/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16154294]

I’m a Catholic, but sometimes I experience doubts. I go back and forth on it, sometimes feeling very sure the Catholic religion is correct and other times I consider leaving it to become Protestant (probably Reformed) or Orthodox. Please recommend me stuff that will either make me decide to stick with Catholicism, or make my mind up to go somewhere else. I don’t like the uncertainty

[Pascal Arman Barrientos No.16154417]

>>16154294
>I’m a Catholic, but sometimes I experience doubts
We all do
>other times I consider leaving it to become Protestant (probably Reformed)
There are hundreds of Protestant Churches that always schism over disagreements and have their whole structure collapse from corruption.
>or Orthodox
The Orthodox Church has always been a political puppet of the state. Recently the Russian Orthodox Church split from the ones in the Balkans.
>Please recommend me stuff that will either make me decide to stick with Catholicism
No faith out there can boast the miracles of the Catholic Church, as Aquinas put it. You won't find miracles or a strong sense of faith in Protestantism. You won't see someone like Saint Sebastian in other churches. I've been reading the Decameron which touches upon the depravity of the Medieval Catholic Church. Many awful acts were committed by holy figures, but that is no reason to abandon the Church. Ask yourself: could a man-made institution survive corruption like this for 2000 years? No, the Church remains resilient due to the fact that it's upheld by the Holy Spirit. That doesn't even cover all the holy figures who gave their body and soul to the church such as Saint Francis of Assisi. Read about the stories of saints and how they show such vigor in faith. The Catholic Church has always been the prime enemy of evil elements, be it Communists, liberals, Masons or power hungry kings such as Henry VIII. Pray for guidance, anon.

[Anonymous No.16154421]

>>16154294
Catholicism was a corruption of Christianity from the beginning. The conversion of Constantine was the downfall of Christianity and about the point where Catholicism became something apart from Christianity. You have to return to the roots of Christianity by studying the first three centuries or so of the religion to really get a grasp of it. If you really on Catholicism, you'll likely be doomed unless you're somehow quite astute.

[Anonymous No.16154426]

>>16154421
>The conversion of Constantine was the downfall of Christianity
I should say, the downfall of Catholicism. Christianity is always safe among the few good souls who truly believe and follow Christ.

[I No.16154562]

>>16154294
you just think this. irl you are faggot.

[Anonymous No.16154577]

>>16154294
Read St Francis of Assisi. I am an orthodox Christian, but he is one of the best theologians and you will love his works. I would recommend St Thomas Aquinas too, but considering your post you might be better of with Francis, he is relatively easier to read and grasp.

[Anonymous No.16154642]

>>16154294
Why not making up your own interpretation of things? Maybe there is not a "correct" way to be a christian, maybe the "correct" way has not been invented yet. Most differences among Christianity are pretty arbitrary and the only thing that matters is being a good person, not about knowing the exact diameter of a host. Just choose the community you feel more confortable with.

[Anonymous No.16154655]

>>16154642
This,

Catholics are actually some of the kindest Christians, then comes protestants, and orthodox are complete assholes almost 100 percent of the time.

just follow in Christ, dont bother with a specific denomination.

[Anonymous No.16154978]

>>16154294
There are multiple paths that lead to the truth. You don't have to worry whether you have the true religion because a true religion doesn't really exist since there are multiple religions that lead you closer to the truth.

[Anonymous No.16154997]

Replies: 8
Recommendations: 1

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !F69ynI28oQ No.16155112]

>>16154294
K well if you "go back and forth" on the dogmas of Catholicism you were never a Catholic in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16155269]

>>16154294

[Anonymous No.16155279]

>>16154294
You need to do an honest study of the LDS doctrine. It’s actually quite similar in some regards but filled a lot of gaps for me

[Anonymous No.16155306]

>>16154294

[Anonymous No.16155428]

>>16154294
Read "the place of blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church". Here's a folder full of books that includes it:
https://mega.nz/folder/oZwkUK7b#HJ8w0iF48ss5Cjv8Kbc5Pw

>>16154577
> Orthodox
> Reccomending Francis of Assisi or Aquinas
Why

[Anonymous No.16155431]

>>16154294

[Anonymous No.16155445]

>>16154294
Get out of mortal sin and pray
Changing your faith isn't going to change your doubts.

[Anonymous No.16155597]

>>16155112
1 Corinthians 14:33 “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

Proverbs 3:5 “Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.”

Isaiah 49:14-16 “But Zion said, “The LORD has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.” “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.”

And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.

And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
Mathew 8:25-27

[Anonymous No.16155607]

>>16154294
Don't worry, it's normal foe a Catholic to have doubts. It won't ever make you not Catholic.

[Anonymous No.16155716]

Here's something for ya, as bad as Catholics are, I was raised in Bible Churches, Baptists, Ind. Fundie. Baptists, and Episcopalians. It's worse out there than it is in Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.16155807]

>>16154577
>>16154642
>>16154655
>>16154978
These are all heretical. There is a right way to follow Christ who founded one Church.

>>16154294
What are the specific things you doubt? I struggle as well and really should talk to my priest. Specifically I am constantly doubting Papal Supremacy and as a result am drawn towards Orthodoxy. It's extremely tempting and I think about conversion almost constantly.

[Anonymous No.16155844]

>>16154294

[Anonymous No.16155889]

>>16154294
faith my friend

[Anonymous No.16155915]

Read fundamental theology.

[Anonymous No.16155943]

>>16154294
Literally just read Aquinas, and why on Earth is Reformed Christianity even an option?

[Anonymous No.16155951]

>>16154421
Yeah until you read the Church Fathers and find that that ante-Nicene fathers had nothing different to say than the post-Nicene fathers.

[Anonymous No.16156009]

>>16155807
>Specifically I am constantly doubting Papal Supremacy and as a result am drawn towards Orthodoxy. It's extremely tempting and I think about conversion almost constantly.
Once you understand that the Eastern view of their patriarchs was never the view of how western Christians saw the Bishop of Rome this becomes easier to deal with, you have to delve beyond that superficial rhetoric that comes from your usual Catholic and Orthodox apologists, though.

[Anonymous No.16156022]

>>16155807
>there is a right way to follow Christ
What did Jesus say about this

[Anonymous No.16156048]

>>16154294
>I consider leaving it to become Protestant (probably Reformed)
I highly recommend it, just don't attend a mainline cucked protestant church that worships trannies and gay marriage. If you are an American I'd go with a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) or Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) one.

[Anonymous No.16156079]

>>16155716
Whats wrong with Episcopalians, I kind of considered them the only other Christian Church worth converting to besides Catholicism, which I was brought up in.

[Anonymous No.16156133]

>>16155943
Reformed Christianity is the only branch of Protestantism I really respect. They seem to take the concept of sola scriptura as far as they can. Just about every other branch of Protestantism seems more like “I had a minor issue with the Catholics so I started my own church that’s Catholicism but a little different” or “I had a minor issue with some other branch of Protestant so I started my own church that’s like them but a little different”
I’m not saying I will become Protestant, but if I were to do so I’d become Reformed

[Anonymous No.16156148]

>>16155269
>>16155306
>>16155431
Oof I’m embarrassed, I posted these books here but meant to post them here >>16154883

[Anonymous No.16156169]

>>16156009
Could you tell me more/elaborate on that?

[Anonymous No.16156311]

>>16156133
>Reformed Christianity is the only branch of Protestantism I really respect. They seem to take the concept of sola scriptura as far as they can. Just about every other branch of Protestantism seems more like “I had a minor issue with the Catholics so I started my own church that’s Catholicism but a little different” or “I had a minor issue with some other branch of Protestant so I started my own church that’s like them but a little different”
Based. I wish people on this board would read more of the Puritans, if you want some beautiful literary writings about Christianity look no further.

[I No.16156755]

>>16155889
you project yourself as pathetic helples faggot who needs daddy?

[Anonymous No.16156801]

>>16154294
I have had these doubts, but the saints all say that you should stay where God has placed you in life, and leave only with reluctance. I tend to agree that going off to find yourself, either by pursuing a new career from scratch or leaving one church for another. These changes have always struck me as "greener pastures" thinking. I have no evidence that a different job or different church or different life would be better for me. In fact it seems like one of those things that you just end up having to repent of later. If you want a better church, I'd advise you to do as much as possible for the one you have, and win all the saintly virtues along the way. Without dedicated, virtuous people, shit falls apart.

[Anonymous No.16157552]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16157582]

>>16154294
Let me guess, you're either an amerimutt or some poor mexican

[Anonymous No.16157707]

>>16154294
>I’m a Catholic, but sometimes I experience doubts
Every single spiritual and religious person alive has doubts. Anyone that says they don't is either lying or neck deep in denial. Faith is impossible without doubt as a distinct possibility.

Assuming the mythology from the Bible were true(it isn't) then Adam eating of the Apple is the best thing he could have done. He must have entertained the possibility of wrongful action in order for him to have a real relationship with his creator. Anything else is to live as a slave without any notion of another possibility.

If it weren't intended to be this way, the Universe wouldn't exist in polarity to begin with.

I'm not going to recommend you anything, either cope with doubt and accept it as necessary or choose to lie to yourself. Those are the only options.

[Anonymous No.16157862]

>>16156079
Cucked to the core. Try Presbyterianism.

[Anonymous No.16157914]

>>16156133
I think you're vastly misinterpreting what sola scriptura actually means. Most Protestants are not strictly 100% Bible only, including many reformed, because that's never what the term meant. Scripture alone means the Bible is the sole rule of faith by which everything else is judged, including tradition and laws. If traditions, creeds, and councils are upheld by scripture then they are still licit. It doesn't mean to flatly reject the entirety of Christian history outside of the Bible, because after all the Catholic Church does not have exclusive ownership over it in the first place.

The reason some Protestant traditions seem Catholic-lite is not in an attempt to imitate Catholicism, it's simply their continuation of post-Catholic Christianity after the church had been cleansed and sorted out by the rule of Scripture. You don't need to tear down the entire building when you renovate, just get rid of the bad. Also a lot of what modern Protestants very far gone from the reformation consider Catholic innovations in Protestantism were things upheld by Protestant founders themselves, like the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist which Calvin and Luther both strongly supported in slightly different ways, while many modern Protestants are the actual innovators saying that it is strictly symbolic.

Also on the bit about churches splitting over minor things, I will simply direct you to this handy guide for navigating reformed churches in just one country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presbyterian_and_Reformed_denominations_in_North_America

[Anonymous No.16158824]

1

[Anonymous No.16158857]

>>16154655
I’m gonna be orthodox then. Bring not peace but a sword!

[Anonymous No.16158876]

>>16158857
It's ridiculous how people still weaponize the “I came not to send peace but a sword” verse over and over again as a call to arms against enemies of the faith when really the sword is to be turned against the self.

[Anonymous No.16159009]

>>16154294
I think you should dwelve more into spiritual works written by catholics. Accepting the doctrines of the Church is an act of faith, afer all. I reccomend Confessions (obvious choice), The Immitation of Christ, Filoteia/Introduction to the Devout Life and The Way of Perfection.

If you want to know more about the catholic faith in general, read the Catechism of St. Pius X. If you want to know more about the development of doctrine, look up St. John Henry Newman.

Also don't fall for the whole "Consantine founded the Catholic Church" thing. He convened the gatherings, but did not take part in the discussions or voting process.

[Anonymous No.16159030]

>>16154577
Thomas Aquinas is quite literally one of the biggest blights on Christianity and his theology and persona is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Orthodox Dogma.

[Anonymous No.16159045]

>>16159030
Could you expand on this?

[Anonymous No.16159062]

>>16159045
It is simple. Thomism believes that God is uncreated but grace is created. If this is so, and since God can not be divided into finite portions, then what you receive as grace is created and thus is not part of God and his reflection or simulacra at best, more importantly if you never encounter true Grace that means that it is impossible to communicate with God directly in any form at all, there is a veil between human and God, this also makes incarnation impossible because I am yet to find a justification of Catholic divine simplicity combined with incarnation of Christ that makes sense beyond
>lol its a mystery
All of this might be gibberish to you though if you do not understand the true core differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Do you need additional information?

[Anonymous No.16159095]

>Catholicism thread
>No Saint Augustine

[Anonymous No.16159119]

>>16159062
The only key issues I get are more related to leadership and power than theology or beliefs. Like, Catholics have the pope while the Orthodox have multiple patriarchs, and the pope said filioque and the Orthodox said no filioque.
I also know there’s something called the essence energy distinction but I don’t understand the meaning of what that is.
The more you can explain in one post the better, but I don’t want to burden you with writing a full book
I mostly understood your post

[Anonymous No.16159124]

>>16159095
People mentioned Confessions

[Anonymous No.16159166]

>>16159119
The essence energy distinction essentially boils down to this.
Orthodox Christians believe that God has uncreated, perfect and infinite essence that is at the core of what God is, and that God also radiates energy through all of creation which are omnipresent. The distinction is often compared to intellect and will of a mind, or the sun and its rays. This distinction is partially arbitrary, in the sense that it is how we as humans perceive it, but through our experiences we can directly communicate and have a relationship with God through his energies.
In Catholic faith there is a very specific Dogma of divine simplicity, which states that God is only his essence and every attempt to define him beyond that is heretical. Thus the grace and experience of God can not be full in this world because God is infinite and thus you can not fit infinite God into finite world unless you want to partition him which is impossible. Thus the Grace that humans participate in is created by God, essentially a simulacra of what it is like to experience Gods light that simultaneously leads you towards the correct path once you experience it.
Main Orthodox conflict with this Dogma is that if that is the case, then essentially God is either creating limited fake Gods/Godlike experiences from beyond a "veil" or somehow God creates finite creations which simultaneously allow human souls to experience infinite love of God. Orthodoxy does not have this issue because we believe that our souls directly interact with and experience God through his energies, and though we will never experience the 100% capacity of the infinite essence in our constant pursuit of being closer to God we experience him more and more. It is like flying closer and closer to sun and the closer you get the more you experience its light.

[Anonymous No.16159181]

>>16154978
Came here to say this its the same conclusion I came to. No religion is true, so honestly just align yourself with whats most comfortable or just be non practicing, it doesnt matter

[Anonymous No.16159189]

>>16155943
>Literally just read Aquinas
What if his doubts are about scientific discoveries that Aquinas didn't know about like evolution?

[Anonymous No.16159200]

>>16159119
>>16159166
This is the primary distinction between the general views of theology between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in general. Orthodoxy is more "mystical" if that makes sense, you are constantly experiencing the eternal presence of a living God and through your emulation of the life of Christ you slowly achieve Theosis, a process by which we all becomes the Sons of God as it is foretold in the Bible. God took in the nature of man so that we could be like Christ and join him in the "divine body" that is Church, this union is both metaphorical and literal/metaphysical for us.
Catholicism on the other hand is a lot more prone to try and explain everything in an orderly fashion, in many ways universe is a divine jurisdictional system, this is also why Catholic theologians like Thomas Aquinas cared so much about empirically proving existence of God, a necessity that doesn't exist at all in Orthodox theology. Of course Thomism and similar notions in western church lead to enlightenment and scientific progress in future, but as St. Palamas said way before any of this had transpired it would also eventually lead people into Atheism.
Because if you create a veil between God and man, try to transform the message of God into a very clear jurisdictional system that has more to do with material laws than Godly laws and focus so much on trying to find God through material universe, you will eventually create Atheism. This is also the reason why Vatican 2.0 and so many other bitter corruptions in Catholic church, such as "indulgences" and the idea of Purgatory appeared in the first place, because Catholicism eventually transformed into a pursuit of trying to create a rational system of belief based on teachings of Christ. Of course Christ said that everyone will get their dues for all the good and bad they had done, but it is a mystery how exactly it will happen, yet Catholics needed to craft a rational and solid definition of what that means and thus they created a whole plane of existence that is absent from the scriptures.

[Anonymous No.16159431]

>>16159200
Nice. I've heard that even in liturgy it's like this. Western liturgy tends to be more "processual", while eastern liturgy tends to be more "poetical".

But what is the problem with trying to rationalize and create a "system of salvation" out of what Jesus said? Of course He couldn't specify every detail about how the Church should operate in this world. Also, if God is Truth itself, trying to reach the truth about the various aspects of our religion through reason isn't the same as getting closer to God? That's theology, basically. Considering what you said, the Orthodox Church should abadon the sacraments, since they are in the Bible, but in a "veiled" way. Our understanding of them is a product of reason.

[Anonymous No.16159460]

>>16159431
The problem isn't trying to understand God, the problem is the assumption that we can understand God. Orthodoxy has a more meditative approach to knowing God, we believe that he reveals himself to us through faith the closer we are to him, and he does so in a way that transcends material understanding of reality.
Its a simple issue, there is one thing to say
>We know that we will all get our dues for good and bad we did
and a whole different leap to say that
>Therefor there must be a dimension that is specifically created to make our sins "burn off" before we are accepted into the Kingdom of God

[Anonymous No.16159519]

>>16159460
Thanks for answering. Never really thought about it this way. Couldn't both views be accepted as true? Then unity wouldn't be a problem.

[Anonymous No.16159562]

>>16159519
It depends, there is a point at which certain theologians start to accuse each other of direct heresy.
Orthodox theologians can accuse Catholics of, what is essentially polytheism by claiming that "created Grace" is almost like a second God in experience.
Catholics can claim that the process of Theosis (if you know what that is) is heretical and an attempt to claim that humans become Gods.
There is a very fine line between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and since both schools of thoughts actually had intelligent thinkers unlike brainlet protestants it leads to a lot of arguments.

[Anonymous No.16159674]

>>16159189
>In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3 In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.

[Anonymous No.16159762]

Meanwhile on /x/: >>>/x/25892289

>PEANUT BRAIN: Pedophilia, slave trade, etc. - all this is just a cover for cannibalism. Or perhaps we shouldn't call it cannibalism. It's just a species of humanoids (Greek Gods, Roman Gods, GOD) who wish to eat human meat. The Earth is a cattle farm and the Gods, who've lived in Europe for a LONG LONG time, have always wanted human flesh. Spice trade over the centuries? Just a front. The real business has always been human beings. When you realize that, everything falls into place. All the wars, all the economics, all the human trafficking. We're all just cattle. Either we work towards herding ourselves by being wage slaves, or we risk being trafficked.

>GALAXY BRAIN: EATING ITSELF IN THE VULGAR SENSE IS A LOW RESOLUTION VERSION OF THE TENSION BETWEEN WHAT IS TRULY FULL AND MEANINGFUL, THE SUBJECTIVE, AND WHAT IS TRULY EMPTY AND ABSURD, THE OBJECTIVE, WHEREIN THE FORMER IS BECKONED TO GIVE ITSELF TO THE LATTER AND BE DESTROYED, BODILY DECOMPOSITION BEING LIKEWISE A LOW RESOLUTION VERSION OF THE FINALITY THEREOF, LITERALLY EATEN BY THE SOIL AS THE MOST VULGAR INSTANTIATION OF THROWING ONE'S SELF AWAY TO THE EXTERNAL, PHENOMENAL, MATERIAL, I.E. THE OBJECTIVE - EARTH IS LITERALLY MADE OF DEATH; THIS FUNDAMENTAL IDEA BEING EVEN INTRAPERSONAL, ONE "EATS" THE QUALITY OF ONE'S LIFE TO PROLONG ITS QUANTITY, AND POLYMORPHOUS, ONE "EATS" ONE'S SELF AS A CHILD TO PROLONG ONE'S SELF AS AN ADULT, AND FRACTALLY SO, ONE THEN FURTHER "EATS" THIS QUANTITY TO PROLONG THAT QUANTITY, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH UNTIL ONE BECOMES "SUBJECTIVELY OBJECTIVE", I.E. A CRUEL MOCKERY WHEREIN THE POSITIVE MONAD IS INVERTED AND LITERALLY THROWS ITSELF AWAY. NOTE THE OBVIOUS CHRISTOLOGICAL PARALLELS IN THE ABOMINATION OF CATHOLICISM WHEREIN "THE FATHER" IS MERELY THE OBJECTIVE AND "THE CHRIST" IS MERELY THAT WHICH THROWS ITSELF AWAY THERETO, AND THE TRIUMPHANT SOLUTION IN JESUS CHRIST THE VICTOR.

[Anonymous No.16159832]

>>16159200
The description and dialectic between "rational" and "mystical" is what I believe to be the loss of understanding of the faculties of the human person. The human peron is tripartite: flesh, soul and spirit, or body, reason, and nous.

The Church Fathers understood that we perceive God and his energies through the νοῦς (nous) which is often translated as the "intellect", or the eyes of the soul. So when they wrote theology and wrote in general, they wrote from the experience of God and of theosis, all of which was mediated through the "intellectual" faculties of the soul. So even though these experiences of seeing God or of the saints are what we would characterize as "mysticial" they were by no means irrational.

>>16159200 is not wrong when he says that RCC tries to explain everything in an orderly fashion (ie Scholasticism). You will not find anything like Aquinas' Summa Theologiae because EO saints simply did not see the need for such a systemic way of "proving God" and of conducting theology. Instead, they were more concerned about repentance, prayer, and fasting, with the goal of uniting their entire being God while still in this life. In fact, in some EO circles they say you are not a true theologian until you have experienced theoria (ie a vision of God). Everyone else who speaks of theology or writes of theology is not a true "theologian" in that sense.

[Anonymous No.16159865]

>>16156148
False.

[Anonymous No.16161336]

>>16159762
Wow

[Anonymous No.16161486]

>>16154426
and who would those be?

[Anonymous No.16162011]

>>16154294
Saul later Paul, once tried to buy the holy spirit. The disciples were horrified.

Bit the fact is:

When you drink alcohol free wine and crackers. Then it does nothing. I find it pretty hard to believe it is magic.

If you however drink the blood and meat of a mushroom, you might feel something divine.

[Anonymous No.16162717]

>>16154294
uncertainty is exciting and fun, you can't tell if you will end up in God's torture chamber after you die

[Anonymous No.16162776]

>>16154294
The Faith of Our Fathers
by Cardinal Gibbons
A straightforward and solid explanation of the Biblical and historical basis for Catholicism.

Where We Got the Bible
by Henry Graham
Engaging history of how the Bible text has come down to us through the centuries. Debunks a lot of Protestant myths.

Catholicism and Fundamentalism
by Karl Keating
Addresses common objections to Catholicism raised by Protestants and "Bible Christians."

[Anonymous No.16162880]

>>16162011
>Saul later Paul, once tried to buy the holy spirit
You’re thinking of Simon Magus honey

[Anonymous No.16163430]

>>16162776
Thank you anon

[Anonymous No.16163437]

>>16159674
>christians coping even this early in their history
lmao

[Anonymous No.16164794]

>>16154294

Stop thinking that faith is a one-stop shop. People who go into Christianity with this idea of "well everything will make sense forever if i believe" or "dumb people who believe seem so fulfilled, ill do that" are setting themselves up for disappointment that may ultimately lead to agnosticism. Life is still hard when you believe and you will still have angst when you believe. Doubt is a cornerstone of faith and permanent certainty is the stagnation of faith. This is literally the entire premise of Dark Night of the Soul. Cherish your moments of doubt and despair for they will be some of the greatest moments in your life as a Catholic.

[Anonymous No.16165059]

>>16162776
Have you seen Fr. Gary Coulter's list? It includes all 3 of the books you suggest.
http://frcoulter.com/books/apologetics.html

[Anonymous No.16165272]

Catholicism is the only religion (maybe apart from Judaism) that is independent from the state. All other religions are just an extension of the state, mechanically fulfilling needs that may arise in the people or fixing any troubles that come from the intellectual quarter.
If you consider this, you have two options
1. Realize that any other religion would be a step down from what religion should be (i.e. something different from the state)
2. Get a cozy job in the bureaucracy (or start sucking cocks and taking it up the ass for money, which is the same thing).
Good luck anon! Because all luck comes from God (skill too :D)

[Anonymous No.16165538]

>>16154294
Roman Catholicism Reading List
IMPARTIAL SOURCES
- Chadwick - East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church
- Siecienski - The Papacy and the Orthodox
- Fr Richard Price - Ecumenical Councils: Presidency and Procedure
- Dvornik - The Photian Schism, History and Legend
- Hoffman - The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome

ORTHODOX SOURCES
- Denny - Papalism
- Guettée - The Papacy
- St. Photios - Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit
- Papadakis - Crisis in Byzantium
- Athanasopoulos - Divine Essence and Divine Energies
- Pontrello - The Sedevacantist Delusion

ROMAN CATHOLIC SOURCES
- Rivington - The Primitive Church and the See of Peter
- Feser - 5 Proofs for the Existence of God
- Feser - Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide
- Council of Florence
- Council of Trent
- Vatican 1 + Satis Cognitum
- Vatican 2
- Denzinger - The Sources of Catholic Dogma
- Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
- Pascendi Dominici Gregis
- Lamentabili Sane
- Mirari Vos
- Mortalium Animos
- The Syllabus Of Errors

[Anonymous No.16166516]

>>16154421
based

[Anonymous No.16166567]

>>16154421>>16166516

>You have to return to the roots of Christianity by studying the first three centuries or so of the religion to really get a grasp of it.
The Council of Jerusalem is generally dated to 48 AD, roughly 15 to 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, between 26 and 36 AD. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 both suggest that the meeting was called to debate whether or not male Gentiles who were converting to become followers of Jesus were required to become circumcised; the rite of circumcision was considered execrable and repulsive during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean,[2][3][4][5] and was especially adversed in Classical civilization both from ancient Greeks and Romans, which instead valued the foreskin positively.[2][3][4][6]

At the time, most followers of Jesus (which historians refer to as Jewish Christians) were Jewish by birth and even converts would have considered the early Christians as a part of Judaism. According to Alister McGrath, who openly admits to being a Christian apologist, the Jewish Christians affirmed every aspect of the then contemporary Second Temple Judaism with the addition of the belief that Jesus was the Messiah.[7] Unless males were circumcised, they could not be God's People. The meeting was called to decide whether circumcision for gentile converts was requisite for community membership since certain individuals were teaching that "[u]nless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved".[8]

Circumcision as a mandate was associated with Abraham (see also Abrahamic covenant), but it is cited as "the custom of Moses" because Moses is considered the traditional giver of the Law as a whole. The circumcision mandate was made more official and binding in the Mosaic Law Covenant. In John 7:22 the words of Jesus are reported to be that Moses gave the people circumcision.

[Anonymous No.16166581]

YOU HAVE TO CUT YOUR PENIS TO FOLLOW JESUS, NO OTHER WAY IS POSSIBLE

[Anonymous No.16166587]

>>16156022
>>16166581

[Anonymous No.16167168]

One of the reasons I lost whatever faith I had was because it became an intellectual activity to decide which domination to follow and how to follow them in a progressively modernising society, without being a hypocrite - which is impossible.

[Anonymous No.16167236]

>>16167168
I think you've kind of missed the point of your own inquiries, in that case. Intellectually engaging with the ideas of the different denominations is the pursuit of Truth itself - it is your capacity for faith that allows that pursuit in the first place, and therein lay salvation; an actionable understanding of Truth can only be achieved in that way.

[Anonymous No.16168128]

>>16167236
My point is that it was a circular endeavour. And one is in a state of perpetual anxiety because the wrong choice would lead to eternal damnation.

[Anonymous No.16168147]

>>16168128
I, myself, am not a well-read Christian, but isn't the entire point of Christ's sacrifice to forgive man for his sins in this exact pursuit?

[Anonymous No.16168253]

>>16159166
I've been going to church my whole life yet I have never heard anyone refer to God's energy/

[I No.16168388]

>>16154294
it is already two days and you still believe that you believe that "you" "are" "catholic". man this is pathetic, kys immediately.

[Anonymous No.16168458]

>>16163437
Do you know what a "myth" is?

[Anonymous No.16168480]

>>16154294
>but sometimes I experience doubts
As you should. The Catholic Church is a den of wickedness that is built atop the bones of countless victims. Virtually any other Christian sect is preferable to that satanic institution.

[Anonymous No.16168717]

>>16154294
As a Protestant (reformed and Calvinist), I would say that you don't need to doubt your faith because you have issues with Catholicism. Both Catholics and Protestants are Christians and believe in key fundamentals of Christ's teachings and God's word.
So I would recommend that you don't approach the ideas you want to explore with hesitation or anxiety. Be intellectually honest and follow God's will to the best of your ability.
However, I will say that R. C. Sproul's writings have helped me understand Reformed Theology in a very honest and forthcoming manner.

[Anonymous No.16169035]

>>16165059
>http://frcoulter.com/books/apologetics.html

That's a very good list. I agree with him that conversion stories are important. Eg, a book like Surprised by Truth.

One superb such book that's not on his list, and it indeed my favorite book of conversion stories, is:

Spiritual Journeys (Robert Baram, ed.)

Out of the print atm, alas, but inexpensive used copies available here:
>https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Journeys-Robert-Baram/dp/0819868760/

Oh, also Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy is a really first-rate work of Catholic apologetics -- it's essentially a 16th (or 17th) century version of Catholicism and Fundamentalism, albeit de Sales wrote when all the controversies were fresh and new; his argumentation is very ingenious and persuasive; he makes arguments I've never seen repeated elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.16169083]

>>16167168
>without being a hypocrite

Every generation of Christians faces its own particular challenges.

Today, you don't have to worry about getting head chopped off, or being eaten by beasts in the Roman Coliseum, but you do have to deal with readily available pornography and living in a highly sexualized culture. You have to reckon, too, in a modernizing society with trying to live without being a hypocrite.

This is the particular time God has placed you in. Accordingly, He has or will give you the grace to do that.

Read Caussade, Abandonment to Divine Providence.

[Anonymous No.16169118]

>>16157862
>Doesn't own a copy of the Book of Common Prayer
ngmi

[Anonymous No.16169130]

>>16168253
It's an Orthodox thing.

In Byzantine theology, anything of the Divine Nature that is communicable to creatures is Divine Energy, while that which is uncommunicable is Divine Essence. This terminological distinction is not used in Latin theology, and it isn’t strictly necessary to describe God’s immanence and transcendence (Latin theology has its own way of describing this distinction).

The Divine Energy (yes, singular; the Divine Energy is pluralized only because the human mind can’t conceive of pure simplicity, not because there are really many Divine Energies per se) is the activity of God, both eternal and temporal. It differs from the Divine Essence because the Divine Essence is simply the abstract definition of what God is, while the Energy is the “being and doing”.

**This is very different from the Latin theological usage of “essence”, which includes “being and doing” in the definition (at least for God).**

So when it is said that Energy differs from Essence, this can only be understood in the Byzantine theological framework; it doesn’t apply in other theological approaches.


>Q: How could God interact to create the world?
This is where the difference in nuance between “essence” in Byzantine theology, and “essence” in Latin theology becomes very important. In Latin theology, since God is inherently “active”, is essentially active, the Divine Energy (activity/power/being) is regarded as the same as the Divine Essence (since it’s essential to being God). In Byzantine theology, however, the Divine Energy is understood as distinct from the Divine Essence because the Divine Essence is merely the “definition of God”, not necessarily “God being God”. Energy is the extension and being of an essence, a requisite for the essence really existing, and a very real manifestation of that essence. So God creates the world by the Divine Energy, which is not a mediator, but is in fact God. In Eastern theology God does not create the world by the Divine Essence because the very definition of God doesn’t include the world, nor does the very definition of any created thing contain the definition of God.

In Latin terminology, by contrast, it can be said that God creates the world by His Essence, since Essence is taken to include what is defined as Energy in Byzantine theology.

[Anonymous No.16169230]

>>16159062
>It is simple. Thomism believes that God is uncreated but grace is created. If this is so, and since God can not be divided into finite portions, then what you receive as grace is created and thus is not part of God and his reflection or simulacra at best, more importantly if you never encounter true Grace that means that it is impossible to communicate with God directly in any form at all, there is a veil between human and God, this also makes incarnation impossible because I am yet to find a justification of Catholic divine simplicity combined with incarnation of Christ that makes sense beyond

1/2
Long story short, both East and West have always spoken of the Essence and Energies of God (Energy is translated into Western theological use as “activity” or “operations”). Prior to the Schism there was really no division on this issue; that came with theological developments in the Byzantine East with St. Gregory Palamas and his debate with a theologian called Barlaam (in the 14th century).

Their disagreement was basically this: if we can’t comprehend the Essence of God, but we can experience His Energies, how are these two things related? Barlaam argued that the two are distinct, and therefore we can’t have a direct experience of God. St. Gregory Palamas argued that they are distinct but they are both Divine, and so we have a direct experience of God through the Energy, but not through the unknowable Essence. Barlaam countered that this would make two Gods, and Palamas responded that Barlaam’s solution runs against Scripture and Tradition, since the Apostolic teaching is that we become direct participants in the Divine Nature through Grace. Barlaam, denying that the Energy could be God, also denied direct participation in Divinity (at least that’s how Palamas presents his argument; we only really know of Barlaam’s beliefs through the writings of his opponent).

In the West this debate quite simply never came up, or rather the sharing of Divinity with humanity was approached from a different angle (with the Protestant Reformation). The fact that humans can’t comprehend the infinite Divine Essence was resolved by simply pointing out that “knowing” is not the same as “comprehending”, much the way that I can know about the Sun without comprehending nuclear physics. With that distinction in place, there really wasn’t any need argue over the distinction between Essence and Energies, since the Divine Energy in this case is simply the direct operation of the Divine Essence (this manner of speaking of Essence and Energies also fits with the teachings of great Eastern Fathers like St. John of Damascus, but so does St. Gregory Palamas’ answer). In Western theology, saying that we experience the Divine Energy, but not the Divine Essence, is simply translated as “we experience the action of the Divine Essence without comprehending It”.

1/2

[Anonymous No.16169247]

>>16169230

2/2
Kept within their own theological frameworks there’s really no contradiction between the two traditions. The problem comes when they encountered each other without much effort at proper translation (a common problem you’ll find again and again between Apostolic traditions, going back to the Council of Ephesus at least). Remember, the Byzantine tradition (with St. Gregory Palamas) takes it as a given that we can’t comprehend the Divine Essence, and builds from there without making a distinction between “knowing” and “comprehending” the way the West did. Furthermore, there is no “partial sharing” of Essence in this system the way there is in Western theology (in the West it would be called “participation in the Divine Essence”); it’s all or nothing, since the Essence is what fundamentally defines a thing. The West gets around this by pointing out that “essential properties” can be shared without the essences themselves changing (basically, the West uses a less strict definition of Essence, broadened to include essential properties and not merely the “pure definition”). In the East, the “essential properties” get folded into energy instead, and essence is kept as the “simple definition”. Neither approach is right or wrong, so long as they are both internally consistant, and they are.

So along comes the West saying “we share in the Divine Essence through Grace”, and the East hears this as “we become Persons of the Trinity through Grace”.

From the other side, the East comes along saying “we can’t share in the Divine Essence, but only the Divine Energy (activity/operation)”.

The West sounds, to the East, like it’s proposing the disolution of the self into the Godhead, and the East sounds, to the West, like its denying any real participation in Divinity. The irony, of course, is that both sides are actually saying the exact opposite from what they’re being heard to say.

Sometimes you will see this confusion compounded by the fact that the West uses the term “created Grace” to refer to our participation in divinity, the same terminology that Barlaam used to indicate that we DON’T share in Divinity through Grace (he used it to indicate a firm and sharp distinction between creature and Creator that could not be bridged in any way, not even by participation). In Western theology this term is used to indicate that our sharing in Divinity is something created (i.e. that our participation is created new, but what we participate in is not), not something eternal per se (in other words, we come into the Life of Grace, and are not born as extensions of Divinity in some kind of pantheism, like in Hinduism). The West drew this language from Scripture: “we are made new creatures in Christ Jesus”. The West was emphatically NOT saying what Barlaam is claimed to have said, but it uses the same terminology and that gets in the way when not properly understood.

[Anonymous No.16169269]

>>16154294
Your problem OP, like all heretics and atheists, is that you let your imperfect perception of the truth inform your faith. This is wrong because ultimately this leads to having no faith at all, leaving you adrift. Faith is supposed to be what you should believe in, not the truth. The truth is always in doubt, but what you need to believe isn't. We already know what you should think and believe, so stop trying to think for yourself, no one is actually good at thinking for themselves.

[Anonymous No.16169308]

>>16159189
Imperfect sciences shouldn't inform your faith. The Bible isn't a history book nor a science book, evolution should be irrelevant to your faith. Stop trying to reconcile what you think the truth is with religion, this only leads to errors and erosion of faith, keep the two separated.

[Anonymous No.16169315]

>>16169083
I would have to give up socialising to avoid temptations, and thus give up my role in society as a salary man to become a homeless individual whom does not contribute to society - the very antithesis to Christian doctrine, which calls for social conformity: the perfect civilian. The logical end of catholicism is a mental asylum. I developed religious OCD from this ceaseless intellectualising of faith. It was all a cope for my self-destructing ego to survive its new environment.

[Anonymous No.16169329]

>>16156311
Puritans are heretics too, just as harmful as the liberal/modernist heretics. Puritans make up silly and unnecessary rules, they follow a logic of "if A might lead to B and B is bad then A must be forbidden", that's why they end up doing retarded shit like banning music or making women shave their heads. They are a severe perversion of religion just like any other heresy.

[Anonymous No.16169341]

>>16169247
Damn, where can I read about all this? How did you come about all this information?

[Anonymous No.16169453]

>>16169315
>I would have to give up socialising to avoid temptations

With all due respect, based on your remarks, the issues you are describing seem to lie within the general category or realm called scrupulosity.

>Scrupulosity is a spiritual malady in which the afflicted person is tortured by thoughts of sin... Some experts believe that scrupulosity may be related to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

In the view of many Catholic scholars, Luther had a significant problem with scrupulosity:
>my conscience was always in a fever of doubt. The more I sought to help my poor stricken conscience the worse it got. The more I paid attention to the regulations the more I transgressed them.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-saint-who-beat-scrupulosity

You may also find some value in this article:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/scrupulosity-the-occupational-hazard-of-the-catholic-moral-life

> I developed religious OCD from this ceaseless intellectualising of faith. It was all a cope for my self-destructing ego to survive its new environment.

I can tell you sincerely, my friend, that you have not been well-formed in the Catholic faith, if this is the way it burdens you.

I'm not equipped to do spiritual direction, nor is this the forum for it. I hope you may find something of value in those articles, or the further materials linked to in the articles.

Perhaps you could find a wise priest or nun or even a holy Catholic layman to talk to.

Considerable reading Vernon Johnson's One Lord, One Faith; Fr. d'Elbee's I Believe in Love; or Story of a Soul: The Autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux.

I believe the wisdom in these books -- that is, the particular spiritual genius that is Therese of Lisieux -- could benefit you. Not least, asking for her prayers and intercession.

And ask Jesus to help you overcome these things. Trust that He will.

[Anonymous No.16169460]

>>16169453
>Considerable
should be: Consider

[Anonymous No.16169487]

>>16169341
It's all taken (stolen) from a poster named "Ghosty" on the catholic.com forums.

Search (copy and paste the next line into Google search):

ghosty essence energies site:catholic.com

Vary the terms as needed. E.g., substitute "beatific vision" or "Luther" or "Calvin" for "essence energies"

Ghosty is fairly prolific, but often writes to clarify the perceived incompatibility between Catholic and Orthodox theology. He is a model of clarity and insight in everything he writes.

[Anonymous No.16169515]

>>16169487
PS: Ghosty is also great on the subject of the Filioque.

Q: I guess it is a bit confusing for me. If there is but one principle, how can the Spirit proceed from both the Father AND the Son? How do the Latins define procession?

Ghosty: I'll just put this part briefly, since I don't have too much time and it may not be necessary to go into detail.

A principle, in Latin philosophical and theological language, is "that from which something comes". So a chair would have at least two principles: the wood, and the designer.

With the Holy Spirit there is only one principle: the Spiration, or breathing forth. This single breathing forth is shared by the Father and the Son so that the Holy Spirit isn't a composite of two distinct "efforts", but one single action shared between two Persons.

That being said, the Father and Son don't have an identical relation to this single procession. The Father alone is the Source of the Spiration, the foundation and "beginning" logically speaking (since it's an eternal action it can't have a beginning in terms of time, but can have a "first step" in terms of foundation upon which the whole is instantly and eternally "built"). The Son participates in the Spiration, receiving the action of "breathing forth" at the same "time" He receives the Divine Nature; obviously the Holy Spirit doesn't receive it since He can't be the principle of Himself, and likewise He doesn't receive the Begetting, the principle of the Son, since He is logical "after" the Son, receiving from the Son, and therefore can't "contribute" to the Son any more than you could contribute to the existence of your parents when they were children.

So the Father alone is the Source of the Holy Spirit, but breathes Him forth in such a way that the Son is united at once and eternally with the procession of the Holy Spirit, albeit in a "secondary" way. This doesn't mean that the Son "contributes less", since He's sharing in a single action, but rather that He is not the Source of that action, and is going along with the Father, so to speak.

Since the procession, or moving forward, of the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son as one single "breath", it can be said that He proceeds "from the Father and the Son".

The reason this isn't said in Greek is that the word used for "proceed" in the Greek doesn't mean "moving forward", as it does in the Latin, but rather "coming from the source", and that can ONLY be said of the Father.

It's important to note that the filioque is NOT permitted in the Greek versions of the Creed even in the Catholic Church; it would be an error to say it the way the words are in Greek.

1/2

[Anonymous No.16169530]

>>16169515
>>16169453
Latin, and most other languages, lack the distinction between two different words for "moving forward from" and "coming out of the source", so it's not an issue in most other cases.

So the Latin understanding is actually very well described in the thread linked by Mardukm, with St. John of Damascus' description of the spring (Father), the river (Son), and the sea (Holy Spirit). The spring is the source of the river, and is the only source of all water (Divinity, in this case), but the sea receives water from the river and the spring all at once and in a single "motion" (as from a single principle). The river is not the SOURCE of the sea, but it is an equal and necessary "partner" in the water going to the sea; the spring retains its place as ultimate source of all water without any difficulties or contradictions, and the river doesn't contribute anything the sea that isn't received from the spring.

As you can see from the other thread, this understanding is utterly Patristic, even with Eastern Fathers, and that is why it will NOT be rejected by the Catholic Church even if it is agreed that the Filioque addition itself may have been imprudent.

It is the orthodox tradition of the Faith that the Person of the Holy Spirit comes forth from the Father, through the Son, in a single eternal "motion" which we call the Spiration.

Hope that helps! Peace and God bless!

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=220620&highlight=filioque&page=2

See also his remarks here: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=218935

2/2

[Anonymous No.16170223]

>>16154294
>catholic
you're already worshipping saturn, anon. catholicism has already been tainted by the evils of Vatican city and papal agendas. if you're uncertain, instead of having people FEED you sources until you decide what's most flavorful, you should go out and follow your own path: spiritual, religious, wherever it may lead you.

just my take

[Anonymous No.16170268]

>>16154294
Unless there's a christian text that transcribed jesus's aramaic, there's hardly a point in following religions used to brainwash sheeple into subservience through books edited throughout the ages to serve their agenda.

[Anonymous No.16170330]

>>16154294
Monotheism is a farce.