/clg/ - Catholic Literature General - Nativity Fast Edition

[Anonymous No.19443357]

General thread for discussing all literature related to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church. Post your current reads, recommendation requests, and questions here.

[!] Reminder that the Eastern Catholic churches are currently in the second week of the Nativity Fast (also called St. Phillip's Fast). If you wish to deepen your prayer life and discipline, it is a very edifying practice to join along, even if starting late. See here for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_Fast [!]

>The Vatican website
https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html

>Catechism of the Catholic Church
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

>Catholic Resources
https://www.catholic-resources.org/
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

>Catholic News Services
https://www.catholicnews.com/
https://www.ncronline.org/
https://www.lifesitenews.com

For this thread, as we begin to establish ourselves as a regular general, let us all post links which we frequently refer to, or that we believe to be edifying to our brothers and sisters in Christ. The ones which are most helpful should make it into the template of the next general. I will include some suggestions below:
Leonine Prayers - http://www.dailycatholic.org/leonine.htm
Prayers that Carry Indulgences - https://stfrancisnewtonparish.com/prayers-that-carry-indulgences-granted-by-the-church/
Aquinas Study Bible - Patristic Bible Commentary - https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home
List of Dogmas of the Catholic Church - http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/A-List-Of-The-Dogmas-Of-The-Catholic-Church.pdf
Ed Feser on the Cosmological Argument - https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/cosmological-argument-roundup.html

I look forward to seeing your contributions! Let us remember to be charitable, friendly, loving, humble, and patient - not just to our fellow Catholics, but to the Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Hindus, atheists/agnostics/skeptics, and Buddhists who may enter this thread.
As St. Paul teaches us:
"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery; hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us walk in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying one another." (Gal. 5:19-26)

Previous thread that jannies "accidentally" deleted: >>19438861

[Anonymous No.19443358]

Some suggestions:

>Our Lady's 15 Promises to Those Who Pray Her Rosary
https://www.goodcatholic.com/fifteen-rosary-promises/
>Some Traditional Catholic Prayers
http://catholictradition.org/prayers1.htm
>Prayers to the Holy Spirit
https://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=336
>The Enchiridion of Indulgences
https://www.catholic.org/prayers/indulgw.php
>Letters of St. Jerome
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001.htm
>Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/g-k-chesterton/orthodoxy
>Book III of Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus
https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html
>Church Father Quotations on Apostolic Doctrines -
https://www.churchfathers.org
>Meditations and Devotions by John Henry Newman
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/meditations/
>Did the Papacy Exist While St. John Was Still Alive?
http://shamelesspopery.com/did-the-papacy-exist-while-john-was-alive/
>Papias, Ehrman, and the Gospels
https://faithfulphilosophytest.wordpress.com/2020/06/03/papias-ehrman-and-the-gospels/
>Writings of Gregory Nazianzus
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/20_30_0329-0390-_Gregorius_Nazianzenus,_Sanctus.html
>Fragments of St. Irenaeus in Eusebius
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-eusebius.html

[Anonymous No.19443365]

"Confessions", by St. Augustine: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3296/3296-h/3296-h.htm
"14 Rules of Discernment", by St. Ignatius of Loyola - https://prepase.weebly.com/uploads/8/6/4/5/8645625/0-st._ignatius_14_rules_of_discernment.pdf
"The Didache" - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm
"St. Justin Martyr: The Spermatikos Logos and the Natural Law" - https://lexchristianorum.blogspot.com/2010/03/st-justin-martyr-spermatikos-logos-and.html
"Homilies on the Gospels" by St. Gregory the Great - https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/gregory-the-great-homiles-on-the-gospels
"On the Priesthood; Ascetic Treatises; Select Homilies and Letters; Homilies on the Statutes" by St. John Chrysostom - https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=7BD8240226E232F4FC03F7E63C1D9712
"Homilies on Genesis 1-17" by St. John Chysostom - https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=C71D586CC1C2DBBFA32E5A95A03F9AF5

[Anonymous No.19443370]

Luke refers to Jesus as Mary's "firstborn" (2:7), even though elsewhere he uses a different term for "only born" (7:12, 9:38). Why would Luke use a term that seems to contradict Mary's perpetual virginity when he was aware of an alternative term that's consistent with perpetual virginity and uses it elsewhere in his gospel?

Similarly, why does Luke differentiate between "brothers" and "relatives" in 21:16 if there's no significant difference between the two? In the same way, why does Hegesippus refer to Symeon as Jesus' "cousin" (in Eusebius, Church History, 4:22:4), yet refer to James as Jesus' "brother" (ibid., 2:23:4) and Jude as Jesus' "brother according to the flesh" (ibid., 3:20:1)? We see this over and over again with the earliest sources. They not only use language that seems to contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, but even use different language elsewhere that's consistent with perpetual virginity, which they could have used in the passages relevant to Mary

[Anonymous No.19443373]

To reconcile the passage with perpetual virginity, I think we'd have to take a few problematic steps. We'd have to assume a prior marriage of Joseph, which would be an unusual scenario and one not implied by the text. Second, if the relatives of Jesus in question were regarded as "brothers" without further qualification, the most natural way to take that term is as a reference to individuals with a biological relationship with both Joseph and Mary. If the individuals were all older than Jesus and older than Joseph's marriage to Mary, having been born during a former marriage, it's highly doubtful that they'd all be mistaken for biological offspring of Joseph and Mary. Third, we'd have to assume that Hippolytus failed to mention the first wife of Joseph (by description or name), even though mentioning her would have strengthened his point (by putting even more distance between Jesus and the brothers).

[Anonymous No.19443374]

>>19443357
>>19443358
>>19443365

Thanks for reposting. As a general thread focuses explicitly on literature, there should be no conflict with jannies or moderators. If there is an issue, it would be helpful to let us know what we have to do to stay within the rules of the board.

[Anonymous No.19443377]

>>19443374
Stepbrother?

It's subject to some of the same criticisms as the view that the brothers were cousins or some other more distant type of relative (Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, the term "brother" more often refers to biological siblings, etc.). Another problem with the view is the absence of the siblings in the infancy narratives.

It's often claimed that the infancy narratives are meant to parallel Jesus to Old Testament figures. Yet, two of the most significant figures Jesus allegedly is being paralleled to in the New Testament, Moses and David, had older siblings who played a large role in their lives. Moses' older sister even has a prominent role in the Exodus account of Moses' birth. If Matthew and Luke (and other sources) were paralleling Jesus to figures like Moses and David, it would have been in their interest to have mentioned older siblings. Instead, both infancy narratives imply that Mary gave birth to more children (Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7), and both leave out any reference to older siblings when the family and their moving from one location to another are described (e.g., "take the child and his mother" in Matthew 2:13).

Any argument that the siblings were old enough at the time to be living apart from Joseph and Mary would run into the problem of offering a weaker explanation for how long the brothers of Jesus lived and were highly active (e.g., 1 Corinthians 9:5, James' death by martyrdom in the 60s while serving as a leader of the Jerusalem church and one of the most prominent apostles). Maybe Jesus' brothers lived unusually long and were highly active at such an old age. But the alternative view that they were younger siblings of Jesus offers a better explanation of the evidence. It's yet another example of how upholding Mary's perpetual virginity requires us to adopt less likely explanations of the evidence on issue after issue after issue.

[Anonymous No.19443379]

Reposting:

Can I get a rundown on fruitful apocryphal NT literature? I'd always dismissed everything of the sort as automatically heretical and gnostic in origin, but Trent Horn and William Albrecht's joint rebuttal to Calvinist James White regarding the Protoevangelium of James has made me think. They brought up how, while it's not canonical and should not be confused with Scripture, it doesn't push any heresies, doesn't promote gnostic positions, and in fact was most likely written specifically to combat heresies and gnostics, docetists and Marcionites in particular, in order to defend orthodox Christian beliefs and tradition in the 2nd century. They also brought up how, despite not being canonical Scripture, it is still the source for names like St. Anne and St. Joachim, which shows that just because the work is noncanonical and not Scripture doesn't mean every word of it should be tossed aside, but rather should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Another thread recently compared this to 1 Maccabees from a Rabbinic Judaism perspective, where they don't view it as Scripture, but that doesn't mean Judas Maccabeus didn't exist or the revolt didn't happen; and despite not viewing it as Scripture, Josephus, when writing about the Maccabees, almost exclusively used these books as his primary sources for information, meaning he still viewed them as fruitful and not as complete works of fiction.

In short, if the Protoevangelium of James is okay to read as long as you treat it on its own merits, are there others of similar nature that have been incorrectly labeled as gnostic or heretical to orthodox Christian beliefs?

[Anonymous No.19443384]

>>19443377
>>19443373
>>19443370
We should keep in mind that a variety of terms are relevant to this discussion (why "firstborn" was used, why "cousin" wasn't used, why "relative" wasn't used, etc.). It's not as if Catholics only have to explain why they're defending the use of one or two less natural interpretations. Rather, they have to explain why they're supporting a view that involves multiple Biblical authors intending multiple less natural readings of multiple phrases when they had multiple other phrases available to them that they could have used instead and do use in other passages. The concept that multiple Biblical authors believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, yet never explicitly expressed that belief and instead repeatedly chose terminology pointing in the opposite direction while rejecting other terminology they could have used and do use elsewhere, terminology that would have been more supportive of the perpetual virginity concept, is dubious.

[Anonymous No.19443391]

>>19443384
The Catholic defense of this is wholly unscriptural. They operate by creating typology relating to Mary that has no biblical basis. Scripture creates its own typology and does so explicitly in the NT. Just because something seems similar to you or seems like it has a relation, this does not mean that a type/antitype relationship is present. To act as if it is is to bend the text to your own ideology.

[Anonymous No.19443398]

The Greek does not say "full of grace" in the sense of that being an aspect of Mary, that's an artifact of the Latin vulgate. It means she is graced or favoured by God, the same way anyone else can be graced or favoured by him.

The Greek word used is κεχαριτωμένη, if Luke meant to say "full of grace" he would have used πλήρης χάριτος which is found elsewhere in the New Testament, like John 1:14 describing Jesus, and Acts 6:8 describing Stephen. Even if the Greek said "πλήρης χάριτος" when Gabriel addresses Mary, it wouldn't show a unique status of her, because the disciple Stephen is described as being full of grace at one point and he doesn't have a unique role in salvation.

[Anonymous No.19443408]

>>19443374
>>19443379
>if Mary could be born without original sin by an exceptional act, so could Jesus
This right here is *everything* required to burn the whole claim. There was zero need for Mary to have been immaculately conceived. Not to mention Jesus was literally conceived by only one human parent and the Holy Ghost and at that moment the Holy Ghost could have done whatever was needed to prepare the womb.

What happened was that Ishtar, whose very modus operandi is to commandeer the domains of other deities, began whispering puzzle pieces into the ears of various figures of the early church that laid the ground works needed for supplanting Mary and subverting prayers from God to herself (Ishtar, no one is actually praying to Mary despite thinking they are doing so). And of course she was merely a constructed proxy of Satan.

[Anonymous No.19443420]

>>19443379
>our religion can't make sense without gnostic documents can anyone explain to me more how this btfos protestants?

[Anonymous No.19443426]

>>19443420
It's not gnostic.

[Anonymous No.19443435]

Unbelievable... Went to my (Catholic) country's largest bookstore chain, think B&N, religion section, see a Quran high on shelf, front cover facing out. No Bibles. Small store with two white women employees, they were the ones dressing the shelves. I thought "the Bibles are behind that Quran". I thought nah, I'm thinking maliciously. Then I just went and took the Quran off the shelf, and behind it? A Bible. No way it was not done intentionally.

[Anonymous No.19443440]

>>19443370
>>19443373
>>19443377
>>19443384
>>19443391
>>19443398
>>19443408


First of all, please try condensing your arguments as much as possible, to avoid spamming up the thread with sequential posts which do not at all approach the character limit.

Besides the fact of St. Paul's obvious implication that the relation from James to Jesus is not by blood - calling James the "so-called brother of Jesus" - the fact is that we have an incredibly early tradition attesting to the perpetual virginity of Mary, as evidenced by its presence as an already established and accepted doctrine among the ante-Nicene fathers, even among such powerhouses as Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, and Hippolytus of Rome. If you believe that the council fathers, filled with the Holy Spirit, had the authority to determine that Christ was of the same essence as the Father and create something as authoritative as the Nicene Creed, then you also must accept that that same authority has the ability to make binding proclamations on faith and morals, such as Mary's perpetual virginity and immaculate conception, through that same Holy Spirit. If you deny that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, you are making scripture a liar.

With regards to the typology of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, it is incredibly obvious just by a simple comparison of the Septuagint text with Luke's visitation narrative. Pic related.

And please, don't even start with the Chick-tract-tier arguments about Ishtar. Stay within the realm of evidence, at least, and do not delve into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and unfalsifiable claims. I can just as easily say that Protestantism is a Satanic deception created by demons to further division and hatred among the Christians through whispering ideas of revolution and discord into the ears of the "reformers".

>>19443420
The Proto-Evangelium of James is not a gnostic text. Please see Trent Horn and Albrecht on James White's treatment of the topic.

[Anonymous No.19443549]

First of all, please try condensing your arguments as much as possible, to avoid spamming up the thread with sequential posts which do not at all approach the character limit.

The fact is that we have an incredibly early tradition attesting to the perpetual virginity of Mary, as evidenced by its presence as an already established and accepted doctrine among the church fathers and champions of orthodoxy, even among such powerhouses as Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, and Hippolytus of Rome (not to mention the Proto-Evangelium of James), making it a part of the ancient teaching of the Church. If you believe that the council fathers, filled with the Holy Spirit, had the authority to determine that Christ was of the same essence as the Father and create something as authoritative as the Nicene Creed, then you also must accept that that same authority has the ability to make binding proclamations on faith and morals, such as Mary's perpetual virginity and immaculate conception, through that same Holy Spirit and authority to bind and loose. If you deny that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, you are making scripture a liar. If you deny that Jesus Christ gave the authority to the St. Peter by giving him the keys of heaven, saying to him, "Whatever you bind on earth WILL HAVE BEEN bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth WILL HAVE BEEN loosed in heaven.” (eg. make infallible proclamations, the very meaning of binding and loosing - see https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing).). Thus, the authority of the Church (of whom Peter is the rock and earthly head), by virtue of Jesus Christ's command, to establish infallible doctrines of faith and morals (including anathemas), shows that the Holy Spirit is who guided the Church into the Marian dogmas. To deny the Marian dogmas is, therefore, to deny the authority of the Holy Spirit, or the promises of Christ.

With regards to the typology of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, it is incredibly obvious just by a simple comparison of the Septuagint text with Luke's visitation narrative. Pic related - it is clear that even if you reject it, the scripture is materially sufficient to support the doctrine of perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and the assumption.

And please, don't even start with the Chick-tract-tier arguments about Ishtar. Stay within the realm of evidence, at least, and do not delve into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and unfalsifiable claims. I can just as easily say that Protestantism is a Satanic deception created by demons to further division and hatred among the Christians through whispering ideas of revolution and discord into the ears of the "reformers".

>>19443420
The Proto-Evangelium of James is not a gnostic text. Please see Trent Horn and Albrecht on James White's treatment of the topic.

[Anonymous No.19443589]

>>19443549
Wow didn't read. Don't care. Most posters here know to ignore the catholic tranny spamming those retarded infographics. Die you tryhard.

[Anonymous No.19443606]

What's you chaps' opinions on legal intoxicants?
Stuff like tobacco and alcohol, not the "legal" stuff.

[Anonymous No.19443622]

>>19443549
Nice stuff. Ignore >19443589. He's too deep in the Chick-tract meme to have independent thoughts.

[Anonymous No.19443633]

>>19443408
>What happened was that Ishtar, whose very modus operandi is to commandeer the domains of other deities, began whispering puzzle pieces into the ears of various figures of the early church that

[Anonymous No.19443652]

>>19443622
>support group for people with retarded arguments
Hahahaha

[Anonymous No.19443654]

>>19443606
>"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matthew 15:11)
The prohibition of plants which God created is a Calvinist psyop

[Anonymous No.19443671]

>>19443654
I love how catholics have gotten so btfo by calvinists the past few weeks that they are now on a perpetual seethe diet toward them. Every time you mention calvinism I get a bonner.

[Anonymous No.19443674]

>>19443652
We're not protestants, though. We're Christians.

[Anonymous No.19443679]

…………………...„„-~^^~„-„„_
………………„-^*'' : : „'' : : : : *-„
…………..„-* : : :„„--/ : : : : : : : '\
…………./ : : „-* . .| : : : : : : : : '|
……….../ : „-* . . . | : : : : : : : : |
………...\„-* . . . . .| : : : : : : : :'|
……….../ . . . . . . '| : : : : : : : :|
……..../ . . . . . . . .'\ : : : : : : : |
……../ . . . . . . . . . .\ : : : : : : :|
……./ . . . . . . . . . . . '\ : : : : : /
….../ . . . . . . . . . . . . . *-„„„„-*'
….'/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '|
…/ . . . . . . . ./ . . . . . . .|
../ . . . . . . . .'/ . . . . . . .'|
./ . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . .'|
'/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'|
'| . . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . .|
'| . . . . . . \„_^- „ . . . . .'|
'| . . . . . . . . .'\ .\ ./ '/ . |
| .\ . . . . . . . . . \ .'' / . '|
| . . . . . . . . . . / .'/ . . .|
| . . . . . . .| . . / ./ ./ . .|

[Anonymous No.19443684]

>>19443671
>btfo by calvinists the past few weeks
I barely visit this board so I don't think that applies to me, I just think Puritans are neurotic freaks. They historically caused a lot of shit where I'm from (Yorkshire) and we've low key hated them here ever since.

[Anonymous No.19443692]

>>19443684
Wow man literally no one gives a shit ever in the whole world! Catholicism is almost a completely dead religion you should join it and kys

[Anonymous No.19443701]

>>19443589
>die you tryhard
Yet more evidence that Protestants, by virtue of their lack of invincible ignorance and removal from the Church created by Jesus Christ, are devoid of the Holy Spirit.

>>19443606
>>19443654
CCC 2990 explicitly allows the moderate use of alcohol, tobacco, etc - I personally smoke a pipe occasionally, and sometimes a cigar. Personally, however, I take the Catechism's reference to the prohibition of "stupefactivorum medicamentorum" (stupefying drugs) in the Latin of paragraph 2991 to include marijuana. I was previously a heavy user, and while I fully approve of medicinal usage of marijuana for those with serious medical issues, I personally think it is incredibly spiritually dangerous due to the effect it has on the rational mind, and the incredibly small quantities needed to cause rational impairment as opposed to, say, alcohol (which can very safely be imbibed in without sacrificing rationality).

Some Catholics believe marijuana is acceptable, though, in moderation. I don't hold that position, but I won't condemn anybody for it. I believe the issue should probably stay between every man and their confessor/spiritual father, until the Church definitively rules on it - and until then, I imagine that most priests would agree that it can cause more spiritual harm than good, without a legitimate medical reason.

>>19443671
>>19443679
>>19443692
>kys
Again, Protestants are devoid of the Holy Spirit. I am really sorry that you have been psyopped into your own damnation by Martin Luther's apostasy, but I will pray for you.

[Anonymous No.19443702]

this thread sucks

...............…………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

[Anonymous No.19443705]

>>19443692
I see you're likely dealing with some sort of personality disorder so I'll leave the conversation here. Good day and consider some time amongst nature.

[Anonymous No.19443706]

>>19443701
no one will ever read this post you fucking incel people don't care about your walls of text and they never have. You've been spamming this board for a straight week and you never get replies. Just lmao

[Anonymous No.19443707]

>>19443684
Calvinists are a dying breed that only continue to exist by ensuring their adherents don't consider other ideas, read Church history, or actually read the Bible verses that they constantly have quoted at them in context. Take a look at the comments to any Counsel of Trent or How to Be Christian video re: James White and count the number of Calvinist-to-Catholic converts resulting from someone actually taking the time to rebut his unfounded positions.

[Anonymous No.19443711]

>>19443701
Thanks for the lengthy argument, I'd argue that moderation is key. I've made a bigger fool of myself with alcohol than I ever have with weed though, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.19443715]

>>19443707
Makes sense. I'm seeing many people from different denominations converting, either to Orthodoxy or Catholicism

[Anonymous No.19443719]

>>19443706
I'm sorry that you are so angry. We know from Scripture that "hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions" are all acts of the flesh, and are from Satan. On the other hand, "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control" are the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and which are exemplified by those who are in the grace of God.

Ask yourself - am I manifesting the acts of the flesh, or the fruits of the Spirit? I hope you take some time to reflect and come to salvation in the Church created by Jesus Christ. I'll pray for you, brother.

[Anonymous No.19443722]

>>19443706
Actually we all read it and hes receiving responses as we speak. We will all be praying for you, you poor lost soul.

[Anonymous No.19443724]

>>19443706
Bro, seriously. Seek help. You're acting really weird.

[Anonymous No.19443739]

I recommend anything by A.C.E.

[Anonymous No.19443744]

>>19443711
I totally agree that moderation is key. My perspective is that perhaps the situation is different if one was to smoke a very small quantity of cannabis from 2000 years ago with a naturally low THC level for the purposes of relaxation without being impaired in a major way - but with the marijuana commonly available today, I would argue that it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to partake in it without getting "high", which is almost inseparable from being "stupefied". I also draw from my own personal experience to say that it is extremely damaging spiritually to partake in over long periods of time - but I think best practice is to talk to ones confessor and obediently follow their directives.

And I totally agree that alcohol is worse than weed in excess. I can't even think about the things I've done while drunk without feeling like Augustine reflecting on the pear tree.

[Anonymous No.19443750]

>>19443701
Getting some tobacco for occasions is an idea that's growing on me.
Ain't much isse with it, not extremely addictive.
A cup or two of some nice drink isn't bad too.
General question though, what do people see in beer? it tastes like shit.

[Anonymous No.19443754]

>>19443707
Do you have a single statistics to back that up?

[Anonymous No.19443756]

>>19443719
What's with the "you literally dont have the holy spirit" deal then? Isn't that just a slap to the face? You could atleast show them the path you consider right. Especially with a convincing argument.

[Anonymous No.19443764]

>>19443715
Same. I find it interesting that it's Calvinists in particular more than any other who are converting to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, much more so than any other protestant denomination. It might be that those Catholic apologists are talking about White and other Calvinists more than Baptists or Anglicans or whomever else; maybe boomer Calvinists are lashing out and drawing attention to themselves to cause the previous; or maybe it's as simple as stuff like the Calvinist doctrine of the limited atonement suggesting that Jesus died for "some people" but not necessarily for "everyone" being such a vulgar idea to stomach for basically all kinds of Christians when they think about it, that's enough for them to leave.

[Anonymous No.19443774]

>>19443707
Trent Horn should be fired

[Anonymous No.19443981]

>>19443750
Might sound like a cliche answer, but it is an acquired taste. I really like the taste of Irish cream beers like Guiness (probably a casual choice, but it tastes good to me), but when I first started, it all tasted like garbage to me.

>>19443756
I guess my approach might not be the best, and I'm happy to take any suggestions. My main idea would be to inspire one who is obviously not manifesting the fruits of the Spirit, with the desire to acquire the Holy Spirit. I think that this journey, to being open to wanting the Holy Spirit and beginning to "knock" and "seek" for Him, will always lead away from Protestantism, and into an apostolic church.

[Anonymous No.19444347]

>>19443981
Sounds like how Jimmy Akin doesn't believe the Kalam cosmological argument fully works theologically (at least from a Catholic pov), at least in terms of its second premise, but nevertheless will use its general argument to lead skeptical people into the idea of God if need be.

[Anonymous No.19444541]

>>19443357
the great chastisement will never happen in our lifetime bros will it..

[Anonymous No.19444562]

>>19443435
>No way it was not done intentionally.
Seems like the type of thing that would be done by a certain kind of customer? I mean, I've seem similar sorts of moving-books-around-in-a-bookstore stunts chronicled on the chans.

[Anonymous No.19444644]

>>19444562
Oh boy and here i thought the thing about catholics believing they are constantly gangstalked by protestants was a joke. You guys are legit mentally ill

[Anonymous No.19444770]

>>19444644
He clearly meant an atheist, dude. It's literally no different from someone at B&N placing a Bible in the fiction section just to snap a picture for Instagram or r/atheism

[Anonymous No.19444914]

bros is there an actual book that outlines the extent to which apocrypha/pseudepigraphy should be used in parsing theological dogmas?

I feel like all of the usage of the apocrypha to fend off the Immaculate Conception poster takes on this quasi-anthropological dimension of "well, from THIS early it's implied that THIS..." and I want to know if the Church has an actual concrete framework for the delineation between "canon scripture" --> Church Fathers --> apocrypha/pseudepigraphy in terms of value/reliability.

[Anonymous No.19445068]

>>19444914
This is so fucking sad. Catholics really are all going to hell. Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.19445092]

>>19444914
obviously there isn't because the entire exercise is something concocted by a group of niche lay e-pologists with no authority or training in the church and with an incredibly niche market of weirdos who get off on arguing with protestants by rehashing 500 year old talking points. no part of the Church hierarchy gives one shit about what catholic answers says or does, and there are no practicing theologians who would associate with them either. Academic catholicism essentially accepts the historical critical reality that everyone else believes about the early Church and the development of these out there dogmas. You're all alone in your pseudointellectual ether if you choose to die on this hill. Let it go.

[Anonymous No.19445170]

Evening /cathlit/, what do I do if I love the Catholic mystic tradition but am repelled by the systemic Aristotelian metaphysics which seems to underpin most of the more subtle dogma in the Catechism? I want to come back to the church but this is a major stumbling block.

[Anonymous No.19445220]

>>19445068
>Catholics really are all going to hell.
No, that's reserved for Muslims and protestant heretics. It'd be really odd to suggest the followers of Christ's Church are going to hell.

[Anonymous No.19445312]

>>19444644
>Oh boy and here i thought the thing about catholics believing they are constantly gangstalked by protestants was a joke.

Look, somebody moved the books - right?

It was either a customer or an employee. Would an employee, who wished to continue to hold his/her job, mess with the inventory? Seems doubtful to me, but ymmv

That leaves a customer, specifically, a Muslim. Hiding the Bibles behind Qurans.

What is *your* theory?

[Anonymous No.19445368]

>>19445220
I am a Catholic and you need to repent for this statement, regardless of and especially if you're acting in anger. I apologize to all Protestants here on behalf of this unbelieving apostate. Here is what our Holy Fathers have said about your noble churches:
>"There is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined." - Benedict XVI

[Anonymous No.19445379]

Further, Protestants are NOT sinners or cutoff from salvation. These sinful Catholic Larpers do not speak for the Church. The Catechism and hierarchy disagree with them and their viscious evil. You do not need to convert.
>CCC 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

[Anonymous No.19445528]

>>19445170
I'm the same, I'm trying to do my own study to get around it.

[Anonymous No.19445603]

Thanks for making this thread. I was an inquirer, thinking of becoming Catholic. However, the strength of the arguments from protestants in the thread has convinced me to join them instead. There are just too many dumb doctrines in the Church and if even one is wrong that means they aren't infallible and therefore the whole thing is fake. Think about that. Whether it's the perpetual virginity or a million other things, even one slip up means its completely wrong. And the evidence doesn't lean in Catholics' favor either.

Sorry but its just a dumb religion guys.

[Anonymous No.19445619]

Thoughts on Protestant Bibles? I just can't find a good high quality leather Catholic Bible anywhere.

[Anonymous No.19445722]

>>19445368
Seems like a misrepresentation to me

[Anonymous No.19445733]

>>19445722
>the pope is wrong about catholicism and heres why you should trust me rather than him
Wow this general is a real brain trust.

[Anonymous No.19445734]

>>19445733
Never said the Pope is wrong. I said you're misrepresenting him.

[Anonymous No.19445736]

>>19445619
They look nice and I do wish Catholic publishers bothered to invest in goatskin editions. However, for now, I settle with using BensBibles for rebinding service. At least this way I control how the end result looks and not some publisher, even if it does cost quite a bit more.

[Anonymous No.19445740]

>>19445734
>posting a quote is a misrepresentation
Fucking kill yourself you fucking tranny

[Anonymous No.19445749]

>>19445740
>Posting an out of context quote while removing the part where he says they're missing the fullness of the faith due to not being in communion with Rome is misrepresentation
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19445750]

>>19445722
This. A Protestant should not be called a "heretic" if one has a view toward formal heresy. He may lack culpability. But anyone, including Protestants, who believes something contrary to the teaching of the Church is - by definition - professing material heresy. Also worth noting that that quote is from 1960, when he was a college professor, before he was a cardinal, let alone the pope. To portray it like he said it as pope as official doctrine is obviously misleading.

[Anonymous No.19445767]

Going to hit a high score soon.

[Anonymous No.19445806]

Thoughts on her? I found her book extremely accessible

[Anonymous No.19445813]

>>19445750
Bishop Robert Barron interpreted this quote and the Catechism and Vatican 2 to say Protestants go to heaven without converting. He was never reprimanded for saying so. And he has done so repeatedly. Would you care to explain why the church did not exercise its disciplinary function if it is infallible and he is wrong? Hes not the only one to do so, and the Catechism says what it says. The hierarchy interprets it to mean what I said. Only incels online don't.

[Anonymous No.19445832]

>>19445170
>Evening /cathlit/, what do I do if I love the Catholic mystic tradition but am repelled by the systemic Aristotelian metaphysics which seems to underpin most of the more subtle dogma in the Catechism?

(i) If that's your interest, you really don't need to spend a lot of time engaging with Thomistic/Aristotelian metaphysics, afaik.

(ii) There's something of a minority-view alternative tradition wrt Thomism, in the line of Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. This is not something I have a deep understanding of. It is mentioned, if memory serves, in this video, when Fr. Kappes assesses the range of theological opinion in Catholicism wrt the possible acceptance of Palamism. He notes that, across the theological spectrum, the most likely corner of acceptance would be found in the Scotus/Ockhamist/Franciscan wing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPfNKsOpzv0

With all that said, there's no doubt that Thomism has a major and indeed a central place in Catholic theology. At the same time, the best Thomists, I think, have a good feel for a certain suppleness and lack of rigidity in Thomas's thought, properly understood.

Again, I'm no expert in this area, but theologians like Michael A. Dauphinais, Matthew Levering, Peter Kwasniewski ('The Ecstasy of Love in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas'), Jean-Pierre Torrell, Gilles Emery, and the excellent journal Nova et Vetera will tend to present a relatively non-rigid take on Thomas.

[Anonymous No.19445867]

Thought this was cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IVQ-1t92hA

[Anonymous No.19445909]

This thread is a fucking disaster. Not only does it involve base, anti-intellectual bickering, but out of the 20 posters in the thread, only like 10 are Catholic at best, with the rest being people arguing with them. Stick a fork in it.

[Anonymous No.19445923]

>>19445603
>Whether it's the perpetual virginity
This one is so easy to understand. People point to Matthew 1:25, which reads “but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.” as proof against the Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity, but the preposition ἕως translated as ‘until’ here doesn’t mean that Joseph had sex with her after Jesus was born at all. Read it as ‘up to the point’ instead of ‘until’ and it will make sense. We can just look at similar verses that will demonstrate the point better, such as 2 Samuel 6:23:
>And Melchol the daughter of Saul had no child till the day of her death.
Septuagint reads:
>καὶ τῇ Μελχὸλ θυγατρὶ Σαοὺλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν.
There’s that ἕως again. Did Michal (Melchol) have a child after the day she died? No.

Matthew 28:20 provides another example:
>And behold, I am with you always, to (ἕως) the end of the age.”
Will Christ not be with us after the end of the age? Of course He will. Again, it means essentially ‘up to the point’

Mary was clearly a virgin, and perpetually so.

t. not even Roman Catholic

[Anonymous No.19445964]

>>19445806
Mogs me to oblivion

[Anonymous No.19445997]

>>19443357
GOD IS DEAD YOU ARE ALL COPING WITH LIFE UNDER CAPITALIST REALISM BY PRETENDING TO BE RELIGIOUS! THE ONLY SOLUTION IS COMMUNIST REVOLUTION!

[Anonymous No.19445999]

>>19445997
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.19446005]

>>19445997
i unironically agree with this since I hate american whites who vote republican and made me a mutt

[Anonymous No.19446101]

>>19445379
>You do not need to convert.
Simply incorrect. A wolf in sheep/s clothing is trying to lead others into damnation with them.

"This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium 14)

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (CCC 846-848)

You can ONLY be saved outside of the visible bounds of the Catholic Church by being invincibly ignorant, period. The internet severely challenges all claims of invincible ignorance. Anybody who is outside of the Catholic Church, who believes or has seen it said that the Catholic Church teaches you do not have to be Catholic to be saved, beware. The Church is very clear on this, from its most ancient path: Outside of the church, there is no salvation. St. Paul is very clear: to be outside of the church is the ultimate danger on Earth, and excommunication the ultimate punishment on Earth: being outside of the Church is being in the hands of Satan. He says, "hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord." (1 Cor. 5:5).

>>19445170
You might be interested in looking into the Eastern Catholic rites, especially the Byzantine Catholic Church. They adhere more to an Eastern view of theology and metaphysics, in the line of Palamas and the eastern Fathers. The most important thing, beyond all metaphysics, is that you must join it first - read Lumen Gentium 14.

[Anonymous No.19446104]

I just finished book 1 and have found it very edifying so far.

Favorite quote thus far: "[Augustine is discussing his childhood greed and rebelliousness against his teachers] Is this the innocence of childhood? It is not, Lord, it is not. I entreat your mercy, my God, for these same sins as we grow older are transferred from tutors and masters; they pass from nuts and balls and sparrows, to magistrates and kings, to gold and lands and slaves, just as the rod is succeeded my more severe chastisements. It was then, the fact of humility in childhood that you, our king, approved as a symbol of humility when you said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." "

[Anonymous No.19446125]

>>19444914
I suggest you read the documents which contain the infallible proclamations themselves, first of all, for more details on the basis behind the decisions themselves. In every case they have been made before extensive ecumenical polling of the worldwide bishopric. But regardless, I think it is important to take each dogma on a case-by-case basis. The only thing I think it is worth it to really say is that if we affirm that Christ created a Church built upon the rock of St. Peter, and that His Holy Spirit is the leader of that Church who guides it into "all truth", there should never be any doubt on dogmas. For more information, you might want to look into the view of material sufficiency of scripture. The deep dive into the Church's "actual concrete framework" would be study into the universal and ordinary magisterium, and what that means. For a basic introduction that you can go off of with your own research, check out these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os0XzOxKFfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVFdGHNEFsI

[Anonymous No.19446129]

>>19445909
Over the past few weeks I've just noticed this one insufferable faggot who seems actively hellbent (literally) on derailing and shitting all over any attempt at quality discussion relating to Catholicism. Even fucking butterfly is better to be around than this petulant little imp.

You can spot him by how much he uses "tranny" and how all of his posts are either one line or giant walls of mostly-copy-pasted shit he misinterprets in bad faith, or one of two random contextless images about conversions. I get literal Barneyfag-tier autism vibes.

[Anonymous No.19446137]

>>19444914
I suggest you read the documents which contain the infallible proclamations themselves, first of all, for more details on the decisions themselves. In every case they have been made only after extensive ecumenical polling of the worldwide bishopric - it is never a novel innovation, but is always based on the magisterium. But regardless, I think it is important to take each dogma on a case-by-case basis. The only thing I think it is worth it to really say is that if we affirm that Christ created a Church built upon the rock of St. Peter, and that His Holy Spirit is the leader of that Church who guides it into "all truth", there is never any reason to doubt that the Holy Spirit is doing a good job, because He is God. For more information, you might want to look into the view of material sufficiency of scripture. The deep dive into the Church's "actual concrete framework" would be study into the universal and ordinary magisterium, and what that means. For a basic introduction that you can go off of with your own research, check out these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os0XzOxKFfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVFdGHNEFsI

[Anonymous No.19446171]

>>19445923
what a shitty, disingenuous post. disregarding the lack of logic here, the two examples you give are outrageously shaky at best. nevermind 2 samuel was written in hebrew before being translated into greek. is this the best you can do? no other clearer examples?

[Anonymous No.19446176]

>>19446129
ok dude i don't know what you're talking about but take your weird energy somewhere else. i'm actually taken aback by how bizarre this post is in response to what i said.

[Anonymous No.19446181]

>>19446171
He's using the Septuagint because it is a Greek translation, which means the usage of words can provide context and meaning for the Greek words used in the New Testament. Not sure how you didn't understand that.

[Anonymous No.19446196]

>>19446181
i understood it, it doesn't make the examples less tenuous. you're basing a less likely reading of a text of major importance for a dogma on a translation of a translation, and an extremely vague use of a preposition in the NT. most koine greek points to a typical understanding of until meaning... until. so these examples just aren't very good.

also fuck off with your patronization. is this how you "convert" people, asshole?

[Anonymous No.19446205]

>>19446181
He's using the Septuagint also because it's the only one that's relevant when discussing nearly all of the OT quotes in the NT. Take something like the CSB "Ancient Faith" Study Bible, which uses an MT base but has to constantly explain why all the Church Fathers in its footnotes are exclusively quoting the LXX. Either way, don't mind him as he's intentionally trying to shit up threads.

[Anonymous No.19446213]

>>19446196
>a less likely reading of a text
*more likely reading of a text

[Anonymous No.19446233]

>>19446196
The examples clearly prove his point, namely that the word used in Matthew 1:25 does not mean what you are forcing it to mean. Your difficulty of interpretation is only a problem for Protestants who incoherently take the Catholic scriptures compiled at the Council of Rome 382, and assert that any person can interpret them however they like, divorced from the ancient Church founded by Jesus Christ. To any rational outside observer, that hypothesis is obviously false, which is why you have 40,000+ denominations. Don't bastardize scripture and make it say what you want to say - let it speak for itself, and accept that there is heavy ambiguity in that verse, as well as in the mentions of "brothers" of Jesus (which we anachronistically interpret to mean only biological brothers).

[Anonymous No.19446256]

>>19446233
Actually you're confusing the concept of using the word until as a conjunction and as a preposition and as such are twisting it to mean something it doesn't. But no one in this thread even covered this point. It's ok. You've all been outrageously inhospitable and nasty in this short time. I've already made up my mind I won't be becoming a Catholic. This thread and these interactions were a sign from the Holy Spirit to stop talking to the priest I've been meeting with and to go to the nondenom church I've been attending as well. I've never met a more miserable group of assholes.

I'll let the priest know it was the behavior of Catholics that drove me away though.

[Anonymous No.19446272]

>>19446256
Why are you pretending that you were going to convert to Catholicism? You are clearly a jaded Protestant with a huge animosity towards the ancient Churches, like so many others, who came into this thread to spread vitriol and express how much you disagree with us. Until you open yourself up to the Holy Spirit by leaving your man-made traditions and hatred behind, you will be left outside of the ark of salvation. I will pray for you - thanks for leaving cordially.

[Anonymous No.19446274]

>>19446256
hey these catholic freaks don't actually go to church and don't have social lives or friends or even jobs. i'd like to recommend joining the Presbyterian Church in America. it's a great church for people who actually want to connect and love the Lord and have a family and a community. check if there's a local one in your area and reach out to the pastor. let us know what you think.

[Anonymous No.19446282]

>>19446272
Because he's a Calvinist who believes in limited atonement, making them the only denomination that hears someone say "Jesus died for your sins" and says "WELL ACKTUALLY".

[Anonymous No.19446287]

>>19446272
no catholic church would tolerate you talking like this. good thing you do it as a coward on the internet because your larping psychotic ways would get you kicked out of literally - and i mean literally - any parish in the united states. you are a fucking disgrace. no one tolerates this and the catholic church itself had repeatedly stated it sees people like you as a liability.

[Anonymous No.19446289]

>>19446274
Thanks. I'll look into it. I appreciate you reaching out like that.

[Anonymous No.19446300]

>>19446274
>hey these catholic freaks don't actually go to church and don't have social lives or friends or even jobs.
What an exemplification of the average Protestant. Myriad unsubstantiated accusations (literally Satanic, by definition), and spreading "discord [...] rivalries, divisions, factions" - the acts of the flesh. You are not manifesting the fruits of the Spirit, and that is obvious.

>>19446287
Why is it always anti-Catholics who try to tell Catholics what they should believe? "No salvation outside of the church" is a well-defined infallible doctrine taught by the church since its inception. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean we don't teach it. Until you open yourself up to where the Holy Spirit wants you to go, despite what your man-made traditions teach, you will forever be blocking yourself off from Him dwelling within you. I pray that doesn't happen.

[Anonymous No.19446312]

>>19446300
keep acting just the way you are right now. keep driving normal people away from catholicism. and stay in your pathetic, shitty, dying church. your cult speak doesn't interest me. you know how fast catholicism is dying, but you can't help making it more repugnant than it already is.

very based.

[Anonymous No.19446324]

>19446312
>buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword
Riveting.

[Anonymous No.19446328]

>>19446312
I'm in good company staying with the Church which was defended by the ancient fathers. You can feel free to go to Pastor Joe's First Baptist Great Lakes Non-Denominational House Church, but as for me, I will stick with the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Besides me being worried for your salvation, your seething and hatred doesn't affect me at all.

The world has always hated us, because we were chosen out of this world, and are not of this world. Let those who are of the world laugh at us, and spread discord and rivalries, and tell people to join their man-made divisions and factions instead.

[Anonymous No.19446343]

>>19446328
why do you keep repeating the exact same phrases over and over again? are you having an "attack"? are you saying that you make these threads not to attract people to catholicism but to drive them away?

if so good work. you've done it at least once this thread. you've also created a really bad name for your religion in general thanks to being a presence here. but that was the point, right?

[Anonymous No.19446358]

>>19446343
>are you saying that you make these threads not to attract people to catholicism but to drive them away?
This thread was created to discuss Catholic literature, as it clearly says in the title. If you don't have any questions, aren't discussing any literature, and aren't making any arguments, I'm not sure why you're still here. You have an inordinate hatred for Catholicism, and this is what is to be expected, because it is clear you are not manifesting the fruits of the Spirit, but rather the acts of the flesh. I hope you think about why that is the case, and meditate on how you can begin manifesting the fruits of the Spirit. God bless you.

[Anonymous No.19446363]

/ocg/ here. Just thought you'd all like to know that the Calvinist has been in our thread that got moved to /his/, too. Trying to shill James White, intentionally misrepresent veneration, laughably accusing others of being ignorant of Church history, etc. The usual. Stay strong.

[Anonymous No.19446365]

>>19446343
this. i will actually look into the pca now thanks to this thread. the longer this thread goes on the more ashamed i am of these monsters. they are not even close to acting in a christ-like manner.

[Anonymous No.19446372]

>>19446363
i am a calvinist in this thread being accused of being someone else, and i don't even know what ocg is. i guess there are a bunch of us, huh?

ps try not to sound like a rape survivor support group so much lmao

[Anonymous No.19446377]

>>19446365
I hope you enjoy your man-made church which was created over 1500 years after Jesus Christ created His Church. Goodbye, and don't worry, us "monsters" won't follow you into damnation there.

>>19446363
God bless, brother. Unfortunately, it seems the only time we can be truly united is against a common enemy. I pray that one day this cosmic pattern of light only unifying when being threatened by darkness might allow us to reunite again. All love and blessings to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, my brother.

[Anonymous No.19446386]

>>19446328
>>19446358
There's no point arguing with the anti-catholic barneyfag. Just let him run out of steam and then get back on the track of legit discussion.

>>19446363
shit he's fucking over you guys too?

[Anonymous No.19446390]

>>19446377
holy shit this was actually posting unironically. orthobro here. you are pure cringe. stop living in your own head 24/7, """"brother""""

[Anonymous No.19446396]

lets not paper over the fact that this calvinist won a potential convert whereas you all sat here all day with your thumbs up your asses bitching about me and others like me. isn't that wild? and i only post like 4 times too. rest of the day was spent with my family. i know you all don't have kids, so i don't want to make you sad by talking about them.

[Anonymous No.19446448]

In my experience, this passage from Ignatius is one of the most commonly cited patristic passages among Roman Catholics.

Here's the passage:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." (Letter To The Smyrnaeans, 7)

Yet, earlier in the same letter Ignatius writes:

"Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to a true belief in Christ's passion, which is our resurrection." (5)

Are we to conclude that Ignatius believed that Jesus' passion (or faith in His passion) is transubstantiated into our resurrection under the appearance of remaining Jesus' passion (or faith in His passion)?

Ignatius often wrote in a manner similar to what we see in the two passages quoted above. That should be a signal to the careful interpreter to proceed with caution.

There's nothing in Ignatius that tells us much about his view of the eucharist. Catholics can't claim to know that Ignatius agreed with them on this issue.

[Anonymous No.19446450]

>>19446312
>>19446287
you are also starting arguements on the mongolian basket weaving forum
you came into this thread with intention
where did you find this high horse

[Anonymous No.19446454]

>>19446448
Roman Catholics often assume transubstantiation or something similar to it whenever they see an opportunity to read such a concept into a text. I would suggest that people closely examine Catholic claims on this subject, because a lot of what's commonly asserted is incorrect. A "real presence" isn't equivalent to transubstantiation. A person can believe in some type of eucharistic presence without believing in the Roman Catholic view of the eucharist. Many church fathers held a view of the eucharist that contradicts the Catholic view or could plausibly be interpreted in more than one way, not just in a Roman Catholic sense.

[Anonymous No.19446469]

>>19446377
No problem.
>>19446386
>shit he's fucking over you guys too?
Yep.
>>>/his/12345583
>>>/his/12346302
>>>/his/12346364
Although we've managed to largely just ignore him.
>>19446390
Be nice.

[Anonymous No.19446478]

>>19446448
>>19446454
The passage is clear that Ignatius believed the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. To assume otherwise would be reading into the text one's assumptions, instead of letting it speak for itself. Christ's death and resurrection is our resurrection, because we die and resurrect through being baptized into Christ's death and resurrection.

Regardless, you are anachronistically applying the term transubstantiation, when it would be more accurate to say Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as that is agreed upon by both Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestant denominations, and was clearly taught by the early Church - to deny otherwise is to deny Christian history itself.

See: https://www.churchfathers.org/the-real-presence

[Anonymous No.19446484]

It's literally amazing how even Catholic historians agree that the Catholic Church makes false claims about history. Please refute the following claims. Catholic historian Döllinger makes these points about the relationship of the Councils to the bishops of Rome:

(1) The Popes took no part in convoking Councils. All Great Councils, to which bishops came from different countries were convoked by the Emperors, nor were the Popes ever consulted about it beforehand.
(2) They were not always allowed to preside, personally or by deputy, at the Great Councils, though no one denied them the first rank in the Church. At Nice, at the two Councils of Ephesus in 431 and 449, and at the Fifth Great Council in 553, others presided; only at Chalcedon in 451, and Constantinople in 680, did the Papal legates preside. And it is clear that the Popes did not claim this as their exclusive right.
(3) Neither the dogmatic nor the disciplinary decisions of these Councils required Papal confirmation, for their force and authority depended on the consent of the Church, as expressed in the Synod, and afterwards in the fact of its being generally received. The confirmation of the Nicene Council by Pope Silvester was afterwards invented at Rome, because facts would not square with the newly devised theory (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1870), pp. 63-64).

>>19446469
Also, these Calvinist posts aren't me, confirming that there are numerous Calvinists. Hilarious. I love that our numbers are growing while yours are shrinking, and you cope by pretending there's one person out to get you.

[Anonymous No.19446487]

>>19446478
You completely ignored the counter example of a parallel construction proving that's exactly NOT what he meant. Nice. Also don't ever link me to a propaganda site ever again.

[Anonymous No.19446490]

>>19446484
Did Jesus Christ die for everyone's sins?

[Anonymous No.19446495]

>>19446469
>Be nice.
No? Why would I pretend he was behaving as anything other than a sperg? He is descending into schizoid fantasy and humoring him because he's sucking up to the Church for a moment isn't doing him or us any favors.

[Anonymous No.19446500]

>>19446490
what does the bible say?

[Anonymous No.19446508]

>>19446500
>For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Cor 15:3-5)

[Anonymous No.19446516]

>>19446508
ok wow you posted something that wasn't capable of answering your own question. you sound like a real scholar. now that you've btfo yourself, realize this: it doesn't matter what calvinists believe because my previous post proved the papacy is a heresy. if that is true, your religion is wrong REGARDLESS of whether or not everything i believe is totally wrong.

you have nothing. you have no faith. your religion admits it is false. you are unable to refute that post proving the papacy is heresy.

[Anonymous No.19446527]

>Calvinists believe Christ died for nothing
wew

[Anonymous No.19446532]

>>19446484
3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) - Papal Legate Phillip says "[...] that when the writing of our Holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our and your holy voices, you joined yourself to the holy head, also with your holy acclamations [...] for your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle [...] and since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest tossed and much vexed has arrived, we ask that you give order, that you lay before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope, and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination [...] it is doubtful to none, nay, it had been known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the prince of the head of the apostles, the column of the faith, the foundation of the Catholic church, received from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, the keys of the kingdom - and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who unto this day and forever lives and judges in his successor. And his successor, in order, and his representative, our holy and most blessed Celestine."
Holy body = those at the ecumenical council, Holy head = the Pope, vicar of Christ and head of the church
"to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins" - as every bishop holds this, it was meant to display the jurisdiction and prerogative of Rome to confirm/ratify ("bind") the decisions of the ecumenical council, by virtue of Papal succession.

>>19446487
>You completely ignored the counter example of a parallel construction proving that's exactly NOT what he meant.
That's your own personal interpretation. It is pretty clear that in the context of all of the other ante-Nicene fathers who wrote about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that your personal interpretation is incoherent with the entirety of the body of evidence. See Justin Martyr, for example:
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology, 66).

[Anonymous No.19446537]

>>19446527
strawmen can't save you from the reality of the papacy being heresy, unfortunately. shout into the wind all you want, you are in a false church filled with man made inventions.

>>19446532
how is this single quote supposed to rebut all of church history? i can also pull quotes that are counter examples. this isn't a refutation in any sense.

[Anonymous No.19446541]

>>19446532
>That's your own personal interpretation
oh so it's only a personal interpretation when you don't like it. cool. also, i like how you dodged the parallel construction and deflected to another topic and another person. this is a classic tell for cognitive dissonance indicating that you know deep down you just lost the argument and have to deflect to maintain your sanity.

[Anonymous No.19446542]

>>19446537
>how is this single quote supposed to rebut all of church history?
You said that "Neither the dogmatic nor the disciplinary decisions of these Councils required Papal confirmation, for their force and authority depended on the consent of the Church, as expressed in the Synod, and afterwards in the fact of its being generally received". The quote clearly shows that that is an incorrect assessment of the available evidence. The words of the Papal Legate at that ecumenical council, which were accepted, clearly shows that the Pope of Rome clearly held the prerogative to ratify the determinations of the council.

[Anonymous No.19446547]

>>19446541
>oh so it's only a personal interpretation when you don't like it. cool.
I mean, are you denying that it is only your personal interpretation? There are many scholars who read that quote and come to the reasonable conclusion that Ignatius believed in the real presence. Thus, I have your opinion which goes against the entirety of early Church history and tradition, and I have the consistent interpretation of the fathers which places it soundly in its proper context. I included that other quote because it clearly shows a widespread belief in the Eucharist literally being the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.19446555]

>>19446537
>you are in a false church filled with man made inventions.
I'm not a Calvinist though.

[Anonymous No.19446561]

>>19446547
how do you explain the parallel construction then?

[Anonymous No.19446566]

>>19446542
Who presided at the Council where that quote came from? Answer that please.

[Anonymous No.19446582]

>>19446454
>A "real presence" isn't equivalent to transubstantiation
Yes it is. Transubstantiation is just the Thomistic metaphysical explanation for how the Eucharist becomes Christ.

>Many church fathers held a view of the eucharist that contradicts the Catholic view or could plausibly be interpreted in more than one way, not just in a Roman Catholic sense.
ALL Church Fathers affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All of them. The Eucharist is not symbolic, it's not a metaphor, the bread does become Christs flesh, the wine does become Christs blood. This is the Catholic position, it's the Orthodox position and it's the position of the Church Fathers. The fact that Catholicism has a unique philosophical explanans for the Real Presence does not mean that the theological position of the Catholic Church differs from the Church Fathers or any other Church that affirms the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Read Patristics, stop reading Calvinist tripe.

[Anonymous No.19446592]

>>19446448
>There's nothing in Ignatius that tells us much about his view of the eucharist.
Really? Your quotation is shortened there let me give the full version

"But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."

From this it is very clear that Ignatius is saying these people are in error specifically because they do not affirm that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. There's no other way to interpret this.

[Anonymous No.19446602]

>>19446592
Again you're not addressing the parallel construction that disproves that. I don't know how many ways to say this to force you to finally interact with the argument actually presented. It's leading me to think I'm actually completely correct because you are physically incapable of addressing it.

[Anonymous No.19446608]

>>19446582
>ALL Church Fathers affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All of them.
Please post a peer reviewed historical journal source that states this, published within the last 20 years. Otherwise I will be forced to ignore your claim.

[Anonymous No.19446612]

>>19446602
There is no parallel construction, Ignatius in that quote is specifically addressing the Donatists who deny Christ has a body

>For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ's passion, which is our resurrection.

Ignatius then goes on to condemn the heresy of people who deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The two passages are not related other than the fact Ignatius is warning the Smyrnaeans of two different heresies

[Anonymous No.19446620]

>>19446612
The two passages are related because it shows how Ignatius uses language.

"Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to a true belief in Christ's passion, which is our resurrection."

Are we to conclude that Ignatius believed that Jesus' passion (or faith in His passion) is transubstantiated into our resurrection under the appearance of remaining Jesus' passion (or faith in His passion)?

That is what you are claiming by claiming what you did about his Eucharist quote, because they are constructed the same way. In reality, this is just a quirk of the way he spoke/wrote.

[Anonymous No.19446622]

>>19446608
>Please post a peer reviewed historical journal
Interesting how similar Calvinists become to atheists when they get pinned. "Muh peer reviewed modern evidence".

[Anonymous No.19446626]

>>19446622
I didn't get pinned at all. You made a wild sweeping claim with no evidence and now you don't want to back it up. That's really sad for you :(

[Anonymous No.19446638]

>>19446561
In all honesty, I don't see the similarity at all. It seems to me that you are attempting to find a way to make Ignatius not believe in the real presence despite clear textual evidence to the contrary. Your point regarding that passage of chapter 5 seems like quite a stretch, when you remove the anachronism of applying the term transubstantiation:
>Are we to conclude that Ignatius believed that Jesus' passion is our resurrection?
To which I answer, yes, that is the most likely hypothesis, based on a plain reading of the text. Therefore, there is no dilemma of "parallel construction", only two very clear and simple passages which say what they mean.

>>19446566
The fact that the council was convened by the Emperor does not have any bearing on whether or not your third claim is true. You and I both know that the bishop of Rome played an important role, as the head of the Catholic church on earth, in ratifying decisions made by the councils, as the primary quote I provided proves. I encourage you to actually read the acts of the council of Ephesus, to see how much the decrees of the Pope had bearing on the proceedings:
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.x.xiv.html

[Anonymous No.19446640]

>>19446620
>Are we to conclude that Ignatius believed that Jesus' passion (or faith in His passion) is transubstantiated into our resurrection under the appearance of remaining Jesus' passion
No because Ignatius does not make any mention of that whereas in regard to the Eucharist he directly says "because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ". You're trying to force words into Ignatius mouth and frankly I'm not even sure how you get Jesus passion "transubstantiated" from your quote there because it's not even vaguely inferring such a thing.

It's not a quirk of langauge. It's Ignatius saying directly "If you deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist you are a heretic"

Your quote is Ignatius referring to the Donatists who he previously condemned for denying Jesus came in the flesh and saying they need to repent and return to the true Catholic faith which, clearly, affirms the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

[Anonymous No.19446646]

>>19446638
>he fact that the council was convened by the Emperor
Oh well, game over. You lost.

[Anonymous No.19446650]

>>19446640
>I'm not even sure how you get Jesus passion "transubstantiated" from your quote there because it's not even vaguely inferring such a thing.
exactly. thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.19446655]

>>19446646
I'm not sure who you're arguing against, but I never made the claim that the Pope convened the ecumenical councils. I was just pointing out that your third claim here >>19446484 is demonstrably false, which I proved through a primary source. Feel free to think you "won", though.

[Anonymous No.19446657]

>>19446650
This is the saddest cope I've ever seen. You should give it up, I know more than Calvinism AND Catholicism than you do

[Anonymous No.19446729]

>>19446608
>But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.
--Didache
>When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?
--Irenaeus
>So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ.
--Athanasius
>We have proved the sacraments of the Church to be the more ancient, now recognize that they are superior. In very truth it is a marvellous thing that God rained manna on the fathers, and fed them with daily food from heaven; so that it is said, "So man ate angels' food." But yet all those who ate that food died in the wilderness, but that food which you receive, that living Bread which came down from heaven, furnishes the substance of eternal life; and whosoever shall eat of this Bread shall never die, and it is the Body of Christ.
--Ambrose
>Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: ‘This is My Body.’ No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it. Recognise in this bread what hung on the cross, and in this chalice what flowed from His side.
--Augustine

should I go on?

[Anonymous No.19446754]

>>19446516
>it doesn't matter what calvinists believe
glad its settled then

[Anonymous No.19447463]

>>19446101
Thank you. Do you think the cultural barrier would be an issue?

>>19445832
Thank you for your response, these are great resources and I will check them out. I appreciate you taking the time.

[Anonymous No.19447859]

>>19444644
>>19445312
I'm the original poster of that, my mind went to "progressives" not Muslims actually, although that also makes sense, because I doubt a Muslim would be in this part of town to buy books in this bookstore. It's much more likely that it was a SJW.

[Anonymous No.19447997]

>>19446171
>nevermind 2 samuel was written in hebrew before being translated into greek.
The New Testament was written in Greek and literally every single Church Father used the Septuagint and not dubious manuscripts cooked up by 10th century A.D. Jews

[Anonymous No.19448014]

Thanks for making this general.

For many years I was an atheist. I began reading the Bible to better understand the foundations of my culture, and along with some other reading, began to slowly progress back to my religious upbringing. For example, I really enjoyed Jung's "Answer to Job" which was my first pivot point to reconcile my old faith which I thought was lost. I went to confession for the first time, and later attended a church service.
I find reading to be the best way for me to absorb information, are there any good books for a lapsed Catholic starting fresh again? Or just general literature to reflect on Christ or the Church and its teachings?
Also, reading charts greatly appreciated. God bless.

[Anonymous No.19448373]

>>19446620
>The two passages are related because it shows how Ignatius uses language.

Different anon. The proposed juxtaposition of passages is not illuminating. There is no parallel construction, and neither passage informs our understanding of the other with respect to "how Ignatius uses language."

>Are we to conclude that Ignatius believed that Jesus' passion (or faith in His passion) is transubstantiated into our resurrection under the appearance of remaining Jesus' passion (or faith in His passion)?

No. But this is because the reading you propose is absurd. There is no basis whatsoever in the text to bring in the concept of transubstantiation as somehow relevant to parsing its meaning.

By contrast, in the other passage, Ignatius specifically refers to "the Eucharist" as "the flesh of our Saviour."

It follows this that the Catholic inference of transubstantiation as being relevant here does NOT come out of thin air, or by tying together two unrelated passages and trying to *force* (eisegesis) an interpretative conclusion. Rather, the inference follows naturally from (i) the language found in the text itself, and (ii) the obvious NT background to which that language refers.

As for (i), the language of the text, the passage expressly speaks of "the Eucharist," specifically stating: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ"

We already *know* what "the Eucharist" is, because we have the New Testament account of the Lord's Supper (“This is My body”), as well as Christ's shocking, repeated insistence "eat My flesh" in John 6.

As for the text’s suggestion of transubstantiation, the implication arises in an obvious way from Ignatius’s specific language. Thus, Ignatius writes that "the Eucharist" IS "the flesh of our Saviour,"

not "flesh PLUS BREAD"

or "SYMBOLIZES the flesh of our Saviour"

or "UNITES US to the flesh of our Saviour,"

or "MAKES PRESENT the flesh of our Savior,"

but rather, simply, “to be”: "they confess not the Eucharist TO BE the flesh of our Savior."

To be or not to be - THAT is the question, my friend.

1/2

[Anonymous No.19448376]

>>19448373

2/2

Ignatius’s language and his meaning are plain. And no arbitrary juxtaposition of this text with a different, unrelated text in any way unsettle that plain meaning.

Recall that Ignatius is writing against the Docetists. Thus, in the second passage you quoted, Ignatius is saying, in so many words, that a Christian's belief in Christ's fleshly passion is the source of Christian resurrection. The belief in the first (Christ’s passion suffered in the flesh) leads to the second (our resurrection). Whereas denial of the first means the non-believer is denied the second.

Note that the above reading rests on the larger context of Chapter 5. Earlier in the same paragraph, Ignatius writes that those who do not confess that Christ truly "possessed a body," "altogether den[y] Him," and are "clothed in a corpse" or "death-bearers." That is, they are death-bearers "UNTIL they repent and return to a true belief in Christ's passion, which is our resurrection.”

Thus, Ignatius juxtaposes "death-bearer" with "resurrection": Death follows from *denying* that Christ truly possessed a body, and "suffered truly" (chap. 2) during His passion; but resurrection follows from *confessing* that He “truly possessed a body.”

Ignatius concludes by reaffirming that unbelievers remain death-bearers “until they repent and return to a true belief in Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection.”

To summarize. Denying that Christ “suffered truly” during His passion makes one a “death-bearer.” But this state only continues until an unbeliever “repent[s] and return[s] to a true belief in Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection.”

[Anonymous No.19448447]

>>19448014
>are there any good books for a lapsed Catholic starting fresh again?

There is an abundance of riches, some of which are listed here: >>/lit/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=faustina+hildebrand

Of course, 'ymmv' on any particular one of those suggested titles.

Ignatius Press has a nice print catalog that is always fun to browse through. They have a great selection of books. Other good sources include Sophia Institute Press, Ave Maria, TAN (*most* of their stuff is good). And there are others, but those names come to me off the top of my head. Preserving Christian Publications in NY is a great resource for used Catholic books. They have a neat print catalogue that comes out periodically. God bless.

[Anonymous No.19448969]

>>19447463
While it might be easier to find a parish in the Byzantine rite which is based around your heritage/ethnicity, it is by no means a barrier to entry. For example, despite being Mediterranean, I attend a Ukranian Greek-Catholic Church. The usage of Ukranian vernacular in some services doesn't really change anything, as there are often bilingual resources like Missals and books to help understand what is being said, along with getting a feel eventually for the meaning of some words after hearing them also chanted in English. I hope that helps!

>>19448014
I would suggest St. Irenaeus' short treatise called "The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching". It was very illuminative for me personally, and contains a concise exposition of some of the really deep underpinnings of the faith w/r/t things like typology, fractal pattern summations in Christ, Trinitarian theology, etc. See:
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.iv.html
Also, welcome back home! God bless you.

[Anonymous No.19449829]

>>19443701
Based

[Anonymous No.19449942]

>>19448969
I would suggest to anyone interested reading Christian books to take a look at Catholic publishers Aeterna, Ignatius and Sophia Institute press. Aeterna press published a book containing all of st. Irenaeus' (who coincidentally will be named a Doctor of the Church) writings. It has not been uploaded yet though.

http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=Aeterna+press&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def

http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=Ignatius+press&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def

http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=Sophia+institute+press&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def

[Anonymous No.19449968]

>>19448447
>>19449942
Had not read this post yet. My bad!

[Anonymous No.19450028]

>>19448014
If you want to start with some light reading to ease you into Catholicism themed books it's best if you start with this document which is like an abbreviated "Catholic church for Dummies".

http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8FEFB85C64524EBF0085A3E6FB08F4A6

Once you've finished you'll have a basic understanding of the theology. Good luck and good to have you back!

[Anonymous No.19450205]

>>19449942
I would also specifically recommend Patrick Madrid's "Why Be Catholic?" and secondarily Trent Horn's "The Case for Catholicism" and "Why We're Catholic." Madrid is a titan, and was at the forefront of defending Catholicism in the 80s and 90s when anti-Catholicism among American Protestants was still at a pretty high level, so he has a very valuable perspective.

[Anonymous No.19450403]

>>19446363
Who is he? What causes Americans to act like this?

[Anonymous No.19450589]

>>19450403
I'm assuming you mean James White and not the anon shilling him. White is an old Calvinist apologist who has a severe hateboner for Catholics (or just "Rome", as he and his followers prefer), especially since his own sister converted to Catholicism many years ago. To correct the Calvinist anon from the Orthodox thread, White is not a "Dr." as he doesn't have his Ph.D. to my understanding, though he nevertheless calls himself a Dr. He's used to just talking to his own Calvinist audience via radio/podcast who don't question him or his interpretations, or being in relatively low-key debates back in the 80s, 90s, and 00s. In recent years, however, as more Catholic apologists have taken to YouTube to rebut his claims, usually in long-form, or challenge him to more publicized debates, his inability to get off his own script or consider the possibility that he could be wrong, has become pretty noticeable; this is especially noticeable when browsing the comments to the 2-part Protestant upload of the Horn vs. White debate, where not even his own Calvinist followers were convinced that he had the better performance or arguments, and he followed the debate up with a lengthy video called "Accurately Evaluating Debates" with comments and likes/dislikes disabled.

If you meant the anon, then just some internet Calvinist who is a follower of White.

[Anonymous No.19450809]

>>19448014
Orthodoxy by Chesterton. It was written when Chesterton was experimenting with Protestantism and not a full Catholic yet, but it captures the ethos of being an impressionable atheist youth and then slowly reacquainting yourself with Christianity.

Also I've always been more or less a practicing Catholic so I don't have convert experience, but I feel like focusing too much on reading, reading charts, theology, etc are just ways of intellectualizing and ultimately "getting around" prayer and personal contemplation. If you lean too hard on the intellect, you run the risk of it just becoming another philosophical tradition instead of something actively embodied. Which may be good enough for what you need at this stage, but still a thought at least worth having in mind.

[Anonymous No.19451494]

>>19450589
James White is one of, if not the most prominent Calvinist apologists online. Surprised people don't know him considering he's been sperging about about Catholicism for almost 40 years now. His readings of scripture are extremely idiosyncratic in order to squeeze Calvinist doctrine in.

[Anonymous No.19451573]

>>19444644
>anon mentions a Bible hidden behind a Quran
>y-you can't accuse us Protestants of that!
Is Protestantism known for preferring the Quran to the Bible?

[Anonymous No.19451590]

Browsing on CCEL, I came across this interesting title, which I am just starting to dip into:

Santa Teresa, An Appreciation
by Alexander Whyte

During a rainy summer in Scotland towards the end of the nineteenth century, Alexander Whyte, minister and professor in the Free Church of Scotland, spent his mornings and evenings reading the works of Saint Teresa of Avila, beloved Reformer of the Carmelite Order in the sixteenth century. So moved by the words of the saint, Whyte wrote this short biography of Santa Teresa, along with summaries of her works. He also included selected passages from the writings of Santa Teresa on spirituality and theology, for the purpose of sharing these passages with young men and women that they might grow spiritually and intellectually. In this short tribute, Whyte passes on his love of Santa Teresa to the reader, along with the texts that so moved him, to bless those who read this beautiful and thoughtful work.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/whyte/teresa.html

[Anonymous No.19451603]

>>19451573
>Is Protestantism known for preferring the Quran to the Bible?
Yes. Protestants and Muslims have have much in common and even today
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turco-Calvinism

[Anonymous No.19451618]

>>19451573
No. But Protestants are known for their frail egos and weak intellects

[Anonymous No.19451619]

>>19451603
>one political alliance centuries ago
That's kind of reaching, I was just drawing attention to how hard anon was projecting if he thought Protestants would be blamed.

[Anonymous No.19451636]

>>19451619
>iconoclasm
>borderline bibliolatry
>heretical origins
There are many similarities

[Anonymous No.19451658]

>>19451573
>>19451603
>>19451618
My two favorites are (A) how much Protestants tend to act toward Catholics and Orthodox how atheists act toward them, as explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNreY29xfoE
and (B) I started to notice that, while some Protestants will completely dismiss the Church Fathers when arguing their positions against Catholics and Orthodox because of Sol[o] Scriptura, those same Protestants will pull them out (and sometimes even Popes) to argue against Muslims on topics like the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.19451671]

>>19451658
Same observation was made here >>19446622

[Anonymous No.19451682]

>>19446487
>I am a better person who is definitely correct
>I will now proceed to act like a triggered Karen

[Anonymous No.19451839]

>>19443358
>https://www.goodcatholic.com/fifteen-rosary-promises/
>15. Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.
Umm...

[Anonymous No.19451868]

>>19451839
The church believes in single predestination (foreknowledge), not Calvinist/Muslim double predestination.
"To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, p.600)
I'm not sure where that site gets the "promises" themselves, but it does not seem unorthodox - many saints speak about how the daily prayer of the Rosary is incredibly efficacious for remaining in the grace of God and cultivating piety, and thus attaining salvation. For example, St. Louis de Montfort's "Secret of the Rosary" talks about this in depth.

[Anonymous No.19452094]

I'm agnostic but, I am currently reading Confessions by Augustine. This book is wonderful.

[Anonymous No.19452456]

>Hate this site
>Still keep coming here
How do I leave?

[Anonymous No.19452486]

>>19452456
Make a thread asking mods for a permanent site-wide ban until the year 3000 and then forget how to reset your router. That's basically it.

[Anonymous No.19452612]

I finished Book II today.

Favorite quotes:
"...I turned away from You who are One, and lost myself among the many."

"...the mists of passion steamed up out of the puddly concupiscence of the flesh, and the hot imagination of puberty, and they so obscured and overcast my heart that I was unable to distinguish pure affection from unholy desire."

" You were always by me, mercifully angry and flavoring all my unlawful pleasures with bitter discontent, in order that I might seek pleasures free from discontent."

[Anonymous No.19452622]

>>19450809
Orthodoxy is indeed a great and accessible introduction to Catholicism, it is the Catholic "Mere Christianity", though perhaps not quite as accessible.

[Anonymous No.19452983]

>Catholic University of America Press's Fathers of the Church series is 127 volumes long
Should I aspire to own and read them all, or would it be ill-advised to own 127 volumes from a single series on a bookshelf?

[Anonymous No.19452991]

>>19452983
I often see this set on the bookshelves of prominent Christian youtubers but it's been out of print for a while. 38 volumes seems more managable than 127. I've got the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture set myself

[Anonymous No.19453011]

>>19452991
I have seen that set and initially considered that for the very reason you said--it being 38 volumes instead of 127--but apparently it's littered with anti-Catholic editorial commentary in the margins because it's an Anglican production. As one reviewer put it:
>Being Anglicans seeking to remain Anglican, the series offers a host of anti-Catholic commentary that will offend almost every sensible Roman Catholic, but the real service of these translations is not the anti-Roman polemic, but the translations themselves and the renewed interest in the church fathers that we now see once again in our own day.
A shame, because aesthetically it looks better and would only take up one or two shelves instead of an entire bookcase. Ah, who knows? Both the 38-volume set and the 127-volume set typically go for the same prices, so I guess I'll make a decision when the time comes, and after careful consideration and prayer.
>I've got the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture set myself
This is another one I hope to get eventually, as I've heard great things about it for a while now. Probably a greater priority desu. How is it?

[Anonymous No.19453350]

Could someone please explain why so many people are so obsessed over politics that they believe everything is a cultural war. These people seem so miserable.

[Anonymous No.19453357]

>>19452094
On the Trinity is arguably even better.

[Anonymous No.19453419]

>>19452094
>I'm agnostic but, I am currently reading Confessions by Augustine. This book is wonderful.

Reading this, I cannot but suggest that you say a prayer to the God of Augustine, who may or may not exist, that He would enlighten your mind and reveal Himself to you if He does exist. Or something along those lines that accords with your sensibility.

"You have may us for yourself, Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee."

[Anonymous No.19453511]

Books on fighting desire?

[Anonymous No.19453586]

>>19453511
The Spiritual Combat by Dom Lorenzo Scupoli, or Unseen Warfare for the same text, but from an Eastern perspective.

[Anonymous No.19453617]

>>19453511
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=6BFD7DA997D94811CDE113E44802D108

If you're talking about porn.

http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=CCA309D50FB8E0AE34A000B456B9BDB3

For anything else.

[Anonymous No.19453800]

God bless you brothers I come with gifts I.e book recommendations. Yale has produced a series called Yales English monarchy that is a biography for the majority of British kings and queens. The other series is New Oxford's history of England with 11 volumes. The third series is Maitlands history of English Law. The fourth series is New Cambridge history of Medieval Europe. This won't make you the most cultured (better watch anime or movies) But this is my only contribution I can help you with.

[Anonymous No.19453853]

>>19453800
Thanks for the recommendations! What about those books do you find interesting from the perspective of Catholicism, or Catholic involvement?

[Anonymous No.19454053]

>>19453853
If you read Yales English Monarchs they cite philosophers like Boethius, Saint Gregory, St Benedict, Wulfstan (first two books) then the 3rd book talks about Scandinavian philosophy. It gives you all the historians, archbishops and family members. If you stick with it and read the philosophy books you'll have material to write fiction about, they're easy books to read so you can sit and think whilst reading them. They're great for children and they give you an idea of applied Christianity. They might not be the most worth your time maybe Cambridges history of Communism and World War 1 would teach more. I think that without a world or lacking understanding of a period you'll won't have any setting to write fiction and apply your philosophy to.
If your a pure philosopher then maybe it won't help unless during the time your thinking whilst reading you make your own judgements. For example I'm testing if a poet can find a use in reading history books, can poetry find the truth? Does poetry influence people's decisions. Can you use politics and philosophical terms in poetry. Does occupation matter or should we just live? Are all words beautiful? Should I stop swearing? Should I apologise after swearing in my head? Do you need beauty in your apology?

[Anonymous No.19454320]

what makes you believe we have immaterial souls when every mental activity can be explained in terms of neuroscience and sovereign decisions may as well be a resultant of genetic predispositions and past events?

[Anonymous No.19454335]

>>19454320
If you think that science gets anywhere close to explaining qualia / unique 1st person subjective experience with identity over time and how it comes about from an allegedly fortuitous assemblage of matter, you are a pseud

[Anonymous No.19454344]

>>19454320
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and take a wild guess you're not a neuroscientist.

[Anonymous No.19454751]

>>19454320
What makes you believe the hard problem of consciousness, and the hypothesis of abiogenesis through unknown processes, have at all been approached to being answered by neuroscience and biology?

>>19454053
Beautiful, thanks for the explanation! God bless, brother.

[Anonymous No.19454873]

>>19443357
based thread
gonna fast for the next five days and dive into a lot of this

[Anonymous No.19454975]

>>19452983
>>19452991
>>19453011
Imagine having an entire bookcase of this.

[Anonymous No.19455132]

>>19445379
>Protestants are NOT sinners or cutoff from salvation
Literally demonic. What next, will you guys say Muslims are also not cut off because they believe in Christ? Oh wait...

[Anonymous No.19455156]

>>19446101
>Palamas
I still fnd it hilarious that RCs venerate him as a saint when he says filioque is literally a satanic doctrine.

[Anonymous No.19455179]

>the Calvinist schizo is back
Here, take this and be saved.

[Anonymous No.19455196]

>>19455179
Unfortunately he was predestined to have been possessed by the Demon of Schism — so there is actually nothing we can do for him.

[Anonymous No.19455212]

sede checking in

(You) may start seething now

[Anonymous No.19455238]

>>19455212
Why? I don't really think about you much, but you are still in my prayers.

[Anonymous No.19455239]

>>19455156
We believe that individuals are judged based upon the light that they encountered in their life, and how they responded to it. Palamas was immersed in the anti-Western culture of his time and place, and this was obviously in the days before the internet made invincible ignorance far less common. We can be sure that despite his anti-Western attitudes, he was a pious man who earnestly desired to do the will of God, and serve the church of Jesus Christ as he saw fit. It is therefore totally plausible that he was given mercy and is in heaven, and thus may be a saint. At least, that is the position I take, as somebody who attends a Byzantine Catholic church.

>>19455212
No seething, just fear for your salvation. I'll pray for you, brother. Please always invoke the Holy Spirit, and seek to always do His will and ask Him to reveal His will to you, even if it leads somewhere you don't want to go. God bless you.

[Anonymous No.19455250]

>>19455238
>>19455239
No, you don't pray for me
I pray for (You)

[Anonymous No.19455272]

>>19455250
I appreciate your prayers. God be with you!

[Anonymous No.19455405]

How/why do you guys care about all of this? I was baptized and confirmed as a catholic, but never really felt a deep connection to God. I thought maybe I missed something so I bought a catholic bible and read the gospel of John plus some OT chapters. John is beautifully written and there's wisdom in the OT but I just don't get it, I don't feel anything while I pray. Is it the community aspect that gives you joy?

[Anonymous No.19455439]

In one of the previous /clg/ threads, an anon made reference to the two-volume Theology of St. Paul by Fernand Prat, S.J., when talking with another anon and while lamenting that the two-volume set has been out of print for decades. I don't know if you're in this thread, but if you are, thank you for the passive recommendation! I just bought both volumes. I, too, hope a publisher starts printing it again because there are only so many 1961 reprints to go around. God bless!

[Anonymous No.19455449]

>>19443408
You almost had a good claim here until you mentioned ishtar

[Anonymous No.19455471]

start with Breivik's manifesto

[Anonymous No.19455473]

>>19455439
Whered you find them and why should I read this? Youve interested me greatly with your post.

[Anonymous No.19455562]

>>19455473
I got Vol. 1 from an eBay seller for less than $15, shipping and tax included, and Vol. 2 from AbeBooks for a little over $30. Dust jackets for both have roughed up corners, but I can do my own repairs easily since the color scheme is very basic, so no big deal. As for why to read them? It includes an in-depth defense of St. Paul's theophany and conversion, which has been difficult for some to accept, and broader Paulite thought. Here's a glimpse to see if it interests you (apologies that it's on Twitter, an Orthodox found this link):
https://twitter.com/Vhorwort/status/1452343005189484549

[Anonymous No.19455564]

>>19455405
In my eyes, it is that if Jesus Christ is really who He claimed to be, and that therefore the Holy Spirit is really and truly a thing which can dwell within us, the dryness of the early stages of spiritual development is actually a symptom of not having the Holy Spirit dwelling within us (at least, in the beginning). Thus, believing in Christ makes it incumbent upon us as Christians to embark on a quest which, God-willing, culminates in both our sanctification (see: kenosis & theosis), and the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, through Whom God can work through us as vessels in the world. This quest is how there are great saints (like Padre Pio, St. Francis of Assisi, St. John Vianney, etc.) who caused near-revolutions, because of the miracles and healings that God enacted through them. Thus, it is not only a story, but is a participatory hero's journey which, God-willing, culminates in the communion between you and God directly. As a wise man from Sarov said, "The acquisition of the Holy Spirit is the goal of the Christian life".

[Anonymous No.19455708]

>>19455405
Keep learning. I was there at one point.
Possibly has to do with faith, and it's really hard to give in fully without understanding what you're doing.
You should pray for faith and read the christian literature "greats".

[Anonymous No.19455717]

>>19455708
As an addendum, when you realize everything you read of the Bible you didn't interpret correctly, you're on the right path.

[Anonymous No.19455726]

>>19455405
>>19455708
Go to a protestant church instead too, btw.

[Anonymous No.19455760]

>>19455726
>by the way, go to a man-made church founded after the year 1500 instead of the one made by Jesus Christ
demons have to try harder

[Anonymous No.19455768]

>>19455760
>go pray to saints and believe in a pope
like that's better.

[Anonymous No.19455771]

>>19455726
Keep going to church, keep praying, keep reading the Bible, and keep your mind open to the Holy Spirit. If you have questions about Catholicism, go to places like catholic.com and read explanations of Catholic practices. I'll pray for you brother.

[Anonymous No.19455784]

>>19455768
Get a new script, White.

[Anonymous No.19455812]

>>19455768
Yeah, I guess God just told the Holy Spirit to stop leading the Church into all truth, and instead allowed literally every single Christian in the world to believe in damnable doctrines and heresy, for over 1500 years, until a couple of random Anglos finally found the truth. If you really believe this, I question your judgment.

[Anonymous No.19455837]

>>19455771
It's the same point about the "veneration is different than worship" thing.
>>19455784
Not that guy pal.
>>19455812
And how do you know the Holy Spirit is guiding your church? because the priest told you so?
Why do you reckon they had to institute that "Veritas" training thing?

[Anonymous No.19455862]

>>19455837
>And how do you know the Holy Spirit is guiding your church? because the priest told you so?
No, because Jesus Christ said the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth, those apostles laid hands on individuals to give them the Holy Spirit, those individuals filled with the Holy Spirit spoke God-inspired words by being led into all truth (eg. Paul's letters are called scripture), those who the apostles laid hands on laid hands on their successors, and the apostolic churches are the only ones which continue to have an unbroken direct line of laying-on-of-hands to receive the Holy Spirit. If you believe that a council of all the world's bishops, composed solely of men who have had the Holy Spirit given to them through the laying on of hands in an unbroken chain from the apostles, can come to a decision on behalf of the entire church, and then be led into error and deception, I question your judgment. Or else, why believe the Nicene Creed? Why believe the Chalcedonian declaration? Why believe the canon of the New Testament is inspired, given that it was first compiled by a council of Catholic bishops at the Council of Rome 382 presided over by Pope Damascus I?

[Anonymous No.19455879]

>>19455862
The two peeves i really have against Catholicism are the idea of a pope, and prayer to saints.
Care to elucidate those points?

[Anonymous No.19455908]

>>19455879
I'm happy to, brother. Just to be sure, were you the anon who I responded to with a series of 4 posts on intercession of the saints, or did you read that series of posts? If not, I will post it. I'm also happy to write up a series on the Papacy (both in the history of the early church, and the typology and prophesy which is fulfilled by that office).

[Anonymous No.19455916]

>>19455908
Possibly. I'd prefer if you made it more concise.
Also, I'll ask you all excuse me, i realize i've been quite rude. We're all Christian after all. (How valid is that statement to you btw?)

[Anonymous No.19455990]

>>19455916
Although I'm happy to retype the whole series, it would be much easier for me if you could just reread the post within this Pastebin link (https://pastebin.com/r3JQEvhq)), and then we can discuss any specific questions or objections you might have? After that, if you'd like, I can write up another piece on the Papacy.

And no worries brother, I forgive you. We all lose our cool sometimes. The official Catholic position is that as long as you are validly baptized with the Trinitarian formula, we are brothers in Christ, although because of the relationship between the Protestant schism, the technical term would be something like "separated brethren" - as in, Protestants would be separated from the Church created by Jesus, but by virtue of our common baptism, are all brothers in Christ. Lumen Gentium says that, further, "Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

[Anonymous No.19456053]

>>19455990
If you do not worship them, why do you pray to them? Most such prayers have glorifying adjectives besides asking for their own prayer.
Along with that, there's John 14:6; How can you hope to reach and praise/ask God if not through Christ? You're proxying it, are you not?
And, lastly, i dislike the rosary repetitive prayer based on Matthew 6:7
(and for some interaction, what's your favorite book? Mine's Matthew.)

[Anonymous No.19456109]

>>19456053
>If you do not worship them, why do you pray to them?
Because we believe they are alive in heaven and surround us "like a crowd of witnesses" cheering us on, and that their prayers are offered directly to Jesus Christ on His throne as is written of in Revelation - because the "prayers of a righteous person availeth much", and they have no barrier to praying for us, it would be very profitable for them to offer some prayers on our behalf. Plus, there are literally multitudes upon multitudes of scientifically unexplainable miracles done by God specifically through the intercession of saints - for a scientifically well-documented example, the canonization miracle of St. Margaret D'youville.
>Most such prayers have glorifying adjectives besides asking for their own prayer.
I think the word "glorifying" would better be substituted for "complimenting" or "honouring" - it is simply recognizing those virtues which they exhibited in this life.
>Along with that, there's John 14:6; How can you hope to reach and praise/ask God if not through Christ?
Their prayers are offered directly to God through Christ: "then another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, rose up before God from the hand of the angel." (Rev. 8:3-4)
>And, lastly, i dislike the rosary repetitive prayer based on Matthew 6:7
That is understandable, but the Catholic position is not that the repetition is what is efficacious, but the discipline and piety which is cultivated through meditating on the mysteries of Christ's life, which meditation takes place upon the basis of the prayers which "calm the monkey mind". Like the Jesus Prayer in the Eastern tradition, it is essentially a method to reach a deep state of single-minded contemplation upon which to meditate on Jesus Christ.
>(and for some interaction, what's your favorite book? Mine's Matthew.)
I love all the gospels, but John is probably my favourite - besides that, I love Revelation, John's epistles, and 1 Corinthians.

[Anonymous No.19456179]

>>19456109
"saints" in revelations refers to "believers". It's not literal canonized ones.

[Anonymous No.19456199]

>>19456109
Finally, how do you explain the catholic church's supposed decadence and some scandals?

[Anonymous No.19456210]

A /tv/ topic, but does anyone have thoughts on the show "The Chosen"?

[Anonymous No.19456239]

I love coming into these threads pretending to be looking to convert. Just to make you freaks write out pages of bullshit that I don't read. Gotcha again.

[Anonymous No.19456258]

>>19456239
Okay.

[Anonymous No.19456281]

>>19456199
We let homosexuals infiltrate. Nearly every single case of abuse has been by a homosexual man.

[Anonymous No.19456286]

>>19456239
Catholics live rent free in your head, and pretending you're winning when you wrote just as much as the people who replied to you is just schizo behaviour. Seek help.

[Anonymous No.19456290]

>>19456199
Because the church, like any institution, is constituted entirely of sinners, "it is inevitable that scandals come". But the behaviour of the individuals within it have no bearing on whether or not Jesus Christ created the Church upon the rock of St. Peter - because if He did, as He says in Matthew 16:18, then we know the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. That does not mean there will not be hardship - but it means that, despite hardship, it is not an option to forsake it, because to do so would be akin to forsaking Jesus Christ Himself, and believing Him to be a liar. This is how I view it.

[Anonymous No.19456296]

>>19456290
Well, I can see the reason the theological debates have been going on for centuries after this back and forth. May we all find God. Thanks for the little argument.

[Anonymous No.19456300]

>>19456296
Amen. Come, Holy Spirit, and guide us more deeply into your truth. Lead us where you want us to go, and give us the strength to always want what You want for us. Thanks for being cordial.

[Anonymous No.19456310]

How do I stop jacking off?

[Anonymous No.19456348]

>>19456310
If you're a lapsed Catholic, perhaps this will help - I struggled with marijuana and nicotine addiction, as well as addiction to masturbation, and after going to confession for the first time in years, where I confessed my myriad of innumerable sins, it was as if God overnight had rewired my brain to no longer desire those vices. I quit them all cold turkey simultaneously, and have never had a strong temptation to do them since. God will give you His graces if you put yourself in a position to receive them.

[Anonymous No.19456408]

>>19455239
>serve the church of Jesus Christ as he saw fit
Yeah, he did for sure, but not the same church you attend. Also St. Mark of Ephesus is a saint precisely because of his fight against the demonic inventions of the Latin church, and he is somehow also a saint for the RCs now despite being a condemned heretic before, same for St. Photios who was literally 'deposed' and condemned by the West. It's literally fairy-tale fan-fiction multiverse type stuff. I will not be surprised if Mohammad's sainthood will be considered in 20 years, as a man who was invincibly ignorant and tried to serve Christ in his own way by fighting idolatry in Arabia.

>"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do."
This man is a saint in RCism. Were Arius and Nestorius perhaps also pious men, who are perhaps saved?

>invincible ignorance
Idolatrous pagans are still damned based on their rebellion against the law written on their heart, same for all heretics. Christ's truth is plain to accept if you want the truth and value it above your evil deeds. There is no magical "invincible ignorance". It's literally a modernist innovation crafted to fit God into a distorted idea of goodness. St. Paul clearly speaks of those outside the law being judged, not justified, outside the law.

[Anonymous No.19456554]

>>19456408
>Yeah, he did for sure, but not the same church you attend.
I agree, he was a member of the schismatic offshoot sect that you are a part of, but that does not mean he was unable to be saved.

>he is somehow also a saint for the RCs now despite being a condemned heretic before
Yeah, enjoy celebrating the feast day of St Artemius of Egypt next October, despite him literally being an Arian who supported the persecution of St. Athanasius. Formal heretics who live pious lives are honoured in both the Catholic and Orthodox calendars. I can name more, too, so drop this useless point unless you want to apostatize from "orthodoxy" because you'll be singing hymns to a heretic next fall.

>There is no magical "invincible ignorance"
If you really think a rural Indian kid with no access to the internet or a library, who follows the natural law as best he can, and who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel, is damned to Hell for all eternity, be my guest. To anybody else with a lick of sense, such a proposition is simply irrational. If you accept that they wouldn't automatically be damned, then you accept invincible ignorance exists to a certain degree, and we argue the same extends to those pious men, desirous to serve the Lord Jesus, who died holding heretical beliefs, like St. Artemius and St. Mark of Ephesus.

[Anonymous No.19456651]

I've recently lost my mom.
What Christian (Catholic preferred as my mom was) books talk mainly about the soul, salvation and life after death?

[Anonymous No.19456680]

>>19456651
Faith is hard won. Wrestle with God. It never stops. No Heaven on Earth.

True Faith is pockmarked by doubts, and ever finding and resolving ways to proceed anew. It is never afraid to ask questions. It is never afraid to look somewhere and see No God, because at its heart, it trusts God to be, no matter what else. Not a cheap God. Not a toy or an idol. A God who beckons with a thousand unanswerable questions and assails us with terrible sadness, and whispers back in the drifting of a maple leaf in the fresh death of late autumn.

[Anonymous No.19456717]

>>19456651
I'm sorry to hear that, anon. May she rest in the Lord's peace - and pray for her.
Although I have never read them, I have heard that some good light reading (I'm assuming you aren't looking for dense doctrinal/philosophical treatises) on the topic can be found in C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, The Problem of Pain, and A Grief Observed. All are quite short, and I hope they might help you get through this tough period. Have faith, and pray for her.

[Anonymous No.19456718]

>>19456554
>St Artemius of Egypt
>Arian
You probably think St. Isaac the Syrian was also a Nestorian. This is what liberal theology leads to. Pure insanity and relativism.

>Formal heretics who live pious lives
Only according to modernists scholars, whose opinion is worthless. Heresy is already impious according to the holy fathers, dogma is not somehow detached from sanctity or salvation. You can't be a 'saintly' or 'pious' Hindu who worships cows and demons even if you live a 'good' life by secular standards.

>who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel, is damned to Hell for all eternity
If he is not baptised, then yes. God is more than powerful to arrange the opportunity for him to hear the Gospel, yet in His providence chose not to do so for reasons only known to Him. This doesn't mean that you can somehow be saved by bypassing Christ's sacrifice and participating in it. You need to die with Christ to rise with Him. Otherwise baptism is worthless, and so is the cross, if you can somehow magically be saved without it.
>inb4 old testament patriarchs
All had faith in Christ and were saved because of it, their circumcision and faith was counted as baptism. Same for righteous gentiles who did not make worship to idols and had faith in God and the Savior who was promised to all of humanity.

>simply irrational
God is above human rationality or attempts to measure Him. His ways are not our ways.
> then you accept invincible ignorance exists to a certain degree
Judgment depends on our actions and good deeds, if he followed his consciousness perfectly then he might escape suffering fully, like the unbaptized infants, but he will still never enter heaven. Someone who has never heard the Gospel will be judged more lightly.

[Anonymous No.19456824]

>>19456310
1. Promise God one day at a time.
2. Flee temptation like your life depends on it. You will never be free if you allow yourself to be taunted by sexual thoughts. Say a prayer any time you find yourself under attack.
3. You're probably using it to cope with something. Stop coping and address your problems.

[Anonymous No.19456825]

>>19456718
>This is what liberal theology leads to. Pure insanity and relativism.
Literally everybody agrees he was an Arian, and Athanasius even says there was an Arian persecution (the persecutions were headed by Artemius as military governor: see https://st-takla.org/books/en/ecf/204/2040450.html)) where people tried to find him at the monasteries in his Festal Letters. We know that the persecutions of the pagans and orthodox Christians by the Arian emperor were headed by the Artemius as the military governor - see Theodoretus' Historia Ecclesiastica, 3.18.1. You are literally just coping because you don't want to accept a basic fact that is even acknowledged by your own Church.
>Only according to modernists scholars, whose opinion is worthless. Heresy is already impious according to the holy fathers, dogma is not somehow detached from sanctity or salvation. You can't be a 'saintly' or 'pious' Hindu who worships cows and demons even if you live a 'good' life by secular standards.
You can't just cry "modernism" and not actually bring any evidence to the table. If you were to actually look at the primary sources used for determining the life of Artemius, you would no longer be able to hold your irrational position. Read the Life of Pachomius, read the documents that actual Orthodox and Catholic historians use for sources on Artemius' Arianism. Just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't make it not true. You have to provide evidence to support your claim that, for some reason, the Arian emperor's military general who was documented to have led Arian persecutions of Orthodox Christians was not an Arian. We have plenty of evidence for our claim, you do not.
>If he is not baptised, then yes.
Yeah, this is exactly the kind of foolishness that makes people not take you seriously. St. Paul literally says that the gentiles are judged based upon their adherence to the natural law carved upon their heart, if they haven't heard the gospel.
>God is above human rationality or attempts to measure Him. His ways are not our ways.
You don't speak for God. If you were able to convene an ecumenical council, perhaps you would have been able to receive the truth of the Holy Spirit on this matter, like the true church has.
>if he followed his consciousness perfectly then he might escape suffering fully, like the unbaptized infants, but he will still never enter heaven.
Then you should really ask your local priest why you have multiple heretics on your calendar of Saints.

I really hope you actually do some reading, and don't just baselessly assert more baseless claims of modernism when literally all available evidence shows Artemius was an Arian.

[Anonymous No.19456907]

>>19456651
Sorry I misread your post when I wrote this response (>>19456680)
I thought you wrote "lost my faith."

I wish you moments of peace and understanding during the dark days of your grief. I lost my Dad in March, it's a pain way too real. I have had a very hard time with faith since he died. It feels like we have to keep going and trying and making life into something worthy of the lives we have lost. Godspeed anon. May you carry her with you all the days of your life, and find her again at the end of it.

[Anonymous No.19457773]

>>19454975
I'd be interested in this, but apparently, they charge $2200 for, wait for it...the digital copies. And most of them are just paperbacks now. Probably would have better luck going to CUA with like $3000 and demanding all 127 hardbacks right then and there.

[Anonymous No.19457864]

>>19456825
Hello, may I ask which saint that is in your image?

[Anonymous No.19457876]

>>19456680
What a beautiful post, despite being born of a mistake!

[Anonymous No.19457903]

>>19456408
Palamas didn't understand the filioque which is no real slight on him, very few in the East understood it since they had a long string of heretics influencing their theology with Nestorius, Photios, and of course Sergius I who attacked Maximus the Confessor for siding with the Pope against the Monothelites. Unfortunately the influence of the West was unable to prevent the East from falling into error and after the weight of centuries the East finally collapsed under the weight of heresy.

[Anonymous No.19457925]

>>19446620
>The two passages are related because it shows how Ignatius uses language.

I think the passages are related because in each of them Ignatius addresses the heresy of the Docetists, and thus common to both passages is the issue of whether Jesus was (or is) literally present in the flesh (the orthodox view, which equates to spiritual life) or not literally present (the heretical Docetist view, which results in spiritual death).

Ignatius addresses this first in the context of Jesus's Passion: anyone who denies that Christ suffered in the flesh is "enveloped in death" (Letter to the Smyrneans, 5). But to repent of this heresy is "resurrection."

Ignatius then applies exactly this same logic and spiritual dynamic to the Eucharist.

He asserts that denying that the Eucharist is "the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ" "incur[s] death."

Thus, to deny that the Eucharist is literally the flesh of Jesus is an equivalently grave sin with denying that Jesus literally suffered in the flesh: both heresies "incur death":

>They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.
Letter to the Smyrneans, 7.

Finally, note that that last sentence also tracks the thrust of Ignatius's remarks about Christ's passion. If the unbelievers repent of their heretical views, "they also might rise again," a phrase which echoes his earlier statement that the unbeliever's repentance and "true belief in Christ's passion ... is our resurrection."

[Anonymous No.19457947]

>>19457864
Hey friend, it is a depiction of Mary Magdalen first encountering the risen Christ, by Viktor Vasnetsov.

[Anonymous No.19457951]

>>19454975
Imagine needing anything other than the Holy Bible and maybe a couple of volumes of commentaries just for cultural/historical background info and some explanations of symbolisms.

[Anonymous No.19457963]

>>19457951
Before the Catholic church first compiled the canon of the New Testament at the Council of Rome 382 presided over by Pope Damascus I, there was a serious discussion about whether some works of the apostolic fathers would be included in the canon. Their works are so edifying and inspiring that I think only a disdain for truth would make one scorn them. Of course, the Fathers are not necessary, but as far as utility goes, they are among the single best and most profound body of texts a Christian can consume.

[Anonymous No.19458254]

>>19446484
>our numbers are growing and yours are shrinking
Christianity is in massive decline in the US bro, nobody’s numbers are growing. Calvinism also seems to create the most ardent atheists and anti-theists.

[Anonymous No.19458379]

>>19458254
Half the atheist YouTubers are ex-Calvinists/ex-YECists with parental abuse issues.

[Anonymous No.19458636]

I really need to stop watching Bishop Williamson videos so late at night
He gets me fired up more than any other person

[Anonymous No.19458686]

>>19458636
For me, I need to pull myself away from watching R. Grant Jones Bible videos or getting too deep into Trent Horn's channel, as some of those videos go long, and I always regret not taking notes. I always start watching late and it's 2 am and I wonder why I cared to watch Jones measure the sheet thickness of the paper for some Bible translation I've never heard of before...or just rewatching the Ignatius or Jerusalem Bible videos for the 5th time. Also, sometimes I land on a brief Pints with Aquinas video, but I try to avoid them as it gets 2deep4me real quick.

[Anonymous No.19458706]

>Catholic publishers
Check out Cluny Media. They're kinda like NYRB Classics but for Catholic literature.

[Anonymous No.19458834]

>>19445806
A woman of true faith and love.

[Anonymous No.19459097]

isn't worshipping 4 divine persons contradictory with the doctrine of the trinity?

[Anonymous No.19459113]

>>19459097
Yes? Who does that though?