammer & Fire.
>https://www.amazon.com/Hammer-Fire-Contemplative-Accordance-Judeo-Christian/dp/097259812X

I recommend it. It covers all the basics of Catholic belief and practice in a straightforward and persuasive fashion, as if presented to you by a particularly intelligent and kindly priest, which Fr. Raphael was.

>>17328509
my father :(

>>17328740
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
>The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.
>Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."
>The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.
>If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
>Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P87.HTM

Catechism of the Council of Trent:
>Not only did God institute marriage; He also, as the Council of Trent declares, rendered it perpetual and indissoluble.' What God hath joined together, says our Lord, let not man separate.
>... It should be added that if we consider the law of nature after the fall and the Law of Moses we shall easily see that marriage had fallen from its original honour and purity. Thus under the law of nature we read of many of the ancient Patriarchs that they had several wives at the same time; while under the Law of Moses it was permissible, should cause exist, to repudiate one's wife by giving her a bill of divorce. Both these (concessions) have been suppressed by the law of the Gospel, and marriage has been restored to its original state.
>... The selfsame testimony of Christ our Lord easily proves that the marriage tie cannot be broken by any sort of divorce. For if by a bill of divorce a woman were freed from the law that binds her to her husband, she might marry another husband without being in the least guilty of adultery. Yet our Lord says clearly: Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery. Hence it is plain that the bond of marriage can be dissolved by death alone. ... Nor does holy Church permit husband and wife to separate without weighty reasons.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Matrimony.shtml

So separation is permissible, and civil divorce is permissible, but saying that divorce is permissible without any qualification is misleading. Assuming you don't mean annulment, the "divorce" you have in mind is not at all what the average person has in mind when they hear "divorce" - remarriage is invalid and illicit, and the sacramental bond can never be dissolved.

>>17328740
That's not divorce in the common sense of the word, hence it's perfectly fine to say no divorce in Catholicism.

>>17328957
>hierarchy is against what Christ taught.
2 Timothy 2:2 says to entrust the lessons to faithful men so that they may teach. Christs instructs those that he trusts to spread his word. (Matthew 28:19). A hierarchy does not imply that people aren't equal before the eyes of God. There are some, however, that God entrusts to carry out his message, as seen from the old and the new testament.

>And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this[a] as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

God does not want the "the ignorant and unstable" to twist his teachings.

>transubstantiation is obscene
>t. disciple in John 6:66

>>17328957
Protestant cope

>>17329192
The Catholic Church is Leninist in its core. An ordained avant garde, organized into military ranks, should lead the plebs to Christ. This mandate is obviously not consistent with Jesus teachings.

>>17329324
Quite obviously, it is why we have an established hierarchy with papal primacy in written evidence in the early 2nd century.
And then everyone continued to miss it for some 15 centuries and still continue to do so. How could anyone make such an obvious mistake?

>>17329337
This is like saying that since the Bolsheviks succeeded in the 1917 revolution, Marx gave Stalin unlimited mandate.

>>17326022
This.
>If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love Him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and Him you must revere. Keep His commands and obey Him; serve Him and hold fast to Him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you - Deuteronomy 13:1-5.

>>17330534
>"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me will live, even though he dies.'" - John 11:25

>>17325973
Its idolatry OP, dont even start.

>>17330534
How does this contradict Catholicism?

>>17330546
>Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.' (Matthew 7:21-23)

>>17328256
>Divorce
No. You both promised God you would stay married through everything until one of you dies. There's no grounds for an annulment either from the post. You stay married. As anon's have pointed out, you can be physically separated but you stay married until one of you dies. Their options were as in the picture: give up the baby or raise it. You can't take back your promise to God and stay in the Church's good graces.

>>17325973
Read the Bible and reject popish heresy. Put your faith in Christ for salvation.

>>17330807
The Church must guide the faithful as Jesus intended so that miscreants do not misinterpret scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16) (Matthew 16:18-19). The teachings of tradition and apostolic succession are coequal with the bible (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The bible alone cannot give us the fullness of truth that God intended for us (John 21:25). His teachings also lived on in the apostles, their successors and so on.

Certainly, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible + The Didache Bible are invaluable tools for the Catholic. The former is abundant in meticulous notes on every page of the New Testament, it has single handedly enriched my life. The last pages of that one also has something like a Doctrine Index where you can find the scriptural justifications for all sorts of points of Catholic doctrine. The Didache Bible is not nearly as in-depth, but it includes the Old Testament.
I cannot recommend the work of the prolific Peter Kreeft enough. I hope to meet him before he dies, and I would buy them without a second thought if an interested friend could not afford them. His best two works for someone like OP are Catholic Christianity and Practical Theology. His Summa Philosophica is entertaining and unconventional, more focused on, as one would guess, philosophy broadly, especially modern philosophy.

>>17326246
It starts with humility, which at its core is honest self-knowledge

Be honest with yourself about your faults, then confess them.

Then you pray , and faith develops. This is the core idea

>>17329192
why are people so against hierarchies? If a virtuous man were my king then I would follow him. And it is Christ that is my king.

>>17325973
in bathroom

Am I the only one filtered by the OT? Stuck at 2 Samuel KJV...

>>17328957
Stop your protestant heresy and repent, God wants you to join his church which he established through Saint Peter. The Holy Roman Catholic Church, the one true apostolic church.

the church fathers if i had to guess. who was the one who cut his own balls off? was it origen?

yeah it was origen

>>17333308

>>17326470
>Without these two Sacraments, we are damned

Do I even want to know where THIS Catholic fabrication comes from?

I heard Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition" was really good and highly recommended by Catholics. Then I started reading it and like 4 pages in he starts trashing gay marriage as a depravity not even the pagans were shameless enough to tolerate. I was so turned-off I stopped reading.

Usually Catholics oppose gay marriage on the grounds that it's some form of sinful self-abuse, so stopping it is actually helping gays. Usually they don't say their actual cruel beliefs about the matter out loud like this.

>inb4 he was right xddd

>>17329324
>>17329440

Moreover, the Marxist obsession with Epistemologically collectively imprisoning people in the Material is identical to the Catholic obsession with Epistemologically collectively imprisoning people in the particular, the Phenomenal, the bodily.

>>17325973
intro with Christianity by Ratzinger and read the fucking chart on /lit/ wikia

>>17333578
You do know what faggots do to each others right? And that they cannot truly get married, since they are faggots?

>>17333709
I don't think serious arguments can be made against gay marriage, most arguments against it emerge out of personal bigotry. Why can't they get married, because they can't reproduce? We don't ban straight people who can't reproduce from getting married.

Gays have sex with each other and will continue having sex with each other whether we like it or not, just as Catholic priests have sex with each other.

>>17333781
>We don't ban straight people who can't reproduce from getting married.
The catholic church does, actually. It just isn't really enforceable nowadays.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html#TITLE_VII..

>>17333561
>>Without these two Sacraments, we are damned
>Do I even want to know where THIS Catholic fabrication comes from?

It comes from the Bible.

The Eucharist: "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." - John 6:53

The sacrament of confession: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." - John 20:23

>>17325973
The rapidity of Catholic deconversion to Evangelicalism is stunning.

There is a very good reason why we see lots of “Coming Home” stories of conversion to Roman Catholicism, but not many the other way. When one person “comes home”, that really is all they can point to. Just one conversion is a big thing. They can’t point to huge numbers traveling in their direction.

The other side of that “home to Rome” coin is that there are simply too many conversion stories that are going the other way. Too many to report. Too many people are leaving.

When someone becomes Roman Catholic, it is just a big event for them. When a Roman Catholic leaves and becomes Protestant, well, that sort of thing happens all the time. Pew Research has recently reported that among US Roman Catholics:

* The number of Americans who are Catholic declined from 24% in 2007 to 21% in 2014. That rate of decrease is accelerating.
* Roman Catholicism has experienced a greater net loss due to religious movement than has any other religious tradition in the US.
* There are 6.5 former Catholics in the U.S. for every convert to Rome.
* Many U.S. Catholics say they want to see the church make significant changes. For example, six-in-ten say they think the church should allow priests to marry and allow women to become priests. And nearly half of U.S. Catholics say the church should recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples. While these numbers are lower among those who don’t attend Mass regularly, they are still significant.

Until recently, the Vatican could point to the solidity of Roman Catholicism in Latin America. In fact, some 95% of Latin America was all Roman Catholic. But now, the Vatican is reporting that the number of Roman Catholics has fallen from 95% to just 20% in some regions of Latin America

Only 33% of Catholics remain in the faith. Of the remaining two-thirds, half become Evangelical and the other half become either mainline Protestant or irreligious.

>>17334165

He says nothing of sanctioning an other to make the bread and wine into body and blood, neither metaphorically nor literally. He says nothing of the apostles' succession, neither in the form of a Church nor in general.

>>17325973
You don't, you read Orthodox literature and realize that it absolutely demolishes Catholic idolatry.

>>17334456
>He says nothing of sanctioning an other to make the bread and wine into body and blood, neither metaphorically nor literally. He says nothing of the apostles' succession, neither in the form of a Church nor in general.

Yes, but these things were universally accepted by the early, pre-Constantine Church.

Hence Newman's remark: "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

>>17334468

Indeed, and I maintain that the pre-Catholic Church is just as wrong as the Catholic one.

>>17325973
The Bible obviously (Acts, John, The Synoptics and Romans, specifically if you're in a rush.) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. These are just the absolute essentials though. Also, based for taking the Cath pill.

>>17327941
Haven't you read that Luther supported cuckoldry?
>>“The tyranny of the laws permits no divorce,” Luther wrote. “But the woman is free through the divine law and cannot be compelled to suppress her carnal desires. Therefore the man ought to concede her right and give up to somebody else the wife who is his only in outward appearance.”

>>17334456
>do this in memory of me

>>17334456

How would one "do this"? The fact that the statement is at odds with the total lack of information of how to do it, who can do it, who cannot, or what it even is is in itself reason enough to think of it as anything but literal.

>>17334861
>The fact that the statement is at odds with the total lack of information of how to do it, who can do it, who cannot, or what it even is is in itself reason enough to think of it as anything but literal.

Different anon here.

The information is found in sacred tradition. Thus, St. Ignatius (died circa 115 AD) knew how to "do this" because he learned it from tradition, not because it had been written down in one of the canonical writings.

Thus St. Paul: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold on to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

>>17334918

Is this not the very penchant for "secret knowledge" that Catholics accuse the Gnostics of?

>>17334948
No, it's not, because it's not a secret.

Thus, we have very early liturgies from the second and third centuries, or fragments thereof, that track the essentials of the Catholic Mass today. And from various sources we know about the impedimenta of the liturgy, such as the use of liturgical garments, etc.

Because the Eucharist was a scandal in the early Church - or had the potential to be - it was kept secret from outsiders, but this was a matter of prudence and practicality, and was not driven by the same "gnostic" impulse that keeps secret, e.g., certain practices of Scientology, or Freemasonry.

>>17334918
more tradition support

1 Corinthians 11:2
>Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
>So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
>Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Philippians 4:9
>What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

2 Timothy 2:2
>and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.

>>17335053
>it's not a secret...but it is a secret

>>17335177
Sigh... I know I didn't explain it particularly well.

But the fact is, starting sometime in the 400s, or maybe a little later, the Church did *not* keep Eucharistic practices secret, i.e., it stopped doing so when the culture changed and there was no longer a practical imperative that impelled such secrecy.

Thus, obviously, nothing about the Catholic liturgy is secret anymore, nor has it been secret for a very long time.

Also, going back to my earlier point, the reason why, e.g., a St. Ignatius knew how to "do this" (i.e., the Eucharist) is because of oral tradition, perfectly consistent with the last clause of 2 Tm 2:2 and those other passages quoted by another anon here: >>17335067

>>17335296

Why or for how long something is secret never seemed relevant to Catholic judgement of others' real or imaginary secrets. I only reject "tradition" because I take Catholicism for its word.

>>17335387
>I only reject "tradition" because I take Catholicism for its word.

And I accept tradition because I take scripture at its word: >>17335067

>>17335490

How would you know that the tradition described therein and the tradition of the early Church are one and the same if the former is implicit (and exclusively Pauline, incidentally, but that's another argument) and the latter's origin and/or original state are secret? What would prevent one from claiming that they are mutually exclusive?

>>17328256
you don't have to live with her anymore, accept the kid or anything, you just aren't allowed to have a new relationship afterwards
what liberalization of the church did is effectively make annulments de facto regular divorce proceedings so in most cases they will dissolve your marriage with no problem, when in the past they used to be just for extreme exceptions where marriages were concluded not to be valid cause one spouse lied about infertility or something like that
so today you are even likely to circumvent that and just be able to marry again
not that anyone cares because everyone just ignores the church law if they don't like it - i guess it made sense to pope paul the sixth in the mid 20th century when church still had any influence over peoples lives

>>17335575
We know tradition is accurate because it is essentially the same across cultures, and across the centuries.

Thus, with but slight differences, the Eastern approach to the Eucharist is essentially the same as the Western approach.

Essentially, the same logic applies as applies in the case of scripture -- where its reliability is warranted by the fact that scripture is essentially the same, with but slight differences, across cultures and across the centuries.

>>17335700

This does not answer my question.

>>17335735
Well, tradition was never strictly secret, merely relatively secret -- i.e., when the religion was outlawed under the Romans, certain practices were concealed from outsiders, but not initiates. It's not as if *we* don't know what was kept a secret from non-Christian Romans.

Likewise, the same logic I mentioned with respect to ascertaining the reliability of scripture and tradition (by seeing their consistency across cultures and centuries) applies in turn to scripture, in the sense that the known larger traditions - eg, the Eucharistic liturgy - are perfectly consistent with what we read in Scripture.

Thus, the Eucharist liturgy is consistent with everything we glean from the gospels, and from 1 Corinthians.

On the known facts, it would be very hard to support the claim that there is any substantial disparity between the historic tradition of the Church, and that "tradition" cited in the NT.

As I understand your question, there are only a very few, minor scriptural texts that present a problem on that front -- outlier texts, essentially. Thus, Mormons make a great deal of "baptisms for the dead" mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:29, which practice (i.e., baptizing the dead) the early Church did not practice, or is not known to have practiced. Frankly, I'm not sure what to make of that passage myself. (This article offers as good an explanation as any: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-does-paul-mean-by-baptism-for-the-dead/))

But that minor discordance, or textual puzzle or uncertainty, does not overturn the many places where there *is* concordance between the implied traditions the NT alludes to and known early Church traditions.

>>17334354
By that logic, Arianism was once the true faith since basically every diocese in Western Europe and Africa subscribed to it outside of Rome and its immediate neighbors. Hell, pagan worship ij Ancient Israel should be the true faith rather than the Judaism of the Old Covenant going by that logic. A religion isn't true because of the numbers of people it attracts and never has been true based on that criterion. People are notoriously fickle and misled very often.

>>17336010
>the Eucharistic liturgy - are perfectly consistent with what we read in Scripture.

My point being that there is nothing in Scripture about the Eucharist other than the instruction to do it: >>17334861. The literal "this is that" and "do this" statements are paradoxically cryptic in absence of any other information.

>>17334354
oh boy i wonder what could be the reason for that

>>17336103
>The literal "this is that" and "do this" statements are paradoxically cryptic in absence of any other information.

No. If you want to know what it means, then look at the abundant evidence of the universal understanding of those words in the early Church. The universal practice and belief of the early Church demonstrates what those words meant.

Where could the understanding have come from, being universal, if not having been passed down from those taught by the Apostles, consistent with the teaching of 2 Tm 2:2?

Thus, the Apostles themselves began to spread out and evangelize all over the world, and their disciples went even further -- with Church tradition being consistent in understanding and practice with respect to essential matters, rather than disparate and various -- which only makes sense, as a logical matter, if the tradition, prior to being spread culturally around the world, had a singular origin, that is, the practice and faith of the Apostles.

>>17336292

For starters, your statement that "the Eucharistic liturgy is perfectly consistent with what we read in Scripture" is wrong since there is nothing about it in Scripture. The rest of the reply is just backward reasoning and question begging. The fact that the "universal practice and belief of the early Church" regarding Christus Victor, which I incidentally affirm, did not stop Catholics from becoming Pharisaic Atonement maniacs, an act far more vulgar and regressive than they claim Protestantism itself to be, is reason enough to doubt theories about lesser supposed implicit continuities.

>>17336396
Not him. but John 6 and "do this in remembrance of me" seem pretty convincing

>>17336408

See: >>17334861

>>17336411
By giving the apostles the authority to carry out his teaching and tradition? (Matthew 16:18-19). They obviously practiced this during Justin Martyr's time too.

> For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word (Justin Martyr's Apology, c. 165 AD).

>>17336396
>For starters, your statement that "the Eucharistic liturgy is perfectly consistent with what we read in Scripture" is wrong since there is nothing about it in Scripture.

Tain't so, Magee.

>The rest of the reply is just backward reasoning and question begging.

Hardly. There's NO other way to explain the universal agreement on Church tradition than the way I explained it. Prove me wrong.

> regarding Christus Victor, which I incidentally affirm, did not stop Catholics from becoming Pharisaic Atonement maniacs,

Pfft. The Church does NOT have a dogmatic approach to the atonement. Various theories are acceptable.

Nor does the atonement - a theological question - have much in common with the practical-minded issues such as what does "do this" mean -- with Church history and practice making ABUNDANTLY clear, well beyond a reasonable doubt, EXACTLY what "do this" means, whether you are willing to accept it or not, anon.

>>17336430

What makes you think anyone succeeds Peter?

>>17336441

So doing a 180 on MORE important matters implies that Catholicism is MORE trustworthy on LESS important ones?

>>17336472
Because there are several examples of succession throughout the Early Church. I don't really think the argument that Peter and the apostles were the only ones that had authority can be defended. One example of clear apostolic succession is Polycarp and Irenaeus being taught by John the Apostle. Many other Church fathers attest to apostolic succession. Again you could say there is no biblical evidence, but it seems like this argument would refute itself. For the successors of the apostles themselves created the biblical canon at the Council of Rome, Synod of Hippo and Synod of Carthage.

>>17336512

Explain the purported "180," please.

As for what's more or less important, what's important is the FACT of the atonement, which no Catholic has ever denied. Far LESS important is the THEOLOGICAL THEORY undergirding the fact, about which there is disagreement, and which the Church has not resolved.

>>17336530

One being taught by John does not make one likewise sanctioned by Jesus. I don't suppose you would claim otherwise, lest you end in being forced to defend, say, Marquis de Sade as such were he revealed to be part of said didactic chain. Not that he would be out of place in the Catholic tradition...

Different anon replying.

>>17336577
>One being taught by John does not make one likewise sanctioned by Jesus.

But such apostolic succession *is* sanctioned by scripture: "And what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2

>>17336544

Victor vs. Atonement is a clean 180. One the Church decided on the latter, the former was retroactively changed to supposedly resemble, be conducive to, implicitly contain the latter. Retroactive reformation is not normal, but in Catholicism it is.

>>17336577
2 Timothy 2:2
>and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.

Peter ordained his successor(s).

Tertullian
>“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

Ireanaeus
>“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

>>17336613
>>17336636

I must confess that this is getting quite bizarre. Between quoting Paul speaking of himself as proof of Christocentric apostolic succession and actually admitting that the whole idea is Epistemologically indefensible...maybe put the bongs down?

>>17336633
>Victor vs. Atonement is a clean 180.

First of all, it's not a question of "Victor vs. Atonement," it's a question of different theories of atonement. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement (noting satisfaction theory, substitutionary theory, etc).

> One the Church decided on the latter, the former was retroactively changed to supposedly resemble, be conducive to, implicitly contain the latter. Retroactive reformation is not normal, but in Catholicism it is.

Now you're just making stuff up. There was no "retroactive reformation."

The atonement, as such, is fixed in stone.

The Church, contrary to your remarks, never "decided" on a particular atonement theory in the way it has decided on various dogmatic matters at the Councils. The atonement is a theological mystery that the Church has not resolved.

>We have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask *how* Christ accomplished His work of Redemption.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

The Church permits *different* approaches to the theological theory of the atonement. Both the ransom theory and the satisfaction theory. So it never did a "180"; the matter of the theory underlying the atonement was never a decided matter.

>>17336742
Sola scriptura is epistemologically indefensible. I gave you two defenses in my previous post. One from scripture and one from Church father testimony. Both apply. I was simply trying to defend my beliefs through your epistemic frame view. Still, Tradition and Scripture are coequal.

>I must confess that this is getting quite bizarre.
You are obviously pivoting. You said before that there is no evidence of succession from Peter, conceding the fact that indeed Peter was given authority by Jesus. Then you say, however, that there is no evidence of succession despite the fact that we do have testimonial evidence of the Apostles having successors and practicing some form of ordination. Please explain why using church father testimony of ordination is not epistemologically valid.

>>17336742
Well, if Paul is not authoritative for you - if you're going to pit Paul against Jesus - then I'm not sure how much common ground there is to stand on with respect to this discussion.

You don't, Orthodoxy is the one and only thing you need to study on. Κυριέ Ιησού Χριστέ Ελεισόν με

>>17336801
>First of all, it's not a question of "Victor vs. Atonement," it's a question of different theories of atonement.

This is exactly what retroactive reformation is. Changing A to B then claiming A was B all along. Refer to the Orthodox Victor theory which is still somehow Resurrection-centered, despite centuries of Catholic pollution, and still contains many Ontological ideas, rather than Pharisaic legalistic ones, to get a clue.

>>17336809

I didn't "concede" that Peter is sanctioned by Jesus because I never claimed otherwise. I also never claimed that any apostle did not teach any non-apostle. I did claim that the non-apostle should not be regarded as sanctioned by Jesus like the apostles themselves because it's neither Scriptural nor Logically-Morally defensible, i.e. my Marquis de Sage thought experiment. Catholics and reading: blood enemies.

>>17336928
>This is exactly what retroactive reformation is. Changing A to B then claiming A was B all along.

There was no "change from A to B" as you imagine. There was never, at any time, a fixed theory of the atonement, period. This is established beyond quibble by the fact that there was no council - east or west - where a theory of the atonement such as the ransom theory was decided on. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>>17336818
>i sanction apostles while saying nothing of non-apostles - jesus
>non-apostles are sanctioned by apostles - paul

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

>>17337002

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

>It is a model of the atonement that is dated to the Church Fathers,[3] and it was the dominant theory of atonement for a thousand years, until Anselm of Canterbury supplanted it in the West with his satisfaction theory of atonement.

>>17337063
Rather:
Jesus: I grant teaching authority to the apostles.

An apostle, in turn, teaches 2 Tm 2:2.

2 Tm 2:2 is thus plainly authorized by Christ's grant of teaching authority; and further authorized by the canonization of the text as scripture.

>Peter
>Rock
>Leader of the Apostles
>On this Rock
>Build My Church
>Early Fathers
>Recognize Peter as the leader
>1054
>East vs West
>No more pope?

>>17337109
>it was the dominant theory of atonement for a thousand years

Yes, it was never dogmatically decided - it was never fixed in stone - it was merely the dominant theory. And if you like, you can still believe it, and the Church has no quibble with you.

>>17325973
The imitation of Christ by Kempis

https://www.amazon.com/Imitation-Christ-Thomas-%C3%A0-Kempis/dp/1945644443

>>17337132
>>No more pope?

Yeah, when the gates of hell prevail. Which is to say never.

*laughs popishly*

>>17337118

Paul isn't even an apostle. You (both of you?) are just restating the same nonsense for the past 5 or so replies and your reading comprehension has long since gone down the toilet. Look at this SHIT: >>17336809 >>17336995. Something as basic as A affects/doesn't affect B affects/doesn't affect C makes you so confused you're not even grammatically coherent. Disgraceful.

>>17337184
>Paul isn't even an apostle.

He said that he is. Galatians 1:1, 2:8; 1 Corinthians 15:9-11

Was Paul a liar?

Please keep it courteous, anon. Thanks.

There are, it appears, two people responding to you, me and another anon.

I always wonder what outsiders think when eventually every Christianity thread leads to insider bickering.

For OP’s question I’d say obviously start with the Bible. Afterwards read the Confessions by Augustine, followed by the Imitation of Christ and Seven Story Mountain. Good luck; I’ll be praying for you

>>17337281
>Was Paul a liar?
>For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
>gets beheaded by nero

>>17337334
That's an interesting point, but it hardly makes Paul a liar, nor Nero a saint.

>>17325973
GO BACK TO POL INCEL
O

B
A
C
K

T
O

P
O
L

I
N
C
E
L

>>17325973
You start by growing up and embracing the great Puritan divines.

Chestie. He carried that shit into the 20th century and beyond.

I'm going to read the St. Faustina diary for Lent

>>17326246
Same. I live in a *former* catholic country and while I was baptized at the behest of my grandparents, my parents were atheists and I was brought up irreligiousely. I'm genuinely considering getting confirmated at some point and getting the eucharist now that I believe in the trinitarian God.

>>17338763
Excellent. Be sure to follow up by obtaining the Divine Mercy Sunday indulgence (explained in the book) (Divine Mercy Sunday is the Sunday after Easter).