/lit/ - Literature

>>17409693
Start with the Greeks

>>17409700
I have, where do I go now?

>>17409693
Luther- Bondage of the Will, On the Pagan Captivity of the Church

Calvin- Institutes

>>17409693
Read History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches by James Benign Bossuet

>>17409715
The Romans

>>17409693
Don't. The Truth is singular and eternal. Lies are legion, but fleeting. To study the history of error is to chase the tail of the dragon; assuming you succeed, what will you find on the other end but his mouth?

>>17409693
Apology of the Augsburg Confession
Institutiones
If you're interested in Sola Fide James White has a great book with biblical exegesis.

>>17409769
Even if you're a Catholic or Orthodox Christian you should understand reformation history and protestant theology even if only for being able to argue against it more effectively.

>>17409693
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0300240031

>>17409769
In the eternal words of St. Thomas : "cringe".

>>17410119
Heresy is rooted in error. The more you understand the truth, the clearer the error will be. If you attack a Lutheran's position, perhaps you will topple an argument. If you correct his understanding of the Church, he will leave his Lutheranism behind. The Truth is an impregnable tower. There is no field of battle more advantageous. Let the one who is in error come to you.

>>17409693
Not exactly what you are looking for OP, but this book by an Orthodox priest is a great way to read the arguments of protestant reformers and their weaknesses.

Fr. Trenham himself was a reformed calvinist before converting and becoming Orthodox. He originally attended a conservative calvinist seminary in America and was trained in the traditional protestant tradition.

All protestants are fucking retarded and there is no point whatsoever in reading any protestant literature. Their worldview is so fucking stupid you can completely write it off solely on the fact that they removed 7 books from the canon without coming up with a reason for why the canon exists in the first place since they got rid of all concrete church tradition. And by the way they did it because the Jews told them to. This shit can fly in 1600 when the internet doesnt exist and no one knows shit about history, but if you are a protestant in the current year when you can do a modicum of research and realize Protestantism is completely retarded and logically unsound, you're clearly just not into God or you're fucking retarded.

>>17409693
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojiOLBt7q_Y

https://biblehub.com/topical/a/antioch.htm

https://youtu.be/56aFm8GW3NA?t=27

first, The Christian Tradition, Volume 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700)

>>17410425
13:35
>they also didn't know the reason for the long arms on the many statues...

The Unquenchable Flame

>>17409693
I usually start by asking them where they get their scripture from.

>>17410406
Karl Barth, who the Pope said was the greatest theologian since Aquinas, was Swiss Reformed. You are a confirmed tradcath retard who got into Christianity because of SJWs.

>>17410654
There is no evidence the Pope ever said that.

>>17409693
Go to the intellectual source:
https://youtu.be/hf1kOOE457A?t=1121

>>17409693
In The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argues that the Protestant turn has its roots in Luther's disgust with the dissipated form of Thomism he learned as a seminarian. Relatedly, Luther (and Calvin, and most first generation Protestants) were trained in nominalist philosophy, which tended to undercut belief in the traditional Catholic approach to salvation and the sacraments, and even more fundamentally, the Catholic view of human nature. Hence Luther and Calvin's rejection of free will, which is at the root of their embrace of sola fide.

Bouyer was himself an ordained Lutheran minister prior to his conversion to Catholicism. He has no ax to grind. The book is clear, readable, and quite fascinating.

Also useful: Karl Adam, The Roots of the Reformation.

Both Adam (German) and Bouyer (French) were major 20th century Catholic theologians.

>>17410654
Oh wow good job explaining how your canon is logically sound. Also there has been more than one pope so maybe clarify which one youre talking about, because the past 7 have been heretical antipopes. Or just shut the fuck up and fuck off because you have no idea what youre talking about and maybe you'll manage to avoid looking like the total retard that you are.

>>17411059
You are in a bad way my friend.

>>17411059
"Little children, love one another."
1 John

>>17411059
You ok, hun?

>>17411107
>>17411094
>>17411083
Seethe

>>17411136
No, I'm serious. Read Proverbs my friend. Out of the heart the mouth speaketh.

>>17411221
Dead kike on a stick lol xd just live in fear and hatred bro it’s the cool thing

>>17411221
Shut up heretic im not your friend. You can't even address the single issue I put forth, you just resort to holier than thou bullshit; me so kind, me nice to evwywone, you big meanie!!!

>>17411280
I am not the one with whom you were arguing. You have fallen into heresy. Why do you say the Popes are not popes? If the Popes have not been popes, where then is the Church? Who then is a priest?

>>17411313
>where is the church
This tired old line? How many times do I have to tell you people that the church is comprised of those who hold the true faith given to the apostles by christ.

>>17411346
And what is that creed?

>>17411381
Part of it is believing in the holy catholic church, which you clearly dont.

>>17411421
Why don't you share the whole creed? Don't you believe all of it? Or do you only believe part?

>>17411432
Dude fuck off, holy shit. Enough with this passive aggressive reddit shit.

Not where to start but Hamann, as a Lutheran, is a very interesting philosopher

>>17411451
You do not know the creed, and you do not know scripture. You do not accept the Church. How do you call yourself Catholic?

>>17411620
>implying
Just fuck off already, fag. You can't even make a point that isn't "I'm better than you." You dont just post "read proverbs" online and go to heaven, retard.

do Christians really?

Jesus & the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P45BHDRA7pU

How did any Jewish Christians in the first century come to believe in the Eucharist given what they would have received in their Jewish tradition? To wit: "You shall not eat the blood of any creature ... whoever eats it shall be cut off." Lev 17:14.

And yet Paul - a rabbi, and a scholar of the law - in 1 Cor 10:16 writes: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion in the blood of Christ?"

How could Paul go from being a Jewish expert in the law who would have considered the drinking of *any* blood, much less human blood, to be an abomination, to being an apostle who proclaims the Eucharist, in which the cup of blessing is "a communion in the blood of Christ" ?

That is the historical puzzle addressed in this video.

>>17409693
matthew chapter 23, 6 and 12

>>17409693
Start with the Puritans.

>>17413416
based and blessed

>>17412369
>Eucharist
>reduced to purely literal or un-literal meaning

>>17409693
read Bellarmine de Controversiis

>>17410406
based post

>>17410406
You must be 18 to post here.

You can start with Mill and Locke because Protestantism is little more than the religious form of liberalism.

Did nobody recommend this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Small_Catechism

Short, easy introduction of the core dogmas.

>>17409693
The clue is in the name. They were merely protesting against the church

The clue is in the name. They were protesting against corruption and superstition.

>>17417283
kys

>>17409693
OP. Protestantism is of course very broad but I would recommend reading Luther if you want to know about Lutheranism. Maybe his small Catechism, as >>17416949 said, "On the Freedom of a Christian" and ""Bondage of the Will" for a start. They're not very long and it's best to read Luther himself as the theology can differ fairly much later on.

If you can read the Bible in your language thank a Protestant.

>>17417457
If you even have a bible, thank a Catholic.

>>17417509
Yes, thank a Catholic. Not a "Roman" Catholic.

>>17417552
Yeah, right. Because there's a difference.

>>17417457
most famous Polish translation of the Bible was done by a Roman Catholic priest

You don't.

The Annotated Luther series, check it out on Amazon.

Read Kant. He's the Lutheran Aquinas

>>17417564
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_(term)

>>17411723
>Christians can't fully agree on what something says in the Bible
what's the point?

>>17417564
The Eastern Orthodox call themselves the Orthodox Catholic Church.
So which is the real Catholic church?

>>17409693
The only two books you'll ever need.

>>17417684
They are Catholic, they're just in schism. The Roman rite is just one rite among many that make up the Catholic Church. You guys try to dunk on somebody but you're idiots.

>>17417832
Cope.
It proves you don't have a monopoly on the word Catholic. Eastern Orthodox do not believe the Roman church is Catholic.

>>17417863
The Orthodox position is that the Latin or "Roman" rite among others are in schism. They accept that it's apostolic and therefore Catholic. Even if this wasn't the case, what's your point? Multiple churches call themselves Catholic therefore what, there is no real Catholic Church?

>>17417908
"Catholic" is bigger than the Roman and Eastern churches. It includes all Christians.
Romanists calling themselves simply "Catholic" places everyone else outside of the one holy catholic church we find in the creeds.

>Most Reformation and post-Reformation churches use the term Catholic (often with a lower-case c) to refer to the belief that all Christians are part of one Church regardless of denominational divisions; e.g., Chapter XXV of the Westminster Confession of Faith refers to the "catholic or universal Church". It is in line with this interpretation, which applies the word "catholic" (universal) to no one denomination, that they understand the phrase "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" in the Nicene Creed, the phrase the Catholic faith in the Athanasian Creed and the phrase "holy catholic church" in the Apostles' Creed.[citation needed]

>The terms "Roman Catholics" or "Roman Catholic Church" imply that the Church which follows the Pope, who is based in Rome, is not the only Catholic Church and that others are also entitled to be called such – for example, the Anglican Church. This assumption is not is not accepted by the Roman Church itself, which usually calls itself "The Catholic Church" without qualification and recognizes no other contenders for the title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_(term)#Protestantism

>>17417968
The amount of cope LMAO

>>17418012
There it is.

>>17417457
This is a lie.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages#:~:text=In%20Western%20Europe%2C%20the%20Latin,and%20the%20Early%20Modern%20Period.

>>17409693
The best book I've ever read about the social and cultural ramifications of the Reformation (and arguably one of the best books about the history of Protestantism ever written), is "The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society" by Brad Gregory (2012).

Gregory is a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, but this book is in no way a work of Catholic apologetics, even though it's a relentlessly negative appraisal of the last 500 years of Western history. It's a brilliant genealogy and intellectual exposition of the Reformers' thoughts, and how they were transmuted across the centuries in a variety of unintended ways, from the eventual secularization of knowledge and sequestration of theology in the academy, to the shift from understanding Western man as an "embodied soul" to a "constructed self."

It's a time-consuming book to read through and truly absorb, but it's absolutely well-worth it.

bump

Then the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Larger Catechism, and Confession of Faith. These will give you the vocabulary necessary for understanding Reformed theology.

You could read an exposition of the Westminster Confession or jump straight into straight into some systematic theologies.

Calvin isn't too difficult to understand, I like the Beveridge translation of Institutes. Herman Bavinck's one volume systematic for the laity "Magnalia Dei" is another good introduction.

>>17409693
Read Exsurge Domine by the Vicar of Christ Leo X

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

You can also try read "Protestantism compared to Catholicity in his relationships with the civilization in Europe" by Jaime Balmes. It compares both denominations in its positive aspects and how they might have contributed to develop the European civilization. It was written in the XIX century but I think the core points in Balmes' argumentation still have resonance today.

>>17421053
Sorry, I translated the title wrong, it's "Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their effects on the civilization of Europe"
however it's free in Gutenberg both in the original Spanish and in English
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50436/50436-h/50436-h.htm

>>17409693
>Where do I start with the Protestants?
god that is grim

Start with Martin Luther end with tik tok

>>17418023

>>17421206
How do people do this?
Just watching this makes me want to kill myself.
It's so fucking bad.

>>17409693
Now a memethread

>>17421226

>>17411059
>because the past 7 have been heretical antipopes
Kill yourself, tradcath zoomer. You aren't catholic.

>>17421290
Was Augustine speaking of the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Catholic Church?

>>17421327
The Roman Catholic

>>17421327
Well since he mentions the see of the apostle Peter I would say Roman Catholic.

>>17411059
>because the past 7 have been heretical antipopes
Imagine saying this while thinking you're a Catholic.

>>17417696
Calvin's Biblical commentaries are also important if you want to go down this road, but that will certainly require space on a bookshelf.

>>17418468
Thanks.

>>17409693

bump

>>17422039
The fact of the matter is that Jewism/Christianity/Islam all form a part of the whole and you can't be a complete individual without embracing all of it, you will always have a part missing, and be in error.

>>17409719
>>17410089
>>17413416
>>17414862
>>17417696
Some good recommendations itt OP

>>17409693

1) "The book of Concord" for Confessional Lutheranism
"Institutes of the Christian Religion" by Calvin and Canons of Dort for Calvinism

2) Kierkegaard above all, then Karl Barth and all his influencers and rivals. Also the German Idealists and Leibniz to some degree.

3) Other people already answered this.

>>17411059

>because the past 7 have been heretical antipopes.

You're not Roman Catholic.

bump

>>17409693
You literally cannot understand Protestantism if you do not understand Orthodoxy, Protestantism was an attempt at returning to Orthodoxy(it failed). Start with the Eastern Fathers.