/clg/ - Catholic Literature General

[Anonymous No.10018467]

Last thread: >>9995836

Atheists and members of other Christian denominations are welcome to debate theologuy, faith, etc. But please keep it civil.

>"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" -- Matthew 18:20

Recommended reading:

>Biblia Sacra Vulgata
>New American Study Bible
>Further recommendations pending review

[Anonymous No.10018486]

>>10018467
Add these on the thomist list alongside the Summa Contra Gentiles and Theologica
Reginald Garrigou Larange (the most important figure of the neo-scholastic movement and a personal favourite, incredibly hard headed and systematic offering a magnificent defense of classical metaphysics from everything up untill, including Hegel, sadly ignored most contemporary developments so never wrote on WIttgenstein)
Jaques Maritain (democratic thomist, a very mid line thinker who never goes into extremes)
Etienne Gilson (original interpreter)
Frederick Copleston (a fantastic historian of philosophy)
Anthony Kenny (not a thomist, but wrote a lot about him)
Alasdair MacIntyre (easily the most interesting figure in ethics and political philosophy, as well as being the reason for a revival of aristotelian philosophy within the academia)
GEM Anscombe (a student of Wittgenstein and his friend, the only woman in the academia he respected, notable for her ethics and writings on her teacher)
Peter Geach (not a thomist per se, but drew heavily from him)
Edward Feser (the best contemporary figure when it comes to educating people about Aquinas and defending him)
David Oderberg (very important in epistemics and ontology as well as ethics)

[Anonymous No.10018495]

>>10018467
Aw dang. Just realized I misspelled theology in the OP. My apologies, friends.

[Anonymous No.10018537]

Can you recommend books based on my current Catholic selection?

Ignatius Bible: RSV2CE
Compendium by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Homer: Iliad, Odyssey
Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy (Hackett Publishing)
Augustine: Confessions, City of God, On Christian Doctrine
Boethius: The Consolation of Philosophy
Beowulf
Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas
Divine Comedy by Dante
Geoffrey Chaucer: Trolius and Criseyde, Canterbury Tales
More Quotable Chesterton (Ignatius Press)

[Anonymous No.10018598]

http://www.aristotelophile.com/current.htm

English translations of scholastic theology and philosophy including some hard to find texts.

[Anonymous No.10018626]

Anyone /lapsed/?

I grew up Cradle Catholic. Went to Catholic School. Baptized, reconciled, eucharised, confirmed, etc. Lost faith after transferring to public school. And reaching puberty and wanting to masturbate despite forbiddance probably didn't help much either...

Fell in love with a hippie hipster chick in college. She got me into philosophy and drugs and premarital sex. Three bad habits I am still trying to kick. We were together three years. But our relationship lacked teleology as neither of us believed in marriage or children or truth or God...

Funnily enough, studying philosophy made me appreciate the faith more. Albeit in a perennialist or universalist or pluralist way. And then I did too much acid one summer and had some sort of Phillip K. Dick-esque "gnostic" (schizophrenic) experience which pretty much convinced me that Christianity is pretty much all true and correct, at least on an ethical leve. Not that that's really epistemologically valid reasoning but I'm just being honest...

Anyway, I moved back home after college and started attending mass with my Mom (Dad passed away a while back). I have not received communion yet and am scared to confess my lengthy list of sins... but also scared of eternal damnation when I get paranoid sometimes...

I feel like I am not good enough. I still smoke weed. I drink. I smoke cigarettes. I like to do hippie stuff like yoga and meditation. I like to read esoteric and occult authors. I feel I am a heretic because I did not have a traditional mystical experience from the divine but rather something more akin to an episode of drug-induced psychosis with brief flashes of insight, something I am not sure I can fully trust, and perhaps I am fooling myself into returning to my cultural tradition because I am a traditionalist and it's the easiest and most appropriate and acceptable way for me to fill that void of defining structure and tradition in my life...

Anyway, I just feel like I'm going to be excommunicated or something if I confess my full sins and heretical beliefs...

I'm not going to hell, am I?

Not sure what I'm hoping to achieve with this blogpost. Wish me luck, I guess... or pray for my soul or something...

[Anonymous No.10018642]

>>10018537
Read the Aeneid after the Odyssey, it's a must read before Dante. Book VI is Inferno before it was cool.

There are scholars that also say the Aeneid influenced Beowulf, BTW.

I'd add Catechism of the Catholic Church so you have a reference work you can always go back to in case you're lost, it's a very practical tl;dr of Catholic doctrine, and The Girard Reader which gives you a Catholic perspective on topics not too many Catholic theologians cover like a general theory of desire, the function of scapegoating, etc. and defends the uniqueness of the Bible in its ability to teach us on those topics.

[Anonymous No.10018664]

>>10018642
Forgot to mention I actually have Aeneid, Georgics, and Eclogues as well, but thank you. The compendium is a concise catechism. I'll check out The Girard Reader, as the more obscure stuff does interest me.

[Anonymous No.10018691]

>>10018626
Learn to love sobriety, and search for that which is the cause of misery. Once you find it in yourself, learn that which is the only true source of redemption and salvation in this mortal life.

[Anonymous No.10019181]

>>10018626
Your excommunication can only come from for example comitting an abortion. Just go to the confession, the state of mortal sin is far worse than the awkwardness of telling your sins to someone else. People in the state of mortal sin go to Hell, but confession returns you to the state of grace. Maybe try to find a good confessor, usually there's word on the street/online who is good at it.

[Anonymous No.10019196]

>>10018691
Sobriety is tough... I get wicked depressed when sober.

What is the source of my misery? Probably lost love or lost time or lost innocence. Hence my searching for redemption and salvation in God and the Church.

[Anonymous No.10019253]

>>10019181
Thank you for the reassurance. I will go this weekend and report back if the thread is still around.

[Anonymous No.10019258]

>>10019196
>lost love, lost time, lost innocence

These are symptoms, not causes.

[Anonymous No.10019279]

Anyone here read aquinas? Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.10019296]

(Part 1/2)Recommended Reading:

>New American Bible (Revised Edition)
>Douay–Rheims Bible

Theology and Basics of Catholicism
>Adams, Karl – The Spirit of Catholicism
>Bouyer, Louis – Spirit and Forms of Protestantism
>Catholic Church – Catechism of the Catholic Church
>Guardini, Romano – The End of the Modern World
>Guardini, Romano – The Lord
>Hahn, Scott – Rome Sweet Home
>Kreeft, Peter – Christianity for Modern Pagans
>Newman, John Henry – Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
>Newman, John Henry – Parochial and Plain Sermons
>Ott, Ludwig – Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
>Pieper, Josef – The Four Cardinal Virtues

History and Culture
>Belloc, Hilaire – The Great Heresies
>Belloc, Hilaire – How The Reformation Happened
>Belloc, Hilaire – Survivals and New Arrivals
>Carroll, Warren – Christendom I: Founding of Christendom
>Carroll, Warren – Christendom II: The Building of Christendom
>Carroll, Warren – Christendom III: The Glory of Christendom
>Carroll, Warren – Christendom IV: The Cleaving of Christendom
>Crocker III, H.W. – Triumph
>Dawson, Christopher – Christianity and European Culture
>Knox, Ronald – Enthusiasm
>Leclercq, Jean – Love of Learning and the Desire for God
>Walsh, William – Our Lady of Fatima

Holy Men and Women
>Chesterton, G.K. – St. Francis of Assisi
>Chesterton, G.K. – St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox
>Day, Dorothy – The Long Loneliness
>John XXIII, Pope John – Journal of a Soul
>Merton, Thomas – The Seven Storey Mountain
>Muggeridge, Malcolm – Something Beautiful for God
>Newman, John Henry – Apologia Pro Vita Sua
>Suarez, Federico – Mary of Nazareth
>Trochu, F. – The Cure of Ars
>Wegemer, Gerard – Thomas More: A Portrait of Courage
>Weigel, George – Witness to Hope

Literary Classics
>Alighieri, Dante – The Divine Comedy
>Benson, Robert Hugh – Lord of the World
>Bernanos, George – The Diary of a Country Priest
>de Cervantes, Miguel – Don Quixote
>Eliot, T.S. – Christianity and Culture
>Endo, Shusaku – Silence
>Hopkins, Gerard Manley – Poems and Prose
>Newman, John Henry – The Idea of a University
>O’Conner, Flannery – The Complete Stories
>Percy, Walker – Lost in the Cosmos
>Percy, Walker – Love in the Ruins
>Sienkiewicz, Henryk – Quo Vadis
>Tolkien, J.R.R. – The Lord of the Rings
>Undset, Sigrid – Kristin Lavransdatter I: The Bridal Wreath
>Undset, Sigrid – Kristin Lavransdatter II : The Wife
>Undset, Sigrid – Kristin Lavransdatter III: The Cross
>Waugh, Evelyn – Brideshead Revisited

[Anonymous No.10019306]

>>10018626
>I'm not going to hell, am I?

no one here has the authority to tell you you're going to hell or not.

[Anonymous No.10019316]

>>10019296
(Part 2/2)Recommended Reading:
Spiritual Classics
>Aquinas, St. Thomas – My Way of Life/Summa Theologica
>Augustine, St. – The City of God
>Augustine, St. – Confessions
>Catherine of Siena, St. – Little Talks with God
>Chesterton, G.K. – The Everlasting Man
>Chesterton, G.K. – Orthodoxy
>John of the Cross, St. – Dark Night of the Soul
>Lewis, C.S. – Mere Christianity
>Lewis, C.S. – The Problem of Pain
>Lewis, C.S. – The Screwtape Letters
>Oursler, Fulton – The Greatest Story Ever Told
>Teresa, Bl. Mother – Meditations from a Simple Path
>Teresa of Avila, St. – Interior Castle
>Teresa of Avila, St. – The Way of Perfection
>Therese of Lisieux, St. – Story of a Soul

Spiritual Reading
>A’Kempis, Thomas – The Imitation of Christ
>Aumann, Jordan – Spiritual Theology
>Baur, Benedict – Frequent Confession
>Baur, Benedict – In Silence with God
>Boylan, Eugene – Difficulties in Mental Prayer
>Boylan, Eugene – This Tremendous Lover
>Burke, Cormac – Covenanted Happiness
>Chautard, Jean-Baptiste – The Soul of the Apostolate
>de Caussade, Jean-Pierre – Abandonment to Divine Providence
>de Montfort, Louis-Marie – True Devotion to Mary
>de Sales, St. Francis – An Introduction to the Devout Life
>de Sales, St. Francis – Treatise on the Love of God
>Escriva, Jose Maria – Christ is Passing By
>Escriva, Jose Maria – Friends of God
>Escriva, Jose Maria – The Way, Furrow, The Forge
>Escriva, Jose Maria – The Way of the Cross
>Faber, Frederick – All for Jesus
>Garrigou-Lagrange, Fr. Reginald – Three Ages of Interior Life
>Liguori, Alphonso – The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection
>Liguori, Alphonso – Uniformity with God’s Will
>Louis of Grenada, Venerable – The Sinner’s Guide
>Lovasik, Lawrence – The Hidden Power of Kindness
>Manzoni, Alessandro – The Betrothed
>Martinez, Luis – True Devotion to the Holy Spirit
>More, St. Thomas – The Sadness of Christ
>Perquin, Bonaventure – Abba Father
>Rohrbach, Peter – Conversation with Christ
>Scupoli, Lorenzo – Spiritual Combat
>Sheed, Frank – Theology and Sanity
>Sheed, Frank – Theology for Beginners
>Sheed, Frank – To Know Christ Jesus
>Sheen, Fulton – Life of Christ
>Sheen, Fulton – Three to Get Married
>Tanqueray, Adolphe – The Spiritual Life
>von Hildebrand, Dietrich – Transformation in Christ

Miscellaneous
>John Paul II, Bl. Pope – Crossing the Threshold of Hope
>Masson, Georgina – The Companion Guide to Rome
>Monti, James – The King’s Good Servant but God’s First
>Rice, Charles – 50 Questions on the Natural Law
>Sertillanges, A.G. – The Intellectual Life
>Stein, Edith – Essays on Woman

It's me, the OP from last /clg/. Opinions?

[Anonymous No.10019331]

Is there any books I can read about religious pluralism/inclusion/exclusivism in terms of salvation? I've always struggled with understanding how some 7th century Chinese dude would go to hell no matter what since he hasn't heard the gospel. But I'm not sure how this ha been addressed historically by the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.10019382]

>>10019331

It's a common misunderstanding that because there is "no salvation outside of the Church," it necessarily means that if somebody isn't baptized or haven't heard the gospel they can't find salvation. See CCC 846-848

[Anonymous No.10019410]

Daily reminder that if you accept the Novus Ordo church you are not catholic.

[Anonymous No.10019416]

I recommend "Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation" by Peter Diamond.

Baptism of desire is a false doctrine and a valid baptism + catholic belief are necessary for salvation.

[Anonymous No.10019423]

>>10019416
>>10019331

[Anonymous No.10019427]

>>10019416

Yeah because when I want to know what the Catholic Church believes my first stop is a book written by a Lutheran.

[Anonymous No.10019431]

bump for later

[Anonymous No.10019436]

>>10019316
Add the list of thomists, Gene Wolfe, novels from Chesterton and you are good.

[Anonymous No.10019439]

>>10019427
Are you retarded? Peter Dimond is a member of the Most Holy Family Monastery, a sedevacantist catholic monastery. The book is a comparative study of the magisterial dogmatic declarations with the arguments commonly made for baptism of desire.

[Anonymous No.10019448]

>>10019439

He's a heretic all the same. Why would you think any believing Catholic would find him persuasive? Him and his whole family are nutjobs.

[Anonymous No.10019457]

>>10019416

This is your source

>According to Michael Cuneo, who researched the various traditional movements in the USA, Natale claimed that he had the gift of prophecy in these words:

>Even before Vatican II was finished, I knew, and knew absolutely, that it was part of a Communist conspiracy to destroy the Church. The bishops at the council wanted to democratize Catholicism, they wanted an egalitarian theology, and most of them were secret communists and Masons. They knew exactly what they were doing. My community here was the first one in the United States to see the council for what it really was, and we rejected it completely.

>Regardless of what you have been told, John Paul I did not die of natural causes. He was murdered. Shortly after his election "I went into a kind of trance" and was told that John Paul I would be murdered because he wanted to return the Church to its traditions. He was murdered by his own. The Communist infiltrators in the Vatican and the College of Cardinals, working together with the Masons, killed John Paul I. At the same time I also had a vision of John Paul II, and I was told that he would be the next pope and also that he would be an authentic pope, even though most of his actions would be controlled by Communist advisers and manipulators in the Vatican.

>Five years [from 1994] is about all the time the world has left.

[Anonymous No.10019459]

dog penis

[Anonymous No.10019465]

>>10019331
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19179772-the-catholic-church-and-salvation
Pre V2 generally accepted and praised, still popular with the trads, but not doing the insane no salvation foe those who could never have even heard of Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.10019467]

>>10019448
He's no heretic. It's funny that you and the rest of the followers of the conciliar church call sedevacantists protestant-like when it's your antipopes that say protestants are members of the Church of Christ, that they can be saved without converting to catholicism, and that even made a joint declaration on justification.

You can read the book and find by yourself, after all he bases his arguments on the magisterium, unlike you that turn your head the other way when confronted with clear contradictions between the pre and post-conciliar magisterium.

>>10019457
How is that my source? Regardless, what is said about freemasonry there is absolutely correct, it's funny that you know nothing of church history to think there's no such correlation. Just read fucking Henri Delassus.

[Anonymous No.10019470]

>>10019467

Read this. It's a direct response to the book.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul7str.htm

[Anonymous No.10019474]

>>10019439
>Doesn't accept the legitimate pope
>Catholic
The council of Florence necessitates subjection to the pope for salvation lad, you can't choose that there's actually no pope if you don't like what's going on.

[Anonymous No.10019477]

>it's a post that just says dog penis

[Anonymous No.10019486]

>>10019467
>How is that my source? Regardless, what is said about freemasonry there is absolutely correct

On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Except for here and there.

[Anonymous No.10019490]

>>10019477
Still better than sedevacantist posts.

[Anonymous No.10019495]

>>10019465
Why is it insane? Are you basing its insaneness on your own moral judgement or on magisterial teachings?

Here's a short refutation of baptism of desire:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/theory-of-baptism-of-desire/#.WbmxDMh97IU

>>10019474
That's beside the point. There have been around 40 anti-popes in history. The possibility of heretical popes has been addressed in church history since Paul IV extending to the 1917 code of canon law, all affirming there's no need for a declaration before considering a cleric heretical.

You are right that there is a need for complete subjection to the pope, the question to be asked is that if they are actually popes or not. Try to inform yourself instead of basing your arguments on your shallow background.

[Anonymous No.10019516]

>>10019495
It would mean that God created men for no reason other then to suffer eternal punnishment in Hell. It's basically Calvinism. I've read the text before and it's garbage, selective and reductionist.
>The council of Florence is requiring submission to the pope
>But not really if you call him the antipope
Sedevacantism is an insane cult, on the level of Calvinism. Much like to them it's just a cosmic dick measuring context.

[Anonymous No.10019546]

>>10019516
Your moral judgements are null. In case you don't know, the magisterium is the proximate rule of faith, morality comes from god and can be understood through reason, but it can't negate church doctrine. You need to base your moral judgements on doctrine, not the other way around.

All of us have original sin, so we are not exactly innocent when it comes to salvation. The article uses dogmatic teachings, if you can provide an argument that hasn't been already refuted you can say it, calling it garbage, selective and reductionist isn't going to convince anybody.

Pope Paul IV's bull says that a heretical pope can be refused before any declaration, even if he is accepted by all cardinals. There's a reason the magisterium teaches how to identify a heretic. Thankfully, before the second Vatican council there was uniformity in doctrine, so there was basically no need for it, but it was already predicted that Rome would lose the faith and that at the final days there would be basically no faith on earth.

You can put the discussion away, it's what most people do because they are catholic on the basis of community life, not faith. Just don't expect to be saved in your conciliar cult.

[Anonymous No.10019888]

>>10019382
This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you based anons

[Anonymous No.10020492]

>>10019296
>>10019316
I'm not sure if there should be a "literary classics" section. There may be Catholic themes in them, but that doesn't mean you learn much about practicing the actual faith. For example, you include Don Quixote but not Shakespeare even though Shakespeare had Catholic themes in Hamlet (purgatory). I also object to the inclusion of C. S. Lewis' writings on Christianity since he was an Anglican.

For the list, you need authentic works written by Catholics about practicing the faith. The majority of these books do meet that criteria, but labeling literature such as poetry, novels, etc. as Catholic is misleading. For example, Hemingway rarely makes these lists even though he was baptized as a Catholic in adult life because he was not a "good Catholic" like Flannery O'Connor, though there are plenty of Biblical references in his work;—just look at the title The Sun Also Rises! Straight from the Big Book!

On the other hand, an author such as Shakespeare has plenty of Catholic themes and imagery in his work (Catholic priests, purgatory, Italian settings), but he only occasionally appears on these lists because he was, on paper, a practicing Anglican (let's not open that door as to whether he was a secret Catholic or not because we'll never know for certain).

tl;dr I don't mean to be a killjoy, but I think works shouldn't be included on the list just because they have Catholic themes. The list should be more about Catholic theology, doctrine, and practice with an emphasis on introduction. The rest of us who know more about the faith can just debate and talk about the top shelf stuff such as Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.10020534]

Should I go to a catholic bible study lads? The Bible is one of my favorite books and I always love to discuss it but I get really turned off by people being too touchy feely bullshit about it

[Anonymous No.10020605]

HTBC's response to James White

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf_MTKpL7OM

[Anonymous No.10020622]

>>10019546
Thou cuck of the mind

[Anonymous No.10020707]

>>10018467
Just dropped by in this thread to recommend the Bible

[Anonymous No.10020738]

>>10020534
I have a feeling Catholic or Mainline Protestant Bible studies would be better than most!

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10021193]

>GENERAL

The Bible (Ignatius Study Bible Recommended)
The Catholic Catechism

>accepted English versions of Bible

NABRE
Douay Rheims
RSV

>THEOLOGY

>novice

Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger
The Last Superstition by Edward Feser
The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
Mere Christianity
CATHOLICISM by Robert Barron
Outlines of Moral Theology by Francis J. Connell

>intermediate

Scholastic Metaphysics by Edward Feser
God: His Existence and His Nature by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
Natural Theology by Bernard Boedder
The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson
Against Heresies
City of God
Christianity for Modern Pagans
The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

>advanced

Apologia Pro Vita Sua
Summa Contra Gentiles
Summa Theologiae
On the Incarnation
The Didache
Divine Names by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

>SPIRITUAL LIFE

>novice

The Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales
Story of a Soul by St. Therese
The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton
Nihilism - Fr Seraphim Rose

part 1/2

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10021203]

>>10021193
part 2/2

>intermediate

The Interior Castle
Spiritual Exercises by St. Ignatius
Dialogues by St. Catherine of Sienna
True Devotion to Mary
True Devotion to the Holy Spirit

>advanced

The Cloud of Unknowing
The Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross
The Desert Fathers
The Philokalia
The Ladder of Divine Ascent
New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton
The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis

>MEMETICS

Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World by Rene Girard
I See Satan Fall Like Lightning by Rene Girard

>HISTORICAL/BIOGRAPHICAL

Rome Sweet Home
The Long Loneliness by Dorothy Day
After Virtue
Christendom I: Founding of Christendom
Theology and Social Theory by John Millbank
Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy by Bernard Williams
Life of St.Anthony by Saint Athanasius
Life of St Francis of Assisi by Saint Bonaventure
Silouan the Athonite by Archimandrite Sophrony
The Autobiography of St. Ignatius Loyol
The Formation of Christendom by Christopher Dawson
The Dividing of Christendom by Christoper Dawson

>FICTION

Don Quixote
Diary of a Country Priest
The Divine Comedy
Paradise Lost
Silence by Shusaku Endo
A Canticle for Leibowitz
Faust
Les Miserables
The Canterbury Tales
The Man Who Was Thursday
The Brothers Karamazov
A Man for All Seasons
The Pillars of the Earth
The Lord of the Rings
The Chronicles of Narnia
Lord of the World
Parzifal
Joseph of Arimathea: A Romance of the Grail
The Arthurian Cycle
Quo Vadis

[Anonymous No.10021215]

>>10019181
What happens if you got in a car accident on the way to confession and died? Would you go to hell?

[Anonymous No.10021217]

>>10021215
What do you think?

[Anonymous No.10021220]

>>10021217
No clue, I'm not Catholic. That point always seemed silly to me though.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10021228]

>>10021215
No, it would be in effect a Baptism of Desire. They would be baptized all the same.

[Anonymous No.10021235]

>>10021228
I'm not talking about baptism, I'm talking about going to confession if you've committed a mortal sin.

[Anonymous No.10021238]

>>10020605
I'm 20 minutes in and this imbecile hasn't spoken a single word on the Epistle to the Romans, fuck this Reddit shit.

Okay, now I've finished it.

>multiple meanings and usages of the word kόσμος in Johannine writings
not answered
>"Where did you get 'Called' that is not 'Predestined'?"
not answered even though it is the central issue at hand
>Romans 9
not answered
>Ephesians 1
not answered

Utter waste of time/10, never post this idiot again.

[Anonymous No.10021263]

>>10021215
If you had decided to go to confession you had already repented in your heart. Confession is basically a formality, not to say that it isn't essential despite that.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10021286]

>>10021235
>type a lengthy response
>computer shuts down to update
>lose everything

I'll summarize again. I'm sorry for the wait and sorry for misunderstanding that you were actually speaking of confession. It's late here.

The point of confession is to forgive your sins entirely. Not simply to the head of the Body of Christ (God), but to the body as a whole as well (the community at large) as sin is an affront to both. The form of confession is to give a space for both of these to occur at once while providing assistance for amending the situation/alleviating guilt via penance.

You should seek both. If something comes up that keeps you from doing one despite you wanting to it cannot be said you are immoral and would be in Hell.

Do not look at it in a penal sense.

[Anonymous No.10021294]

>Tone is all over the place
>Style can either be really stiff or be kinda poetic
>Major characters are really inconsistent
>Big bad guy is not actually all that bad, only kills like 10 people
>Main character is kinda cool, but doesn't show up until the third act and he dies really quickly
>Pacing is confusing af
>WAYYY too much exposition in the first act. Like, entire chapters dedicated to lineage. Not even Tolkien was this bad
>Final act really drags on until last chapter
>Last chapter is actually really trippy but kinda cool
>All these random side characters we only meet for a little bit start showing up and are only used once
>MC comes back (are you fucking serious)
>Ending resolves nothing

The Bible by God is a 5/10 at best. Is the anime any good?

[Anonymous No.10021304]

>>10021294
The best

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10021315]

>>10021294
Cute blasphemy, Anon. I'd suggest you follow in the words of Ice Cube and check yourself before you wreck yourself.

[Anonymous No.10021325]

>>10021304
Is there a tournament arc?

>>10021315
Don't get mad at me because God can't write a consistent character to save his life. He should have created an editor instead of just self publishing

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10021344]

>>10021325
>get mad

No need to try to bait me Anon. My comment was for your sake.

[Anonymous No.10021359]

>>10021193
>>10021203
This is an excellent improvement upon the list. Thank ya, Mr. Wolfsheim.

By the by, know any good bets I should make?

[Anonymous No.10021361]

>>10021344
In what way? The Bible is poorly written. I don't get the hype, and frankly, I haven't seen a movie adaption that I've liked either

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10021435]

>>10021359
Save your money next World Series, champ.

>>10021361
The Bible isn't a single text, Anon, and your understanding is that of an Evangelical's. Not only do you not actually know what you're talking about but you continue the sarcasm with the intent of insult so to troll. It's not good for you.

[Anonymous No.10021468]

>>10021193
Garrigou-Lagrange is extremely hard, and God His Existence and His Nature is not an intermediary read. It's a superb work, but 800 pages of dense metaphysics should be read if one holds rather specific interests.

[Anonymous No.10021483]

>>10021435
>Hurr Durr if you shit on my favorite book you're a troll

Seriously? Face it: it's poorly written, incoherent, and I have serious doubts about the authors actual authorship of the text.

[Anonymous No.10021485]

>>10021435
I really do think you've made a vast improvement, all kidding aside. I wrote the rather lengthy post here >>10020492

I appreciate that you also have tiers to guide reading because throwing a huge, random assortment of books to be read without any guide is a mistake.

I recommend all future Catholic threadmakers to incorporate Wolfsheim's list.

[Anonymous No.10021495]

>>10021193
>Anime St Teresa of Avila
Please do not do this.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10021598]

>>10021483
>refusing to even read correctly

Just sad

>>10021468
Duly noted. Will move to Advanced after looking at it again.

>>10021485
To be clear, however, I'm not the OP. I did not do the list you responded to in your post you link me to. I did read over your post, however.
Thank you, Anon.

>>10021495
Aww no, Anon. It can't be stopped now. We have cosplaying saints now. Thank anime.

[Anonymous No.10021610]

>>10021598
David Oderberg and Elizabeth Amscombe deserve to be on the list as well, anti utilitarian ethics and the best works on essentialism deserve to be there.

[Anonymous No.10021638]

>>10021294
>>>/goodreads/

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10021669]

>>10021610
>only now realize I have no Amscombe on my list
I will update the list tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.10021732]

>>10021669
Modern Moral Philosophy by Anscombe should be read before MacIntyre, it's the paper that restarted virtue ethics.

[Anonymous No.10021740]

>>10021732
It's what helped MacIntyre, but he is the chief reason why it is back. Most people probably read him prior to Amscombe (found about her because of him) and it would not be a mistake to read him first.

[Anonymous No.10022480]

Some anon wrote this shit on /adv/ and it's been bothering me, I know that this thread is mostly related to christian /lit/ but I'd be glad if one of you could refute what he's saying.
It was a thread about seducing religious girls saving themselves for marriage.

>So my.point being, we are all human, we are all subjects to succumb to our temptations when in the moment. Good luck OP. If a god did exist and wanted to save sex for marriage then they shouldn't have made it feel so damn good to begin with.

>Sure you might say, "Well if it didn't feel good no one would do it." But if people are willing to stop themselves from having sex before marriage for religious reasons than they sure will be willing to have sex while married for the same cause.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10022504]

>>10021740
I intend to have them on the same tier.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10022524]

>>10022504
>>10022480
A major part of the Christian life is the rational control of irrational desires. This is expressed by the "freeing yourself from vice".

>If he didn't want it to happen he shouldn't make it feel so good

Entirely misses the whole learning to control your passions thing. Instead becomes a slave to vice.

[Anonymous No.10022573]

>>10022524
As MacIntyre woul put it, he willfully fails as a rational agent.

[Anonymous No.10022886]

>catholic

[Anonymous No.10022922]

>>10022886
>implying the majority of catholics don't listen to tool while dropping acid and staring at alex grey paintings

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10023002]

I actually have work soon so Ill just post the proof before I have to leave. I'll reference a classic one and give it a modern structure: Aquinas' First Way. Made in the potentiality/actuality distinction, just as he did it.

1. Causation exists.( Empirical Premise)

2. Act and Potency are classic terms we can use to explain causation: When something is in Potency it has the capacity to become something else, but is not it yet. A fertilized egg has the potency to turn into a chick, an unfertilized egg does not. When a potency is realized, it is actual. To actualize a potency is to take a property that something had in potency and make it actually inhere in the thing. The same thing, in this case, for things within an instant. While they are simultaneous they are still essentially ordered. An example of this is a coffee cup suspended by a table. Every instance this is occurring the table is actualizing the coffee's placement.

3. When we find an instance of causation in the world we find some potency being actualized in that same instance.

4. Something that is only in potency cannot actualize anything.

5. For some potency to be actualized something actual must actualize it.

6. If A is actualized by B, then B must first be actual.

7. Either something must have actualized B from being in potency to be in actuality. Or B is either necessarily actual, having never been in potency before. ( A v B)

8. If the left disjunct “A” is true then premise 7 applies to a new cause C.

9. If disjunct “B” is true there is a “first” uncaused cause that is pure actuality.

10. If disjunct “B” is never the case then there is an infinite series of actualizations. And we can apply 7 to C, then to a new cause D, and so forth. With every being having its actuality derived from another being.

11. If “10” is the case then there can be no actualization, as every being in the series has its actuality derived from another being, but there is no being with actuality on it's own to derive the actuality from.

12. If “10” is the case there is no causation

13. There is causation ( from premise 1)

14. Premise “10” is not the case.

15. If premise 10 is not the case, then at some point in the series “9” is the case.

16. There is a first cause, which is a being of pure actuality.

I can help you if needed.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10023005]

>>10023002
...
Welp. Wrong thread.

[Anonymous No.10023126]

>>10023005
Just copy paste Feser

[Anonymous No.10023130]

>>10023002

Yeah but what created God?

[Anonymous No.10023145]

>>10023002

How do you explain the difference between an accidental and an essential causal series? In my experience it's one of the most misunderstood things about the argument and I'm trying to learn it well enough myself so I can explain it to others.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10024946]

>>10023130
In what case is the end result (pure actuality) still relevant to causation?

>>10023145
Well you see the examples in premise 2. The first is accidental, the second is essentially ordered. The quick way I summize it is one is causation through time and the other is sustaining causation - causation in a moment in time.

>>10023126
>literally at the point that I can copy/paste myself now instead

[Anonymous No.10025026]

>>10018626
Well you might go to hell, but you could also just confess the things you regret. It might make you feel less like shit, but also if you have a really long list, it's still only going to be ten hail marys. I've done some shit, and priests don't want you hanging out for 98 rosaries. Have you ever heard of someone coming back the next day to finish penance? No. Not even for murder, let alone yoga.

And God's okay with drugs leading him to you. That's why Revelations is like that.

[Anonymous No.10025052]

>>10022480
the appeal of sex in marriage is having children with someone who will stick with you and the kids even if you lose everything, become a cripple, and love you like they promised God they would. it's a different thing to masturbating inside someone, though that's nice too.

[Anonymous No.10025259]

Does anyone have read non-Catholic theologians?
I personally enjoy David Bentley Hart quite a bit.

[Anonymous No.10025761]

>>10022922

I am implying most Catholics worship something that is not God.

[Anonymous No.10025774]

I love this thread. It's so much better than the hostile rank threads.

[Anonymous No.10025813]

>>10025259
I've only read some of his polemics with Feser and if there are two things I cannot stand it's divine personalism and the belief that hell is empty/doesn't exist. DBH has both.

[Anonymous No.10025879]

>>10025026
>Revelations
>s
This is like /lit/'s version of clip/magazine.

[Anonymous No.10025907]

Any good anti-Islam books that aren't fedora-tier?

[Anonymous No.10025910]

New Christian here.

Finished this today. Thought it was a great start. Any recommendations for follow ups?

[Anonymous No.10025911]

>>10025907
The Qur'an.

[Anonymous No.10026018]

Has anyone here read this esoteric spiritual heavyweight?

[Anonymous No.10026276]

>>10025907

The Closing of the Muslim Mind

[Anonymous No.10026746]

>>10025907
De Rationibus fidei by Thomas Aquinas

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10027664]

>GENERAL

The Bible (Ignatius Study Bible Recommended)
The Catholic Catechism

>accepted English versions of Bible

NABRE
Douay Rheims
RSV

>THEOLOGY

>novice

Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger
The Last Superstition by Edward Feser
The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
Mere Christianity
CATHOLICISM by Robert Barron
Outlines of Moral Theology by Francis J. Connell

>intermediate

Scholastic Metaphysics by Edward Feser
Natural Theology by Bernard Boedder
The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson
Real Essentialism by Oderberg
Against Heresies
City of God
Christianity for Modern Pagans
Intention by Isabelle Anscombe

>advanced

God: His Existence and His Nature by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
Apologia Pro Vita Sua
Summa Contra Gentiles
Summa Theologiae
On the Incarnation
The Didache
The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church
Divine Names by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite


>SPIRITUAL LIFE

>novice

The Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales
Story of a Soul by St. Therese
The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton
Nihilism - Fr Seraphim Rose

part 1/2

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10027669]

>>10027664
part 2/2

>intermediate

The Interior Castle
Spiritual Exercises by St. Ignatius
Dialogues by St. Catherine of Sienna
True Devotion to Mary
True Devotion to the Holy Spirit

>advanced

The Cloud of Unknowing
The Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross
The Desert Fathers
The Philokalia
The Ladder of Divine Ascent
New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton
The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis

>MEMETICS

Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World by Rene Girard
I See Satan Fall Like Lightning by Rene Girard

>HISTORICAL/BIOGRAPHICAL

Rome Sweet Home
The Long Loneliness by Dorothy Day
After Virtue
Christendom I: Founding of Christendom
Theology and Social Theory by John Millbank
Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy by Bernard Williams
Life of St.Anthony by Saint Athanasius
Life of St Francis of Assisi by Saint Bonaventure
Silouan the Athonite by Archimandrite Sophrony
The Autobiography of St. Ignatius Loyol
The Formation of Christendom by Christopher Dawson
The Dividing of Christendom by Christoper Dawson

>FICTION

Don Quixote
Diary of a Country Priest
The Divine Comedy
Paradise Lost
Silence by Shusaku Endo
A Canticle for Leibowitz
Faust
Les Miserables
The Canterbury Tales
The Man Who Was Thursday
The Brothers Karamazov
A Man for All Seasons
The Pillars of the Earth
The Lord of the Rings
The Chronicles of Narnia
Lord of the World
Parzifal
Joseph of Arimathea: A Romance of the Grail
The Arthurian Cycle
Quo Vadis

[Anonymous No.10027741]

>>10027664
Newman in Apologia Pro Vita Sua isn't a hard read, but it's an important work in religious epistemics. Anyone looking to find out why authority plays a massive role in Catholicism and why Protestantism cannot establish meaning should read him.

[Anonymous No.10027771]

>>10027669
About fiction I would add Dracula and remove The Pillars of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.10027795]

>>10027771
How is dracula catholic and yes, Pillars are nto supposed to be there.

[Anonymous No.10027824]

>>10027795

The entire story can be seen as a commentary on the corrosive nature of sin. How allowing yourself to sin a little bit can lead to greater sins. One example of this would be Lucy, she's a fairly flirtatious character and this opened her up to being seduced by the devil/Dracula who then led her on to greater sin. She started out paying court to multiple men and she ended up eating children.

[Anonymous No.10027844]

>>10027795
Dracula is repelled of sacramentals, holy water and the Holy Host.

[Anonymous No.10027921]

>>10025910

Why We're Catholic by Trent Horn.

[Anonymous No.10028470]

Is there an updated version of this? Most of the sources and things are outdated.

[Anonymous No.10029176]

>>10021361
>The Bible is poorly written.

By what standard?

[Anonymous No.10029233]

Is Biblia de Navarra the best option in Spanish atm?

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10029321]

>>10027741
I found it requiring knowledge of a lot of concepts, however. Hence my placement of it.

>>10027771
After >>10027824 that's not a bad point.

[Anonymous No.10030126]

Hi guys, I have a question.

I was raised Catholic and in my life I almost never strayed a lot from the life of a passionate Catholic, never done mortal sins, always been quite observant etc.

The problem is that there are long periods of complete aridity when I continue this "observant" lifestyle but in a mechanical way. I may or may not, during these periods, question my faith, they're like parentheses in my spiritual life where I consider myself "Catholic but with reservation". It's usually something external like art or the contemplation of some aspects of science (it's my field) or philosophy or the relationship with people that brings me back to what I would call real faith.

I also, being a layman intellectual grown mostly in a secular non religious environment, have an hard time accepting doctrine, even though Catholicism still seems the most reasonable denomination to me.

So tell me, how much of a closet Protestant am I? Is there something I should do to maintain my faith steady?

I feel like the last priest I talked with about this issue didn't understand it all.

(I must seem quite dumb, that's probably because I don't talk of my faith very often, let alone in English.)

[Anonymous No.10030133]

>>10030126
Have you considered praying the Rosary every day?

[Anonymous No.10030144]

>>10030133
I searched that image yet I have trouble understanding what's going on. Who is that monk and what does that dog represent?

[Anonymous No.10030161]

>>10030144
>I searched that image

No you didnt.

[Anonymous No.10030164]

>>10030126
>Never done mortal sins
You never fapped?

[Anonymous No.10030167]

>>10030144
Dominican=domini canes=hound of the Lord

[Anonymous No.10030171]

>>10030133
I guess it should be helpful, I may try

[Anonymous No.10030186]

>>10030164
Well, yes but I confessed. It was never given a particular weight by any priest so I didn't even think it was a mortal sin (it makes sense yes, impure acts and all that, but that's what I mean by "hard time accepting the doctrine", sometimes I tend to disregard as trifle such things, mostly involuntary, or at times even doubt them).

[Anonymous No.10030188]

>>10029233
>Is Biblia de Navarra the best option in Spanish atm?
CEE 2010

Always refer to the latest translation of the Bible published by the relative Bishops Conference, like the Traduction officielle liturgique by AELF 2013 for French and CEI 2008 for Italian, because they are the ones authorized for liturgical use (i.e.: the Bible passages you hear in church will be using that translation).

[Anonymous No.10030203]

>>10029233
Yes, or and old version of Nacar-Colunga.

http://adelantelafe.com/biblias-en-espanol-buenas-y-malas/

[Anonymous No.10030214]

>>10020738
What is a Mainline Protestant?

[Anonymous No.10030215]

>>10030161
I did, but I didn't want to wade through all that to learn it was St. Dominic. No need to be so hostile.

[Anonymous No.10030218]

>>10030215
It's on the first page, no need to be so lazy.

[Anonymous No.10030221]

>>10021215
Yes. Especially if you were drunk driving.

[Anonymous No.10030231]

>>10030214
Hmmmm... when I wrote that, I had Anglicans and Presbyterians in mind. Obviously not the liberal churches with those names, however, but the traditional, conservative branches.

I had them in mind because I am a lapsed Catholic who has been thinking about joining some church again but no idea which it should be. I like Catholicism on paper, but dislike how it has manifested itself where I live (see pic related).

So I've read about other churches to see if they're any better; I'm not optimistic from what I find. However, there still seem to be some traditional places left, just not here, where SJWism seems to have infected the churches.

[Anonymous No.10030233]

>>10020605
As an eastern orthodox, let me get this straight: "HTBC" is a Roman Catholic and he is debating this James White guy who is...what? A Protestant? Which kind?

[Anonymous No.10030236]

>>10030231
>where SJWism seems to have infected the churches.

Have you even read the New Testament?

[Anonymous No.10030248]

>>10030233
A calvinist, reformed baptist to be precise.

[Anonymous No.10030255]

>>10030236
Eat cock, faggot.

[Anonymous No.10030258]

>>10030214
American protestants who are not evangelical, fundamentalist or charismatic.

[Anonymous No.10030259]

>>10030255
I wish I could as be Christian as you are, this post really makes me think.

[Anonymous No.10030266]

>>10021361
>The Bible is poorly written.
>>10021435
>The Bible isn't a single text, Anon.
Oh, I get it now: only SOME of it is poorly written.

[Anonymous No.10030269]

>>10030255
He's right.

The dead kike on the stick is the OG SJW.

[Anonymous No.10030274]

>>10030269

[Anonymous No.10030280]

>>10022480
God made sex feel so damn good in order to test you if you can resist it. Just like for booze, drugs or strangling hookers.

[Anonymous No.10030283]

>>10021361
You're on your way to become the next Augustine!

[Anonymous No.10030346]

>>10030274
>Jesus: crucified at 33
>Varg: still living at 44

[Anonymous No.10030350]

>>10030248
>>10030258
>not evangelical, fundamentalist or charismatic
Ummm...so what does that leave us?
I guess I should read a history of the church or some sort of encyclopaedia of Christianity, if such a thing even exists. This hodgepodge of (mostly) American churches and confessions and deniminations (I don't even know the difference between the above three notions) is incomprehensible to my puny peasant mind. Having been born in a country where ~90% of the population belongs to one church doesn't help either.

[Anonymous No.10030357]

>>10030350
It's an Anglo thing having to do with the Protestant Reformation. Most of the Protestant churches in America have English origins. Read up on the Church of England, Puritanism, Quakerism, Presbyterianism, and the Baptists if you're curious.

[Anonymous No.10030396]

>>10030350
>Ummm...so what does that leave us?
The so-called Seven Sisters of American Protestantism—the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (not to be confused with Confessional Lutheranism), the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Churches, the United Church of Christ, and the Disciples of Christ—as well as the Quakers, Reformed Church in America, African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) and other churches.

>Having been born in a country where ~90% of the population belongs to one church doesn't help either.
Then don't waste your time with this idiocy.

Protestantism ultimately means that a man can start his own religion entirely from scratch, and call it "Christianity" if a Bible is somehow involved. Results vary, in theology, ritual, organization, commandments, Biblical interpretation, art, politics, holidays... hence the churches vary.

You can find several church buildings of different denominations along the same road instead of one church for one city.

[Anonymous No.10030426]

>>10030396
Dad counted 12 churches belonging to different organizations on either sides of the same 1.5 km road when he visited the US, I'm positive it's nothing impressive and there have to be higher concentrations elsewhere

[Anonymous No.10030447]

>>10030396
That's not true about Protestantism. It's mostly just an American thing to have a wide variety of Churches. If you go to England, most people are either Anglican, Catholic, or irreligious. Other Protestant groups such as Methodists and Presbyterians, and so on, are a very small minority. It's the same in Germany except replace Anglicanism with Lutheranism.

Frankly, I see no problem with it. Plenty of great literature by great writers has been made by people from these churches. The vast majority of the best literature in English is written by Protestants. For every Alexander Pope you have about 20 more Protestant poets in the English canon. Do you think Charles Dickens and Fyodor Dostoevsky are in hell for their heresy?

[Anonymous No.10030473]

>>10030447
Dostoevsky was not a heretic, he was a Schismatic. I don't know if either is in Hell, we really have no way of knowing, especially for Dostoevsky who received valid sacraments. We can tell for the original reformers if we trust various mystics who received visions of Hell, such as st. Faustina Kowalska.

Anglicans also had a religious structure, which is not dissimilar to Catholic hierarchy, meaning the epistemic crisis hit them later compared to the American counterparts, it was only starting during the time of John Henry Newman, who properly recognised the problem and solved it by becoming Catholic. Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine is a magnificent work, and so is Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

[Anonymous No.10030482]

>>10030473
Isn't the good thief the only person we know for certain who made it into heaven? He wasn't even baptized.

[Anonymous No.10030503]

>>10030482
We know for certain that the saints are in Haven as the proclamations of sainthood are dogmatic (pretty sure on this one, but will have to look it up in my Denzinger late).
And we don't know if he was actually baptised, probably not (it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he might have been baptized by John the Baptist and invincible ignorance as well), as it wasn't a widespread practice and the Christian faith didn't even exist then. The apostles were Jews at the time still, they weren't allowed to understand fully what Christ was about to do with his death and so on.

[Anonymous No.10030508]

>>10030482
Lost the other post, but the gist of it was Moses in the garden of Gethsemane.

[Anonymous No.10031128]

>>10030350

>This hodgepodge of (mostly) American churches and confessions and deniminations (I don't even know the difference between the above three notions) is incomprehensible to my puny peasant mind.

Its incomprehensible to everyone paying attention. Any time a new disagreement arises within a Protestant community a new Church is born so its impossible to keep track of them all.

[Anonymous No.10031297]

>>10030482
We don't know whether he was baptized. Could've been.

[Anonymous No.10032972]

>>10030269

>Pagan roleplayers

Absolutely embarrassing

[Anonymous No.10033053]

>>10019474
The dogmatic changes of the second Vatican Council say I can believe whatever the fuck I want.

[Anonymous No.10033219]

>>10030203
thanks. i ended up downloading a pdf and since i liked it i ordered it on amazon.

[Anonymous No.10033323]

>Consider becoming Catholic
>View in my head is basically medieval Catholicism, Gregorian chant, Aquinas, etc.
>Look into modern Catholicism
>What the fuck?
>Learn about Vatican II
>This is a joke, right? How do people believe this shit?
>Maybe there's some way to resolve it?
>Still want to convert to the Church as it was
>Research the issues
>Start suffering cognitive dissonance
>How do you people deal with this?
>Give up and return to normal mental state
inb4 "Catholicism is true because it's the Church founded by Jesus so there can be no contradictions in its teachings (even if there are)"

[Anonymous No.10033342]

>>10018537
Is Divine comedy meant to be read in a specific key?
I mean what's exactly its purpose? Exercise of imagination? Modern three dimensional fairy tale?
It ends pretty serious with encounter of Holy Trinity where the imagination short circuits itself.

Also what's the general rule of thumb for translations which ones should I am for?

[Anonymous No.10033621]

>>10033323
Your normal mental state is just Christian mental state, fundamentally speaking. Unless you were isolated from modernism and were risen by the Greek soul and never read anything but Greek classics and at maximum Marcus Aurelius.

Just dwell into fine literature and read the scriptures as meditation literature - leave the theology aside.

I find in Augustine Confessions the literature I need and in orthodox monastic life and writing the theology I want.

[Anonymous No.10033646]

>Not including Jerusalem Bible and the Grail Psalms in the list of accepted English translations.

[Anonymous No.10033659]

>>10033621
>Just dwell into fine literature and read the scriptures as meditation literature - leave the theology aside.
This is basically where I am now. I spent so much time worrying about theology (first as a Protestant, later in my research into Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) that thinking about it too much, or at least in the normal orthodox manner, just stresses me out and gives me a headache. I still consider myself a Christian but I don't think I could ever associate with an actual church institution ever again. Sometimes I think, though, that I wouldn't mind being able to attend some sort of service on occasion, if only for the aesthetic quality.

[Anonymous No.10033664]

Lacanian here, keep up the good work my friends

[Anonymous No.10033703]

>>10033342
Read this:
http://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/dante2.htm

See pic. I personally have Charles Singleton's, and it works for me.

[Anonymous No.10033765]

/lapsed/ back

Priest didn't seem to care too much about my apostasy. Received communion later.

Can anyone recommend any good bits of the Bible to read in tidbits? I got a copy from half price after mass and then ate and drank a bit of wine and don't know where to start with the behemoth

>>10033664
I wanna see a Lacanian therapist. My current one is Jungian tho.

>state sponsored schizoanalysis when?

[Anonymous No.10033803]

>>10033765
Luke 2 (birth of Jesus)
Matthew 5-7 (Sermon on the Mount)
Luke 15 (parables)
Matthew 13 (more parables and why Jesus uses them)
Matthew 27-28 (the crucifixion and resurrection)
John 1 (The Word)
From the OT I'd recommend going through Genesis, Exodus, Job, and Psalms. Then read the rest of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.10033814]

>>10033765
More specifically: Exodus 19-20 (Moses at Mount Sinai and the Ten Commandments); Psalms 8, 19, 23, 104, 137.

[Anonymous No.10033900]

>>10030482
Enoch

[Anonymous No.10033902]

>>10033900
Mary ascended too according to Catholic dogma, the Saints

[Anonymous No.10034164]

>>10033323
This literally happened to me yesterday. It was a depressing, confusing day.

>>10033659
I think that's a healthy perspective to have. Personally I just read the Bible, pray, and try to be fair to others. Still, I wish that there was some sort of Church out there where I did not feel like a complete alien.

[Anonymous No.10034177]

>>10033659
What a total fucking joke you are. You'll be cast into the everlasting fire along with all the rest of the atheists, when Christ comes again in glory. "Aesthetic value"? You make me vomit. Crawl on your hands and knees and beg a priest to give you the Eucharist, then I'll take you seriously.

[Anonymous No.10034180]

Dear Jesus, do douchebags go to heaven so long as they crawl on their hands and knees and beg for a little white cracker?

[Anonymous No.10034183]

Has anyone bought all the sacred texts (new, old, apocryphs, etc) from the French edition La Pléiade?

Are they good?

[Anonymous No.10034301]

>>10033659
To me after dwelling at first in eastern mysticism and getting tired by it .. since all my life I was more analytical inclined and my scientific pursue never ceased - I let go of it all in a brutal way.. during this time I've developed a passion for universal literature, and obviously went to the root of the problem ( all along I've never let go of reading bible as meditation literature, because this is a lifetime process and it's indeed good literature, tho I've spent fundamentally way less time doing this ) the European history, the modernism origins - and this intellectual mind, rational primal Christian mind - the way it analyze world, the way it describes itself, basically the way human soul is so complex and its complexity is of such nature.. and the structure of this complexity is similar to such a degree with Christian religion / Christian soul that Christian religion alone is capable to explaining it.

Anyway the cognition, the ideas, the interpretations that come from this Christian soul that now I find more and more outside of theology is shockingly existing a rapport of 1:1 to Eastern mystic prayers... the prayers which monks wrote while supposedly in trance or in communion with Holy Spirit, on a rapport of transcendence.

I don't have a conclusion yet, I'm just in absolute shock and I don't dare to think anything anymore about this.


Anyway guys tell me what exactly Augustine said here, or meant precisely:

[Anonymous No.10034351]

>>10034177
Lol, it was wondering how long until one of you popped out to say this.

[Anonymous No.10034363]

>>10034177
Like clockwork, the tradcath larper crawls out from beneath his vulgate to consign souls to hell.

[Anonymous No.10034384]

>>10034177
>Taking communion on your knees
How passé.

[Anonymous No.10034406]

>>10019546
>all of us have original sin
[citation needed]
We may all be imperfect and commiting of sin, but that doesn't mean a concept from a creation fable is true. And imagine a person who lived their whole life in a sensory deprivation tank, never experiencing anything and making no moral choices. So, they commit no sin. Where would they go?

[Anonymous No.10034414]

>>10018626
You can still drink alcohol, just don't make a habit of getting drunk. I don't think cigarettes are forbidden either though certainly a bad habit. You just need to drop the weed. Yoga and meditation should be fine as long as it's completely secular. I mean yoga is basically just bodyweight exercise once you take out the spiritual aspects of it.

[Anonymous No.10034585]

>>10033053
Where?

[Anonymous No.10034591]

>>10033646
The Jerusalem Bible has a really bad modernist commentary.

[Anonymous No.10034599]

>>10034414
No, Yoga and meditation (not the Catholic meditation) are banned for Catholics in all forms.

[Anonymous No.10034642]

Jesus Christ.. I mean I've been writing and speaking English since I was a little boy in the online environment - but I've never worked on it on a grammatical level, I purely use my intuition and experience to read and write it.

But I've found this translation which is considered the best in my language... and I'm constantly stuck not understanding the meaning of entire paragraphs... I've took google translated and put side by side multiple English translations of the same text and I can understand it clearly !

God damn it, should I just start reading every single translation of a book in English from now on? It might be that my country is very shitty when it comes to literature...

Also which English translation you suggest to continue using for Augustine: Confessions?

R. S. Pine-Coffin (Penguin Classics) seem the one from which I understand precisely.. but I haven't went trough them all obviously.

[Anonymous No.10034672]

>>10021315
He's completely right, and criticising the literary merit of a book doesn't necessarily constitute blasphemy. But if it does, then
>>10021294 embodies the novel archetype of the noble and scrupulous blasphemer, and blasphemy should be encouraged to ennoble all to greater heights of virtue, because, quite frankly, the Bible is the dullest book in the history of literature. Seriously, each episode following the fickle God and his chosen people as they fight assorted unbelievers has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the book's only consistency is its lack of excitement and ineffective use of prophecies, all to make miracles unmiraculous, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when God vetoed the idea of Satan directing the book; He made sure the book would never be mistaken for a work that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross promotion for His ideology. The Bible might be pro-Gnostic (or not), but it's certainly the most anti-Greek pantheon in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the prose was good though

No!

The writing is dreadful, the book was terrible.
As I read, I noticed that every time a character had a child, the author wrote instead that the character "begat". I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times.

I was incredulous. God's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that He has no other style of writing. Later, I read a loving, lavish review of the Bible by Joseph Smith. He wrote something to the effect of "if these kids are reading the Bible at 11 or 12, then when they got older they will go on to read golden plates". And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read the Bible, you are, in fact, trained to read Joseph Smith.

[Anonymous No.10034680]

>>10034591
Still an approved translation, and the commentary is fine.

[Anonymous No.10034687]

>>10034642
What is your native language?

[Anonymous No.10034692]

>>10034687
Romanian.

[Anonymous No.10034702]

>>10018467
Guys how do I brainwash myself into believing catholicism without feeling like I am brainwashing myself and without it being apparent to me that my intent is to brainwash myself?
In other words, do you guys have an argument or a set of arguments or a way to obtain a vision , epiphany, whatever, so that I can become a catholic?

[Anonymous No.10034713]

>>10034702
The real brainwashing doesn't start until you have to convince yourself the Church has always taught the same thing even when it contradicts itself.

[Anonymous No.10034715]

>>10034702
There are fundamental arguments why Christianity has to be true, but no arguments why any denomination or church itself has to be true or that it can be true.

I can bring my intellect, my rationality to believe in God and take Christianity - mainly just Jesus element and the transcendent aspect - but it stops there, from that point I cannot bring myself near churches or theological literature...

[Anonymous No.10034739]

>>10034715

There are no fundamental arguments for the trinity

[Anonymous No.10034751]

>>10034739
Yes, but now that I think about it - I don't think that's an element which would upset God or is impairing your Christian mind in any way if accepted or rejected!

Actually, here's my opinion - as a tool in the pursuit of metanoia seeing and understanding God as not being alone in eternity but rather the perfect being, only absolute being - having love in eternity shared between persons.

[Anonymous No.10034767]

>>10034739
Personally I've always found the arguments for it a bit floppy, so to speak. If Jesus isn't fully human he can't do this; if he isn't fully divine he can't do this; etc. Well he can do whatever God gives him the power to do. It all seems a bit silly. It's like people who say that God can't forgive a sin without meting out punishment.

[Anonymous No.10034783]

>>10034713
I don't care, man.
>>10034715
>There are fundamental arguments why Christianity has to be true
Those are fine, give me those.

[Anonymous No.10034792]

>>10034783
Christian soul itself, now go research it on your own - I would've sympathized with your question if we were on /pol/ or /b/ but on /lit/ come on..

[Anonymous No.10034804]

>>10034680
The commentary is for the most part useless. It's just naturalistic explanations and language. There's nothing to be learned compared to a commentary of a saint.

[Anonymous No.10034810]

>>10034783
Rene Girard has some interesting things on this.

[Anonymous No.10034870]

>>10034804
>There's nothing to be learned compared to a commentary of a saint.
Quit whatever you're smoking.

[Anonymous No.10034966]

Currently reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy, really great so far. I had the same thinking as him regarding so called "natural laws", I did enjoy his way of showing how Christianity is a religion of balance between contraries, the lion sleeping with the sheep etc...

[Anonymous No.10035105]

>>10019279
I've been waiting to get to it, gotta finish the pre-requisites though...

but I won't be reading the whole summa, I will read pic related, concise summa, about 400pages long, written by aquinas himself for us mere mortals to have a chance to read him.

[Anonymous No.10035116]

>>10030126
When you go to the church and the priest there tells you that you die because Adam and Eve bite from a fruit which a talking snake convinced them to eat from what do you think?

[Anonymous No.10035120]

>>10035116
Catholics don't believe that shit anymore. Get with the times.

[Anonymous No.10035127]

>>10035120
Oh so that's why churches are empty throughout Europe.

[Anonymous No.10035178]

>>10035127
I doubt hewing to a literal fall narrative would help, honestly. But once you throw that out it really does undercut original sin, doesn't it? Orthodoxy has an easier time dumping Genesis.

[Anonymous No.10035310]

>>10035178
It's odd.. Jesus the only important and relevant element in this whole story - hasn't said a word about Adam or our origins.

I can see how creating a tiny god for the sake of it works better by first having him free and experience what is fundamentally considered wrong by omnipotence, omniscience and make him out of that freedom reject and appreciate evil itself, that's the only way you can start from somewhere and develop for eternity. Oh and if that project is failed, you cannot allow evil to become eternal so it has to die.. but it's not an individual journey rather it's forced on all of us and we're free to copy ourselves endlessly inviting billions to this journey of either eternal life or suffering and death..

But this is just an assumption based on old Jewish theology and Christian mysticism...

[Anonymous No.10035323]

>>10034792
>>10034810
Wow, is that it?
Is there anyone who actually believes in this stuff or are you all larpers?

[Anonymous No.10035330]

>>10035323
You are clearly in a wrong place, this is a /lit/ Christianity general you can have that type of discussion on /pol/ - Christianity general.

[Anonymous No.10035343]

>>10035330
I thought a thread called "catholic literature" would, you know, be able to give catholic literature of the apologetic type.
I apparently thought wrong.

[Anonymous No.10035349]

>>10035310
>Jesus the only important and relevant element in this whole story - hasn't said a word about Adam or our origins.

Except for that part when he did. Matthew 19:4

[Anonymous No.10035367]

>>10035349
He didn't even give divine approval to that.. he talked about Moses writing the law according to his mind in order to benefit his people..
Then later on Jesus clearly rendered out the jewish law and replaced it with the Christian metanoia.

[Anonymous No.10035372]

>>10035367

This is so dumb and I'm not even going to engage with it. Enjoy your day.

[Anonymous No.10035374]

>>10035310
>It's odd.. Jesus the only important and relevant element in this whole story - hasn't said a word about Adam or our origins.
I've always found this type of argument to be disingenuous, as it purposefully discounts the rest of the New Testament where you know the subject is covered, and treats the Gospels as an exhaustive catalog of Christ's teachings, which is a something they themselves deny (John 20:30, 21:25).
Also this >>10035349. This is a direct reference to Genesis:
>Mt. 19:4-5 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
>Gen. 2:23-24 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

[Anonymous No.10035456]

>>10034177
they got you good... scary

[Anonymous No.10035481]

>>10035374
The rest of new testament is just stories and parables.
Matthew was obsessed with proving old Torah prophesies, the rest of authors less so and centered their attention on presenting the events, hence Matthew is the only place where you find that reference.

I mainly read Luke for the clarity of his style, he indeed had a good brain.

The main attraction and spiritual element of Christianity is Jesus - Christianity rises or falls entirely with Jesus alone, Christology dogma - a person that has two natures divine and human - Pascal went in detail about this with his argument for Christianity.

[Anonymous No.10035503]

>>10034599
That seems pretty damn silly. The majority of yoga done in the west is entirely secular and nothing more than exercise, and it's actually pretty damn good exercise if you do it right.
Meditation is an incredibly broad term, you could say any time you sit down and think about shit you're meditating.
What doctrine bans these practices?

[Anonymous No.10035515]

>>10035481
>The rest of new testament is just stories and parables.
No it isn't. Have you even read the Epistles? There's no point even talking about this further or bothering with the rest of the post if this is type of nonsense you're going to spout. What a joke.

[Anonymous No.10035620]

>>10019416
Is this the guy from "Vatican Catholic"? If so, he's a known kook.

[Anonymous No.10035647]

>>10020534
This is something I hate about contemporary Western Christianity, it has been feminized. All this talk about "run into Jesus arms" etc, it turns men away. Men don't want to be told to "run into Jesus arms", they want to be told to pick up their cross and follow Jesus.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10035681]

>>10033323
Would highly recommend a traditionalist church. The easy way to find it is to find a Latin Mass in your area.

>>10034599
>>10035503
Yoga is rejected on grounds rejected to its spirituality. It is fine if used as something besides that.

>>10034672
No, he's not right at all. The Bible isn't a book but a collection of different kinds of books of different genres, structures, contexts, and authorships. He assumes an Evangelical understanding of divine authorship so to speak of God in relation to it with great irreverence so the tongue-in-cheek jokes could continue in his posts. That is blasphemy by definition.

Criticizing the literary merit and your personal tastes in comparison isn't blasphemy however. However comparing modern standards to ancient texts is strange, if not awkward.

[Anonymous No.10035689]

>>10030280
What's the point of a test if you already know what the result will be?

>>10022524
Why should passions be controlled?

[Anonymous No.10035696]

>>10023002
And that being of pure actuality is the universe, obviously

>>10025259
>literally Christianity is a drug and you get addictied to it

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10035719]

>>10035689
Rational control of your passions allows for them to not control you. It provides a freedom from slavery to vice.

>>10035696
>pure actuality doesn't change because it has no potentiality
>the initial premise involved causation occurring in the universe

No, it isn't the universe. That's self-contradicting. More to the point, as parts entail potential for change the result would have to be non-composite to actually be pure actuality.

[Anonymous No.10035727]

>>10027824
But that could be avoided by the exercise of self control, it seems the message is weak minded people should never do anything outside of a rigidly defined set of guidelines

>>10030164
What is the evidence for masturbation being a mortal sin?

>>10035374
>checking Pharisees' understanding of the Bible and highlighting their hypocrisy in the way they bow to the teachings of modern rabbis and not the beginning of the Bible is the same as any reference to the truth of genesis

[Anonymous No.10035745]

>>10035719
And why shouldn't they control me?

>the result would have to be non-composite to be pure actuality
>says the Catholic, who's of a denomination that believes in the Trinity

And causation of the universe can't occur "in" the universe. And parts don't necessarily entail potential for change anyway

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10035773]

>>10035745
>And why shouldn't they control me?

Because it harms your potential as a rational agent. Because losing control over yourself is generally unsafe for you and those around you.
Because you deny your own reason.

>the result would have to be non-composite to be pure actuality
>says the Catholic, who's of a denomination that believes in the Trinity

The trinity isn't God being in three parts but God together having three personages to itself despite being one entity.

>And causation of the universe can't occur "in" the universe.
That's really just semantics. The universe is the word for the collection of all matter and space and so I could correct "causation in the universe" to "causation by the universe" and it would still make the same point by me, despite the latter being the more accurate.

>And parts don't necessarily entail potential for change anyway

How does that make sense at all.

[Anonymous No.10035776]

>>10035681
The different authorships, genres structures and contexts should be irrelevant to the plot and characters, since those are orchestrated and developed by God.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10035800]

>>10035776
Again, this is an Evangelical understanding of divine authorship. The texts are inspired by God, not developed. You are in a Catholic General. Don't try to apply to us understandings of Christianity that are not Catholic.

[Anonymous No.10035818]

>>10035773
I'm aware of the naturalistic justifications for self discipline, I'm asking for reasons that justify God putting those vices there in the first place.

And in the same way the universe can be interpreted as a single entity composed of many parts. And the personages are parts. The fact they are discrete and interact between each other, like when jesus talks to the Father, shows they're parts.

And change also purely exists in the universe, so the universe can exist without changing its contents from its causation

How does it not make sense, it seems to make perfect sense to me. Why at all would you think parts necessarily e tial potential for change

[Anonymous No.10035839]

>>10035800
Why did you make the leap from my
>plot and characters
To your
>texts

[Anonymous No.10035860]

>>10035515
Yes it is, if you assume it's divine inspired you're wrong and most likely Islam would fit you better.

[Anonymous No.10035875]

>>10035681
This is from a book by Robert Fludd (1574-1637)

[Anonymous No.10035880]

>>10035620
I couldn't believe that guy was real calling John Henry Newman a modernist.

[Anonymous No.10035885]

Did anyone read this?
Is it good?
And can you recommend other good books about the Inquisition?

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10035893]

>>10035818
>I'm aware of the naturalistic justifications for self discipline, I'm asking for reasons that justify God putting those vices there in the first place.

Those vices don't exist in any ontological sense. Vice is a word for a disorder of the will towards desires. The solution for it is rational control over your desires rather than a denial of desires or hedonistic fulfilling of desires.

>And the personages are parts. The fact they are discrete and interact between each other, like when jesus talks to the Father, shows they're parts.

Jesus is an incarnation of God, not an incarnation of The Son in the trinity, however. The comparison to the trinity that St. Augustine made was to the human mind:

>Father - Mind
>Son - Self-knowledge
>Holy Spirit - Self-love

For mind, its self-knowledge and self-love and all co-extensive, co-equal, and consubstantial. Yet they proceed from the mind and through the self-knowledge. And do not necessitate anything ontologically existing besides the mind.

>And change also purely exists in the universe
>so the universe can exist without changing
???

>Why at all would you think parts necessarily e tial potential for change

Because the capacity to be distinctly altered comparison to other aspects of an object is inherent to the concept of parts.

>>10035839
Since I thought that was your main point.

I must be heading to work though. I'll be back.

[Anonymous No.10035905]

>>10035885
Yeah, I've read it. It has the best first page I've ever read, de Maistre was on fire. Otherwise it's a rather calm book explaining the relationship of the government with the Catholic faith, the basis of authority and so on. It's not amazing, but it's a solid read.

[Anonymous No.10036008]

>>10035893
If vices don't exist in an ontological sense, why are they referred to in such a manner in the Bible?

>Jesus isn't the Son
I'm pretty sure this is heresy

If you mean knowledge of the self and love of the self, as they come from the mind they're just aspects of the mind. So they can't be equal since knowing the self and loving the self are things the mind does, so knowing and loving are essentially subsets of the mind. It's like saying the father is the arms, then the son is boxing, and the Holy spirit is fencing, if they were to performed statically.

Change requires time. Time exists in the universe, to suggest anything else presupposes a sense of time outside of the universe and hence entities outside of the universe to define that time.

Not really because parts that exist without the possibility of changing are possible, so you've made up a definition in which you presuppose a trait to support your argument

[Anonymous No.10036534]

>>10033323
A significant portion of modern Catholicism leaves a lot to be desired. That said, there are changes slowly taking place in the Church. The resurgence and subsequent thriving of traditionalist orders gives one a lot of hope. If you want medieval Catholicism, you need to go to a traditionalist church. The FSSP and ICKSP are the most widespread groups who are in communion with Rome. In the grey area is the SSPX.

[Anonymous No.10037201]

>>10036534
>SSPX
>grey area
Aren't they literally excommunicated?

[Anonymous No.10037210]

Any particular study bibles recommended here? Looking for something NRSV probably, maybe the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha.

[Anonymous No.10037291]

>>10033323
Look into an FSSP parish. I go to one and it has literally changed my life.

[Anonymous No.10037391]

>>10035681
>Would highly recommend a traditionalist church. The easy way to find it is to find a Latin Mass in your area.
This doesn't solve anything and just papers over the actual problem by isolating yourself into a relatively unaffected corner of the Church where you can pretend things are all right.

[Anonymous No.10037438]

>>10033323
Think of the problems less as problems with the Church, in a vaccum, and more as problems with modern Western culture on the whole. If the Catholic Church went full trad tomorrow, the lion's share of laypeople (being modern Westerners) would be alienated and leave, the Catholic university/education system would collapse (Notre Dame wouldn't have a huge endowment, high ranking, and a famous football team if they expelled students for homosexuality), the Church would be targeted by anti-clerical governments and so on. What you want only exists among a small, self selected minority of modern Westerners. The only way for this minority to return out of the catacombs some point in the future is to support it during hard times.

[Anonymous No.10037451]

>>10037201
>Aren't they literally excommunicated
Only Lefbreve and the 4 bishops he ordained in 1988 we're excommunicated, and the bishop's excommunications were revoked by Benedict XVI (Lefbrevre's was not revoked because he was already dead by that point). SSPX Priests and laypeople that attend SSPX chapels were never excommunicated.

[Anonymous No.10037470]

>>10037391
That's not to mention that there's nothing traditional about tradition having a parasitic existence as an atavistic quasi-resistance to a determinedly non-traditional Church.

[Anonymous No.10037471]

>>10037391
A powerless layperson attending a Catholic mass instead of an Arian mass during the height of the Arian heresy did not "isolate himself into a relatively unaffected corner of the Church where he can pretend things are all right" (I think the Novus Ordo is non-heretical but the point is the same).

[Anonymous No.10037479]

>>10037471
Comparing Arianism to the current situation, which has the backing of an ecumenical council, a string of Popes, and every bishop with ordinary jurisdiction in the entire world, is disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.10037515]

>>10037479
The things that are backed by an ecumenical council, Popes, and every bishop are non-heretical (ex: that the Novus Ordo mass is valid). Various propositions supported by isolated bishops and priests are heretical (ex: that woman may be priests). Arianism hide widespread support among certain groups but was never backed by a Pope or ecumenical council. Hence the analogy is valid.

[Anonymous No.10037537]

>>10037515
Yes, yes. Nothing is heretical because it can't be. Nothing can contradict because it can't contradict. The things that change are always the things that can change, and things that don't are the things that can't -- until they do. I'd call it brainwashing, but it's self-programmed given that the leaders are quite open about the reality of things.

[Anonymous No.10037619]

>post image of old church and paragraph of some self-fulfilling circularly logical claims
>depressed teenagers looking for meaning lap it up
Catholic memetics and internet evangelism is so easy.

[Anonymous No.10037737]

>>10037537
You don't properly understand the magisterium. It can withstand two generations of clergy being stupid liberals during a time when stupid liberals have absolute hegemony over Western culture. Literally every thing distasteful from after Vatican II (literally yesterday in historical terms) could potentially be reformed before some people on this board turn 60.

[Anonymous No.10037770]

>>10037737
>It can withstand two generations of clergy being stupid liberals
No, it can't. If all the bishops in the world teach a certain thing, that constitutes the ordinary universal magisterium which is infallible. This applies to every period of history and the teachings of any two eras cannot contradict.

[Anonymous No.10037799]

>get told to "go to an FSSP church, that's real Catholicism!"
>find FSSP church in my area
>go to mass every Sunday for several months
>every single time there are half a dozen crying babies, kids using the pews to do gymnastics or smashing toys against the wood, adults seem completely fine with this and/or are chatting to each other
>can barely even hear the priest or the singing, basically the furthest thing possible from a reverent and sacred ceremony--and forget about trying to pray
>half the people there are dressed in t-shirts and jeans like they're going to the mall
>move to another city, try again with the FSSP church there
>even fucking worse than before

FSSP is a meme of epic proportions. I don't think authentic Catholicism is left anywhere. It's a dead religion.

[Anonymous No.10037832]

>>10037799
Wow you went to an actual church with actual people, some of which were crying babies, and it wasn't like a mass at a monastery or a mass in a Hollywood movie about the middle ages. What do you think a Latin mass in 1930 with a bunch of 95 IQ Polish Steelworkers in Pittsburgh and their dumb kids was like? Maybe you should try the Shakers, or the Cathars ("babies are evil and created by the Demiurge").

(The Diocesan TLM I go to has a dress code but jeans are usually OK).

[Anonymous No.10037850]

>>10037799
You fool. This is what authentic cathocilism is.

[Anonymous No.10037886]

>>10037832
I wasn't expecting anything to be like in a movie, I was expecting it to be the supposedly highest and most sacred prayer in Catholicism prayed by supposed traditionalists. Instead it was basically giving God the middle finger. I've been to gigantic orthodox masses in Eastern Europe full of poor people and they were all incredibly quiet and reverent and imbued with sacredness. You are just trying to make excuses.

[Anonymous No.10038036]

>>10037886
I don't think the apprehension of the sacred exists in Catholicism anymore. Your average Catholic doesn't care at all and "traditionalists" spend their time worrying about form: we need to kneel when we take the Eucharist, we need the mass in Latin, etc. But the core of it is missing and everything is reduced to just an act. It can't be anything other than an act because the living faith of which it was an outworking is now dead. Its continuity was severed and the remainder transformed to something else. It's like trying to bring back some old rite abandoned centuries ago. It has no roots in the world of the living and thus the we can no longer apprehend it.

[Anonymous No.10038331]

How did we get a bunch of sedevacantists in?

[Anonymous No.10038340]

>>10037850
Lol this desu

Crying babies is the staple at any mass

[Anonymous No.10038346]

>>10038340
Especially because the mass is supposed to have a priest who is silent most of the time.

[Anonymous No.10038350]

>>10037770
The argument to be made is that the Magisterium can withstand all things, because God is with it and it is with God. Anyone who doubts the Church (like sedevacantists) has ultimately failed the test. The Church can be in distress, and can teach error, but it never fails. Christ promised that it wouldn't fail. So to abandon the Church when it goes through a period of teaching things contrary to true doctrine is to display a lack of faith in Christ's fidelity, his pledge to protect the Church to the end. Even when the Church seems turned against true teaching, Catholics should not abandon it. As Benedict has said, God always wins in the end.

[Anonymous No.10038370]

>>10018467
“Only one offence is now vigorously punished—an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into deserts. Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose” (Ep. 243).

[Anonymous No.10038429]

>>10038350
No, the Church cannot teach error through either magisterium. It can in other ways, but through the extraordinary magisterium and ordinary universal magisterium, both of which are infallible, it cannot teach error. If it does, it means that Catholicism is false. The Church makes historical claims about itself which can be reasonably evaluated. You aren't being asked to believe in an illusion but something that is (supposedly) real. All you're doing is telling people to stop thinking and shut up. After all, we don't want to doubt Christ, right?

[Anonymous No.10038442]

>>10038429
And it has not, thus far. It remains free from error, and that, in fact, is what has so many people up in arms with Francis. He cannot teach error.

And, ultimately, I ask people to have faith. I ask people to actually take the Church seriously when it claims to be an instrument of God. That requires people taking God seriously as an actor in the world, as the supreme actor, in fact.

[Anonymous No.10038443]

>>10038350
>church teaches you should stop praising God
>God would want you to stay in the church and practice what they're teaching

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10038456]

>>10036008
>If vices don't exist in an ontological sense, why are they referred to in such a manner in the Bible?

I can think of no instance in which a vice is given an ontological existence. The closest thing I can get is people misunderstanding sins in such a manner.

>I'm pretty sure this is heresy

This is not what I said either. If you're going to copy what I said, please do it exactly. I said Jesus is the incarnation of God, not just the incarnation of the Son. I'm trying to drill in that the Son isn't a part of God but also fully God too.

But you do actually contend this point and I won't ignore that. You are correct that the mind generates both its self-knowledge and its self-love. However it would be improper to view it as an arbitrary action akin to boxing for arms. Self-knowledge is an inherent aspect to the mind. There is no conscious experience without realizing what we experience is separate from ourselves. The concept of self is absolutely necessary, if not at least extremely important to mind. Likewise, what binds them is the trust between both aspects.

I wouldn't say you disagreed with me at all, honestly. What you elaborate on is basically the procession of the trinity:

>Father (Mind) begat the Son (Knowledge)
>the Holy Spirit (Love) comes from the Father (Mind) and through the Son (Knowledge).

They are not equal in themselves, which is why in the Trinity we say that that the three personages are not each other, but they are all equally God. Not each one third of God.

It's a distinction of relationships, not parts.

>change

I honestly don't know where you're going with this. It seems either I'm lost or you misunderstand the situation. Do elaborate.

>parts that exist without the possibility of changing are possible

If the parts have no unrealizable potentialities how could they be seen as parts at all?

[Anonymous No.10038465]

>>10038443
Where does the Church teach this?

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10038474]

>>10037210
see
>>10027664

>>10035905
Any books that are amazing to recommend?

>>10037391
I don't mean to sort though all his problems with V2. I could take the time to work on what the anon would like to bring up but his immediate issue as I know it is being very uncomfortable with the church as it is. I know traditionalists often exaggerate the nature of the church currently and worry to the point of irrationality but they are very knowledgable and provide a ground for the anon to experience the faith proper.

My focus is their welfare. As such my solution isn't a papering over the actual problem whatsoever. It is a solution to their immediate problem.

[Anonymous No.10038508]

>>10038465
Hypothetical

>>10038456


No, you said Jesus is *not* an incarnation of the Son in the Trinity, not "not just". And if the parts of the Trinity aren't equal, as they evidently aren't, they cant all be god. To all be God they require the traits of God, and only the Father has these traits and grants them to the Son and communicates them via the Holy spirit. And, you did also say they were equal
A conscious experience doesn't necessarily entail knowing there is a self, since an entity can be aware of its surroundings and respond to them without knowing the thinking entity itself exists, whether due to limitations of the mind or stress from the environment. So I'd disagree that self knowledge is even necessary to the mind or the conscious experience, unless you mean conscious in a very specific sense.
What do you mean by the trust between both aspects?

Do you think time is mind-dependent or mind-independent?

Because they are components of the larger whole that is the universe

[Anonymous No.10038551]

>>10038474
Most people don't read MacIntyre beyond After Virtue, but there's a lot of amazing material to be found there that's overlooked. After Virtue is a lot more secular then the rest of his post conversion output because in it he doesn't accept biological teleology, which he wholeheartedly does, especially in Dependant Rational Animals. The good of humans qua humans is then very strongly tied to these three things, that we are rational, which is overemphasized by some, that we are animals, that's overemphasized by others and the one that's most commonly ignored, that we are dependant on other humans. So he builds his ethics with not only the powerful actors in mind, but with invalids and children as well.
Garrigou-Lagrange has as well been a discovery. God His Existence and His Nature is a superb work of thomist metaphysics that has sadly been largely forgotten and recovery of this type of philosophy will be instrumental in the ongoing revival of the Church because it allows Catholics to understand the world as Catholics, without implicitly accepting the premises that are contrary to the faith.
By Man Shall His Blood be Shed by Feser is a work focused on the death penalty, but it's a fantastic work exactly because it shows in a specific subject both the failings of the hierarchy and the continuity of magisterium as things that are not abstract, but easily applied and understood through the subject.

[Anonymous No.10038693]

>>10037832
My Eastern Orthodox church features plenty of working class and even underclass people and stuff like this
>crying babies, kids using the pews to do gymnastics or smashing toys against the wood, adults seem completely fine with this and/or are chatting to each other
is utterly unacceptable and will result in anyone attempting it and not stopping soon literally being escorted out of church. I have seen it happen. I have also attended Catholic mass and Lutheran mass and such acts are equally unthinkable. There is no excuse.

[Anonymous No.10038752]

>>10038456
>Jesus is the incarnation of God, not just the incarnation of the Son. I'm trying to drill in that the Son isn't a part of God but also fully God too.
>Self-knowledge is an inherent aspect to the mind. There is no conscious experience without realizing what we experience is separate from ourselves. The concept of self is absolutely necessary, if not at least extremely important to mind. Likewise, what binds them is the trust between both aspects.
>we say that that the three personages are not each other, but they are all equally God. Not each one third of God.
Does anyone know of a book of about the same level of complexity as the passages quoted above that goes on and explains the main spectre of Christian doctrine in likewise manner? I feel that if I pick, say, St. Augustine it will all go over my untrained head. Basically a "Christianity for Dummies" that I can still trust to get at least the basic things right in an easy to understand manner for someone who has never read a primary text of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10038792]

>>10038752
*the main aspects of Christian doctrine

[Anonymous No.10038811]

>>10038693
I see this kind of thing only on mass cafeteria Catholic events like confirmations where you get a bunch of women dressed like prostitutes talking in the back of the Church because they can't stand silence for an hour.
The Tridentine mass has crying kids because that's what kids sometimes do and are usually taken out by the parents if it gets out of hand. But it's not like it's going to distract you to the point of ruining the mass, it's a normal event.

[Anonymous No.10038814]

>>10038508
>Hypothetical
>What if this HYPOTHETICAL thing that doesn't exist HYPOTHETICALLY existed? Then it would totally exist, wouldn't it?...HYPOTHETICALLY, of course.

[Anonymous No.10038827]

>>10038752
As far as the Trinity goes 4 Discourses Against the Arians by st. Athanasius of Alexandria translated by John Henry Newman. It's not an easy text, but he's less platonic than st. Augustine and assuming you aren't IQ 95 you should be able to follow it if you pay attention.
And you should start reading primary texts in philosophy. There's a reason why the scholastic education required 2 years of pure philosophy. If you want to do theology you need to build it on firm ground with a developed way of thinking.
Scheeben's Dogmatik is around 1k pages and it's a manual of Catholic theology and it could be a useful read down the line. The more basic works are usually apologetics and Peter Kreeft is a respectable author in the area. I'm not a massive fan of bishop Barron, but his Catholicism is a decent introduction.

[Anonymous No.10039152]

>>10038331
Its the first heresy premised around complaining on the internet rather than going to a normal church (even an Orthodox or high-church Protestant one) and talking to people. Add /pol/ to this and its perfect for 4chan.

[Anonymous No.10039164]

>>10039152
Has internet complaining made sedevacantism grow a lot?

[Anonymous No.10039186]

>>10038036
The apprehension of the sacred is lost in Western culture on the whole, which the root of the problem. Catholics in rural Poland probably can appericate the sacred. Second-generation Serbian Orthodox immigrants to the US influenced by US culture probably can't. When the church was in the catacombs, the surrounding Roman Pagan culture, for all its flaws, wasn't materialist. Modern Christians have to live in a society at odds with the very idea of the sacred.

I think people overestimate the "bringing back a dead tradition" part though. My 90 y/o grandma, who I speak with weekly, was 33 and had several kids when the US was at peak Catholicism (1960, when the RCC was at the peak of its influence, when mass attendance and vocations were still high, Vatican II had yet to happen, Fulton Sheen was on TV, and ethnic Catholics were largely assimlated into American society). The 50s were far from a golden age, hence why we ended up here, but its not like traditionalist Catholics are trying to recreate lost Norse pagan rituals and belief or something like that.

[Anonymous No.10039187]

The 'protestant' search backwards for 'simplicity' and directness - which, of course, though it contains some good or at least intelligible motives, is mistaken and indeed vain. Because 'primitive Christianity' is now and in spite of all 'research' will ever remain largely unknown; because 'primitiveness' is no guarantee of value, and is, and was in great a reflection of ignorance. Grave abuses were as much an element in Christian liturgical behaviour from the beginning as now. (St Paul's strictures on Eucharistic behaviour are sufficient to show this!) Still more because 'my church' was not intended by Our Lord to be static or remain in perpetual childhood; but to be a living organism (likened to a plant), which develops and changes in externals by the interaction of its bequeathed divine life and history - the particular circumstances of the world into which it is set. There is no resemblance between the 'mustard-seed' and the full-grown tree. For those living in the days of its branching growth, the Tree is the thing, for the history of a living thing is part of its life, and the history of a divine thing is sacred. The wise may know that it began with a seed, but it is vain to try and dig it up, for it no longer exists, and the virtue and powers that it had now reside in the Tree. Very good: but in husbandry the authorities, the keepers of the Tree, must look after it, according to such wisdom as they possess, prune it, remove cankers, rid it of parasites and so forth. (With trepidation, knowing how little their knowledge of growth is!) But they will certainly do harm if they are obsessed with the desire of going back to the seed or even to the first youth when it was (as they imagine) pretty and unafflicted by evils. The other motive (now so confused with the primitivist one, even in the mind with any one of the reformers): aggiornamento: bringing up to date: that has its own grave dangers, as has been apparent throughout history. With this, 'ecumenicalness' has also become confused. (The Letters of J.R.R Tolkien, no. 306.)

[Anonymous No.10039220]

>>10039164
Anecdotally, there are very few SV churches out there (tiny compared to the SSPX, which most Catholics still haven't heard about), yet it seems to crop up on the internet all the time. A reaction to Pope Francis is another factor. There's also liberal "independent Catholic" churches out their with female and openly gay priests (often in litigation with the local diocese over use of the word "Catholic" or over real estate), but they get less press. If the current Pope was Cardinal Burke I imagine SVism would die down and liberal schismatics would pop up more often (but probably on different websites than this one).

[Anonymous No.10039269]

>>10034599
Anyways once you start praying, and especially praying for real you will notice how meditation is just the typical relaxing/focusing aspect of prayer, but with no divinity and contemplation, just like all of Buddhism. Its just spiritualish detatchment exercises who in their original form have a big pagan element and are not good for us for many reasons.
Pray pray pray. Start with the rosary, then look into mental prayer, lectio divina. Dom Lehody's The Ways of Mental Prayer is good. Then try this vid for lectio divina.

https://youtu.be/rAgetB4P4pI

[Anonymous No.10039280]

Matthew 6:7: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

Matthew 23:9: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

How is a padre with a rosary not the opposite of what those verses imply?

[Anonymous No.10039296]

>>10039186
The thing is the V2 generation can apprehend the sacred just as well as the young trads can, and can be just as orthodox. It's not exactly hard to find, at least here and the main difference is the internet. Today finding out about the old rite, getting news about the homosexual progressive pedophiles and bishops protecting them and all the other vileness was hard to notice before the internet. Today we can get everything we need to know about the faith easily from the internet. Finding Scheeben and Garrigou Lagrange 20 years ago? Unless you were a specialist, impossible. Today? A large number of sites in the basically universal language, English, that will talk about him, forums, even 4chan and other similar groups make it easy. And because of all this, at least in my experience, most TLM parishes have an unproportional number of highly educated persons, compared to other parishes.
In mine, where we get maybe 1-2 TLMs a month half of the attendees are either students of college professors (STEM for the most part).

[Anonymous No.10039310]

>>10019196
Have you read the bible at all recently?

[Anonymous No.10039314]

>>10039280
If a repetition helps instill a certain psychological state in the person praying that aids their concentration on God (habit is the route to virtue) then its not "vain". Praying to Apollo 10 times because you'll get a better harvest than the guy who prays 9 times is vain (if a Catholic uses the rosary in this way they are doing it wrong).

Protestants use the term "father" in reference to their dads. The meaning of the verse in that you shouldn't but earthly things ahead of God, which Catholics don't think they are doing when they listen to their priests because they act on the authority of the church God created (nor do Protestants think they are doing when they listen to their minister's sermons).

[Anonymous No.10039337]

>>10039314
What's the Roman Catholic response to Lutheranism?

Job 12:7: "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:"

"God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars."
—Martin Luther

[Anonymous No.10039363]

>>10039337
>What's the response to Lutheranism
Literally the council of Trent

[Anonymous No.10039376]

>>10039363
>Four hundred years later, when Pope John XXIII initiated preparations for the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), he affirmed the decrees it had issued: "What was, still is."[3]

What is that supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.10039384]

>>10039376
V2 doesn't change or invalidate anything valid from before.

[Anonymous No.10039408]

>>10039384
>In the case of a divorce, the right of the innocent party to marry again was denied so long as the other party was alive, even if the other party had committed adultery. However the council "refused … to assert the necessity of usefulness of clerical celibacy.[20]

[Anonymous No.10039528]

>>10018467
We're always being led to believe by the pernicious liberal ideals of our contemporary society how Hell is this terribly evil thing, that no God, much less a supposedly good one, would ever inflict on anyone ever, but when you examine it from the perspective of pre-moderns, it actually becomes a very reasonable proposal.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/10/how-to-go-to-hell_29.html

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/11/does-god-damn-you.html

> And that is the essence of punishment: restoring the teleological relationship, ordained by nature, between evil behavior on the one hand and the unpleasantness or pain that is its proper accident on the other. Punishing evil is thus like healing a wound, restoring a damaged painting, or fixing a leak. It is a matter of repairing things, putting things back in order, making them how they are supposed to be. And given the essentialist and teleological metaphysics that underlies the Thomistic natural law conception of morality, that cannot fail to be a good thing.

[Anonymous No.10039587]

>>10018626
Read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.10039656]

>>10039528
>punishment is just

Sure, buddy, but not when it's literally infinite. Punishment should fit the crime, and infinite punishment is infinitely unjust. Not even Hitler deserves to be punished forever.

[Anonymous No.10039663]

>>10039528

People commonly confuse the analogous description of hell as a place of torture for what it really is, which is a state being in complete absence of God. Since God is all-good or the source of all good, being in complete absence of that would be like torture which is why the analogy is accurate, but skeptics take it too far and act like God is being a vindictive scorned lover. If God is real then there's two option for us after death, we can be in His presence or not. It's heaven or hell and the choice is nothing to be offended over.

[Anonymous No.10039664]

>>10018467

> Catholicism says spirits have free will
> Catholicism says spirits have to decide for or against the gospel before they become good or bad
> Catholicism says don't interact with spirits at all
> mfw all the spirits have nobody to preach the gospel to them
> mfw catholics don't seem to ever believe in neutral spirits

[Anonymous No.10039681]

>>10038814
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.10039705]

>>10038827
Thank you, but I meant something that covers the main points of the whole of Christian theology. Something like "The Ode Less Travelled By" of theology.
>IQ 95
I hope not, but then again, it takes a bit of smarts to be able to tell just how stupid you really are.

[Anonymous No.10039710]

>>10039681
I think the point he was making was that all this theology is the equivalent of fat neckbeards in a basement arguing about the traits and motivations of superheroes. The fact that most of you Catholics in here probably are fat neckbeards is no coincidence.

It's fun fiction to explore and entertain, but fiction is all it is until there's good reason to believe otherwise.

[Anonymous No.10039717]

>>10039656

I think you need to define justice. What is your standard for measuring what is just and what isn't? If not God who is ipsum esse, or the perfect act of being itself, whose power is not arbitrary, but is identical to his goodness and his will, then what is it?

[Anonymous No.10039734]

>>10039717
Justice coincides with morality, which rests on empathy and reciprocity.

If Divine Command Theory is true (disregarding the fact that there's no way to argue the decrees of other religious entities are "perfect moral beings" beyond "b-but those gods aren't real!"), then are things like rape killing children perfectly OK if they're ordered by a god?

[Anonymous No.10039746]

>>10039734

How is empathy and reciprocity used judge whether or not eternal punishment is just?

[Anonymous No.10039781]

>>10018467
do people still believe St Augustine had any valid arguments?

[Anonymous No.10039784]

>>10039746
Would you like to be tortured forever? How would you feel about another person being tortured forever?

I'd feel ok about a person being punished in equivalent measure with their acts of evil, but there's literally nothing someone could do that would justify eternal punishment, especially when the only requisite for not being condemned to such a fate in the Christian religion is to "accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior".

A serial rapist/murderer can "repent" right before his execution and go to heaven in that religion, while an Atheist, no matter how much good he did for the world, will be condemned to eternal torture simply for not believing in god on bad evidence.

Explain to me how that is "just". If "cuz god said so" is really all you've got, and you've never heard an objection to Divine Command Theory, what's your argument against Muslim suicide bombers, assuming they follow the correct word of god?

[Anonymous No.10039794]

The fact that this sect of Judaism was officially adopted by the Empire and then become the main ideology and lifestyle for a thousand years in Europe and is still alive is pretty mind boggling to me.

[Anonymous No.10039797]

>>10039734
Divine Command Theory is not Catholic dogma, and its probably a more complex idea than you're making it out to be. God can't make rape (or murder or whatever) good arbitrarily because he created human nature, and under natural law rape is immoral, due to how human sexuality is ordered. For God to make rape moral, he would have to fundamentally alter the fabric of reality as well. God can't come down and give one guy a free pass to rape one time.

Also many religions would not have viewed their gods as perfect moral beings like the major monotheistic faiths view God.

[Anonymous No.10039802]

>>10039794
That's the power of the LORD

[Anonymous No.10039820]

>>10039797
So when Yahweh in the old testament does things like orders the killing of babies or gives guidelines on how to treat your slaves, that was all fine and good? Because he said so?

Also
>For God to make rape moral, he would have to fundamentally alter the fabric of reality as well. God can't come down and give one guy a free pass to rape one time.

Why is this a problem for an entity touted as omnipotent? Disregarding the contradictions inherent in such a property.

[Anonymous No.10039824]

>>10039794
1) From the way you talk, I can tell you have a very shallow understanding of Christianity and its history.

2) Christianity is still around because Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and that it would endure until the Resurrection.

[Anonymous No.10039826]

>>10039802
More like the power of the mass cultural influence of the Roman Empire...

[Anonymous No.10039829]

>>10039784
Most Catholic authorities today would hold out the possibility that a non-Catholic (even an atheist) could be saved if they were not morally culpable for not being a Catholic but otherwise lived virtuous lives according to natural law (the most obvious and extreme would be someone on an desert island who had no knowledge that Christianity even existed). They would add that (1) we can't know this with 100% certainty, (2) this person would still owe their salvation to Christ's sacrifice on the cross, so it isn't strictly speaking religious relativism, and (3) we should still try to covert people rather than leave them in states of excusable ignorance

[Anonymous No.10039831]

>>10039820
>So when Yahweh in the old testament does things like orders the killing of babies or gives guidelines on how to treat your slaves, that was all fine and good? Because he said so?

Not him, but yes. God has a more refined morality than you do. "That hurts my feelings and makes my brain itch" is not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10039845]

>>10039784

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up divine command theory because that's not what we're talking about. You keep asserting that eternal punishment is wrong but so far you've been unwilling to explain why. Asking me whether or not I would enjoy being tortured forever is not an explanation. I think God has authority over our lives is because he gave us our lives in the first place, so he's the one that decides what is just or isn't. What you're doing is attempting to usurp this authority, to take God's justice and replace it with your justice.

Furthermore there is a third option that you're not considering, which is purgatory. This is a temporary "punishment" that can take place after death. It's not a simple matter hell or heaven. A rapist or murderer can accept Jesus before he dies and he could spend time in purgatory. An atheist who doesn't know enough to accept Jesus could also spend time in purgatory as opposed to going to hell. They can both go to hell too, we don't know. It's God who decides what is just in accordance with his own nature, which is perfectly good.

[Anonymous No.10039855]

>>10039831
>"That hurts my feelings and makes my brain itch" is not an argument.

I already argued why it's wrong, and never used "that makes my brain itch"...

And as I've asked before, how do you determine such commands to be just? Only because a god said so? Why assume it's actually god? Why assume it's a good god? Why assume other religions don't follow the correct god?

Your argument begs way too many questions.

[Anonymous No.10039861]

>>10039829
>if they were not morally culpable for not being a Catholic

What is that even supposed to mean? That they never heard of Catholicism? Do I even have to get into why that's nonsense? Again, it has nothing to do with moral actions and everything to do with blind faith.

[Anonymous No.10039863]

>>10039855
>And as I've asked before, how do you determine such commands to be just? Only because a god said so? Why assume it's actually god? Why assume it's a good god?

See: Edward Feser, Five Proofs for the Existence of God. Chapter 1.

[Anonymous No.10039867]

>>10039824
Christianity infiltrated the Empire and take it over. Then merged itself with local European religions and spirituality and formed the various saints and legends of it's own. After the collapse of the Empire it was the main authority that fueled the Feudalism and although I don't believe in God I do think that Christianity did more good than bad during the Middle Ages.

It's just mind boggling to me that such a religion thrived for so long. Even Jesus probably didn't existed. Even the holy texts are not very authentic that requiered multiple councils to agree on what is the word of God and what isn't. Compare this religion to such a strong and solid religion like Islam, it's really interesting that Christianity survived at all let alone dominate the world.

[Anonymous No.10039876]

>>10039820
The OT needs to be viewed in historical context, it is "without error" but only in a roundabout way that keeps in mind the literary genre and historical context it sprang out of. God didn't beam the exact wording of perfect commands into the author's heads, that they then wrote down for us to view them as a guide for our day to day lives today. The long and short of it is that the Bronze Age Near East was all sorts of fucked up and thanks to God the Israelites were usually the least degenerate of the bunch.

>Why is this a problem for an entity touted as omnipotent?
Same reason God can't create a squared circle or whatnot. God has a rational nature. A thing that is the ground for the existence of reason can't itself be illogical or contradictory (at most finite beings can misunderstand Him making it seem like He is. "Mystery" springs from our inability to perfectly understand God, not God being a logical paradox) I'm sure Feser or someone like that can explain this better than I can.

[Anonymous No.10039877]

>>10039863
Why not elaborate yourself? If you honestly think you've found a cogent argument for the existence not only of a god, but of the specific god of a particular religion, do tell. I'll be very surprised if it can't be quickly shut down by skeptical arguments.

[Anonymous No.10039881]

>>10039663
Why only two options?

>>10039845
>I think my parents have authority over my lives because they gave me my life

[Anonymous No.10039883]

>>10039881
>I think my parents have authority over my lives because they gave me my life

Yes they do.

[Anonymous No.10039884]

>>10039863
If you mean the five ways, they were addressed in the previous clg

[Anonymous No.10039890]

>>10039884

It's the name of a book.

>>10039877

I'm not versed enough to teach a hostile crowd but your questions are explained very carefully in the first chapter of that book.

[Anonymous No.10039893]

>>10039883
>my parents can literally mete out any arbitrary punishment they want to me and can turn me into whatever person they want me to be and I'll take it like a cuck and I don't see anything wrong with this

[Anonymous No.10039899]

>>10039890
I know it's a book, I mean the arguments inside the book, so the third ways

[Anonymous No.10039906]

>>10039893

Stop with the greentext. Your parents are human, so while they don't have the supreme authority of God, they do have some of authority which includes the ability to punish you and guide your development so long as its in accordance with God's will.

[Anonymous No.10039909]

>>10039899

The book is not strictly about the 5 ways. Ignore the title.

[Anonymous No.10039933]

>>10039861
You can believe Catholicism is true, murder a bunch a babies, not go to confession or repent in any way for your actions, still believe Catholicism is true, die, and go to hell. It doesn't work like certain forms of protestantism.

You can live on a desert island, not know Catholicism is a thing because of circumstances outside of your control, live a virtuous life in line with natural law, and maybe go to heaven. Natural law isn't like Jewish dietary law. It exists for everyone (all being a part of nature) and can, to a limited extent, be known by anyone, even without the Church's guidance.

Desert island is a hypothetical. A more real world example would be modern Japan, where less than 1% is Catholic and your average salaryman goes through life without interacting with a Catholic or having any reason to look into Western religions.

[Anonymous No.10039941]

>>10039906
So they don't really have authority over you is what you've admitted

[Anonymous No.10039948]

>>10039933
this position is theologically consistent. The catholic church says that there is no salvation outside the church, but Paul writes in some of his epistles that God looks at how well you followed the law regardless of whether you knew it or not.

[Anonymous No.10039956]

>>10039893
Accepting discipline from an authority figure is how you learn how not to be a cuck. Was Ralph Macchio a cuck for taking orders from that Japanese guy in order to learn Karate?

[Anonymous No.10039966]

>>10039941

No I didn't. I said that parents have some authority over their children which is derived from the supreme authority of God. What this means is they have a limited authority as opposed to supreme authority or no authority. Parents don't have the authority to mete out any arbitrary punishment, but they do have the authority to mete out a just punishment.

[Anonymous No.10039990]

>>10039408
Not all Catholic priests are celibate, Eastern rite can marry after they become priests, but not before (or is it the other way around).
Marriage cannot be divorced in any way, adultery or no.

[Anonymous No.10039995]

>>10039705
There is no one whole Christian theology. There's Catholic, Orthodox and dozens of protestant ones.

[Anonymous No.10040002]

>>10039797
divine command is not only not a dogma, it's an idea that's mostly related to islam and protestantism due to divine personalism.

[Anonymous No.10040009]

>>10039855
Your argument is actually based in feelings, or as you put it empathy. Try to detach yourself from them when arguing about this and it will make a lot more sense.

[Anonymous No.10040020]

>>10039990
>be divorced in any way, adultery or no.

The only way in which this is a "Catholic" doctrine is that's written in a book somewhere that no bishop in the world gives a fuck about. Look at Amor Laetitia. Even the Pope doesn't believe it. 99% of Catholic parishes in the world will support divorced/remarried Catholics and even give them communion.

[Anonymous No.10040041]

>>10040020
99% is pulled right out of your schismatic ass and lucky for us God is saving us from Francis by getting him to write personal opinions and give plane interviews instead of proper encyclicals. And the fact that it was respected for so long speaks volumes to why it isn't just a word on a paper. There's so much unreast about this within the hierarchy and moreso amongst the laymen exactly because they believe it. If it wasn't so, you wouldn't know what AL was.

[Anonymous No.10040043]

>>10039876
>context

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

[Anonymous No.10040044]

>>10040020

You argument essentially boils down to "bad Catholics don't adhere to this teaching therefore the teaching is not real or valid." I would ask you for a reason why you believe the pope doesn't adhere to this doctrine but I know you either don't have one, and no, the vague language of Amor Laetitia doesn't count as a reason because nothing has been defined. It's just vague language.

[Anonymous No.10040048]

>>10039876
>A thing that is the ground for the existence of reason can't itself be illogical or contradictory

Nonsense. If he is the essential author of logic, as I assume you propose, he can do what he wants. If not, you admit to a big open can of worms.

[Anonymous No.10040051]

>>10039890
>I'm not versed enough to teach a hostile crowd

No one ever seems to want to elaborate on their arguments for the existence of god. They only ever want to refer to something else. Very telling.

[Anonymous No.10040060]

>>10040009
Empathy and reciprocity are, rationally, the basis of morality.

Morality ultimately is about the well-being of conscious creatures, and negative feelings are a means of suffering.

Try to attach yourself to rationality and this will make a lot more sense.

[Anonymous No.10040086]

>>10040051

Well first off the conversation is about justice in relation to God. In order to have the conversation we were having we have to presuppose the existence of perfect singular God. You attempted to shift the conversation to the existence of God which is fine, but I would rather keep the conversation on topic so instead of following you down that track I simply recommended a book that would answer the questions you asked.

Now aside from that, one reason people might not be willing to discuss the arguments for the existence of God is that they require a lot of foreknowledge when it comes to classical philosophy. When discussing these arguments with people who aren't already familiar with them it becomes less of an argument, which is interesting, and more of a teaching experience, which is boring. I personally don't feel like defining the same old terms and explaining the same old elementary philosophical concepts to people who probably aren't listening in good faith. I'm interested in finding truth, not debate rhetoric, and that requires a cooperative partner.

[Anonymous No.10040095]

>>10040060

How is empathy and reciprocity use to judge whether or not an action is just? As a standard these things appear to be arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.10040118]

>>10040048
That's a view that very few Catholic theologians hold. God is his essence and cannot contradict himself. He cannot will himself out of existence because existence is his nature and logic emanates from his essence.
>>10040051
Because you are incapable of looking at the arguments they give you in good faith, which makes all polemical discussion of such things on the internet pointless. They can guide you and explain a few things, but expecting long essays on the existence of God instead of reading books they would be based on is just dumb.
>>10040060
The central question is Whose Justice? Which Rationality?
Clearly Catholics see your concept of rationality as bollocks and see absolutely no reason to accept what's essentially just utilitarian and consequentialist morality.

[Anonymous No.10040206]

>>10040095
Because again, morality concerns the well-being of conscious creatures, and these means are how we may determine if others are suffering.

[Anonymous No.10040222]

>>10040086
I'm also interested in finding truth, and am perfectly willing to debate from my own summarized understanding as opposed to always feeling the need to refer to a complete literary source. The most I'll do in this regard is link to a quick video.

If we can't have a discussion or debate in this way, it isn't a debate at all.

[Anonymous No.10040240]

>>10040206
Why would morality concern the well being of conscious creatures? And why would suffering be the means of determining as opposed to teleology or maxims?

[Anonymous No.10040256]

We need a new thread boys.

[Anonymous No.10040261]

>>10040118
>cannot contradict himself
Then he is not omnipotent.
>existence is his nature and logic emanates from his essence.
Again, are you saying he is the author of logic? Otherwise, how does logic "emanate" from him?

>Because you are incapable of looking at the arguments they give you in good faith
I want them to argue from their own understanding of the arguments instead of simply hearing or reading someone else argue for a position they happen to agree with and referring to them when they feel they need to. It reflects blind faith and a lack of understanding, which is too easy to joke about.

>Whose Justice? Which Rationality?
Justice and rationality can't be split like that. Either something is just and/or rational, or it isn't. If the equivalent of "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." is all you have to come back with on this, I'd really like if you gave it another shot.

[Anonymous No.10040281]

>>10040240
Discussions of morality without reference to the well-being of conscious creatures and their capacity for suffering are vacuous nonsense. Find me even one such argument which doesn't somewhere loop back to these concerns in attempts to validate them.

[Anonymous No.10040308]

>>10040261
>Then he is not omnipotent.
Then he does not fit your term of what omnipotence is.
He isn't the author of logic in a sense that he made it up as logic is a part of order, which is good and god is goodness itself, meaning order, logic, hierarchy and so on are dependant on him sustaining it as far as the world is concerned. So he cannot make a square circle and a good evil and so on because they would contradict his naure.
This is pretty hard to argue about considering it rests on a language you do not command, much like kantian explanations rest on kantian terms, one who doesn't know them by heart cannot understand the argument very well. So first this would need to become a classroom where you'd have to assume terms such as essence, the four causes, finality, hierarchical existence, principle of sufficient reason and principle of identity, a concept of the just and the rational radically different than your own. Only then could we properly engage these problems. That's why to enter the discussion you'd need some prior knowlede, much like you'd need to understand basic mathematics to understand the set theory.
And yes, I gave you a it's just your opinion because you provided very little for me to assume your conception of it, much less to integrate it within my own metaphysical assumtions.

[Anonymous No.10040314]

>>10040222

I'll provide the argument from motion, you'll look it up on Rationalwiki and repeat the same old objections based on ignorance and misunderstandings of what Aquinas was saying and then I'll be forced spend the next hour correcting them. I can almost guarantee that you won't be know the difference between an essential and accidental causal series so I'll have to explain that and then at some point you'll ask me who created God or how we know this is the Christian God. I've done it too many times and this is not a conversation that I want to have. It gets stupid very quickly. If you seriously want to debate this topic you need to do your homework.

[Anonymous No.10040355]

>>10040314
If all you're really gonna do is name off some valid objections like who created god or how we know -even if we could determine a god exists- if it's the Christian or any specific religion's god, or come right off saying any and all objections or flaws concerning Aquinas' arguments are automatically based on "ignorance and misunderstandings", you've quickly shown yourself to be close-minded and not really wiling to have a discussion.

Here's a quick video about it, though, including the argument's flaws, so have a look if you're interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY

[Anonymous No.10040368]

>>10040051
This website was created to argue over whether Rei or Asuka is best girl, and its average user is a teenager or college student, not a professional philosopher. Its ill suited for debates over the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.10040372]

>>10040308
It seems at best all you're trying to do is equate god with logic. If you can't give a consistent, detailed account of god's properties, you ought not be having this discussion.

Which came first, god or logic? I'll answer that for you. If there is in fact a god, he must've come second to logic, and if that's the case, by what means did he arise out of logic to begin with? And why can't it be that natural existence arose out of logic by the same means without the need of a middle-man like god?

[Anonymous No.10040375]

>>10040314
https://discord.gg/qYYG4N
Join my discord to discuss Aquinas, need someone to talk to about him.

[Anonymous No.10040381]

>>10040368
Hey, I didn't start the thread. Don't complain when it gets uncomfortable attention that OP asked for. Not saying you're on one side or the other, but we're all just shitposting here.

[Anonymous No.10040414]

>>10040355

Thank you for justifying my initial belief that a conversation with you wouldn't be worth having. The fact that you think those objections are valid in any way demonstrates that you're not ready to discuss the argument in an intelligent way. You don't understand the argument so you're not even in a position claim an objection to it is valid.

I'm very familiar with that video you linked. It is the dumbest thing they've ever put out and it routinely gets made fun of on various philosophy forums. Since you're so adverse to reading things you can listen to this to find out why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfmviQcAT8Y

[Anonymous No.10040420]

>>10040414
But what about discord

[Anonymous No.10040425]

>>10040420

No I don't want anything to do with it. If I did I would have responded to you the first time.

[Anonymous No.10040436]

>>10040425
:(

[Anonymous No.10040545]

>>10040414
I just listened and -as expected- I'm disappointed.

>Every composite being is dependent on its parts for its existence. God is not composite.

Nonsense. This is essentially saying god is sufficient for his own existence without logic. Without identity. I've already addressed this.>>10040372

He's basically asserting god to be either equal to logic, or its author. One is unnecessary, one is nonsense.

Also, his argument against infinite regress is pathetic. He speaks of causal chains in terms of quarks causing particles causing atoms, etc. instead of for instance, universes somehow spawning other universes. It may also be the case that reality, at some fundamental, yet undiscovered level, is in fact eternal. In either case, or in the case of god, all must be based in logic, which is the only thing which can be truly said to be universal and eternal.

[Anonymous No.10040923]

>>10039867
>Jesus probably didn't exist
This is not the consensus of scholars, secular and otherwise.

[Anonymous No.10041050]

>>10039966
Where "just" is defined as the type of punishment you are told to agree with

>>10039956
Yes. There was very little reason to believe the guy was actually teaching him karate except from movie magic, and discipline from outside sources is very much for cucks.

[Anonymous No.10041128]

>>10041050
>Where "just" is defined as the type of punishment you are told to agree with

No I defined the just as an action in accordance with Gods will. When we have to consider whether or not an action is just we're not "told" anything, we have to perceive the truth of it. That some people get it wrong and act unjustly doesn't tell us anything about justice itself and whether or not it there is a standard that can be met.

[Anonymous No.10041276]

>>10041128
Where God's will is defined as the words of men with big hats and an appetite for pederasty