/Catholicism/ general

i'm russian orthodox
why don't you guys drink the wine during communion

Novus Ordo Churches do. In Byzantine rite Catholic Churches they do it the same as you do it. It just depends what rite. Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that the whole of Christ is present in the Eucharist no matter how much.

We drink it on first communion. The priest drinks it every time though. The eucharist is fully the body and blood of Christ in itself, so there's no need to add to it.

>edgy girl with tattoos tells me how she hates the Church yada yada
>me: well actually I am religious
>she goes on to say she actually goes to mass everyday, she loves the saints, would love to attend mass officiated by a Pope etc. etc.
Why do women do this?

Attached: 1516403962422.gif (750x750, 16K)

There's a reason why women can't be priests.

Orthodoxy - GK Chesterton
If my memory serves me correctly, I believe he was an Anglican that converted to Catholicism

bodies have blood in them

>I don't think dating a non-Catholic will ever work personally
We're both very aware of the challenges involved and have accepted that our relationship may not work out in the end. We're both leaving it to God, since it seems that he did bring us together, although it may only be for a time and not ultimately marriage.

I'm pretty sure every beta orbiter does the same thing. Just agrees with whatever his mother-planet says so as to get in the good books (tm), not realising that yes-men are the most frustratingly boring people on the planet and that women actually like being (respectfully) challenged

how much intellectual freedom is there really within the catholic church?

Depends what you mean be intellectual freedom and what you consider to be the Church. If you count Catholic universities as part of the Church that is gonna be much different than the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith which is an important body for maintaining doctrinal purity.

Quite a lot actually. I go to an orthodox Catholic university that has classes on Thomism alongside classes on gender, although behind closed doors most of the staff will hold the gender classes in pretty low regard, and rightfully so.

to me, the church is the sunday crowd for mass. or small groups? i dont know how you guys do it. wherever you can dialogue with other believers on sunday. i was raised protestant. recently i've realized protestant churches are pretty much just as dogmatic as the catholic* church but with more retarded variations.

The actual practitioners of the faith are gonna be varied given the fact Catholicism is so widespread across social/economic groups. I don't really have lots of discussions with other members since I am the stereotypical Yea Forums guy that just likes to go in and get out.
However, just to give an example at my Church, there is a Coffee hour after mass where there is Catholic education for the kids and socialization/discussion for the adults. Everyone finds something unique they are attracted to in the faith so I would say you usually get crowds from a lot of different perspectives. If you want a more liberal Church you can find it. If you want a hardcore trad Church, again, you can find it. The one I go to leans conservative since it is a Latin Mass only parish. I'm not sure if this answer helps you. Tell me if it doesn't

consensus on cs lewis?
for what I've read he is a "love him or hate him" type dude, some go as far as to say he is a disservice to christianity. I'm currently reading mere christianity and as I'm ignorant on the topic I can't critique if it is accurate or not but seems at the vert least a decent introduction to christian apologetics. Next mean to read Abolition of man

sounds neat user, thanks. i havn't been to church in years, although i did visit an early morning mass one time before work. my concern is being ostracized for having unusual beliefs. i dont believe in a personal god for example. it seems that would make me an outcast.

i think his work should be taken in context of the times. it would be silly to say his work did a disservice to christianity, he's probably caused more conversions than any other layman in the past 2 centuries.

If you get into theological discussions with people, yeah you aren't going to have much common ground. I would advise not doing that in a Church since you will seem provocative, regardless of what your intentions may be. By all means though, you can surely visit a mass (preferably one in Latin). Just don't receive the sacraments since they are for Catholics only in a state of grace. No one will think anything of it if you don't go up since many people choose not to if they are not feeling spiritually worthy.

Regardless of what you will end up believing, all I can say is to continue reading and exploring theologically since I used to only believe in an non-personal God as well. I'm not here to provide some conversion story, but personally I certainly did benefit from the Catholic classics. It made me change my theology a lot. I used to be really into occultism and still am interested in it, but I've found ways to express my Catholic faith in ways suited to my particular spiritual disposition, while still remaining an orthodox Catholic in good standing with the Church.

>sayings of the desert fathers

based and logos pilled

Attached: abbas-lot-and-joseph-all-flame.jpg (1143x1600, 544K)

i have to agree with you user. i've realized it's less about what you dont agree with and more about finding commonality with strangers. it would not be intellectually dishonest to reserve your thoughts for another time and place. i suppose some of my reservations come from seeing casual Christians all my life that are not interested in exploring their faiths. it's hard for me to accept that believing in something like christianity being taken for granted like that.

>he is a disservice to christianity.
No one thinks this

How do I become a Catholic monk?

Scott Hahn and Steve Ray

I've been growing closer to the Faith for months now, but my recent reading of Klages, combined with my lifelong love of nature, has thrown that all up in the air a fair bit.

Is Christianity not just man imposing his will on the world, imagining that everything in the universe was created by a more perfect version of himself? Is it not born from a disconnect with the other living organisms and the organic processes of the world around us? Sometimes I feel like Christianity itself is a product of the Fall, the Fall being our separation from the rhythms of all other beings in Creation.

I don't mean to "attack" anyone's faith, these are my own struggles and I'm looking for a place to air them and hopefully hear from others who spend a lot of time thinking about these things.

Christianity is God imposing his Will on Man or, rather, Man submitting to His Will. Magick is man imposing his will on the world, nowadays synonymous with technology.

There is such a thing as Christian Deep Ecology. Look into the work of Father Thomas Berry, it seems like your concerns are similar to his. Connie Dowell may also be what you are looking for.

"Listen to these words carefully. The universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects."

Thinking about reading some of Thomas Merton's stuff. Is he actually orthodox or isn't he, I've heard that he's alright but his eastern stuff sketches some people out.

Orthodoxy is so aesthetic. too bad there aren't any chuches near me.

What is Yea Forums‘s opinion on Born Again Christians?

John 3 KJV
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

>KJV

Attached: 1512857149868.jpg (524x646, 50K)

Does anyone actually like the new pope? I know normis and atheist love him. But what about actual Catholics?

my recommendation? don't.

Fuck off chriscucks

You just want to escape your responsibilities

I think he's a good pope, maybe a bit stupid or a bit too liberal. So, he's either really like that or he has a broader view/plan that I fail to understand. But then again, as he said: "Who am I to criticise anyone?"

>Who am I to criticise anyone?
that suck a cringe quot coming form the pope its unbelievable he can say something like that in regards to the faggots

I think he means that he's only a man, that God will judge them.

That's if you want to understand what he said within a religious context, in a more superficial (political) level, he could have said that to avoid expressing a point of view. That's what politicians do sometimes, just like Putin when asked what he thinks about Trump, says: "it's not his job to criticise Trump"

Certainly, the association of Classical Elements with temperaments or cognitive functions is very much intentional. Air-Intuition, Fire-Thinking, Water-Feeling, Earth-Sensing.

>The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

>Nous the highest facility in man, through which - provided it is purified - he knows God or the inner essences or principles (q.v.) of created things by means of direct apprehension or spiritual perception. Unlike the dianoia or reason (q.v.), from which it must be carefully distinguished, the intellect does not function by formulating abstract concepts and then arguing on this basis to a conclusion reached through deductive reasoning, but it understands divine truth by means of immediate experience, intuition or 'simple cognition' (the term used by St Isaac the Syrian). The intellect dwells in the 'depths of the soul'; it constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart (St Diadochos, 79, 88: in our translation, vol. i, pp.. 280, 287). The intellect is the organ of contemplation (q.v.), the 'eye of the heart' (Makarian Homilies).

Begome Orthodox

Orthodox Study Bible

he's a good catholic but a weak leader

all in all, not bad, just eh

It really is the perfect answer. See: John 8. The Woman Caught in Adultery.
They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

>and from now on sin no more
This is what liberal "Christians" always miss.

It means she is wife material.
She follows you and is formable by your opinions.

Attached: 1512674551053.jpg (1210x6307, 1.86M)

what a cuck, faggots deserve the stone at least

Kek

Are you without sin, brother?

Divine comedy is not catholic, its disgusting heresy and dante should've been burned as a witch

>other Christians and religious groups, perennialists, pagans, all are welcome
naturally a Catholic says this

People with solid beliefs don't mind sharing them or guarding them. That's the conviction of faith for you. For "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,I will fear no evil" and it is in the nature of a good Chrisitan to help people see the light.

how did he miss this part its the important end of it

Apologia Pro Vita Sua (A Defense of One's Life)

Please elaborate

God bless, anons. have a bump, OP.

Attached: CardinalSarahOnDyingWest.webm (426x240, 1.96M)

There are also Protestant books in this collection, just so you know.

>"WORLD BIBLES COLLECTION" (Christian)

archive.org/details/WORLDBIBLESCOLLECTION_201701

>"holy bible audiobooks" (Christian)

mega.nz/#F!TZtjxBZY!gJu3Vwx7_-vKh6m2aH0_Cg

>"christian books collection" has some zips of "pictures of heaven"

mega.nz/#F!f8UxkJjD!DfhM69ggcpTs2QA3xIzadA

Attached: 1495227650767.jpg (920x877, 742K)

It seems to be wholly Protestant or heretical unless I missed something.

Can somebody give me a genuine explanation of why homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity and most other religions, other than "because God says so"?

In the last couple of years I've become really interested in the psychological benefits of religion, and I've come to understand that individual and societal happiness is maximised when people have Christian beliefs and live out Christian ethics. However, I just don't see how outlawing homosexuality fits into that - I can only see it making sense in the context of a medieval tribe trying to maintain its strength by growing in numbers (i.e. making sure sex is for procreation, rather than hedonism). In the modern world, what's wrong with a monogamous and committed homosexual couple having sex with each other for the purposes of pleasure?

Hey frens I'm not a catholic but I follow Jesus' teachings and love the Gospels, but lately I've been feeling very sad and even though I love God and love those around me I need something that will fill me with hope. I need to consume wholesome Yea Forums with a christian message, like Les Mis or Crime and Punishment but more like Les Mis which is what actually got me close to God and His word in the first place
I don't know if this is the right place to ask and please don't bully me. Also if you have any favourite Bible verses please post them. I enjoy reading them to my family

Christianity is not a social ethic. The consequences of homosexuality on society aren't the main issue, it's the consequences on the immortal souls of those that engage in homosexual practices that are concerning. A deformed sexual instinct is a product of the Fall, and by using your sexuality in ways contrary to what God intended, by indulging in this "perversion" in the most literal sense of the word, you are driving your soul away from God.

It's important to pray for homosexuals, as theirs is a very difficult path indeed.

All sodomy is forbidden, that includes homosexual acts but also straight anal sex.
>what's wrong with a monogamous and committed homosexual couple having sex with each other for the purposes of pleasure?
>for the purposes of pleasure?
You just answered your own question.
It is an inversion of the natural order. You are not supposed to be together with a person to get your cummies, the cummies are just functional to their ultimate end, which is procreation.
You don't even need Christianity to understand this to be honest. Just think about it. If you make love a consequence of sex, instead of the opposite, you're effectively elevating base instincts above the human intellect. That shit ain't moral and can never be. You're also equating love with pleasure, which is pretty much the opposite of the Christian message. If love = pleasure Christ wouldn't have let himself be crucified, he would just have kept hanging out with his crew and enjoyed his life on earth. But love is suffering. Love is self-sacrifice. That love is the engine that mantains the order of creation.
I would say that homos trying to define their disorderly acts as "love" is more perverted and disgusting than just asking to be left in peace.
We are all corrupted by original sin, we all have concupiscence. Most of us, for fate or for coincidence, end up corrupted in one way or another. Some are addicted to gambling, some can't stop lying, some are murderers, some are sociopaths etc. etc. We all have our cross to bear, and people with same-sex attraction have theirs too. Accepting our cross is part of being not just a Christian, but a human being. Because as the saying goes "You have two choices: suffer with Christ or suffer without him". There's no third choice.
No amount of homo acceptance will change the reality of it being disordered. The only way tp be happy is to rise above our sins and becoming fully the person we were meant to be, an imitation of Christ.

Attached: DsvUvNBVYAAWN6G.jpg (1040x1014, 239K)

Are there any books on Catholic folk beliefs or nature-based Catholic spirituality? I really like a lot of the meme ecological writers posted on this board, but I don't really like their completely anti-metaphysical philosophical outlook. I know Pope Francis wrote a little bit about protecting the environment which I think is great, but I was moreso interested in books talking about nature as a support for spiritual realization. I was reading a book by Evola where he described how Alpine villagers used to put stations of the cross on the top of various mountain peaks and how the mountain climb was both spiritual and physical catharsis. Those sort of stories I think are really interesting, but nowadays there seems to be much less of this land to spirit tie. I was hoping there may be some books that either talk about things like pilgrimages, Catholic relationship to the land, folk beliefs about certain saints with their homeland, relationship between the faith & industrialization, etc.

Attached: grotto.png (1250x1303, 2.8M)

For Christianity there's obvious revelation which forbids it and defines what marriage should be but as for an explanation which would encompass most religions, we should have a look at Natural Law which is said in a way to written on every mans heart, meaning we can know the law through reason alone. Things that have a purpose or "what a thing is for" are called evil when they're not used toward that end. The rationally known purpose of the genitals is for both a sort of unitive pleasure between people and for procreation. Sex that isn't unitive and open to procreation is not serving its purpose and is therefore evil.

Faggots should hang

So does it follow that the only permissable form of sexual activity is that which is aimed at procreation? That even married heterosexual couples shouldn't have sex unless they're trying for a baby?

I'm not sure about folk beliefs, but people like Diarmuid O'Murchu, Michael Dowd and Thomas Berry have all dealt at length with a Catholic relationship to the deep ecology outlook.

>So does it follow that the only permissable form of sexual activity is that which is aimed at procreation? That even married heterosexual couples shouldn't have sex unless they're trying for a baby?
100%. Anything that isn't penis-in-vagina and only for procreation is evil.

What about married heterosexual couples where one of the partners is infertile? Must they abstain from sex too, even if it will increase their intimacy and their chances of staying together?

Thanks friend.

>I need to consume wholesome Yea Forums with a christian message, like Les Mis or Crime and Punishment but more like Les Mis which is what actually got me close to God and His word in the first place
See pic related
>Also if you have any favourite Bible verses please post them. I enjoy reading them to my family

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

John 4:16
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Attached: 1441828558633.jpg (2560x2739, 3.22M)

Infertility used to be a valid cause for annulment of a marriage.

>Must they abstain from sex too
Yes. Celibacy is what they should both aim for. If they are adulterous then that is their own sin. Engaging in sin to prevent that is still sinful.

In some sense, I like him a lot. He seems very committed and sincere. However, I think he has accepted a false view of the world as presented by non-Catholics. In this sense, I would not so much say that I am dissapointed in him, as much as I would say that I am not excited about the immediate future of the faith. There are certain movements of spirit that are very promising, and in part I think they are coming from the outward/earthly feebleness of Francis. On the other hand, I am very worried what the weakness of the institutional church will make possible in the realm of men. So obviously, I do not fear for the Church itself, which is unassailable in the Faith of Christ and with the Grace of God, but I do fear for the souls of this era that even if the light of the Church is bright in Virtue, the great cloud of evil and confusion grows unabated. Certainly the church cannot fail, but how far must we fall before we see the outpouring of love we once knew? Of course it will be right and just, but there are certainly days where I fear that I will not be strong enough to see the light on the other side.

>aimed at procreation?
Not "aimed", but open to it.
Just have normal sex with your wife without worrying about it too much, when she gets pregnant she will.
You can't use contraceptives even if you are married.
Some use natural family planning, but even there you are supposed to approach it with discipline and purity in mind. i.e. they only have sex when the woman is most infertile, BUT they abstain from sex for the rest of the month.

the holy spirit is a massive niggerfaggot

Sex being open to procreation doesn't mean that you have to likely procreation, it just means sex where there aren't any artificial barriers placed between the couple. So even old people are perfectly fine having sex even though they can't realistically or biologically conceive.

It is a very hot debate right now with natural law theorists whether or not NFP or natural family planning is moral. That's when women keep track of their cycles and abstain when they're fertile or likely to conceive. I actually think it's sinful but there are good arguments on both sides.

Thank you user, very helpful

Les Mis was actually condemned by the Church. It presents a world without Grace and largely without hope. While well written, it will likely cause you some despair unless you are well guarded. It is worth noting that Hugo was a Free Mason. All that said, I am glad that it turned you toward God. That is a fortunate thing. I would encourage you to read G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. It's soft theology, but he frames certain questions in a way that, though very old, feels novel to modern ears. It was a life changing book for me when I was younger, and I think you might find some joy in it also.

Catholics believe 3 = 1
All I've ever heard from Catholic apologetics is 'you just gotta believe anyway bro it's a mystery' or some sort of heresy. It's not a mystery. 3 =/ 1. Your entire religion is refuted in a math equation

Are you orthodox?

Imagine thinking demons are real

Attached: 23697 - Christianity Virgin_Mary noistar religion.jpg (300x425, 29K)

I knew Hugo was a questionable man but I had no idea he was a Free Mason. Though the book made me very sad sometimes it also filled me with hope. Thank you for the recommendation user, I appreciate it

Ice is neither water nor water vapor, tet at the same time they are all the same substance at the core. That is obviously a simplified analogy and not perfect, but its a good way of showing the trinity to someone without a backing in Trinitarian theology. You should probably read some of that as well since your arguments are not new in the slightest and are rejected by Protestants as well.

You must not have actually read any apologetics then. And even if you crudely try and frame it as 3=1, that is certainly preferable to 0+0=Infinity.

So god transforms into the holy spirit, then he transforms into jesus, then he transforms into the father? Wow :)

Imagine thinking the only real things are visible and bodily things.

no

Imagine thinking believing in demons, exorcisms, and other catholic voodoo magic shit makes you a strict materialist

that's modalism nigga

I think the Pope needs to be firm and strong on the teachings and beliefs. He's too willing to dance with socialist and modern beliefs that it feels like he's trying to fit the status quo than guide people spiritually. I really liked Ratzinger and I think the current pope isn't as good.

aw shit I typed that wrong, must have been a demon invading my keyboard

Yes, do you believe otherwise? While it is not really a transformation, all persons are all the same thing in their transcendent essence.

Of course. And it is good that you found hope in it. It is important to remember that we can bring as much to a work as we take from it. We are at a point now where the Church no longer makes any real effort to identify dangerous works, in part because it was always understood that simply because something is dangerous does not mean it will cause harm. Read wisely and with your heart raised to God. If you are earnest and patient with your eyes focused on the Good, the Spirit will guide you.

No I don't even believe in God
Don't tell me you'll pray for me, I can't stand that condescending shit

I said it wasn't perfect. But as an analogy for someone not familiar with the theology, I cannot think of anything better.

I'll pray for you, young man.

You got that backwards user. There is no-one less materialist than Catholics, except maybe the Eastern Churches.

How'd you even know I'm young? Prick

That's modalism, pretty sure it's heresy

while the trinity is difficult and not fully explainable through human terms, the basic point is that it arises from God's endless love and knowledge of himself.
Let's put it this way. God is love, and love is essentially a relationship. You cannot love someone if there isn't someone to love. And humanity wasn't always there for God to love, so how could God love if he was not a Holy Trinity? The Father is the Subject of that infinite Love. Love needs an object, that is the Son. Subject and Object need a means to exchange that love between each other, so the exchange of love between Father and Son begets the Holy Spirit.
Without the Trinity God can neither know himself fully, nor can he be love.

Attached: Dv62AsnU0AAaa9C.jpg (704x1024, 228K)

I can tell.

In going to pray for you whether you like it or not.

Attached: 1454425153418.gif (382x498, 2.41M)

>"I don't want people wishing me well"
I will pray for you user :)

Attached: 1547429879503.jpg (499x499, 92K)

Fuck all of you and the holy spirit

You have taught wrongly. The three beings of the trinity are hypostases. They do not transform into each other. To transform into each other would suggest a change in their being, a movement in time, and a period of non-existence. You are inserting into the eternal ideas which cannot be eternal. All three are everywhere and always.

Homosexuality is just blind and cheap lust, which is a sin. You don't partake in creation and you don't deepen your relationships with your wife, whom you should be sworn to as two are made into one. These are the great things that sex offers, not some cheap and fleeting high.

I'm going to pray hard for you to see the light. You're dancing with the devil.

I'll pray for you twice now

Done faithfully, prayer is not condescending. The people responding to you sarcastically are doing the wrong thing. Please accept my apology on their behalf, though I understand if you do not.

what advanced silly Trinitarian theology should I read to try and accept Catholicism then? Fictionalist mathematics? I've read plenty of apologetics, Wikipedia articles on obscure early church heresies, but I've never seen anything beyond wordplay and the Nicene Creed. I'm pretty sure most Catholics have no idea how strict Trinitarian theology actually is

Nah I'll just burn in hell :)

>I'm pretty sure most Catholics have no idea how strict Trinitarian theology actually is
Should you really expect them to know it? It's really not important.

>Nah I'll just burn in hell :)

Attached: 1558473455452.png (583x608, 53K)

Given what you've said so far, I doubt you will do this with proper charity, but the best explanation I've seen comes through the Confessions of Augustine, although he does not give his demonstration of the principle with the purpose of explaining it, but in the process of explaining other things. The most essential element, which most people struggle with (though I don't know where you stand in regard to this principle), is to understand the full ramifications of a first-cause, of a being which exists by its own will, as the origin of all other being. In understanding the full extent of what other beings must therefore be created beings, it becomes clear that ordinary limits cannot be applied to this being.

Humanae Vitae, 11:
>The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, ‘noble and worthy.’ It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed.

CCC 1654:
>Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

You can strawman me how you like, I'm happy without your God

Not if I pray for you

Attached: 1550453256483.png (446x435, 86K)

I wish, for your sake, you could understand the gravity of what you're playing at.

>I'm happy without your God

Attached: 1554395912955.png (498x594, 122K)

Keep chucking Yea Forums memes at me. Whatever

>Whatever
There's the nihilism

Attached: 1554413477309.png (680x708, 387K)

>saying whatever makes me a nihilist
And wow another Yea Forums meme face, you're sure trolling me epic style brah

Not a meme. If you could understand what is meant when we say hell, you would not wish for it, even ironically. Please understand, I am not trying to threaten you. I hope that you can read this without anger or antagonism in my words, but sympathy. To run from fear, to avoid danger--these are not sufficient in life, and it wrong to encourage a change in belief based on them. I say all of this only in the hope that encountering such an foreign opinion you might consider the possibility that there is more to our existence than you have so far considered.

>such an foreign opinion you might consider the possibility that there is more to our existence than you have so far considered.
Think i've never read a book before?

I mean this sincerely, your worldview requires logic to not exist or to be wrong. Try to be an Objectivist. The laws of logic would apply to 'self-created' or 'first-cause' beings, whatever those are, surely? Though they quite rightly sound like gibberish. Thanks for your insights at least, I have been meaning to read more about Augustine

On a certain level, I'm not sure that you have, because I still don't think you can consider these arguments in their proper scope.

Yeah well, shove that level and that condescension up your ass

You still haven't breached the ceiling of your prior worldview. Whatever causes all being must also cause itself. In a certain sense, it must be beyond logic, because it is the origin of logic. In another sense, as the origin of being, and therefore logic, all things are only logical when placed in proper relation to it. I think the error you are making is in thinking that because rational thinking is effective and useful that it can explain all things, and further that any meaningful statement about the infinite can be arrived at in step-wise fashion.

You are either baiting or underage.

Attached: 1551459996704.png (1508x892, 171K)

Can I join the Catholic Church even tho I'm transgender?

Attached: 1553240396654-0.png (618x750, 234K)

Just a bit inebriated, sleepy and shitposting.
Tryna up my sin points.

Not until you detransition and accept that you are a male.

If you give up the delusion.

Gross

You are bumping a Catholic thread, so if anything, you are not gaining sin points. Sorry to tell you user.

Attached: 1546812497818.jpg (583x960, 136K)

It's not condescending. It's not a matter of being better or worse. Whether one person understands or does not understand is not a credit to them, but is a matter of providence. Therefore, a misunderstanding is not a fault int the person, but is a misfortune, an affliction. The way I relate to you right now is not in any sense of superiority, but as a helpless observer relates to man caught in a torrent. While on some level it is your fault that has lead you to where you are, it is not for lack of fault that others have arrived in a better place.

>tee hee it's clear you're a brainlet who hasn't read a single book
>not condescending

>Whatever causes all being must also cause itself
This is where you argument breaks down. I get what you are saying, and I reject it... does it really make sense to think something must 'beget' logic? It's just the cosmological argument. See: infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html

First, it is not something "joined" like a club. Second, in the view of the Church, transgender is not something you are, but an affliction you suffer. So yes, if you suffer from gender dysphoria, you can follow the Church; however, the teachings of the church will ask you to find solutions to your pain completely foreign to everything you have been told. I encourage you to seek it out, but I will not lie to you--it will be a very, very painful and, at first, isolating experience. That said, the reason I hope you do it, is that on the other side of your pain, I think you will find the deep and abiding love you have always sought.

>I think you will find the deep and abiding love you have always sought.
aka repress and hang yourself when the dysphoria eats you alive

You have purposely taken what I have said differently than it is. In a certain sense, no I do not believe you have truly read a book, in the same way it seems you have not read what I have written. You are looking for what you expect in the words, and do not seem to be letting the words tell you what they mean.

>can't argue for himself
>links to "infidels.org" a truly unbiased, academic resource

Attached: 2056641388_5a0bf0de2d_z.jpg (640x427, 71K)

It is very difficult to find that in secular life. A calling to religious life is a great gift user. Pray on it.

Attached: 1546201078510.png (334x393, 265K)

Okay I am a weak poor brainlet non-believer please pray for me and save me so I can start condescending other anons once I'm a new convert

I would not recieve a catholic confimation before then? Seems a bit strange.

What's the point in entering the Church if you are against its teachings? Everyone has sins, but if you don't reject them, that is a whole lot different than trying to work on something.

I don't think you do understand what I am saying. And for the same reason, I find almost every argument against Aquinas unsatisfying. You do not seem to grasp the fullness of what we mean by being. If logic is real, it has being. If it has being, there must in some sense be a "place" of being. Unless something is the source and origin of Being, then there must be some prior Being which grants this being-ness. If something is the origin and source of Being, it must be the source and origin of itself, and it must be beyond and measurable by anything else. And hence, Yahweh--I AM WHO AM. As a matter of logical consistency, something which must flow from the First Cause and Prime Mover, this essence of Being must co-exist with a super-ordinate Will.

Not at all. Repressing implies hiding. Proper faith will not hide flaws, but expose them to the light of truth, and reduce them to nothingness. If done rightly, these thoughts will evolve and change into better thoughts. It is the opposite of repression. It is important to understand that the thoughts are not yourself, but are a result of your will. Change your will, and you will change your thoughts.

No, you can't become a Catholic until you give up your sin and resolve to sin no more.

>christcucking cures dysphoria
lmao

To illustrate the theological point that receiving the Eucharist in either species, bread or wine, still gives you the fullness of Christ.

Be Catholic. The contact a monastery and express an interest in joining. Go through the application process. If they accept you, then you will become a postulat. If you make it through postulancy you'll take temporary vows during your novitiate. Usually after at least four years, if you have made it all the way through the novitiate you will take final vows, and become part of the community.

Huh, guess I'll stay a nondenominational Christian then.

Attached: 65feb4f2de0724e30e98378be98d16c9d3c0927f464efb45954620fcc92b4583.jpg (1024x898, 204K)

My life is empty and meaningless. I’ve essentially been living a life of nihilism for the past couple of years and it feels awful. This, mixed with my issues with narcissism and having huge inferiority complexes over the stupidest of things, really has not made my life enjoyable. Would Catholicism really make me happy? Is it impossible to find true meaning outside of Christianity or religion in general?

Enjoy your fruitless religion. Why even bother recognizing a higher power if you're going to change his everything as soon as it's inconvenient?

Since you have no regard for the truth, you absolutely should give up all pretense and remain with your "church." The window into the Catholic Church is small and if you want in you have to crawl.

I'm not a tranny. But I find it cute you resort to such cruel cartoons.

>Is it impossible to find true meaning outside of Christianity or religion in general?
The arrogant, prideful assholes in this thread would have you think so. When you convert you will probably act the same. Like a new vegan.

I don't "recognize" a higher power like one would do as an intellectual exercise, I believe by God's grace alone.
>Enjoy your fruitless religion.
Weird way to talk about Christianity, the most fruitfull, loving and hopeful religion on the planet.

Attached: jesus.jpg (618x741, 75K)

I think Catholicism makes one satisfied, but it is not guaranteed to make you feel any particular emotion. Some become very happy through the peace of prayer but others become very saddened by the pressure of reforming one's life and the gravity of sin. It's up to how you apply the faith to your personal life and how well you deal with challenges, both physical and spiritual. However, Jesus did say "my way is easy and burden light" so much of it is all in our minds.

goodnight and daily reminder that the holy spirit is a massive niggerfaggot

>cruel
>cartoon
You are too pure for this world user

The reason it is seen as an affliction has much to do with the unity of the body and soul. The spirit of the age views the soul as the "true self" and the body as some sort of appendage that can be altered and brought into conformity with the "true self". This creates a disharmony and a disturbance that is injurious to man and obviously against nature.

>Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.

And yes, I would argue that we should repress these afflictions that injure ourselves and others. For there to be repression, there must also be expression. An alcoholic may repress his love for drink and express his love for his wife. Or, he may repress his love for his wife and express his love for drink. Reason -> Will -> Emotion -> Subconscious is, from the top down, the proper hierarchy for a well-ordered person. To reverse it is madness.

>Since you have no regard for the truth
Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, bro.
Not gender norms.

If you fully believe in the faith, you will have an objective framework and morality. Trust in the Church fully and it will guide you to salvation; that's basically it for a laybeliever. There's intellectual stuff too, if you are interested in expanding your knowledge or acting on curiosity. It has quite literally a 2000 year old academic tradition. If stuff like this sounds like what you want in life, it may bring you joy but it's difficult to say because of how personal it is. It'll likely offer a bit of struggle based on what you've said about yourself, but in my experience I've found the struggle to be incredibly fulfilling.

Matthew 7:13-14 King James Version (KJV)

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

now that christianity is the most dominant religion on the planet, does this still hold?

Tranny shit isn't some "i'm a girl deep down uwu" shit, it's dysphoria based on male features that has been shown to be relieved by medical transition.
Your archaic wordgames do nothing but bring pain, but I doubt you really care about that nor consider that. Research is probably a tool of the devil in your eyes.

>Weird way to talk about Christianity, the most fruitfull, loving and hopeful religion on the planet.

Attached: 1554414733421.png (746x512, 99K)

I highly recommend The Ball and the Cross by GK Chesterton. As for scripture, I am partial to Psalm 32:

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
Because I was silent my bones grew old; whilst I cried out all the day long.
For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: I am turned in my anguish, whilst the thorn is fastened.
I have acknowledged my sin to thee, and my injustice I have not concealed. I said I will confess against my self my injustice to the Lord: and thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my sin.
For this shall every one that is holy pray to thee in a seasonable time. And yet in a flood of many waters, they shall not come nigh unto him.
Thou art my refuge from the trouble which hath encompassed me: my joy, deliver me from them that surround me.
I will give thee understanding, and I will instruct thee in this way, in which thou shalt go: I will fix my eyes upon thee.
Do not become like the horse and the mule, who have no understanding. With bit and bridle bind fast their jaws, who come not near unto thee.
Many are the scourges of the sinner, but mercy shall encompass him that hopeth in the Lord.
Be glad in the Lord, and rejoice, ye just, and glory, all ye right of heart.

How do I commit a sin against the holy spirit without killing myself? I want to troll God epic style

I see this as a truth that is as plain as day. I'm not going to speak falsehoods for the sake of feelings. However, if you have research, I'll give it a charitable look. I understand that the topic is likely more nuanced than I'm aware of, and it probably would have been prudent of me to withhold my last paragraph.

What you say that I say is the opposite of what I have said.

Following Christ faithfully will heal you of all spiritual distress.

Jesus Christ can suck my dick

You two are representing the Church poorly. You act as though you must perfect before entering the church, but what need of the Church would a perfect man have? The church exists as an institution precisely for the wretched, the broken, the poor, the hungry. Who are you that you would turn anyone away? What faith is this that you would wish someone not to find God?

You don't have to be perfect but you do have to try. That's what it means to repent and resolve to sin no more.

like most christians who read a couple books on theology and think they're superior to laymen or agnostics, they're pharisee gatekeepers.

Why are you angry?

This. Those types are a large part of the reason I'm never drawn to the Church. I ask some questions and get some Thomistic word-salad thrown at me alongside vitriol and contempt.

I seem to get quite irritable and aggressive when i'm a bit inebriated and have an asthma attack coming on. I feel like i'm being choked

I know what it means. But you are discouraging someone from trying because of where they are starting. I am not saying you are wrong in the technical sense of what you are saying, but you are being cruel and arrogant where you should be kind and comforting. Consider the spiritual reality of the person you're talking to--if they really are dysphoric, consider the pain and torment they have unwittingly brought upon themselves. Consider the terrible cloud of confusion, the torture they find in every piece of clothing, in every image of man and woman. One of the most fundamental wonders of life has been twisted into a terrible phantom for them. What in your words will help them to find their way out of this devilish maze?

This is correct. Though you do not need to be perfect, you do need to intend to repent for your past sins and believe the Gospel. You can be a crack addict and a murderer, but if you repent and intend to not sin again, and can be received into the Church.

You asked a question and you got an answer. Unrepentant sinners are not welcome in the Church. Living as a tranny is a sin and you cannot continue living as such if you want to be a Catholic. That may hurt your feelings but get over it. Do you care about the truth or do you want to feel good while being lied to? If you want to feel good there's plenty of protestant churches for you.

The church exists as an institution for people who wish to repent, not proud sinners who don't want to change and just want "the aesthetics"

Attached: quote-the-church-used-to-absolve-sinners-today-it-has-the-gall-to-absolve-sins-nicolas-gomez-davila- (850x400, 49K)

I'm not a tranny?
I mean attack me all you please, if it makes you happy then go for it, it's at little cost to me aside from the time spent reading it. But please at least be accurate.

The person I'm responding to is a tranny that wants me to tell him it's okay for him to continue living as a tranny while he joins the Church. The answer is a no, he has to give up his delusion and resolve to sin no more. If you want to dress that up in flowery language or mislead him like Fr. Martin, then I can't stop you. I'll continue to speak plainly.

That is unfortunate to hear. I encourage you then to not seek answers here. Recently there seems to have been an influx of sophomoric Catholics--people who in the desire to have faith in a faithless world have instead grown prideful as they seek certainty by criticizing the doubtful. If you are still curious, I recommend attending a mass and trying to speak to the priest afterwards. You might have better luck in that way.

Do you mind telling me why you drink? It seems might be happier if you drank less, so I can only assume you have some other reason for drinking that outweighs the disquiet it brings.

Even if you were the person I was talking to, there hasn't been any attack.

Wine tastes nice :)

You still behave in a way not conducive to bringing one closer to God. You may "speak plainly" but you come across as an asshole.

Better that they be a bad Catholic than a bad atheist, no?

Again, please stop this. You are not the Church. You are not the Pope. The Church is for all. Half the point is to teach people the joy of repentance. Do you think the Druids felt guilty before they heard the words of St. Patrick?

No. That tranny sinner can burn for all I care. Him being a tranny and in the Church would make me sick.

A person who happily lives in a constant state of unrepentant mortal sin should not be accepted into the Church in the first place. One of the baptismal promises is to disavow Satan. To accept sin is to accept Satan and thus, not be baptized into the Church of Christ

If I'm the one stopping them from finding God then they were never going to find Him to begin with.

No because I think public scandal within the Church actually does do damage and discourages people from finding the Church. If I was on the outside and saw open trannies sit in the pews, I would never look back because that would be a Church that doesn't care.

No. The church exists to bring people to Christ. It is not a passive recipient of those who desire God, but is an active hand reaching out into the darkness. Do you not understand the teaching of pearls before swine? Have prudence. How can you hope to help someone find God if you cannot lead them to the truth? Do you expect people to be ready to follow at the mere mention of Christ's name? Have they not already heard it? Did you follow so easily?

>Invades your thread

Attached: boompag.jpg (227x222, 13K)

You can't really believe in that southern cross, can you user?

Attached: HPEiE.jpg (500x642, 100K)

Obvious falseflag

You are not speaking plainly, nor truthfully, nor kindly, nor charitably, nor lovingly, nor mercifully, nor righteously. The way you are speaking is not only turning someone away from the church, but convincing them of the idea that this dysphoria is not something they can change. Of course, they must repent of all sin, and their current way of life is a sin. But there are many ways of expressing this truth, and not all are right for all times. You are going about it in a way that is deliberately caustic. You desire to appear righteous, rather than to do what is right, which is to lead a wounded, dying soul to the Bread of Life and the Cup of Salvation.

>if you cannot lead them to the truth
The truth is right in front of their eyes. Giving up their mortal sin is the obvious solution. I am suspecting you are a Protestant since such talk reduces the Church to simply some moralizing hospital, devoid of any spiritual properties. If the Church lets in unrepentant sinners it is a direct blasphemy to all the sacraments. There is a reason no one in a state of mortal sin is to receive the Eucharist.

Wine does taste nice, I agree. But does it taste better when you are angry, or worse? Doesn't a campfire feel nice, but the fire itself burn? I do not mean to seem prying or paternal, but I feel like there is more reason behind your drinking than an accidental indulgence.

I bet you'd love it if I revealed some deep existential angst behind a drink or two after a successful exam result. You could draw your claws and pounce.

>If I'm the one stopping them from finding God, then they were never going to find Him to begin with.
The incredible arrogance of this statement is only proven by the incredible self-loathing it must take to believe oneself so unimportant.

>it's another neopagan who is utterly disconnected from the historical reality of their own religion.

I'm not telling them to stop having dysphoria, I''m telling them that if they want to enter the Church they need to reject Satan and resolve to sin no more. That means he can't play dress up. He needs to live as a man no matter how he feels about it. This is an anonymous board so the accusation of trying to appear righteous is ridiculous. For somebody so concerned with rhetoric and charitable language, you're not practicing what you preach.

Here's some more of that charitable language that apparently drives people away from God. Is that what you're trying to do, drive me away from God? Hold yourself to your own standard.

>This is an anonymous board so the accusation of trying to appear righteous is ridiculous
Lmao, anyone on Yea Forums being honest with themselves knows this is a load of shit. Even anonymous people will posture and brag; refuse to admit defeat in arguments; attempt to save face after a humiliation etc.

Tell me, is it charitable, loving, merciful, and so on to accuse somebody without evidence?

The Truth is right in front of everyone's eyes. But we are blind. If it is Christ that opens our eyes, how can this persons' eyes be opened before they know Christ? You tell them they are outside of Christ's love, but you do not tell them how to recieve his love. To say they must repent; what does this mean to them who do not know what evil they have done? It is not enough to tell them that they have done wrong. You must show them what they strive most fervently not to see. It is not our place to condemn, only to grow the harvest. It is only for God to separate the wheat from the chaff. On the eucharist and mortal sin--it is not out of a respect for the Chruch that we say this. The Church does not conduct a survey to see who is a in a state of mortal sin, and bar them form partaking. We ask that people in mortal sin do not take communion, because taking communion while in mortal sin will hurt your soul and push you further from God. Do you think any sin can actually tarnish God? It is not for the institution that we should do any thing, but for all sinners that they might find God.

I couldn't really give a shit

Can thou not read a filename? Milord, art dumb

Should a person of obvious ill will (I.e., only becoming Catholic to cause chaos, embarrass or harm the Church) be confirmed ? No. But you cannot turn people away prima facie because they live an immoral lifestyle. You leave them to the jackals otherwise. Trannies can and do return to the truth in significant numbers.

So all that talk from you about charitable language was garbage.

I'm not that guy

I'm not telling people flat out that there's no way for them to join the Church. I told them precisely how they could join the Church, that is by giving up their sinful lifestyle and resolving to sin no more. That offended people for some reason. Apparently I should have beat around the bush and mislead them.

No, actually I wouldn't. I doubt I'd be very helpful for any existential dilemma. All I would love from this exchange is that you might be more forgiving of my fellow Catholics who are bad-examples of their own teachings, even though you have no reason to be so forgiving.

>Trannies can and do return to the truth in significant numbers
If only that was the truth. Between the gender propaganda, the bodily mutilations, and the psychological shame, it is extremely unlikely. If they give it up and convert that's fine. But if they have not done so and wish to convert, it's just not going to happen. You are coping.

>my fellow Catholics who are bad-examples of their own teachings
Thank you Bishop user for visiting our thread and enlightening us.

Lol, a Catholic cat fight.

>Tranny shit isn't some "i'm a girl deep down uwu" shit

Yea, I pulled up the APA's Guidelines for Psychological Practice with TGNC People to see what kind of shit it actually is, and the results were surprising.

>Transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) people are those who have a gender identity that is not fully aligned with their sex assigned at birth
Hm, what's gender identity?
>Gender identity is defined as a person’s deeply felt, inherent sense of being a girl, woman, or female; a boy, a man, or male; a blend of male or female; or an alternative gender
uwu

I tried, friend.

Jesus died for this.

You are proud who should know better than pride, and in your arrogance turn away the ignorant. The un-believer harms their own soul; you harm yours, theirs, and the efforts of the Church. You are someone who should be able to handle the truth; after all, you claim to preach it. You should know also that most things we write here are seen by other people also. If there is anything which should not be taken lightly, it is people who claim faith, but preach against it. It is true, to find God he must reject sin, wear no more women's clothing, and live righteously as a man; in addressing him, in taking up this person's question, you have made it your responsibility to help. Chastisement without explanation, without guidance, without love is not right. Before you can help someone, you must love them, not as they are, but as they could be. The person you are talking to is weak--will you strengthen them, or will you look down on their helplessness?

telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/gender-reversal-surgery-rise-arent-talking/
You think this can last? When the other shoe drops, what are you going to do? Stand and finger wag like some WASP? My understanding of the catechism is that Catholic men are required to be of help in times of need.

As you wrote this, could you feel the anger? The indignation? You wrote this because you felt someone else was trying to put themselves over you, and you bristled at it. You are angry to feel low. You attack with sarcasm. That is no righteousness but self-righteousness.

Not sure what more needs to be said. One can tell another how to live a virtuous life, but one can't live it for him. It's up to the transgender individual to put away mortal sin and repent. It doesn't help a sinner to tolerate his sin no more than it helps an addict to tolerate his addiction. End of story.

Here we go again with these accusations. You have no idea who I am and you have no reason to believe I'm a prideful person. You're reading emotions out of text posts. What exactly have I said that was so wrong? A tranny asked if he could join the Church and continue being a tranny. The answer is objectively no. He must give up his sinful lifestyle and resolve to sin no more and that's what I told him.

Should I put a smiley emoticon at the end of my post?

You are projecting so much it is laughable. I could care less about this thread as the topic is already settled; I am debating with someone who believes in 99% of the same views as I do. It's funny to see you think otherwise and I could just as easily throw the same thing back at you

"You think I'm angry because in your heart you are angry for being called out as a proud representative of the faith when you are unqualified. Thus, you need to justify your error by pushing it on to me."

Such a thing would be stupid to say.

You are right, and the other user is wrong. To say "this will not happen," "they cannot be saved," to say these things lacks love, lacks humility, lacks charity, lacks faith. We cannot abandon our own faith to save others, and you cannot save a drowning man when you are struggling to swim; however it is equally wrong to give no aid, and to say salvation is impossible.

Neither of those posters said trannies couldn't be saved, so what are you talking about?

It is wrong to agree that they "are" a tranny. It is wrong to agree that there is such thing as being transgendered. It is wrong to suggest that gender disphoria is not an attack of the devil. It is wrong to say that someone is beyond salvation. It is wrong to provide an answer to a question that wasn't asked. He asked if he could become Catholic, which he can. The door is not closed to him. It is true that getting through the door, entering a life of faith, will require him to repent and desire a life without sin; the way you phrase it though, especially given how you know he will think of these things, is that the door is already closed before he has properly approached.

I know a pastor (who is Catholic) that literally supports transgenderism

You're attacking straw. Trannies do exist and they're defined as people attempting to live as a different sex than they're born. Again, I've never said trannies or anyone else was beyond redemption or couldn't become Catholic. He said he was a tranny and asked if he could join the Church, and I answered no, that he must stop being a tranny before he can join the Church. You're not even angry over anything I've said, but what you think I've said. This is ridiculous.

Both of these anons who responded uncharitably have implicitly said that unless the person perform certain actions, salvation is impossible; they have said this without considering the mind and soul of the person in question. They have further said implicitly, that unless the person can change simply by being told they are in sin, than they cannot be saved. They have also implicitly said that someone who is truly repentant will desist from prior evil habits. They speak of sin as though they have authority.

>pastor
>catholic
I feel that you need to explain yourself further.

It’s an old debate. “Can a Muslim become Catholic? Can a Jew become Catholic?” Obviously not without converting. But if you say “I don’t want filthy infidels in the pews,” as one poster said of trannies, you’re not following the Faith. Charity to all, salvation for many. And as I said earlier, I’d rather have bad Catholics than bad Atheists.

>said that unless the person perform certain actions, salvation is impossible
Are you even a Catholic? Of course this is true. You must act in a certain way to be saved. You can't commit mortal sin and expect heaven.

There sure is a lot of "implicitly" and you're not even representing them correctly. To repent and resolve to sin for a tranny would mean to stop living as a tranny and try not to sin any more. They would actually have to do this before they can be baptized, it's a condition to being baptized. Nobody said that if somebody is repentant they won't sin any more, you guys sure do love talking about charity but I'm not seeing it.

Shit is real out here. We got Susan from the parish council.

Attached: susan.jpg (1024x768, 148K)

The affliction of evil is not an identity. Saying they are a tranny, or even transsexual, accepts this perverse notion of identity, and simultaneously accepts that such a concept is even possible. You are accepting a broken and deceitful word and using it as your basis for judgement. We are not merely our thoughts, but we are the entirety of our being, led by the will, through thought, into action. Someone we call transexual out of convenience is someone's whose will and thought have been perverted. This is of course a consequence of their sin, and it causes them to sin again and again. But after sinning, they are now in a deep state of torment and confusion. It is clear to them by their pain that they are in sin. But someone's sin is not who they are. It is a consequence and a relative position to God. It is our hope, our desire, and our responsiblity to help lead people away from sin and toward God. For someone who is so deeply and profoundly confused as a transgender person, we must help them reorient their life, so that they might see the Light of Christ. You say that they must abandon their sin before entering the Church. But abondoning sin is to enter into the Church. It does not come before, but is the same action. To say to someone "repent" is useless if they do not know what it is they do. Someone who is transgender must not simply change their behavior, but must change the entire way they view the world and themselves. The words you have chosen to use would discourage them, would lead them to despair.

For a tranny to convert they would have to stop being a tranny, so they shouldn't be in the pews or lining up for communion. If a practicing Muslim was lining for the Eucharist I would be just as annoyed.

>to stop living as a tranny
You say this as though it is a single action, and not a state of mind, not a world-view, not a valley of confusion, not a maze of desires. The urges and fears they experience do not represent the same temptation as the cookies you gave up for lent. You ignore habit, and you ignore intent, and you ignore the experience of living in a state of sin. Further, you again misrepresent salvation. We are saved by God's Grace alone. We are able to receive this Grace only through faith. Faith lives not as thought alone, not as deed alone, not as will alone, but as the three together. There is no checklist of actions, nor do we know of the limits of God's Grace. We can say things are good to be done, things are right to be done. We can say that we know of no other way than in doing these things. We can say that we are confident certain things will help. We can say that certain things lead in the right direction, and that we know of no others. But when we speak of God, we cannot say what is and is not possible.

Rapists aren't an identity but I call people who rape rapists because how else could we have a conversation about people who rape? So I call trannies those who live a particular lifestyle. Calling somebody who rapes a rapist isn't an approval of their actions just as calling somebody who lives as a tranny, a tranny isn't an approval of that lifestyle.

I can't even read the rest of the post because you don't believe in paragraphs and this whole thing is tiresome. I feel like I've already read everything you could possibly say at least 4 times now.

It depends on the person though, doesn’t it? If a tranny goes to mass in hot pants and asks the usher where the dilation chamber is, that’s obviously a problem. But if a tranny, perhaps feeling regret as many of them do, uncertain of whether Catholicism is the answer, decides to attend mass or spend some time in prayer, does so modestly and respectfully, they have every right to do it. Turning them away in such a situation would be spitting in Christ’s face.

Okay you've brow beaten me with this garbage. Trannies are the best and must be worshiped, I've seen the light. Anything to stop you from telling me how hard they have it, as if they're the only people in the world to feel pain.

Yeah that's all fine and good but we're not talking about those sorts of people who are modest and truthfully looking to convert. We're talking about people who want to continue living as a tranny after converting.

Rate my stack

Attached: 20190521_201138.jpg (4032x3024, 3.3M)

In today's age transexuals are the natural aristocrats. If you don't show them the proper deference you will be punished.

About to start reading St. Augustine's Confessions with an alright knowledge of Plato and the Bible. Will I be okay?

Maybe we’re violently agreeing then. I think making a commitment to detransitioning is probably required to receive any of the sacraments, but flatly saying that a tranny who has some doubts shouldn’t be allowed to approach the Church and receive some pastoral accompaniment without preconditions is wrong, too.

Dog, shit

Yes you should be fine.
undoubtedly good. However, I always see people on here reading the same books. Maybe branch out a bit. There are tons of unrecognized great saints and spiritual writings.

Dude, nobody said a tranny who wants to give up or might give up the lifestyle shouldn't be allowed to approach the Church. This is so dumb.

What publisher is the Imitation from?

Rapist is a noun derived from a verb. Transexual/trangender, etc. are adjectives of identity. You've accepted as passive what is a choice, and considered as choice what is a consequence and confusion. I am not saying you approve of the lifestyle, but that you tacitly accept and support the worldview that allows for this lifestyle. The idea of being transgendered is a deceit; how can you hope to help someone see the truth if you cannot help them to recognize the deceit?

How do you refer to them?

>this level of apathy
And this leads to my point. They do not have it harder. You can see their sin readily, but we all face this level of deception. You are not seeing what is universal in their suffering.

They did though. I’m also arguing that people are entitled to charity and some kind of relation to the Church without any preconditions, which is not being acknowledged by others ITT.

Then go talk to him and stop bothering me with this nonsense. You're responding to my posts and none of them said anything like it.I said if a tranny wants to convert he needs to stop being a tranny and you homo worshippers have been having a fit ever since.

i am

we'll see how this goes...

hylicized grace/10.

Why are you still arguing. Neither of you are being changed in opinion. Just give up and recommend each other a book to stop this autism.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about or why you think I should care. A tranny asks if he can convert to Catholicism and still be a tranny, I say no and get inundated with posts talking about universal pain which may or may not be seen or whatever. It's irrelevant and I don't care.

Depends on what I am trying to say about them. There is not a good term. It appears to me to be a confluence of sin, where self-loathing meets narcissism meets perversion meets idolatry meets lust, expressed through post-modern material consumerism.

You know that being orthodox doesn’t mean being an asshole, right?

Then you've said nothing useful. I disagree that calling them trannies offer implicit support for their life decisions and I don't even think you believe it because you would have had some other way of referring to them. I'll keep calling them trannies and similar names because it's the only way we can have a conversation about them.

I hope you're not calling me an asshole because that would be uncharitable. :)

Catholic book corp

That's not what happened at all. Someone asked if they could be catholic if they were transgendered. You, or someone, said not unless you detransition. Then the asker why the couldn't get confirmed first, and you said "because you are doing something against their teaching," and so they said they would simply not be Catholic then. If you take this user seriously, then this was an opportunity to turn them towards truth. Your answers clearly did not do that. Instead of responding in a way to help them see clearly, you answered harshly in a way you knew they would not understand. And what's worse, and why I am replying as I am to you--you did this in the name of the Church. Yes, they would have had to abandon their belief in this dysphoria, but how do you think your words will achieve that? If the user was sincere, they were relatively comitted to their position. What were you hoping to accomplish, except what you did accomplish, which was to turn them away from the truth?

I presume I know the answer, but what is the Church's stance on mystical orders that aren't Freemasonry. I've been reading a fair bit about Rosicrucianism and I think it is really interesting. I think all the modern rosicrucian groups are just charlatans, but I was still vaguely interested. I suspect I know what the answer will be.

all weirdo esoterica, albeit not without merit that experienced theologians are able to extract, but for lay people it is best to stay away

Where did I say it supports their decisions? I said it supports their world view. Namely, it supports biological determinism, is supports psychological explanations of evil, it supports modernism, it supports scientism, it supports materialism. A word that is useful in casual conversation is often harmful in exacting conversation.

So we both agree that I told him the truth, that he must stop being a tranny and that it's against Church teachings and all that jazz, and yet you're still upset about it. This is bullshit dude, you're just tone policing. I should have been nice and flowery and maybe not have told him the whole truth, I get it dude. I know where you're coming and I don't respect it.

good post. and you'd be surprised how often theologians are at odds for various reasons. usually external or internal politics.

>you'd be surprised how often theologians are at odds for various reasons
oh yeah ... the feud between dominicans and franciscans for example

If it supports their worldview then it supports their decisions. I'm starting to think you're not entirely sane, because you would have to be crazy to think that referring to somebody who lives as a tranny is some sort of implicit support for the philosophy of biological determinism. You're on another planet.

First, the Church itself is mystical. Second, if you believe the Church is True, then any other mystical tradition is obviously false. This does not mean they say nothing that is true, but that an uncareful reader will inevitably be led away from the truth. The only valid truth achieved through mysticism is given by the Holy Spirit.

and the jesuits and everyone else. it's a fucking mess right now, and these people who have dedicated their lives to the cause are busy infighting over stupid self-oriented bullshit instead of actively promoting the word of God.

to be really quite honest i'm not impressed by the average young priest. they are either:

- very obviously gay
- not so obviously gay and reddit tier
- unhappy as fuck
- successful psychopaths

That's reasonable. Thanks

>it's a fucking mess right now
desu the church has always been a mess, so we shouldn't despair of the state of it today. the church has triumphed before and it will again

Study prudence. As I said before, what do you think is meant by Pearls before Swine? It is not that you should have not told the truth, but that in speaking the truth you should aim to say it so that the other person will hear it. It is like Jesus said when leaving the apostles--there was much he wanted to tell them, but that they were not ready to hear. To some he spoke in parables, and to others plainly. Our desire should not be simply to say what it is true as we know it, but to help others to know the truth also.

The Catholic family dynamic has been completely changed, and thus so is the priesthood. No longer are there families of 5 children with one male going into the priesthood. I think this messes up the social dynamic and no longer do we have the socially adept, physically strong, and spiritually devout priests we used to. A lot of times they are only children or men who have been home schooled.

Although, I will say that SSPX priests are pretty based just based on the fact that a lot of traditional Catholic familial principles tend to be retained in their communities.

A worldview is a system, not the facts that fill the system. You are quibbling over the facts of their life, instead of recognizing the error in the way they choose to see the world. The depth of their sin is not in their clothes, but their beliefs.

Dude, you and whoever else should have responded to the trans lady/gent who initially asked a question and shown them whatever it is you think the Church needs to be. And if you did, you should have left it at that. The endless pontificating and chastisement of this other guy about his evangelical charm or lack thereof is insufferable and not attractive. Peace.

If it makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps it is meant for you as well.

The Truth of Jesus Christ is rooted in love (caritas, charity). Complain about “tone policing,” but the reason the gay rights movement steamrolled us is because it more effectively appealed to the natural charity that is inscribed in all of us by our creator, while we acted like a bunch of Pharisees. The gay movement is now flagging, because the mask dropped as soon as they got power. If we want to return people to Christ, we have to tell the Truth, Beautifully, and out of Love for the other. Others are simply pointing out that you could have done this better.

What you're preaching is fine. Yes, it is for me. It's for everybody (except you of course). You seem to be very much concerned with catching flies with honey. I'm telling you that your scent is sour, not sweet. Just lay off it, bro.

Based charitable user.

How can a bitter truth be anything else?

The bitter truth was what the other user gave. The Lord be with you.

Et cum spiritu tuo.

A truth not received is a truth not given.

Being Catholic makes me feel depressed, more than anything. I feel like I was thrown into an extremely high-stakes game against my will, because the gravity of sin is so great. I feel that it would be better if I was never born, but, too late now obviously.

Exactly how I feel, actually.

I want to marry and have kids, sort of, but at the same time, one has to recall that many Saints taught that somewhere between 99% and 99.999% of all people go to hell.

do you all believe in hell and all that? don't reckon i could ever get into a religion that punishes people for all eternity

He became corrupted by the zeitgeist.

I am sorry to hear that user. I used to feel this way also at times. It felt as though I had already strayed too far, so what was the point. I was helped by contemplating the crucifixion. Before Jesus let himself into the hands of the Pharisees, he not only knew the sin they would commit, but intimately and humanly felt all the sin amd all the temptation of all people at all times. In his sacrifice, he experienced everything wrong you have ever and will ever do. And he, the creator of all things, the Lord of All, knowing and experiencing all sin against him, still sacrificed himself for your sake. A soldier dies for honor and patriotism. A friend or family member might die for your smile, or humor, or loyalty. But God, who knew you from the beginning, who has written you into the palm of his hand, loves you so deeply and completely that even knowing all the wrong you do him, especially knowing all the wrong you do him, died so that you might not suffer. You do not remember the way your mother loved you when she first saw you, but God loves you beyond even that. Do not despair user, rejoice--you are loved!

Hell in a similar way as the kingdom of God. It's a metaphysical place that we go to when we begin our eternal life, but we are already there in our temporal life. Where our soul resides depends on how much we love Christ and try to live by his example and commands. God is the sole satisfier of man. If we love the good, and practice forgiveness, and strive to not hold a grudge, and seek justice and truth: we are God's children and enjoy a clear conscience, his burden is light. If we despise the good and embitter ourselves with doubt, cynicism, and miserliness (the opposites of the theological virtues) then we already in Hell. We do not seek truth, we seek to distort and persuade others away from it. This is how many, many, MANY people live today. They are unhappy and don't know why, and try to drown out the sadness with booze or star wars or nintendo switch or political identity. This is why. They have fled from truth.

So, if someone practices zen buddhism and stills their mind and becomes a good person through zazen, how are they regarded in your religion?

I still have difficulties with this idea, because logically even if Christ saw all the sins that humanity would commit in the future, He would also see where everyone ends up at the end of the day. Okay, you can give the free will defense at this point but how "free" are we really given God's omniscience? I see no way to work this out barring making the claim that God realizes a particular universe because it's the best out of all possible universes given some physical consistency conditions but it seems disturbing to think that this is really the best possible world, and furthermore, what is free will really good for anyway if it leads you to Hell?

>he not only knew the sin they would commit, but intimately and humanly felt all the sin amd all the temptation of all people at all times.

Funny you brought that up, because that particular bit of predestination is what causes me a great deal of distress. If God knew my destination after I die, I would’ve greatly appreciated it if he sat me down before my ensoulment and asked if I would rather not experience existence at all, of which I would’ve taken him up on the offer; not being blasphemous, just being completely serious.

Depends on if they have heard the gospel or not. If they have not, and would have desired baptism if they knew what it was: they enjoy salvation. If they understand what baptism means and have heard the gospel but rejected it sorry charlie you're persisting against the truth.

He is the truth, the way and the life, remember.

That is to say Christ has the salvation game locked up because he is God, and this has been demonstrated to man by reasoned argument. Rejecting it unto death is not necessarily a ticket to hell but you aren't getting into heaven either. God's mercy is infinite. It'd be nice to count on it and say that hell is empty because of it, but are you willing to bet your immortal existence on that.

There may be a theoretical scenario in which someone who pursues zen buddhism is given the grace of God and comes to know the Truth. We see no way how this can happen, and with the utmost concern ask you not to tempt God, and in part only say this so hesitatingly only because we know no limit can be placed on God and his ways or not our ways. We firmly believe that if someone gives their mind and soul to buddhism, they will all but certainly be turned from Good by some degree, even if it seems slight to our modern eyes.

Alright, guess its hell for me then.

Any particular reason for choosing hell?

LOL no way

I don't think i will ever become a christian because its too hypothetical. Through zazen you can directly know the truth of the Buddha, plus zen buddhism is something that evolves and develops with time
Good for you if you find happiness in it though, but i don't think it will ever be for me.

remember that God is merciful. legalism is of no use

traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/12/20/many-people-will-saved-hell/

St. Leonard of Port Maurice for one, seems that he's putting the number of damned at >99.9999%. This was not an uncommon opinion at the time.

>Any particular reason for choosing hell?
I don't think a God would base the entirety of salvation on a vague hypothesis. i know he is testing us etc, but i still completely disagree. I don't think we should base anything in this life on a hypothesis rooted in what may happen when we die.
I don't know what will happen we when we die and probably neither do you.

See also: saintsquotes.net/selection - fewness.html

On a certain level, I don't think I can solve your question. But it is important to recognize that God is beyond time. Because we live a temporal life, it is easy to say "the end", but there is no end. I think this is a flawed way of saying it, but in some sense this life is like a momentary blink on which we choose to participate in God, or to reject his gift of Being. This is the only real choice, and it is a wonderful gift. This gift means we share some small, infintessimal part of our existence. We become, in a very small sense, a co-author of Heaven. While all good we seem to do is God moving through us, we, in this choice, are in some sense responsible for allowing it. This must be understood, however, in a way which does not limit or lessen God's infinite supremacy.

I understand that feeling, but in some sense that is precisely what he is doing now.

We are not so hypothetical as it seems. But, I am curious, what is the truth of the buddha?

I don't KNOW, of course, because I have no first hand experience. No one living does, except Christ.

The hypothesis is not vague. It's actually pretty well reasoned. God is Creator, that which makes things intelligible, form of the Good that illuminates all other forms. This is all known even before the revealed knowledge of Christ, who implores you to (made in his image) to imitate him. Source of all goodness -- that is, sanctifying grace that allows up to overcome sin. To make right choices that betray our base nature.

Mortal death is the happy (Christlike) soul's return to him, the ideal. To what end I don't know, but given that what Jesus said is coherent so far I'll assume unity with him and the Father and Holy Spirit. Sharing in the kingdom not of this world (ie, metaphysical), as promised.

Seriously. Do some reading. It's not a genie god you pray to so you pass a class or whatever, God is the means to every good end you might effect. All else is deception.

new thread

>But it is important to recognize that God is beyond time.
No, I understand that, it's the entire point I'm struggling with, I suppose. We know that some people have entered Heaven through free cooperation with God's will, receiving the Sacraments, etc.

Presumably, God knew that said persons would act in this way before actualizing this particular universe, presumably because of their nature. Okay, where does that nature come from? Even "I" is a tricky concept here, of course.

Look up middle knowledge. Molinism. You never didn't have a choice.

His early stuff is good. Later on though he did go way too far embracing Buddhism.

>Douay-Rheims
>Diary of St. Faustina
>The Imitation of Christ
>Chesterton
>St. Teresa of Avila
9/10

Does the church still consider masturbation and pornography amongst young people a mortal sin? If so, then me and almost every catholic my age I know are going to hell.

Yes, and sadly yes
The good news is that neither of those are unforgivable sins

Yeah, look at this literature from the pilgrimage of St James, El Camino de Saniago. I did the French way (through the Pyrenees) two years ago and it was beautiful. Growing more and more popular and it's not expensive at all. The churches and people you meet along the way are very nice. Try to hang out with only Catholics or you'll miss out of a lot of opportunities the Church only gives to Catholic groups, like church visits, hanging out with priests and monks, special rites for pilgrims etc.
I did it during low season (winter) because I like he cold weather, but some of the churches, expecially the ones in the mountains, are closed because of the same reason.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino_de_Santiago#Selected_literature

>pic related

Attached: IMG_20180212_200453_HDR.jpg (4160x3120, 3.33M)

The church need to let them merry it will kill the homo loby in one generation and will fix lots of child scandals.
Priest celebacy is a mistake.

>the son is an object

Truly awful. Straight Satanism.

The fuck are you on about, we get the trinity because Jesus Christ revealed it to us in the gospels.

>unforgivable sins

Are there any sins that can not be absolved through confession?