/theology/

no, catholicism is cringe. Just read the Bible

Let me guess, there are seven books missing from your "bible"

The catechism is best used as a reference.

Catechism of St. Pius X

Depends on how much bullshit you want to read I guess.
This

you're a retard and you don't understand your own religion. just go to church and eat the crackers like everyone else.
>III. The Aim and Intended Readership of the Catechism
>This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".
>This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.

Agree you should read Catechism of the Council of Trent first. Why? It's laid out in a better way for learning. The CCC goes a bit topic by topic but not in a terribly organized way, whereas the CCoT is an explanation of the Apostles' Creed, the seven sacraments, the Ten Commandments/Decalogue, and the Lord's Prayer/Paternoster. So for a beginner it's a lot better compared to the more encyclopedic style of the CCC.
Anecdotally the CCoT was what my priest had my fellow catechumens and me use before being received into the Church.
Also the version in the image is the one I used and recommend you do too; other translations are so-so but that one is good.

The Catechism isn't Theology. The Catechism is basically a manual for Christians.

>Catholicism
>changed
We aren't Protestants boy.

Catechism. Read until you cant stand to read anymore, then go back and look up the footnotes and wikipedia articles for terms you didn't understand. I recommend you start by carefully reading and understanding the following terms:

essence substance accident
cardinal virtue
theological virtue
real presence
Eucharist

You should absolutely make familiarity with the gospels and with the first five books of the old testament your priority.

St Gallen Mafia by Maloni

What outlines Catholicism as a better branch of Christianity compared to Orthodox or Protestant?

This is a fair point. It teaches the basics but also answers many questions succinctly, kind of like a FAQ. OP still should not neglect the scriptures however. Without them the catechism is just a bunch of claims.

Dont listen to hyperscrupulous tradlarpers. The 1992 catechism contains the current doctrine. Whether it contains errors is not for the neophyte to discern. Dont be misled, trust the Holy Spirit who's imprimatur is on the council and the authority of the popes to bind and loose on earth. Jesus commanded this.

Not that user but it was founded by Jesus. Prots are schismatics who willfully ignore their own roots and orthodox are fine they're just the result of a political schism and mutual excommunications. All of their rites and sacraments are valid. Prots are not.

Attached: 1568681985037.jpg (1280x734, 202.99K)

Protties are a disease

I recently read Philo of Alexandrias take on genesis. It was really good

By that standard aren't there books missing from the catholic Bible since Ethiopian church has more?

>someone takes the Bible literally
Wow how awful. I don't know why
>Thy word is true from the beginning: And every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Psalm 119:160

>Origen
Didn't he lop off his weiner?

Origen is based. Hans urs Balthasars Spirit and Fire is a great collection if you want to read more of him.

That Psalm does not support a totally literal interpretation of the Bible...

That just makes him more based

God's word is called the truth throughout the Bible.
As such it easy to see why some take every single peace as being literal
I'm also inclined to take garden of eden literally as well as metaphorically and I think to deny either interpretation is foolish

>Origen
>Catholic
>the same Origen who was anathematized by a Catholic ecumenical council
ISHYGDDT

I actually converted to Catholicism mainly through Summa Theologica (great theology resource) even though his Summa contra Gentiles was written for converting (I haven't read it yet).

>God's word is called the truth throughout the Bible.
Correct, now listen to that Bible that gave the Church authority to decide that a completely literal interpretation is wrong. Even St. Paul says that. lol

>As such it easy to see why some take every single peace as being literal
Protestantism isn't Christianity. The Catholic Church have approved interpretations of the Bible by different Popes, Saints, Theologians, etc. Please, buy an Annotated Bible approved by the Catholic Church that has the interpretations, not a Protestant "Bible".

Origen is fine, it's just a meme to diss protestantism, if you don't like him see the interpretation of Saint Augustine and Saint John Chrysostom that are approved by the Catholic Church.

The thing that makes Origen the most based is that he was a heretic condemned by the catholic church and you larpers still promote him.

Origen wasn't a heretic. The condemnation of "Origenism" ironically enough only targets positions Origen himself never held. Also Origens commentary was used and considered authoritative all the way up to the renaissance which would make it a bit weird if all Eastern and Western clergy were learning biblical exegesis from the writings of a condemned heretic.

>Church burns his condemned writings.
>"He never actually held those positions. It's nowhere in the books he wrote"
Holy cope.

>Burns all his "condemnes" writings
>Keeps using his commentary with all his theological views as the standard for centuries afterward
What did they mean by this. Even Palamas cites Origen as an authority.

You've never even read Origen so don't pretend you actually know what his positions were, LARPer.

Why are you putting condemned in quotes exactly? His heretical writings are condemned with dogmatic authority. Disputing this makes you anathema.

Also don't be dense. Of course they kept whatever they could salvage as orthodox. He was one of the greatest theologians and most widely known church fathers it would be stupid to throw away all his work and clout.

>His heretical writings are condemned with dogmatic authority
Which ones? What for? His name isn't even in the documents ratified by the Pope and were a later interpolation. It doesn't matter what the council says if Origen didn't believe what they were condemning, and it's very clear that he didn't. It would be like if a modern council was called to condemn Athanasius for being a homosexual. You would be on the side claiming it's obvious Athanasius is now a heretic while I'd be saying it's retarded because Athanasius was clearly not what he was condemned for. In both cases I'm right, you're wrong.

Condemnations mean nothing if the accusations are false and we know beyond a shadow of a doubt these days that they were.

true doesn't mean literal (unless you're autistic, in which case religion is always gonna be a struggle for you)

Im not a catholic

>read a Bible with bad additions by people you've never heard of who twist scripture
I think that's true of every study bible to some extent user

Wrong, all non-catholic "bibles" are heretic in nature, simple as

>he takes the opinions of of robe wearing gay weirdos seriously

You are incorrect. What is disputed is whether 15 additional articles that attack positions Origen was purported to hold were originally part of the canons of the Second Council of Constantinople or not. There is no disputing Origen himself was condemned at Constantinople II:
>If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.
newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm
Origen himself was targeted and anathematized; you are repeating a myth.
What do you mean "even" Palamas? Gregory Palamas is hardly a source to uphold as notable or authoritative considering he was a schismatic and at the very least a heretic, although it could credibly be argued he was not a Christian at all since his theology is ultimately ditheistic.

>The bishops drew up a list of anathemata against the heretical teachings contained within The Three Chapters and those associated with them. In the official text of the eleventh anathema, Origen is condemned as a Christological heretic, but Origen's name does not appear at all in the Homonoia, the first draft of the anathemata issued by the imperial chancery, nor does it appear in the version of the conciliar proceedings that was eventually signed by Pope Vigillius, a long time afterwards. These discrepancies may indicate that Origen's name may have been retrospectively inserted into the text after the council. Some authorities believe these anathemata belong to an earlier local synod. Even if Origen's name did appear in the original text of the anathema, the teachings attributed to Origen that are condemned in the anathema were actually the ideas of later Origenists, which had very little grounding in anything Origen had actually written
The Council erred, simple as that. They condemned Origen on false charges and hearsay which we now know to be false.

>Origen himself was targeted and anathematized
For something he never said or wrote. If a council anathematized Aquinas for being a pantheist I hope you'd have enough sense to recognize the anathema is not in effect since Aquinas was objectively NOT a pantheist.

Bit of background;
I was confirmed on Easter Saturday at 20 years old; I had been baptised, but I had a falling out with religion (yes, I was literally one of those ‘I f*cking love science’ communists at 10 years old that actively went out of his way to persecute Christians). Later I got pissed off I couldn’t say nigger in school so I became libertarian. Then at 15, I set aside contrarianism upon realising the troubles in this world as National Socialist (which I remain) and thought much on the foundation of the Ideal Republic, leading me to Objective Morality. The apex of such pondering drove me to the conclusion that a just society cannot exist without the Christian God, an all-knowing, all-loving, perfect judge who is unaccountable to anyone but himself and thus not fallible to the inconsistencies of Man and is rooted in the Abstract, having a visible effect but who’s self ipso facto is not, which requires faith in not unlike other intangible concepts - yet men are tangible to them - like the Law, Trust, Truth, Honour, Love. All of which is unaffordable to the ‘ethics’ of Tabula Rasa Materialism, Egocentric Empiricism (I think therefore I am instead of I am therefore I think), or the most repugnant moral Relativism. Jesus is the perfect Man, who - yet simultaneously fully God - anyone can strive towards.
I want to know as much as I can before evangelising.
>It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God.
Yes, I’ve concluded my last reading of the NT by Lent. Is there cause for your disdain?
Cheers.
Tell us your experience, friend.

As a National Socialist*

Thanks user, looks interesting

>i set aside contrarianism
>as a national socialist (which I remain)

>read a Bible with bad additions
(?)

>by people you've never heard of who twist scripture
Do the Church Fathers, the Popes (for Catholics) and Theologians considered Saints in almost every single Protestant denomination and in Catholicism are people Christian have never heard of? Do you even know why can you have a Bible right now? Explain to me how the commentaries of the Church Fathers "twist" Scripture?

Y E S

Many people don’t have any beliefs at all, but just attack others’ out of spite.
If there were to be no ‘enemy’, who would they attack? They would have to make one.
You can see this with anyone who votes either red team blue team - their identity is predicated on their opponents, not their own socio-cultural development.

>he takes the opinions a of robe wearing fat german weirdo seriously

Read the Westminster Shorter Catechism first.

Attached: 424CBFBF-B0EA-44C9-BDA8-141966F20290.jpg (4031x1745, 1.3M)