CATHOLIC THREAD

Christianity is one big cosmic cope, so that's no surprise

did you not read OPs post? none of us are christian

Just started RCIA last week. What am I in for and what should I read?

lmao bro just do it

>Catholic
>Not a Greek word
Good one

Read Intro to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict XVI. He completely BTFOs other interpretations of Christ and shows why being a Christian is the most logically supported choice over polytheism and atheism

>thinks greek and church slavonic are the same things
good one

I often hear about Catholic metaphysics. What is this all about? Would anybody care to explain it to me?

Metaphysics is the study of being or first principles. A Catholic would believe that God is the first principle and source of being. Other than that your question is too vague.

>Guys like Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch are very clear in supporting ... the Catholic and Orthodox view of the Eucharist being the literal blood and flesh of Jesus.
Not really. Ancient literature has a tendency to conflate symbols with that which they symbolize. An ancient Christian could state that the Eucharist *is* Christ's body and blood (i.e. it symbolizes his body and blood, and thus is that in a symbolic sense) while simultaneously understanding that it is not actually his body and blood. It's easy to read these texts through a modern lens and think they're saying one thing but they really aren't, because their understanding of reality is different than yours.

What makes Catholic metaphysics different than other Christians metaphysics?

I personally grew up Christian, but in a modern charismatic church, so theology and philosophy was never a topic.

neothomism mainly, look into norris clarke, etienne gilson and jacques maritain, etc. feser is the current big name.

most of it isn't very good. if you actually study metaphysics you will at first wonder whether they are self-conscious about the aristotelian ontology they want to resurrect, but you gradually realize for most neothomists it's more about some vague sentimental notion of returning to the blessed 13th century than it is anything specifically philosophical. they resurrect thomas and aristotle because they want to resurrect a vigorous, lively church society, not because they actually think thomism can overcome the modern aporia of post-critical, post-linguistic philosophy.

this is often very frustrating too, because they they aren't even self-aware about this as i said, they aren't aware of what you're looking for, so they will loudly (but vaguely) ACT as if thomism "has all the answers" but become slippery and evasive when you begin to ask them real questions. i try to be very fair so i always assume people are acting in good faith (no pun) until i'm really forced to think otherwise, and it took me a frustratingly long time to finally come to the firm conviction that the vast majority of neothomists and tradcath larpers are philosophically illiterate.

it's similar to how straussians talk about how they want a "return to classical philosophy" but then become evasive on what precisely this means, and if you say "well how does xyz answer to the critique of kant or heidegger let's say" they go "hahaha.. you poor man... you don't know just how much BETTER plato and aristotle are than kant....." but they won't just answer the fucking question, because they don't know, and they don't know that they don't know, because they're politically motivated midwits first and philosophers second (if at all)

Lol, no one gives a fuck about Thomism or the middle ages except "traditionalists" which are a suppressed minority. The "modern aporia of post-critical, post-linguistic philosophy" to which you refer is modern Catholicism.

You have to do some serious mental gymnastics they thought the Eucharist was symbolic. Look at this for example

>I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God ... and I desire the drink, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

This isn't just Ignatius either. Every single Church father, when they said anything about it, explicitly supported the Catholic/Orthodox view of the Eucharist, from the first century to the present. You don't even need to look at any Church father to prove the Catholic view. Look at scripture and how many of Jesus' followers called it a "hard teaching" and abandoned him even after witnessing miracles. Only with the Eucharist do protestants take such an esoteric and symbolic reading of scripture.

I smell Jay Dyer and a lack of substance.

Who here /confession/ today? Pray for me that I'll make it today, and I'll pray for you too, Catholicanon.

That quote is perfectly compatible with what I said, which I don't think you understood. They aren't speaking from the strict symbol/symbolized dichotomy which modern people possess. Indeed, the wine is Christ's blood. But what does "is" mean? Even you don't think that it is actual physical blood, and as such post-Reformation Catholics resort to an Aristotelian philosophical explanation.

>is modern Catholicism.

only very recently. there was about a century there where neothomism was being pushed in every quarter. existentialist catholicism was always a parallel stream, with things like blondel's l'action and various catholic assimilations of heidegger and jaspers, but there was a LONG period where catholic philosophy meant neothomism. interesting fact: this is actually why strauss in his 1950s lectures on natural right appeals somewhat obsequiously to the catholic camp, as he thought he might find potential allies contra existentialism there.

i don't know who jay dyer is, but i can guarantee you that if you smell a lack of substance from a post briefly detailing the mainstream intellectual history of 20th century catholic philosophy, it's because you know nothing and are judging based on your vague preferences, rather than from knowledge of philosophy proper, which is exactly what i was critiquing in that post (if you are capable of reading it).

I say it has a lack of substance because you're doing all this talking but there's not one single objection to Thomism. That's what I'm interested in but you're too busy being a smug cunt while vaguely alluding to some objections. Say something interesting.

I know I need to go. I haven't been in a decade and haven't received communion in years because of *things* but maybe today will be the day.

Someone help me: What is the version of the bible that the catholic church uses? Like, The official catholic bible.

Vulgate is the official latin, RSV-CE 2nd edition is what most people read in english or Douay-Rheims.

>Vulgate is the official latin
The Nova Vulgata is, which is a modern translation into classical Latin. The medieval Vulgate is no longer used for anything.

Is this edition/translation worthwhile?

Attached: anthony.jpg (406x500, 36K)

Is that a good intro book for someone who knows a little bit about christian theology but really not that much?

what chance does have that people that never ever hear, or know about God?

I believe in you, user. It's supposed to be hard to do. It shows true contrition for one's sins.

Since you haven't gone to confession in a while, it's probably better to schedule a general confession, though. Take the time to perform an examination of conscience. To tell you the truth, my first confession in eight years was just last week. I wrote down every sin I could remember on two pieces of paper a week beforehand and scheduled a general confession with the priest. All your worries will go away once you're there. General confessions aren't done through a screen, however, but it prepares you for future confessions. If you've laid out all the sins of your life once already through a general confession, how much easier will it be to just list out two or three through an anonymous confession?

I'm a bit scared to make a confession today too, but you gotta pick up your cross every once in a while.

The only literature you want to read is Maurice Pinay's book.
Basically how the Catholic church got fucked by the Jews in the 1960s, and how that ended the catholic faith for good.

Chesterton's essays are great.

I consider myself more of an agnostic right now but I'm leaning towards becoming a Muslim because I've been reading about the life of Muhammad and how the Quran was assembled. When an illiterate guy from the desert comes up with something like that over 20 years with the consistency that it has, something very out of the ordinary happened. I'm also considering Christianity too but what reason is there to believe?

>reason
>to believe
proceed to Islam user, with your IQ you'll fit in right away

You're the one who doesn't belong here because faith and reason are in accordance. They have been at least since Boethius. You're on some goofy protestant shit.

Before choosing Islam over Christianity, read pic related. Muhammed is a fraud.

Attached: 1505231463508.jpg (1696x6224, 2.44M)

damn that guy got btfo

I've read this stuff before and there's explanations for all of it. It's like when Youtube atheists harp on about the bible being evil or contradicting itself. It's usually only evil and contradictory when you take the least charitable interpretation possible of things. Him accusing Muhammad of being an autistic who didn't want to personally tell his guests to leave is a perfect example of what I mean. To him Muhammad had to be autistic, he couldn't just be setting standards of good conduct. I'm not interested in playing those games.

Alright then, seems like you're already convinced then. Islam is your way to go. I think ISIS is looking for new members.

Yes and all Catholics are part of the lavender mafia. You're boring.

You're being incredibly disingenuous in your posts. The Catholic view is not simply believing that the wine and bread are the literal body and blood, but specifically believing in transubstantiation, which is a completely foreign concept to the Fathers. None of the Fathers ever supported transubstantiation, just a general belief in the real presence.

Transubstantiation is the process from which the bread becomes the flesh. The process wasn't defined but that doesn't mean they weren't aware of of the bread turning into flesh. A lot of things weren't defined in the beginning, like the bible.

Well, Christianity and Islam make conflicting, historical truth claims pertaining to the life of Jesus. However, the Gospels were all written within the 1st century, less than a hundred years after the events took place. The Quran was not written until many centuries afterwards, not to mention the fact it seems ignorant of actual Christian theology (claiming that the Trinity is comprised of God, Jesus, and Mary). Christianity may not be true, but it seems illogical to choose Islam over it.

Right, but you said:
>Guys like Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch are very clear in supporting apostolic succession and the Catholic and Orthodox view of the Eucharist being the literal blood and flesh of Jesus. Protestants ultimately have no leg to stand on.
Which just isn't true. None of the Fathers can be construed to support transubstantiation. You make a false equivocation between the Catholic and Orthodox views. And you falsely assume that all Protestants reject the doctrine of the real presence. While many Protestants nowadays do reject it, there are many throughout history who haven't. Even Luther himself would agree with the Eucharistic writing of the Fathers.

The Eucharist isn't transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the process in which the bread turns into the Eucharist. This is why the doctrine of transubstantiation is implicit in the belief of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation doesn't have to be spelled out.

>Transubstantiation is the process in which the bread turns into the Eucharist. This is why the doctrine of transustantiation is implicit in the belief of the Eucharist.
This is a non sequitur. Do you have any evidence that Early Christians implicitly understood transubstantiation in the way the Catechism defines it?

read St Ignatius of Antioch

It's not circular, the problem is you're confusing the doctrine of transubstantiation with the Eucharist. They're not the same thing.

I am satan and In rape your families

No I'm not confusing anything. I can see that the two are not the same thing but I fail to see what your point is.
If you're speaking of the passage from Ignatius' letter to the Romans which was quoted earlier, I fail to see what it has to do with transubstantiation. In fact, the passage doesn't even seem to be speaking of the Eucharist, since the line (which was conveniently omitted when posted earlier):
>who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham
shows that Ignatius was speaking of both the pre-incarnate and the incarnate Christ, which means that "the flesh of Christ" shouldn't automatically be interpreted as literal.

Good, you recognize that they're not the same thing. Now when I say that the church fathers talk about and support the Catholic and Orthodox view of the Eucharist, why are you objecting by saying that they don't talk about transubstantiation?

Because transubstantiation is an integral part of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine, which is what you want people to accept since convincing people to become Catholic was the intent behind your post. Especially since you intimated that Protestants necessarily disagree with Catholics/Orthodox on this doctrine, which is false.

You're being silly now. When I talk about the Eucharist I'm talking about the bread literally being the flesh of Jesus. I don't give a damn how it transforms from the bread to the flesh. It's irrelevant. You initially thought transubstantiation was the Eucharist but now you're being goofy after realizing your mistake.

Question: As a Catholic, how am I supposed to interpret/ read the Old Testament? I know it isn't supposed to be a history book, each book has a different author throughout history, each is a unique work of literature to be digested differently, etc., but this is just something I've never been clear on. I don't know how to respond when people grill me on the Old Testament. The first step is reading it of course, which I'm in the process of, but would anyone have some kind of recommendations for supplemental works?

Pic related is pretty good intro for non-Christians. Even Christians find St. Augustine's story very relatable.

Attached: 51v3ho4hLWL._SX325_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (327x499, 39K)

>I believe in the real presence, but I don't believe in how is becomes the real presence.
Circus-tier acrobatics. Also, Luther did not believe in transubstantiation he believed in consubstantiation, not that that means anything because Luther reduced God to total omnipotence and arbitrarity and thus if scripture told me subjectively that the real presence is true you as a Lutheran couldn't tell me otherwise.

Attached: preview.jpg (563x844, 136K)

The old testament is scribbles if the man Jesus Christ does not appear to epitomize it.

fags

The Old Testament is a history book, one of the few comprehensive ancient history texts we use today to understand ancient history. And yes, that does include Genesis, as the Church Fathers are all in agreement on it being definitely historical and also perhaps allegorical.

Attached: gen-2.jpg (500x749, 315K)

expand on that?
So are you saying everything literally happened as described, from Adam and Eve to the flood? And this is the Catholic belief? I don't know enough to have a position, I just, frankly, want to know what to think (but have the knowledge to know where that conclusion comes from)

No. It presumes knowledge of scripture.

Do CS Lewis, I guess. Mere Christianity. Or Chesterson's Orthodoxy.

>it's similar to how straussians talk about how they want a "return to classical philosophy" but then become evasive on what precisely this means, and if you say "well how does xyz answer to the critique of kant or heidegger let's say" they go "hahaha.. you poor man... you don't know just how much BETTER plato and aristotle are than kant....." but they won't just answer the fucking question, because they don't know, and they don't know that they don't know, because they're politically motivated midwits first and philosophers second (if at all)

This is true, except modernist-inclined philosophers are even worse with how they completely disregard older thought, and end up with similar-sounding excuses whenever confronted with any real question.

Anyone read pic related?

Attached: 615oD0M9jTL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (334x499, 48K)

Lots of things. Catholics have realist metaphysics and Protestants have nominalist metaphysics, which is a very significant difference that has bore out over the past 500 years.

Attached: 515ayjP11PL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 39K)

The Church will tiptoe around Genesis being historical, but the consensus of the Church Fathers constitutes dogmatic teaching. We will nonetheless have to weather the archheresy of modernism. Things like the book of Job may not be historical (don't quote me) but the books of the Pentateuch, Kings, Judges, Prophets, etc are all historical.

But how far does the historical accuracy go according to the Fathers? How does the Catholic balance a Garden of Eden and paleontology?

Read pic relatedIn order to understand Genesis you must first understand politics, philosophy, and science. That book addresses all those things and is quite a great resource, even if it is technically Orthodox.

Thank you for the insight user, I'll check it out

How do I learn Latin?

>The Bible (Douy-Rheims)
>Catechism of the Catholic Church
>Parts of the Summa Theologica (Specifically Part 1 and Part 3)

Apologetics:
>Handbook of Catholic Apologetics-Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli
>The Everlasting Man-Chesterton
>Orthodoxy-Chesterton
>Catholicism-Journey Into the Heart of the Faith- Robert Barron

Theology:
>Summa Theologica-St. Thomas Aquinas
>City of God-Augustine
>The Works of St. Anselm
>On the Incarnation-St. Athanasius
>Defense Against the Arians-St. Athanasius
>The Consolation of Philosophy-Boethius
>Pensees-Pascal
>Introduction to Christianity and Jesus of Nazareth Series by Joseph Ratzinger

Biography/Conversion works:
>The Confessions-St. Augustine
>Apologia Pro Vita Sua-John Henry Newman
>The Seven Storey Mountain-Thomas Merton

Historical/Sociological works:
>The Formation of Christendom-Christopher Dawson
>The Dividing of Christendom-Christopher Dawson
>History of the Catholic Church-James Hitchcock
>Keepers of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy

Literature:
> Shusaku Endo- Silence
>The Divine Comedy-Dante Alighieri
>The Works of Flannery O'Connor-Flannery O'Connor
>The Power and the Glory-Graham Greene
>Diary of a Country Priest-Georges Bernanos
>The Works of G.K. Chesterton
>The Moviegoer-Walker Percy
>Lancelot-Walker Percy
>The Lord of the Rings-J.R.R. Tolkien
>The Book of the New Sun-Gene Wolfe
>Brideshead Revisited-Evelyn Waugh
>The Canterbury Tales-Chaucer
>A Canticle for Liebowitz-Walter M. Miller
>Tears of the Prodigal Son- Ivan Gundilic

Mysticism:
>Collected writings of Meister Eckhart
>The Dark Night of the Soul-St. John of the Cross
>Collected Writings- St. John of the Cross
>The Interior Castle- St. Teresa of Avila
>Revelations of Divine Love- Julian of Norwich
>New Seeds of Contemplation- Thomas Merton
>No Man is an Island-Thomas Merton
>Thoughts in Solitude-Thomas Merton

Attached: 1544558410458.png (1180x590, 118K)

Go to a Latin Mass weekly and read pic related.
latinmassdir.org/
Great list user.

Attached: 71VW4OF3ukL.jpg (1144x1599, 170K)

This was posted a while back. I saved it because I planned on following it eventually.

Use Dowling Method
1-Read this wcdrutgers.net/Latin.htm
2-Complete the exercises this jonathanaquino.com/latin/ (this link can be found while reading the first one, but make sure to read everything on number one completely) Having number 7 can be helpful in explaining the shit you memorized. But make sure to memorize EVERYTHING here. If you don't know what accusative is, what a declension is, do consult #7 but don't skip this step. This is the hardest step but I would say it is a must. A lot of people underestimate how most of learning dead languages is just memorization.
3-Make sure to understand everything in #1
4-Make sure to that you memorized everything in #2
5-Memorize the most common 1000 words with their full grammatical properties here dcc.dickinson.edu/latin-vocabulary-list so don't memorize as: facio:do Memorize as: facio / facere / feci / factum: do - make - 3rd verb -o conjugation
6-Buy-download Lingua Latina Per Se illustrata, complete it
7-Buy-download Wheelock latest edition, complete it
Lingua Latina teaches you by reading Latin, and not explaining, Wheelock is more old fashioned with explanations. You should not pick one but use both.
8-Buy Learn to Read Latin by Yale Press. This book has a far more complex and far more extensive grammar, the exercise book is literally a fucking brick. Complete all the exercises there, no exceptions. Moreover you will only read actual Latin in the reading passages here. So no Latin constructed by modern teachers as in #6 and #7. Finish all exercises and do all the readings here

>it's another orthoLARPer falls for post-modernist re-interpretation of Church Fathers because he can't let go of his prot fetishism for "disproving Catholicism" episode

Attached: 1504549933140.jpg (330x281, 21K)

>not because they actually think thomism can overcome the modern aporia of post-critical, post-linguistic philosophy.

but it literally can, sweaty...heidegger didn't understand aquinas

whiteheadfag will love this

Attached: 60277_cov.jpg (430x648, 169K)

I'm only just now learning how indebted "Western Buddhism" is to Catholic mysticism, people truly are incapable of operating in different modes than the one they were raised in.

Attached: 1539805394830.jpg (640x640, 30K)

based Fr. Seraphim poster. Have a blessed day lads

Attached: seraphimrose085-2.jpg (1175x1600, 222K)

Church Slavonic was in use in Croatia and Bosnia and was an approved Catholic liturgical tongue alongside Latin

ctrl+ f "Gaston Fessard" 0

>was an approved Catholic liturgical tongue
is an approved Catholic liturgical tongue. There's a lot of Ukrainian catholics that kept the slavonic liturgy

del Noce in the 1960s single-handedly destroyed bourgeoise leftism, but you go on about how Catholic philosophers ain't shit because you're an ignorant buffoon who can't into thomism

What literature should I read for the Kabbalah takeover of Orthodoxy through hesychasm and the definitive burying of it through KGB Patriarchs during the soviet regime?

You'd have to explain away Jesus transubstantiating water into wine before the last supper and the last supper though to say they didn't believe in it. The transformation of bread and wine has been around longer than some of the church fathers, and the gospels usurp a lot of those anyways.

Who are the protestants that accept the real presence? Lutherans believe it's symbolic.

>Lutherans believe it's symbolic.
They don't, they believe in the real presence.

Has anyone read Qumran manoscripts? Are they based or cringe?

They're not really important unless your a Old Testament scholar and even then they only confirm what we already previously thought.

None of you are genuine, you're all fucking phonies who are into Catholicism for the aesthetics. Genuine believers wouldn't be on this god forsaken site. Furthermore it's one of the most morally rotten institutions

You don't have any clue what you're talking about. Jesus literally transformed water into wine. The water ceased to be water and became wine in every respect. That is not what Catholics claim happens with the Eucharist. The Catholic belief is that the bread and wine have two properties, known as substance and accidents. The substance is the "being" of the bread and wine, what it is, and the accidents are the physical qualities of the bread and wine. Transubstantiation teaches that the substance of the bread and wine changes but the accidents do not. The "being" of the bread and wine changes to flesh and blood, but the physical properties remain that of bread and wine.

Sadly, or suspiciously, pretty much everything that might've been game-changing is either illegible or lost.

>Genuine believers wouldn't be on this god forsaken site
Why? Christians have a tendency to jump into inhospitable places even at the risk of death.

>who are into Catholicism for the aesthetic
i got into this game purely because of it

Attached: e15649b582c98a3deb516b13a1e9d767_original.gif (680x400, 3.96M)

This. They come here and pretend they're Catholics and joke about burning heretics and flinging all sorts of abuse at Orthodox and Protestants. If they were actually a member of a parish (which they aren't) and their priest knew what they were doing it he would condemn it and tell them to repent and confess all of it.

Don't listen to this kook. Almost none of the OT is historical and it is not meant to read in a historical manner. The OT is riddled with contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and scientific errors.
>would anyone have some kind of recommendations for supplemental works?
I like Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns.

Sauce?

I'm not even Christian but the notion that real Christians would come here is retarded because Jesus commanded them to go out among the world and not lock themselves away. You have some funky ideas about what Christians are.

>aesthetics.

Watching divine inspiration at work is a good start IMO.

what game is it?

Attached: 1552261593887.jpg (1920x1200, 1.82M)

Nowhere in my post () did I condemn them for simply being here. I condemned them for the sinful behavior they openly engage in while they're here.

>not lock themselves away
I legitimately don't understand the point your trying to make here, are you implying "real Christians" have never adopted hermitage?

we are mostly ok with orthodox tho, we are ok with Tarkovsky , Tolstoi et al. Is just friendly banter.

Lutercucks on the other hand...

>I condemned them for the sinful behavior they openly engage in while they're here.
So, your argument is that Christians on Yea Forums behave like real life Christians and therefore can't be real Christians?

Attached: 1552803503693.png (741x337, 78K)

Go to a church and see how people there behave for once in your life.

I suspect he doesn't know the difference between Puritanism and Catholicism.

Absolutely embarrassing.

Blasphemous game. It has heavy spanish Catholicism elements.

Attached: blasphemous-2.jpg (1920x1080, 293K)

Literally what is the advantage of Catholicism over Evangelicalism? You can go to boring ass mass and listen to men in gold tell you about God, or you can go to an Evangelical tent and have an incredible, drug like experience in divine ecstasy along with catchy music, get lucky you might even get to handle the snakes

You can call Evangelicals stupid on the internet.

bad bait

Evangelicals are allergic to facts such as evolution, the bible not being inerrant, and the old testament being fiction.

Attached: 1569085945384.jpg (629x629, 52K)

It's not bait though, Catholics around the world are converting to Evangelicalism en masse for a reason. It can't JUST be satan or the US state department/CIA.

And heroin addicts are allergic to facts like how it's a waste of money and is likely going to give them an early death, doesn't make it any less blissful

For me, its mega church.

Attached: mega-church-1.jpg (2048x1362, 884K)

Attached: 1386790739839.jpg (743x743, 176K)

In other words Evangelicals believe Christian doctrine and Catholics don't.

>Go to Church
>Fr. YoungTrad homily on abortion recommended we confront abortion with placards and fists
>Susan, Vatican 2 flower child mentally composes a letter of complaint to Bishop Rainbow about YoungTrad implying Christians aren't peace-loving pacifists
>YoungTrad gets suspended outraging half of his flock who in protest start attending mass at another Church

Attached: 1561213265647.jpg (480x480, 20K)

>In other words Evangelicals believe Christian doctrine and Catholics don't.
The only people who understand Christian doctrine are Catholics, Anglicans, and Episcopalians.

Attached: 1566584157024.jpg (378x378, 31K)

Looks like the most thorough, modern edition is probably this:
amazon.com/dp/0879079029/
I haven't read it though, this is just my impression from looking into the matter a bit. If you don't want to spend as much I'm sure the translation you posted, or the edition in the Ancient Christian Writers series from the same publisher, is also fine.

>intro

Bruhhh are you kidding me? This book is incredibly heavy as it requires an understanding of the following

>neoplatonism
>a solid grasp of The Bible, if not then one beside you as you read since Augustine constantly references it
>development of the Church up to the time of Augustine
>Christian philosophy up to the time of Augustine
>Christian philosophy of today as Augustine says some things which the Church no longer believes
>understanding of Manichaeism (important to read up on this to fully understand Augustine's arguments since a lot of them were aimed at disproving this heresy)

This is NOT an introduction in any way. If you read it just as a biography you will miss most of the major themes of the work. For a beginner this book will take multiple months of study to understand fully.

Attached: ChampaigneAugustine1645-50 LACMA Web.jpg (800x599, 97K)

>Go to Church
>Find out the previous Priest died of AIDs
>Fr. BlackTrad has taken over and banned inclusive language and folk music, uses Latin and incense during mass and asks people to kneel while receiving like the archbishop asked etc.
>Parishioners start protesting the changes by interrupting mass with anti-slavery songs
Welcome to Church in 2019.

Oops, forgot the link: youtube.com/watch?v=JT3TD2nUclI

Attached: 1543269451525.jpg (1920x1080, 338K)

i said the same thing you did in another thread but they don't listen. i'm starting to think most of the people here don't actually read and just parrot recommendations.

Imagine being American. Lord have mercy.

How do you mean?
youtube.com/watch?v=phvpFNUx5Hg

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house
youtube.com/watch?v=YL9tmkBS9K0

Also Catholics do this as well
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal
>Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a spiritual movement within the Catholic Church that incorporates aspects of both Catholic and Charismatic Movement practice. It is influenced by some of the teachings of Protestantism and Pentecostalism...
>Parishes that practice charismatic worship usually hold prayer meetings outside of Mass and feature such gifts as prophecy, faith healing, and glossolalia. In Ann Arbor, Michigan, a Catholic church describes charismatic worship as "uplifted hands during songs and audible praying in tongues."

GET ME OUT OF THIS HELLHOLE

Attached: 1549340243520.jpg (930x1077, 112K)

Lads what do I do when I'm spiritually Catholic but basically none of my philosophical views are in line with the commonly accepted Church teachings? For example, I'm more Fideist than Thomist, find Heidegger more appealing than a strongly Platonist ontology, and generally find God's absence more philosophically important than God's omnipresence (aside from the undeniable ontological necessity of God, which I do not dispute). This isn't a small issue either since I'm a philosophy grad student shopping around papers for publication. My spiritual life and my professional life are one and the same, since I cannot enter into either dishonestly.

Follow God and follow your conscience to the best of your ability. There's no "true church" and there never has been.

You're describing consubstatiation, which is protestant and heretical. Catholicism teaches that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, which is what transubstation is. If you think that it's still physically bread and wine and just spiritual body and blood, then you're Lutheran.

You're wrong. If the SUBSTANCE changes to flesh and blood then that means it IS LITERALLY flesh and blood; it retains the physical properties of bread and wine but it is NOT bread and wine. You didn't understand what I said at all. Go read your own fucking catechism.

So you're a Jansenist?

No, stop trying to get the catechism to be translated through Aristotle, that, like Luther's theory that the appearance of them still being physically bread and wine was a physical fact and not merely appearance, is heresy. The catechism purposefully does not use the Aristotelian reasoning of substance and accident, most especially because the Real Presence precludes any accident to God's substance.

I'm trying user, thank you

My pessimism does not extend that far, no I am not.

Omnibus trips o.o

Kek ominous*
brb getting hit by a bus lads

I'm reading Kierkegaard and i have a hard time understanding him especially the part about despair which happens when you want to run away from yourself/be yourself as much as possible. I know im doing one of those but i get confused.

> finds Heidegger appealing
> ontological necessity of God is undeniable

lol what

I fail to see your point.

All right I need an expert: what is the most genuine book about christianity and Jesus Christ? I don't want books who were manipulated by the Church establishment, I want to read the most "untouched" book, bonus points if it hasn't dogmas like Mary was a virgin or Jesus was God because "trust me bro". Any suggestions?

If you think that the Godhood of Jesus is a manipulation by church establishment, my suggestion is that you re-read the Gospels.

Gospel of Thomas

Can someone give me a rundown on Francis Schaefer? My uncle (who's a very smart guy) gave me a couple of his books after we talked about religion, but I've never heard of him.
I'm Catholic myself but am interested because you never hear much about Evangelical theology (especially since 'evangelical' is vague in the first place) so it caught me off guard.

Attached: 757114.jpg (263x400, 18K)

What? that doesn't make any sense, the people who wrote down everything were already apart of the "Church establishment" before Christianity was considered a entirely separate religion from Judaism.

guys guys, I think I get it.

Is not about praying for an easy, happy life. Is about..overcoming the petty issues, having an insight of the bigger picture. ri-right?

>praying for an easy, happy life
this is what 5 year olds and Protestants think

>and it's time, and it's time fooor, for the time has come to, aaaseku, and aaasebo, and amushikila basitu
lmfao!

I don't get it

>praying
i admit that all my prayers are about gaining something for myself or others. im a bad person.

pls elaborate fren

Attached: 1568934642773.jpg (730x544, 207K)

No, its aboit algning yourself to God's will and turning your will towards doing his work.

Thy will be done.
You pray in order to achieve that.

I think he meant the earliest stuff, so I would recommend ACTUALLY reading the Gospels, the Sayings of the Desert Fathers too. In all honesty, I could see why the "Church" as an institution would be off putting.

Western Buddhists can't really invent new understandings or theory within the Buddhist tradition; they can only ad lib pre-existing teachings, when they inevitably try they either subconsciously rediscover Catholic mysticism or purposely attempt to syncretize it. The Dalai Lama has talked about this before, he believes that Westerners are simply incapable to ever truly understanding Buddhism.

"The Dark Night of the Soul" is the most commonly grifted Christian texts by western Buddhists, both "The Mind Illuminated" and Daniel Ingram both shamelessly rip of it.

I dont understand why would any westerner choose eastern tradition?

I can't speak to that specific book, but other volumes in that series have (i) first-rate translations, and (ii) an excellent introduction and annotations.

Two complimentary forces, Westerners particularly the political left have a extreme bias for the outgroup and a fetish for the exotic.

how is God ontologically necessary if you adhere to Heidegger?

Frank Sheed, Theology for Beginners
amazon.com/Theology-Beginners-Frank-Sheed/dp/1621641198

Sheed has another, longer book touching on similar things but from a broader perspective called Theology and Sanity. I believe that's also in print.

The earliest stuff teach Mary was a virgin and Jesus was God though.

God is part of the Earth, the Nothing, the unknowable, the metaphysical wellspring we can only partially apprehend at any given time. I don't see how this is a problem.

Also, you're overstating my position. I don't "adhere" to Heidegger in any orthodox sense, so much as I find his style of metaphysics more correct than the strictly regimented Thomistic/Aristotelian style.

>But what does "is" mean?

Is means is. The real question is what does "this" mean?

As for "ancient literature has a tendency to conflate," etc., that has little application in a context where the early Christians universally and unanimously distinguished between, e.g., "I am the door," and "This is my body," starting with Christ's own remarks, and the reaction to them, in John 6, Paul's remarks in Corinthians; Ignatius, etc.

(Cont) The Western understanding of Theravada Buddhism comes directly from interpreting it through the lens of Meister Eckhart rather than authentic Theravada teachings.

Heidegger's """God"""" is a finite God...I guess if you're cool with that. Not sure why you'd try to attach Christianity to it but grad school rots/cucks your brain so I can understand where you're coming from.

absolutely brainlet post. this is embarrassing

>The catechism purposefully does not use the Aristotelian reasoning of substance and accident, most especially because the Real Presence precludes any accident to God's substance.

Different user replying.

You've got it wrong.

The Cathechism simply using the word "transubstantiation" incorporates the Aristotelian reasoning of substance and accidents.

This post: gets it actually right.

Thus, you can get drunk on wine transubstantiated into the eucharistic species, because the "accidents" of the wine don't change; that which you can examine under a microscope.

>anglicans and episcopalians
hell no, i think you meant catholics, EO and OO.

kek women are the worst.

>The Cathechism simply using the word "transubstantiation" incorporates the Aristotelian reasoning of substance and accidents
Only the catechism has a definition of substance which is at odds with the Aristotelian version. Half of the scholastic period is basically "THIS IS NOT ARISTOTLE'S SENSE OF SUBSTANCE". The catechism specifies transubstantition is a total and Real transformation, and specifies that the Real Presence is "wholly and entirely" the presence of God. Lutherans admit the present physical accidents of intoxicating wine and carbs, and say they exist alongside the substantial presence of God, but for Catholics that is heresy like saying that the Trinity doesn't real or Mary just adopted Jesus.

I think Heidegger left the door a lot more open for an infinite God than people give him credit for, although he definitely didn't help the situation by using god ambiguously at times when referring to "finite heroic entity which will/should take the place of god for humanity".

Once again, I see no contradiction between his idea of a god/hero, which is neither necessary for his overall metaphysical picture nor even clearly the sole deity allowed by such a picture, and the immense presence of the Christian God within creation.

Is it ok to be a random guy visiting a Catholic mass? I am sure I can do it, but am I suppose to hit up the local preists or whatever?

There is a small catholic church in my city, and I would like to visit once. AFAIK, it is a really small church, and mostly immigrants (Eastern europeans, vietnamese, etc. This is in Norway).

If I go to their mass, what are some things I should know beforehand? I grew up Christian, so I got all that covered, but that was in a protestant free church.

where's the continuation?

Yea, just sit stand and kneel when everyone else does. You can either sit for communion and let people go by or you can cross your arms and get a blessing. Don't put out your hands for communion.

Yes, you can visit mass but It's really important not take the Eucharist.

>I think Heidegger left the door a lot more open for an infinite God than people give him credit for

indulge me

Right, because the eucharist is only for the baptised, yes?

No, the Eucharist is only for Catholics in good disposition, the reality is most of the people there shouldn't be receiving either but it's doubly important for non-Catholics not to partake (1 Cor. 11:29).

In a nutshell, when he talks about the Nothing or the Earth as the background of pure unknown against which our own world of ideas/projects stands out and incompletely captures, he makes it a point to say that there is literally no limit to the possibilities contained within it. It cannot be exhausted in any normal sense, we will never "know" it in its entirely. I see absolutely no reason that the ontological status of God cannot be folded into that which cannot be fully grasped since there is already plenty of precedence for this in various types of apophatic and fideist theologies. In fact, in his later writings, especially on aesthetics, he frequently points out that what is NOT said is as important (if not more so) than what is shown. The real stuff needs to be experienced rather than directly communicated. With just a slight bit of patience and connecting his early writings to his later, I tend to think he slipped an entire deity under the surface of his metaphysics, or at least allowed that there could be one. The "god" he refers to later is merely a tool to get people back in touch with authentic Being, which is to say, back in touch with possibility and the Nothing.

Heidegger was very interested in religion, spent time in seminary, he was no fool. Its not too much to think that this was intentional given the way he came to see his own writing in relation to his ideas.

You realize the Catholic threads on /pol/ had a resident priest right?

The picture that destroyed protestantism

Attached: IMG_20190923_011629.jpg (2048x1536, 296K)

not bad...i'll allow it

>destroyed
not really. technically they are schismatic Catholics, despite what their retarded mouths say.

The Ignatius Critical Edition has very explanatory footnotes, hence why I recommended that edition. But otherwise even with City of God from Penguin you'll have 100 pages of introduction to bring you up to speed on Augustine and the period.
Seek understanding from orthodox theologians. I'm afraid you're unlikely to find your answer here.
This is a false teaching and has never been the case. The apostles didn't even believe this.

>footnotes are enough to fully grasp Augustine

No, just no. I took a year long uni course on it and all I learned was how much it takes to fully grasp this work. Augustine was a genius without equal, he was truly divinely inspired. I really think you’re underselling the complexity of his work user. It is by no means an introduction, it is the goal.

read O'Connor

Attached: 18049830.jpg (312x475, 60K)

Favorite little known scholastic?
There are a lot of little well known dudes that are pretty big in retrospect.

Jacques Maritain, had a hand in drafting the Universal declaration of human rights

But "church" writers offer the most illuminating commentaries on the gospels and church fathers, which is why they are held in such high esteem today. I think too many people have this misconception that the most famous theologians and church doctors were a bunch of busybody lawmen when in reality they were deeply spiritual and so devoted to the faith they spent their lives defending it or teaching it. Obviously everyone studying Christianity ought to be deeply familiar with the whole of the bible and have a good basis of the church fathers but don't discount the immense effort of writers from later centuries.

Is there any difference between following Gods will and predestination?

Yes. You can oppose God's will, but predistination you cannot.

But maybe your opposal is predestination

Thanks.
Yeah that's what I meant.

there is no practical difference between free will and predestination you still 'feel' as if you have a choice.

So everything still runs by Gods plan?

if you follow God's will you are predestined towards his goodness.

how do i do that? I feel so lost in life

Its totally misunderstood Platonism. Just read Plato and his successors, no need to worship dead jews or think god is a jew.

Is this where /christian/ anons ended up? I miss my frens.

Attached: __toudou_shimako_maria_sama_ga_miteru_drawn_by_raafuru__b5aa24ff5c35e7bacd2d6b44404492e9.jpg (500x500, 74K)

Wasn't most of /christian/ protestant?

In the last few years it was Catholic central.

wait, what happened to /christian/? I haven't been on it since 8ch is now banned in Australia

They got unpersoned from the internet because somebody uploaded a shooters manuscript.

The entire site got taken down over a month ago. You can still access it through tor, but most users haven't done that.

/christian/ should be on the clearnet anyway. The busiest threads were prayer requests and group book readings, hardly controversial.

oh shit, i didn't know. For the Catholic anons who are genuinely interested, there is a discord chat for /christian/ and a telegram group as well. I know the discord one is good because it's properly moderated so all the /pol/tards who were claiming to be Catholic for the epic rad trad veiled qt3.14 gfs got kicked out. It's essentially just a big chat about theology and ecclesiology from what I hear.

Say the Lords prayer and mean it.

Ok, thanks. That's good to know.

Attached: __toudou_shimako_maria_sama_ga_miteru_drawn_by_asaga_aoi__39efbc0b03595914e1021c7338aced6a.jpg (822x994, 137K)

I honestly don't think so since their teachings are so out of line with what Catholicism promotes.

I have prayed the Holy Rosary every day for nearly a week now lads. I feel good, I am noticing my sins more.

Sorry you're a brainlet, then.
Ultimately, yes. There are of course deviations such as the fall but God is ultimately in control of the arc of time and there will be no end other than the one He has preordained.
Yeah it sucks I miss the board. It seems they're either here or /his/.
The only problem is discords are disorganized they're not as good as a proper forum where topics are segregated and organized by threads.
Keep at it you'll be surprised. Eventually you'll get to the dark night of the soul, but keep moving.

I wish i'd get a dream but that sounds good too.

>Eventually you'll get to the dark night of the soul

What do you mean user?

Why

>Sorry you're a brainlet, then.
Vanity is a sin user

Not that user but here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Night_of_the_Soul#In_Roman_Catholic_spirituality

Western occultists derived the notion of `crossing the abyss' from this.

Muhammad had been mingling with the Syrian Arians since childhood. He'd have a more than adequate understanding of the basic theology by adulthood, especially considering that the Qur'an is essentially a mishmash of the old and new testaments with various details omitted from both (indicating it had been hurriedly put together without much consideration) with Muhammad being acclaimed as the final prophet of God.

>Western occultists derived the notion of `crossing the abyss' from this.
I'm legitimately amazed at the influence of Christian mysticism, I'm reading a primer on "The Interior Castle" It seems like western occultists don't have a original bone in their body and have just been endlessly recycling Catholic texts.

Attached: 1561837392393.jpg (370x370, 43K)

Why does God allow Satan to exist? Why didn't he just snap him out when he rebelled?

Attached: 1505247328010.jpg (500x866, 76K)

I'm pretty sure Satan suffers in hell along with every other alul divorced from God

God allows Satan to influence humanity

>*Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran view of the Eucharist

Fixed that for you.

the matrix taking energy from human beings, is analogous to we "offering the bread and the wine"?, or what does it means to offer the wine and the bread?

You're asking the wrong question, God ain't chill with the whole annihilationism business; God is too loving, the Church Fathers prayed for Satan hoping he'll eventually repent.

Attached: 1555138023275.jpg (1280x1735, 578K)

It was my understanding that Satan is beyond repentance and God plans to eventually destroy him. Jesus didn't die for angels, he died for humans.

>Satan is beyond repentance
Weirdly, they also believed that too, they just really really hoped nobody was beyond repentance while acknowledging Satan probably is.

maybe he did already, we live in a "linear" timeline, I guess God is over that , something we can't really undrestand. In the book of revelations is a woman that kills the dragon (or going to kill).

So what's your point
Well yes God exists beyond time, regardless he still has control over Satan's influence and what occurs concurrently.

That woman is Mary, user, who hath crushed the head of the serpent through her fiat.

I've found God and want to be baptized Catholic, but I'm not sure about how to really begin practicing. Of course, I started reading King James, but I'm not sure of what exactly Catholics practice (the only religious influence I had was protestant, unfortunately, and it drove me to atheism). Any advice?

Also, recommend me books, too.

The catechism of the Catholic Church is a great place to start. After that read some of Pope Benedict XVI apologetics and novels. I personally recommend his book Intro to Christianity.

Begin by calling your local diocese and ask to sign up for RCIA. Then I would recommend getting a copy of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and a rosary. Familiarize yourself with the 3 main prayers, the Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be. The rest you will learn through RCIA and you should be able to get more information from the instructors. I hope you get an orthodox initiation, user. God bless you.

In addition to theses
if you really want to go full "Zeal of the convert"

Really pious Catholics pray the Liturgy of the Hours*.

*Most don't do the entire thing but a shortened version of it.

I'd start going to mass every sunday.
Sit behind and do as other people do, stand when they stand, sit when they sit and if at one point some people kneel and some don't, kneel.
After a few weeks you should be able to chant with everyone but don't get intimidated if at first you don't know what to say.
Also, you shouldn't take the body of christ unless you've confessed your sins and you are honestly sure that you are not in mortal sin.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
This is the catechism and it includes a lot of mortal sins. Rule of thumb is don't do anything that you couldn't do before the Pope but if you do and it's grave just confess. Look online for confession schedueles or just ask a priest before or after mass to confess
After a while you could start praying the rosary, with or without beads but I find it more complete with beads. It's like meditation and personally it does put me in a better mindset and mood after I've recited it.

>Rule of thumb is don't do anything that you couldn't do before the Pope
Going a little overboard senpai.

>confess
Yeah I figured I'd need to seek a priest and confess before I really did anything.

Don't you have to be baptised to accept the eucharist?

It's Catholic only.

If Catholics read the Bible they wouldn't be Catholic. It's as simple as that

Could you go into more detail on why you believe that? we need a good olde argument to keep the thread from burning out.

anyone ?

I don't understand what your asking. The Eucharist is a sacrifice, a offering of remembrance.

You could however push the analogy too far and claim the transfer of divine grace is analogous to the Matrix sustaining the life of human beings in those pods.

Wait we are talking about the films right?

Guys, I gave the fuck up on City of God. I got 700 pages in, and I couldn't take it anymore. Is Confessions any better? I'm taking a break from philosophy and reading Dante first though.

No wonder Jesus the hots for him.

Were you trying to power read through City of God like a novel?

He expelled him from heaven when he didn't think humans were a good idea. If/when he proves his hypothesis, God would consider us not him an abomination. Since that's apparently not happened, Satan and us are merely anomalous and the Divine Wrath doesn't need to be employed en masse as yet. Anomalies show God's toleration, while abominations are scrubbed from the face of the earth.
>too Catholic didn't understand: God isn't going to kill the devil for having a different opinion unless the devil is correct about humans.

Zarathustra > Jesus > Muhammad

Attached: zarathustra02.jpg (589x851, 177K)