/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18273380]

Start with Ratzinger

what do you think of his works?

[Anonymous No.18273489]

>>18273380
I want to read his work. Where do i start?

[Anonymous No.18273559]

>>18273489
Introduction to Christianity

[Anonymous No.18273627]

>>18273380
>Vatican II
Heretics, all of them

[Anonymous No.18273746]

>>18273627
Anyone not accepting Vatican II is a heretic. Imagine going back to Tridentine liturgy.
The only arguably "cucked" part is the manner in which they talk about other religions having glimpses of God, and that is at worst a matter of vocabulary used and post council interpretation.

[Anonymous No.18273763]

>>18273627
What do you dislike about Vatican II? I always see people complaining about it, but they are always vague about what it is exactly that they have a problem with.

[Anonymous No.18273788]

>>18273746
>>18273763
Idk maybe it’s all the fag supporting, nonwhite invaders into Europe feet kissing, or all the child molesting?
Maybe it’s one of those things?

[Anonymous No.18273804]

>>18273788
that's just the current pope, who is a heretic

[Anonymous No.18273808]

>>18273788
None of those things have anything to do with Vatican II. And feet washing is Biblical, if that's what you take issue with you must not like Christ very much either.

[Anonymous No.18273816]

>>18273788
>feet kissing (actually washing)
wait til you find out what Jesus did to filthy beggars.

[Anonymous No.18273925]

>>18273763
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWsgxCVYtAI

[Anonymous No.18273944]

>>18273763
I was born catholic, went to a catholic school, had catechism classes, did my first communion, my confirmation, several retreats, but they never taught me anything about the dogma or morals, except that I had to be "nice". So naturally I never had faith and I sinned gravely constantly, the mass bored me to death, so I stopped going as soon as I was confirmed. I never confessed and I never prayed because nobody told me I had to. The same thing happened to the other 60 kids who were with me in school and with the youth catechism group. None of them are Catholics today.
But I was in need of truth and so I spent a lot of time looking, into philosophy, esotericism and other religions. And by the grace of God I learned about Vatican II and the traditionalists. Suddenly I understood why the Church doesn't teach anymore (and thus leads souls to Hell) and I discovered a place where the dogma and morals are taught, the SSPX. So I did my very first confession at 25, now I have faith, I pray every day, I go to mass and I know what the finality of life is.
Vatican II was a disaster and caused most Catholics to lose faith and stop practicing, the same happened to me, everyone in my family and most people I know.

[Anonymous No.18273956]

>>18273380
I like his recent post papal critiques of the church. Utterly fascinating in content and yet shocking that he failed to do anything as the pope and writing about it afterwords.

Also, he was a theological genius, shame he wasn’t Lutheran. He could have saved it. Lutheranism is just a preview for Catholicism by the way. Fucked by Marxists

[Anonymous No.18273986]

>>18273944
That still doesn't explain anything.

[Anonymous No.18274005]

>>18273808
>>18273816
Beggars are different than invaders you absolute cucks

[Anonymous No.18274017]

>>18273925
>dimond bros

[Anonymous No.18274019]

>>18273986
That's just my experience and the reason I dislike Vatican II. If you want something more theological then read any book by Marcel Lefebvre, he explains the problems with Vatican II very well.

[Anonymous No.18274023]

>>18274017
>Cannot dismiss the rightful criticism of Vatican II
>Must resort to namecalling

[Anonymous No.18274026]

>>18273944
>SSPX
Sedes. You're a sede too.

[Anonymous No.18274047]

>>18273944
>Vatican II was a disaster and caused most Catholics to lose faith and stop practicing, the same happened to me, everyone in my family and most people I know.
that was modernity. if it hadn't been for Vatican II you would have 300 milion Catholics at most

[Anonymous No.18274075]

>>18274047
200,000 people converted every year to Catholicism in the US. In my country, my grandparents told me that everyone they knew were Catholics and it changed in the years following Vatican II. Obviously modernity was a factor, but Vatican II was a much bigger factor. I guess most people here don't realize it since they don't live in a country that used to be 100% catholic.

[Anonymous No.18274084]

>>18274026
you don't know what sedevacantism means and you imply that it is a bad thing

[Anonymous No.18274090]

>>18274075
Do you honestly think there'd be more Catholics if Vatican II didn't happen and TLM was still the only option?

[Anonymous No.18274092]

>>18273986
I'm not that guy but I'll give it a shot.

Most conservative and especially traditionalist Catholics dislike Vatican II not for any specific doctrinal content in it--in fact, the council is often criticized for having been called for no good reason and for having accomplished no clear purpose--but instead for the changes in liturgical and catechical (teaching of morals and doctrine to younglings and newbies) practice that came in the decades following it as a result of its more general "recommendations." For example, Vatican II's documents themselves say quite clearly that Gregorian chant and Latin should continue to have pride of place in the liturgy, and does not say anything about the priest turning his back to the altar (the worst of the liturgical changes). Yet, in the years following the council, completely vernacular masses were promulgated by Paul VI, and bishop's conferences were allowed to take things further with extremely unsound music, turning the priest toward the people (away from God), communion on the hands, etc.

Such changes are reflective more of a general zeitgeist surrounding Vatican II than anything.

Of Vatican II's specific statements, the most disliked (and apparently the main statement to be opposed by the SSPX, the main traditionalist breakaway group that considers Vatican II and the new mass to be unacceptable) are the statements about religious liberty and ecumenism, which appear to suggest that the Church's teaching is not the supreme truth and that other people should be allowed to persist in error since God will save them anyway--contrary to many centuries of Church teaching and practice. These statements in Vatican II are what led to abhorrent things like John Paul II kissing the Koran and other such instances.

But the main, overriding concern of Vatican II opponents is the utter deracination, denuding, or whatever you want to call it, of the liturgy. Because while Vatican II did not actually implement horrible, ugly new masses, it did lead to them.

[Anonymous No.18274095]

Tbh I’m an Oriental Orthodox who was attracted to Catholicism’s rich aesthetic and intellectual tradition, but now I think I’ll probably go Eastern Orthodox or just stay put. Any advice on finding the ‘true’ church? Seems like you need a PhD in theology to discern between different views on the papacy, ADS vs essence/energies, Marian dogmas, christological differences, and councils/ecclesiology. Kinda daunting desu

[Anonymous No.18274107]

>>18274084
Cope word for protestantism.

[Anonymous No.18274110]

>>18274092
That's the answer I was looking for, thanks.

[Anonymous No.18274112]

>>18274084
Like clockwork lol

[Anonymous No.18274135]

>>18274084
Ironically, SSPX/"traditionalist"-style sedevacantism is the most individualistic, anarchic and modern position a (supposed) Catholic could adopt.

[Anonymous No.18274142]

>>18274090
Yes, like I said I was in a group of around 60 kids, born the same year, who went to the same catholic school, had catechism classes together and did their first communion and their confirmation together. Today I am the only one who is still a Catholic, because I went to the SSPX. I am convinced that if all 60 of this kids went to a school managed by the SSPX and went to mass and catechism by the SSPX, a good portion of them would still be Catholics. My grandparents were kids before Vatican II and almost everybody they knew were Catholics, but it changed very fast after Vatican II. Concerning my country (Belgium), the Church and the Catholic Party lost the second school war in 1959, after winning the first (end of the 19th century), hurting catholic schools, which shows that modernity also plays a role. But I am convinced that Vatican II played a much bigger role.

[Anonymous No.18274155]

>>18274107
>>18274112
>>18274135
The position of the SSPX is neither sedevacantism, nor sedeprivationism. I don't have a source in English, but here is a teacher at the seminary of Ecône explaining the position of the SSPX:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY0enPxIR-Y

[Anonymous No.18274160]

Is this any good?

[Anonymous No.18274191]

Just ordered Jesus of Nazareth the second volume, is it any good?

[Anonymous No.18274411]

>>18273559
Thank you

[Anonymous No.18274413]

boooomp

[Anonymous No.18274429]

>>18274092
Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.18274526]

>>18273944
>but they never taught me anything about the dogma or morals, except that I had to be "nice".
why is it like that? I understand not going into depth when kids are still in elementary school, but conifrmation is literally only once the individual has the faculty for reason. Still all the teachers and priests told us was to be nice, love and also respect other religions.
I saw no need for a religion when all it taught me was what everyday normal life society told me I should do.

[Anonymous No.18274657]

>>18273746
this is false even according to novus ordo interpretation

[Anonymous No.18274665]

>>18274026
>>18274135
>the sspx are sedes
this is the most brainlet tier post i have read today

[Anonymous No.18274700]

I thought muslims and jews killing each other would be the best thing I saw this year. But no, there is something spectacular about christcucks calling each other heretics.

[Anonymous No.18274704]

>>18274526
It's a complete subversion of Catholicism, teaching dogma and morals is against tolerance and inclusivity. This people teaching catechism have themselves been taught next to nothing so they don't know. Also, many priests don't have faith anymore since the seminaries have been subverted. On the topic of the subversion of seminaries, there is a great book in French called "La Blessure" by J.-P. Dickes.

[Anonymous No.18274736]

>>18274704
And what is the solution then? If protestants are in error and catholics are in error as well then what do we do?

[Anonymous No.18274754]

>>18274736
praying

[Anonymous No.18274804]

>>18274665
Didnt cardinal burke say the sspx were in schism lul

[Anonymous No.18274909]

>>18274736
1. Reform from within meme (summa pontificorum)--most dioceses have parishes that are more conservative and practice the old liturgy

2. SSPX or other breakaway group -- came into existence because in the 70s bishops wouldnt give permission to use the old liturgy

3. Eastern Catholic -- still loyal to the pope but moderately less cucked due to ethnic nature

4. Eastern Orthodox -- kind of cucked because bitch to Ottomans and various secular authorities for a long time, but pretty based liturgy and art so who cares

[Anonymous No.18275459]

>>18273380
Intro to Christianity was disappointing. What's so deep about Ratzinger as a theologian? Doesn't seem to know what he wants from VII either.

[Anonymous No.18275470]

>>18273956
>Also, he was a theological genius,

Convince me. What's so special? No one says anything substantial when they praise him as a thinker. I'm not calling him an idiot, just asking what the appeal is.

[Anonymous No.18275475]

>>18274095
Just be OO or Catholic. What's the point of switching to EO? Also, Coptics are crypto-Catholics.

[Anonymous No.18275487]

>>18273380
Why read what a post-Vatican II pope wrote?

Genuinely asking.

[Anonymous No.18275546]

>>18275487
Some of his writings deal with faith and evolution or the historicity of certain parts of the Bible which are topics a lot of people struggle with.

[Anonymous No.18275560]

>>18275475
Idek the OO traditions have been hindered greatly compared to EO and Catholicism. They all commune together in the Middle East anyway. There’s the issue of Chalcedon as well, although it seems to be mainly semantics from my point of view, and I think they’ve signed agreements anyway.

[Anonymous No.18275605]

>>18275560
>Idek the OO traditions have been hindered greatly compared to EO and Catholicism.

Really? I find it hard to believe.

[Anonymous No.18275659]

>>18275605
The Copts and the Syriacs were under severe Islamic oppression, and the rest ie Ethiopia, Malankara, and Armenian were pretty disjointed from one another. To my knowledge, there wasn’t really a rich tradition of scholastics and Fathers like Aquinas and Scotus for RC, or John of Damascus and Gregory Palamas for EO. Sometimes I wonder what Christ would think of all this division.

[Anonymous No.18275769]

>>18273380
>>18273489
start with Pope St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body

[Anonymous No.18276285]

>>18274657
What part?

[Anonymous No.18276303]

>>18273816
I have always thought that parts of the world being majority Christian is a sort of historical aberration. The religion is simply too nice/kindhearted in its philosophy to really be a dominating force like Islam or Judaism.

[Anonymous No.18276338]

>>18276303
>Judaism
Judaism doesn’t care about anyone outside of ethnic Jews

[Anonymous No.18276357]

>>18276338
Exactly

[Anonymous No.18276423]

i’m attending TLM for the first time as an adult this weekend, very excited

[Anonymous No.18276435]

>>18276357
I remember watching some guy go up to Jews in Israel asking them questions and such, and the all the Orthodox Jews said they wouldn’t let their kids marry a gentile that converted to Judaism. It seems like a religion based on worldly gains, you can even see that in the Tanakh I think. They don’t really have the concept of an afterlife do they?

[Anonymous No.18276613]

>>18274092
based

[Anonymous No.18276628]

>>18276435
There's several cases of conversions in the old testament and even cases of non Israelite prophets.
The ones currently occupying Israel are the synagogue of Satan.

[Anonymous No.18276641]

>>18273380
>Introduction to Christianity
>Deus Caritas Est
>The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure
>Jesus of Nazareth Trilogy

[Anonymous No.18276698]

>>18276303
It's almost like there is something supernatural and miraculous about Christianity, and it grows because there is Something behind it that gives it strength.

[Anonymous No.18276732]

>>18276698
I have my doubts. The trend in Europe seems to show that Islam and atheism have pretty much overtaken Christianity.

[Anonymous No.18277519]

Deus caritas est

[Anonymous No.18277523]

>>18276732
Well the secularisation of Europe has been in motion since the 19th century, and Christianity has somehow managed to hold on up until now. In regards to the rise of Islam, I’d chalk it up to increased immigration of course, and the tendency to shy away from criticising it compared to the incumbent Christianity. Most Muslims I know IRL who grew up in the West tend to westernise pretty easily; drug use, premarital sex, liberal values and what not. I doubt they’ll be able to keep their faith for more than 1 or generations desu. All in all, by 2200 I doubt there’ll be any religious people left.
>inb4 we’ll all be underwater

[Anonymous No.18277525]

>>18276641
>>Jesus of Nazareth Trilogy
Cop or not

[Anonymous No.18277622]

>>18277525
cop

[Anonymous No.18277647]

>>18274736
Become an independent Christian

[Anonymous No.18277654]

I have read his works. They are interesting because on one hand, he decries the rise of relativism and church progressives. One the other head, he also criticizes the traditional/conservative part of the church (especially integralists).

[Anonymous No.18277659]

>>18276303
>>18276698
>>18276732
You should take a look into the historicity of the resurrection anon.
Obviously, salvation is for the elect as St. Basil the Great tells us, so its besides the point if Christianity is the most dominant or otherwise.
Is it true? Was he really risen? That is the question you must look to find the answers to.

If you want a book on the ressurection, check out:
>Brant Pitre - Case for Jesus
if you want something brief.
Pitre's other works would be a good supplement to Ratzinger.

Otherwise if you want something comprehensive:
>N.T. Wright - The Resurrection of the Son of God

>>18274736
Catholics aren't in error though? What most people seem to miss is that much of the problems with modern Catholicism don't extend to anything that is binding on the faithful.
Scripture and reason both attest to the necessity of the Papacy, and the Church Fathers are pretty clear on the Primacy of Peter.

I'd massively recommend:
>Ludwig Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

>>18274704
You've merely asserted that there is a change in dogma but you actually only argued for the fact that Catholic infrastructure is bad. The latter doesn't attest against Catholicism

[Anonymous No.18277666]

>>18274909
You're forgetting the other big option:

FSSP
which is basically SSPX without all the problems

[Anonymous No.18278497]

>>18277659
What are some good books that deal with the transmission/preservation of the Bible, specifically the New Testament?

[Anonymous No.18278811]

>>18278497
Pitre's books have good stuff on this topic but I'd check out:
>Denis Farkasfalvy - A Theology of the Christian Bible
>Richard Bauckham - Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
>Michael J. Kruger - Canon Revisited

[Anonymous No.18279493]

>>18275769
based

[Anonymous No.18280254]

>>18278811
>Richard Bauckham - Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
Thanks a lot anon. I was going to get this book but the size is a bit intimidating

[Anonymous No.18280833]

I’m a schismatic but I love the Catholic Church, even though there are some things in its history I don’t know how to appraise. I know the errors come from men, but still. I’m not a prot but I admire many prots (but also acknowledge how deviated protestantism can be) I’m not an orthodox but likewise admire it on par with Catholicism (however a bit less maybe).
I’ll probably die out of the Church but still loving the Church.

[Anonymous No.18280870]

>>18280833
>not prot
>not Catholic
>not orthodox
Are you church of the east?

[Anonymous No.18280950]

>>18280833
Yeah this is pretty much how I feel.

[Anonymous No.18281061]

>>18274005
Not only that, but the current invaders are also beggars.

[Anonymous No.18281253]

>>18273380
Took part in the destruction of Catholicism and then complained about the consequences by shedding crocodile tears. Hate his guts, not as much as Paul VI, but still ranking pretty high.

[Anonymous No.18281324]

>>18281253
>’ate his guts

[Anonymous No.18281374]

>>18281253
>ate Pol
>ate Ben
>luv Py Ex
>luv lat mass

[Anonymous No.18281469]

>>18281374
>’ate novus ordo
>‘ate Vatican 2
>luv sspx

[Anonymous No.18281505]

>>18277666
>fssp is the sspx without problems
not really. both were traditionalist catholic groups that resisted the pressure of the vatican 2 council but unlike the fssp they caved to rome whereas the sspx held strong and held on to it's traditions which go beyond just latin mass

[Anonymous No.18281528]

>>18274804
>did cardinal burke
that's not the current position of the catholic church. the current position of the sspx is cannonly irregular. the sspx does their own mass based off of the traditions and are still under the umbrella of roman catholism where as groups like the sspv are full sedes. at the sspx we don't like the current pope but we more or less respect the position, some may think that benedict was pushed out etc but the sspx's stance is that the current pope despite what he's done is the current head of the church. the confusion about the sspx stems from the fact that lefevbe ordained priests without permission and at one point the sspx was in schizm but it hasn't been in a long time. they're not in full communion but not in schizm either

[Anonymous No.18281984]

>>18273380
I enjoyed his latest work co-authored with Cardinal Sarah

[Anonymous No.18282053]

>>18281984
okay thanks, added this to my reading list

[Anonymous No.18282146]

>>18281984
>Cardinal Sarah
Based

[Anonymous No.18283185]

>>18280833

My friend, you must be no longer lukewarm. The time has come to make your decision.

The Catholic Church has always applied the principle “outside the Church, no salvation” to those who are knowingly and wilfully separated from the Church and, therefore, have knowingly and willfully separated themselves from Christ—Who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life—and in whose name only can men be saved.”

The words “knowingly” and “wilfully” are most important because they clearly indicate the sinful dispositions of some who are “outside the Church” and for whom there is no hope of salvation unless they mend their ways.

He who knows that the Catholic Church is the One True Church … who knows it is his duty to become a member and freely decides against it … is thereby putting himself outside the way of salvation that Christ traced for us. No matter what his motives may be—fear of what others, friends and relatives, will think … a marriage situation which would not be acceptable to the Catholic Church … a proud reluctance to submit to authority—no such reasons can excuse him, for he is outside the Church through his own fault.

And there is no salvation for those who doubt. They know not which way to turn or which course to take. “Can I stay where I am,” they ask themselves, “or should I become a Catholic?” But they never make sufficient effort to settle their doubt and they drift through life without doing anything about it. Such negligence in the all-important matter of finding the necessary means whereby they can attain the very purpose of their lives is sinful and they are inexcusably rash.

Christ would not have asked the Father to forgive His executioners, if it was not possible that they be forgiven, because they “knew not what they did.” God can and will forgive those “who know not what they do” … those who have been unknowingly led into error, which they would willingly forsake for the truth—if they but knew the truth.

Do not let your inaction jeopardize your salvation, brother. Of one who knows much, much is expected.

The Lord Jesus Christ says: "I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! So because you are lukewarm— neither hot nor cold— I am about to vomit you out of My mouth!"

[Anonymous No.18283196]

>>18280833
i love the catholic tradition but it and so much of christianity in general is poisoned by augustines manichaeism. there's a reason they died out and now it's happening to christianity too.

[Anonymous No.18283248]

>>18283196
>augustines manichaeism
You have no idea what you're talking about. Read his Confessions, at the very least, before making such ridiculously counterfactual statements.

[Anonymous No.18283331]

>>18273788
Don't forget the Koran-kissing.

[Anonymous No.18283334]

>>18283331
What was he thinking lol

[Anonymous No.18283354]

What if we're just living in a second saeculum obscurum?

[Anonymous No.18283362]

>>18283334
I don't know. No imam would ever kiss a christian bible. Even if he just wanted to get all buddy-buddy ecumenical it would have sufficed if he just referred to the cucked "glimpses of god" shit from the Vatican II rather than outright kissing a fucking Koran.

[Anonymous No.18283366]

>>18281984
Sarah is unironically based, he's /ournegro/.

[Anonymous No.18283381]

>>18283362
Some have said he was just showing appreciation for a gift but idk. I never understood the whole ‘we all pray to one god anyway’ that I see Catholics indulge in. I heard one say that Muslims worshipped the God of Abraham once. What is the end goal of this? In my eyes once you’re outwardly legitimising other religions you’re basically admitting that you don’t really believe in your own respective faith.

[Anonymous No.18283394]

>>18283381
>we all pray to one god anyway’ that I see Catholics indulge in.

It's the catholic equivalent of woke marketing, I don't think most catholics support this but the holy see does it regardless because they want to be some sort of spiritual united nations.

[Anonymous No.18283402]

>>18283381
It's basically all due to intentional weaponization of the vague aspects of certain Vatican II documents. If you read Lumen Gentium, you will see that the doctrine has not actually changed, but rather that motivated liberal agents have created their own modernist interpretations of Vatican II, and promulgated it as fact.

[Anonymous No.18283413]

>>18283402
Do you think there will be some sort of conservative backswing when the Vatican II crowd dies off?

[Anonymous No.18283432]

>>18283394
I mean it would serve to actively deter non-Catholics from joining the church so I don’t see how the Holy See would find it useful. I remember seeing a MHFM video where they pulled up quotes of old popes and saints which basically anathematised those who prayed with heretics/nonbelievers etc. But I guess in a post-Christian society it doesn’t really matter anyway, as less and less people care about this stuff.

[Anonymous No.18283458]

>>18283432
One would think that of all people they'd be the ones who would first smell the imminent rise of religions just beyond the late secularist horizon. People won't be interested in cucked institutions, they will be seeking the exact opposite of the secular hellhole they want to escape from. Maybe they'll act before it's too late.

[Anonymous No.18283515]

>>18283185
good post
god bless you anon

[Anonymous No.18283747]

>>18283413
I think the conservative backswing is already happening in the subculture, as indicated by the resurgence of interest in traditional Catholicism. I think these people are joining the clergy and religious orders in immense numbers, so the politics of the church re: modernism will definitely swing to the other side of the pendulum - it might even happen before the people bastardizing Vatican II die off.
I'm not a prophet by any means, but I predict the Church will once again become the main force fighting against atheistic materialism and secular degeneracy within the next 5-10 years.

>>18283515
God bless you too, my brother. Keep shining your light in this darkness.

[Anonymous No.18284598]

>>18273944
Vatican II saved Catholicism the way China will unittingly save it again this century.

[Anonymous No.18284620]

As others have mentioned, one of the best places to start with Ratzinger is his Jesus of Nazareth books. Not as dense and scholarly as some of his other works, but very prayer-filled and full of devotion to Christ. People often accuse Catholics of not actually caring about Jesus. These books are an answer to that, because they are essentially a long treatise on how Jesus is seen in the eyes of the Church, according to the greatest Catholic theologian of the 20th Century.

They're a fantastic introduction to anyone interested in Catholicism, because they start with Jesus Christ, which is where all Christianity should begin.

[Anonymous No.18284738]

>>18283185
I really appreciate your response. Much of what you said resonated with me. And you hit a crucial point that bothers me, the consciousness of my own situation and my being lukewarm in practice, even though my heart longs for That. It is weird how I have a distinctive intimacy with the Church through nostalgic memories I don't even know whether they were really lived or not. This is difficult to be explained. I have been thinking of partaking of confession, being more active to integrate the Church in my life and myself into the Church, but I fear I may regret. The doubt rests not on Him, not on the Church, but on myself.
Finally, I have heretic inclinations. I like to joke if I were to be burnt alive by the Church I would probably think they would be doing the right thing. That is it. I may die out of the Church, I may suffer the consequences of my disorder, but I will defend It until the end against explicit repeated lies.

[Anonymous No.18284842]

>>18284738
>but I fear I may regret.

I used to think like you. I used to fear that by becoming more Catholic I'd cease to be an individual, and instead become just alike to every other Catholic. Especially because I'm a poet, I worried that I needed my sin, my imperfection, in order to make good art.

This is not true. In fact, I've found that by becoming a stronger Catholic I have become more expressive, and more apart from other people, than I was before. Even more different from fellow Catholics. I have realized that devoting yourself to God doesn't remove your individualism but perfects it. Sin and denial of God aren't essential elements of your personality, they are things that hold you back from your personality most fully expressing itself.

And, regarding making art, I have found that it is in being less sinful, and being more holy, that I can write more fully about the world, including the parts of the world that are wicked, sinful, and depraved. Only the truly good can understand badness in its fullest extent, because they can look at it objectively, from the outside. Think of how the greatest treatise on sin and evil ever written, the De Malo, was written by Thomas Aquinas, one of the most spotless saints ever to live. Leaving sin behind makes you more capable of understanding the sinful, not less.

And leaving sin behind makes you more unique, and more yourself, not less. Think of the saints, and how different they all are. Saint Francis is different from Saint Dominic, is different from Saint Augustine, from Saint Jerome, from Saint Catherine of Siena, from Saint Therese of Lisieux. Think how different Saint Teresa of Calcutta was from Pope Saint John Paul II, despite them living at the same time and even knowing each other. To be a saint is to become radically yourself. Rather than becoming the same, it is in joining ourselves to Christ that our distinctiveness from others is most fully expressed.

[Anonymous No.18284901]

>>18284842
I don't have this fear of losing my own identity, my own essence. I actually am sure I found and started to know myself more and better after dedicating my life to God through studies and contemplation. But I think about some ''automatic'' responses that could manifest.
I agree a lot with your assertion about how ''Only the truly good can understand badness in its fullest extent''. A development of this kind of expresses one of my heretic theological views.

[Anonymous No.18284932]

>>18284598
china is turning christian, but it's all prots now, the jesuits fucked up by focusing on converting the emperor when they got there during the late ming

[Anonymous No.18284937]

>>18284738
It's my pleasure, brother. I'm glad you were able to find my response useful. From what you've said, it seems that you are being called into the church from within. I highly suggest that you ignore the doubts and fears, and just do a deep examination of conscience, and confession. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and this first step is the most important - by being in a state of grace, and having repented of your sins, you will be able to align yourself with His providential plan.
As to your heretical inclinations, I was in the same place you were. It all comes down to the fact of recognizing that if the church is truly the institution founded by Christ Himself, the Holy Spirit would not have let the fullness of the truth be in any doctrine outside of the church. It comes down to transmuting the poison of pride into humility, and accepting that being a member of the mystical body of Christ, partaking in His body and blood, is worth overcoming any doubts you might have.

Good luck, brother. Be at peace and know you are on the right path - your soul calls you to repentance, and to not heed its call is akin to choosing death.

[Anonymous No.18284948]

>>18273763
the main problem is it says you don't have to be catholic to be saved or at least that's the take away most lay people got from it, so they're like wow the church won't even expect you to be catholic to get salvation from the church? ok i'm out.

[Anonymous No.18284966]

>>18284937
But haven't I repentend the things of which I am consciously repentant? Isn't this perfect contrition?

[Anonymous No.18285099]

Any tips for a Catholic for whom what he sincerely believes to be reason has led him astray from the church, but has faith--according to church teachings--that reason has its source in God?

[Anonymous No.18285108]

>>18273627
The Orthodox Church is waiting for you bro. You don't have to put up with Rome's nonsense. We have preserved the teachings of the early Church, we have not "innovated" like Rome has. It's not an ethnic Church, you don't have to be Greek or Slavic to join. You just have to come with a willing heart and an open mind, and be willing to repent.

[Anonymous No.18285110]

>>18284966
God calls us to utilize the means of grace which He imputed to His church, through the apostles.
See what Christ says here:
"He breathed on [the apostles] and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.”" (John 20:22-23)
Here we see a transmission of the authority God alone holds, to forgive or retain sins, being transmitted to the apostles. This sacerdotal authority was transferred by the apostles, to their successors, the bishops - and from the bishops, to the presbyters, through the laying on of the hands in the sacrament of Holy Orders. The priests exercise that apostolic sacerdotal authority through the sacrament of confession, and we who acknowledge the truth of the church are called to utilize this means of grace provided for us by God. One can, of course, perform an act of perfect contrition (like the repentant thief on the cross beside Christ), but this was always intended to lead into the sacramental forgiveness through the bishop/presbyter acting in the person of Christ.

Basically, if you are truly contrite, and acknowledge the truth of His church, there is no reason why you should reject the graces the Lord has bestowed onto His church, through the succession of the apostles.

[Anonymous No.18285122]

>>18285099
You might consider that despite your best efforts, your reasoning is slightly flawed, leading to an erroneous conclusion - while the church led by the Holy Spirit is, in fact, correct. If you'd like, you can post your reasoning, we can analyze it for flaws.

[Anonymous No.18285124]

>>18285099
Reason does have its source in God, but Rome has their reasoning backwards. They accept the peripatetic axiom,
>Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses
instead of having faith in God.
Orthodoxy begins its theology with the divine personhood of God, and His divine revelation, not with our physical senses. We reason from God, not from circular empiricism. We prove God by showing that He is The necessary prerequisite for transcendental categories - epistemology, ethics, metaphysics. Without God, and specifically the Holy Trinity, the Christian God, you cannot form a coherent worldview.

[Anonymous No.18285139]

>>18285124
The essence of "Eastern Orthodoxy" is basically just picking and choosing which statements of the saints fit your preconceived notions. You have some of your greatest saints proclaiming the necessity of the union with the apostolic see for orthodoxy, but you will just sweep that under the rug, because your pride does not allow you to accept the authority of the successor of Peter.


“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
(St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, A.D. 251).

[Anonymous No.18285169]

>>18285139
>picking and choosing which statements of the saints fit your preconceived notions
How so?
>You have some of your greatest saints proclaiming the necessity of the union with the apostolic see for orthodoxy
Honorific title =/= papal supremacy
primacy =/= supremacy
The pope never had supreme jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius#Three_Chapters_controversy
Here's two other examples: Paul rebuking Peter in public during the Incident at Antioch.
St James pronouncing the conclusion of the Council of Jerusalem (if St Peter was the supreme bishop why wouldn't he be the one to do that?)
And by what standard is Rome said to be the apostolic see of Peter? He also founded Antioch and Alexandria. Why does it matter that Peter was martyred in Rome? Why doesn't it matter that the capital of the Roman Empire was changed from Rome to Constantinople? What's the standard for all of these claims?
>but you will just sweep that under the rug, because your pride does not allow you to accept the authority of the successor of Peter
You're just making assumptions. I'm perfectly willing and able to take your claims head-on and disprove them all.
>Matthew 16:18
A single bible verse does not prove that St Peter was the supreme bishop.
When Christ made the apostles into the first bishops, when He breathed grace into them, how did it go?
Did Christ breathe grace into Peter, who in turn bestowed it upon the other apostles?
Or did Christ breathe grace directly upon all of the apostles?
>So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”
>And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
>If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
John 20:21-23
zero mention of St Peter having authority of his fellow bishops

[Anonymous No.18285187]

I have Called to Communion but have never sat down and read it. I come from a long line of Catholics on my mother's side, and it belonged to my grandfather before he died.

[Anonymous No.18285197]

>>18285169
This is exactly what I expected. As is typical of the prideful Orthodox, in schism even within your own schismatic church, you completely ignore the clearly articulated explanation by the holy martyr St. Cyprian, and instead pridefully believe you know better than a church father.
I didn't just throw verses at you from my own understanding, I gave you the direct words of one of your own saints. You should address it, rather than address a strawman:
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
(St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, A.D. 251).

Please explain to me how this holy martyr and church father is wrong, and you are right.

[Anonymous No.18285206]

>>18285122
But I'm simply following church teachings. Or does reason infact NOT have its source in God, because if my reasoning were flawed, this would be said flaw's source.

[Anonymous No.18285220]

>>18285206
Clearly, the capacity of reason comes from God, through the presence of the rational soul in mankind. This does not mean that every person comes to 100% flawless conclusions 100% of the time. Your faculty for reason is God-given, but you can still make erroneous arguments, and use your reasoning faculty in a flawed manner. Again, I will ask you to articulate your line of reasoning - and if you are not able to do that, there is no point in having a conversation.

[Anonymous No.18285224]

>>18273986
Literally the only major "changes" of VII are
>In Roman rite masses scripture can now be spoken in vernacular language instead of having to be in Latin that normies can't understand
>Priests can consecrate Eucharist while facing the congregation instead of facing the back of the Church and the statue of Jesus that usually sits above the altar

The issue is that in practice the generation of youths it was "tested on" (ie boomers) were only taught a really dumbed down version of Catholicism immediately preceding it, because some bishops were scared that anything more complicated would make them leave.

[Anonymous No.18285227]

>>18285197
>Please explain to me how this holy martyr and church father is wrong, and you are right.
You're trying to go off of a single quotation instead of looking at the big picture. Saints are not infallible, they can be wrong sometimes. It's not enough to quote-mine and obsess over a single quotation, you need to look at the big picture, which is what I did in my post >>18285169
You have not addressed anything I said in that post, not even one single point. All you did was recite a single quotation.
You are arbitrarily asserting that this single quotation from this one, single saint has priority over all other evidence.

[Anonymous No.18285274]

>>18285227
This quotation from a pre-schism Orthodox saint and martyr is much more authoritative than your own personal interpretation of the bible. There are countless other quotations which express the same idea, which you will doubtlessly discard, because it does not fit your preconceived notions. For example:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2, A.D. 189).

As you know, Irenaeus had one of the strongest apostolic connections of any early Christian author, being the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of St. John the Evangelist. I wonder, then, how you can justify discarding the teachings of somebody who was so privy to the apostolic tradition, so early on? Why should I believe your personal opinion, rather than somebody only two generations away from the apostles, who learned at the feet of an apostolic father?

It all points to the same reality - there is a historically attested Petrine primacy, whereby communion with the see of Rome is the marker of orthodoxy for the entire church. This was present in the very earliest days of the church, from the Council of Jerusalem (where St. James, as the bishop, makes the closing statement, but what he actually says has completely deferred to what St. Peter declared directly prior), to the apostolic fathers (St. Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Romans 1:1), to the ante-Nicene fathers, holy martyrs, and great saints.

All this apostolic authority, written by those filled with the Holy Spirit, versus the opinions of somebody in the year 2021. Why should I entertain your schismatic beliefs? How prideful must you be, to seriously think your opinions and interpretation of these scriptures hold any weight compared to the great saints and fathers?

[Anonymous No.18285291]

>>18285220
My argument is essentially that reason can only lead to God if we presuppose, that is, have faith that it can lead to God. The upshot being that reason doesn't really lead to God at all, it's really faith that's doing all the work. This would explain my straying from the church through my "journey of reason."

[Anonymous No.18285306]

>>18285274
>This quotation from a pre-schism Orthodox saint and martyr is much more authoritative than your own personal interpretation of the bible.
It's not my own personal interpretation.
>There are countless other quotations which express the same idea
...according to your own personal interpretation, and your idea of primacy/honor being equal to absolute supremacy...
>which you will doubtlessly discard, because it does not fit your preconceived notions
You do realize that I can turn this very accusation back against you, right? You can accuse me of being prideful and presumptuous all you want, you can try to psycho-analyze me over the internet all you want. It's nothing but hot air.
The fact that you think you have a window into my soul based on a couple of 4chan posts proves that YOU are the prideful one.

You can quote mine all you want, but that doesn't refute what I've said. You still haven't directly responded to my original post: >>18285169
You can speculate about what the St Irenaeus, etc, really meant about St Peter's authority all you want. But it doesn't change historical fact. St Peter was publicly refuted on a matter of faith and dogma (judaizing) by St Paul. According to Roman Catholic dogma, this should not be possible. It should not be possible for the "supreme bishop" to be refuted on a matter of faith and dogma.
The Incident at Antioch alone, by itself, is enough to refute this silly claim of papal supremacy and infallibility.

[Anonymous No.18285344]

>>18285306
>It's not my own personal interpretation.
Except, as far as you have shown, it literally is. It is your own thought, being formulated independently of any mentioned early patristic sources. If these early sources are present in shaping your thought, you should share them, so I am not left with the obvious conclusion that this is your personal interpretation.
>...according to your own personal interpretation,
That is actually the opinions of St. Cyprian and St. Irenaeus - you can tell by the use of quotation marks, and sourcing the text at the end of the quotation marks.
>your idea of primacy/honor being equal to absolute supremacy...
Your opinion that the seat of Peter is only a position of "honor" does not account for both Irenaeus and Cyprian explaining that "all churches must agree [with the church of Rome]", and "if someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith"?
>You do realize that I can turn this very accusation back against you, right?
Please show me an early patristic source as early in the chain of apostolic succession as St. Irenaeus, who supports your claim.
>You can speculate about what the St Irenaeus, etc, really meant about St Peter's authority all you want
I mean, all I've done is literally quote them. You are the one who has to speculate on what they actually meant - I am just performing the plain and obvious reading of the text.
>St Peter was publicly refuted on a matter of faith and dogma (judaizing) by St Paul.
St. Peter did not declare his hesitancy to sit with gentiles in the presence of Jews as a proclamation of faith and dogma. It was the mistake of a fallible human. Catholics believe the successor of Peter can make mistakes, just like Peter himself did. We do not believe that he can make fallible proclamations ex cathedra, however. The incident at Antioch is not evidence against the papacy (which is why no serious EO apologist will use it as such) - however, the Council of Jerusalem is clear evidence for a divinely-appointed leadership role in teaching faith and dogma to the entire church, to which bishops submit.

[Anonymous No.18285382]

>>18285291
Your argument is as follows:
1. Reason can only lead to knowledge of the existence of God if we have faith that reason can lead to knowledge of the existence of God.
2. Having such faith is incompatible with reason.
3. Therefore, reason cannot lead to knowledge of God.

I would point out a severe flaw in the first point. Having faith (believing) that an idea is true does not indicate that that idea cannot then be known to be true through reason. For example, I may believe that the square root of 2 is an irrational number, despite never having performed the mathematical proof showing this to be the case. However, just because I believe it before knowing it through reason, does not mean that it cannot be known through reason. Similarly, I can believe that knowledge of the existence of God is accessible through reason, prior to having known it through reason myself. Ways of demonstrating the existence of God, such as the argument from motion and the argument from contingency, are therefore legitimate logical methods by which to know God exists, regardless of whether or not one presupposes a belief that He does, or that this can be known through reason.

[Anonymous No.18285446]

>>18285382
>Having faith (believing) that an idea is true does not indicate that that idea cannot then be known to be true through reason
Yes, but how do we verify that this operation was itself reasonable? How do we know that its product constitutes rarional knowledge? Through reason again? No, the buck ultimately stops with an act of faith.

[Anonymous No.18285448]

Since this is a catholic thread I'd like to recommend Romano Guardini as well.

[Anonymous No.18285693]

>>18285108
> It's not an ethnic Church
Give me example of ethnic Church.

[Anonymous No.18285728]

>>18276423
expect it to be very different
its not comparable to regular mass and its supposed to be different
>>18273380
>>18275769
i really don't see the point of being catholic and then insert a bunch of non catholic theology into it, as if you don't believe in the religion and try to cope by diluting it with other belief systems

[Anonymous No.18285738]

>>18273788
Racism is inconsistent with Christianity. Go back to >>>/pol/ you retarded larper.

[Anonymous No.18285747]

>>18285738
vatican 2 modernism is also inconsistent with christianity and yet it doesn't stop the posters here

[Anonymous No.18285896]

>>18285344
You didn't address the main thrust of my post - you aren't looking at the big picture. You're quote-mining.
>St. Peter did not declare his hesitancy to sit with gentiles in the presence of Jews as a proclamation of faith and dogma. It was the mistake of a fallible human.
Judaizing is absolutely a matter of faith and dogma. Just because St Peter didn't do a dance, or so "open sesame" or whatever your personal stand for ex cathedra is, doesn't mean it wasn't a statement of faith and dogma.
Very ironic from you, since you accuse me of going off of personal interpretations.

[Anonymous No.18286134]

>>18285124
>necessary prerequisite for transcendental categories - epistemology, ethics, metaphysics
>autistic dyer fans trying to mimic his presuppositional apologetics

[Anonymous No.18286407]

>>18286134
Is this supposed to be a rebuttal of what was said? Are you 12 years old?

[Anonymous No.18286819]

>>18285693
Maronites, Copts, Melkites, Assyrian Church of the East

[Anonymous No.18287325]

>>18281984
Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.18287843]

>>18285896
If you think that a physical action, wordless by nature, is the same as an ex cathedra declaration on faith and morals, you don't know enough about the Catholic perspective to be arguing against it.
>You're quote-mining.
Again, I am just showing you that from the earliest days of the church, there was a well-understood doctrine regarding the necessity to be in communion with the successor of Peter to maintain orthodoxy.