Catholic /lit/ General

>>9332429
>tfw I can pay my way out of hell

Haven't read the first two, I'll have to check it out. Evelyn Waugh is an under appreciated Catholic writer. His comic novels are hilarious, and brideshead is essential Catholic reading too. Also, I never see anyone mentioning walker Percy around here. He's the type of Catholic writer that I think general /lit/ might like

>>9332446
>walker Percy

Why don't you tell us more about him, then, friend?

sigrid undset

File: a_canticle_for_leibowitz.large_.jpg.png (201KB, 255x429px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 255x429px

>>9332429
Not catholic but currently halfway through this book.

File: Heh.jpg (63KB, 1002x750px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1002x750px

>>9332437
Feels good man.

>>9332448
Southern Catholic writer, mostly preoccupied with existentialism. His debut novel The Moviegoer won the national book award. He has an interesting biography in that both of his parents committed suicide. His books reflect a world where suicide is a real option, but not in the edge lord hollebeq nihilist way. He was not a particularly strong writer in terms of aesthetic achievement, but his books are a sort of Catholic response to Sartre and Camus, however the Catholic nature of his books is often found in the background or between the lines. The moviegoer, the last gentleman, love in the ruins, and Lancelot are worth checking out in that order -- though the moviegoer is a bit dry. He also wrote a non fiction book Lost in the Cosmos which is part satire of self help books, part essay on existentialism and semiotics.

>>9332429
Morte d' Urban was a fun read. A worldly Chicago priest is assigned to a run down retreat in rural Minnesota. I know a comedy about priests is a tough sell on 4chan but it is funny and well written.

>>9333829
Also there's a chance that Cormac McCarthy had The Last Gentleman in mind while writing Suttree. There is a character in TLG named Sutter who has run away from life and shares the same philosophy as McCarthy's Sut.

>>9333794
Just finished that about a week ago. Good stuff. The first section is the best. I feel like it doesn't get heavy with the Catholic themes until the last section.

>>9332429
The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.'

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

What did he mean by this?

File: 1450152106643.jpg (133KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 600x600px

Did somebody say Catholicism?

Why not Catho/lit/?

>>9334022

A fig tree is a traditional symbol for Israel. "Fruit" in the gospels often symbolize things like grace, true belief or repentance and stuff like that and the story is stressing that Israel is not bearing good fruit, that it's not in season. Jesus then says "May no one ever eat fruit from you again," meaning we shouldn't follow Israels example. Jesus cursing the tree, and the tree withering could be seen as a prophecy of doom for Israel and I think it points forward to the crucifixion.

>>9332429
The Name of the Rose never gets mentioned in Catholic lit threads even though church history is a major part of the novel.

File: o-JRR-TOLKIEN-facebook.jpg (314KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 2000x1000px

>>9334045
Indeed.

>>9334707
You're on to something there, anon.

What's the best translation of the Divine Comedy? I think I'm finally going to try an tackle it.

>>9335935
>tackle it

it's quite easy reading

>>9335935
there's a chart floating around somewhere

>>9332429

>Shusaku Endo writes about how God exists to suffer with humanity
>Graham Greene was a "Catholic athiest" who cheated on his wife
>Flannery O'Connor wrote edgy southern gothic
>Augustine literally wrote "confessions" of his sins

Why are Catholic writers so fucked up?

ALL CATHOLICS MUST FUCKING HANG

>>9335935
i believe the everyman library edition is the best

>>9336167
>hang
>not be crucified

ffs anon

Have you all read Nietszche? How do you reconcile his criticisms of Christianity with your beliefs?

>>9336180
meh.

>>9336163
Papal Infallibility and Transubstantiation are such bullshit as to invite constant crises of faith.

>>9336304

No I never heard of him. What criticisms did he have?

File: Transfiguration-of-Jesus-greek-icon.jpg (217KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1600x1062px

>>9336304
I can't think of a single criticism of Nietzsche's that doesn't hinge on atheism being correct.

The whole reason God could ever be dead, and Christians could ever be reviled for servility, is if God doesn't exist. If he does exist, and certainly if Christianity is true, then Christians are justly reverent and obedient to him, and he's not only not dead culturally, but sooner or later he's going to ruin the day of everyone who presumes he's not around.

All men answer to the Almighty sooner or later.

>>9335942
It's light reading like Shakespeare is, superficiallt.

File: 37c87be8bc7b2bcaffa47ba0383fc094.jpg (285KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 2000x1000px

>Catholic
not going full monism and heresy tier desu
>Plotinus, Enneads
>Nag Hammadi
>Origen
>Tertullian
It's like you want to stay on this ecumenical shit that is Roman Catholic Church.

>>9336370
>If he does exist, and certainly if Christianity is true, then Christians are justly reverent and obedient to him

At the risk of sounding too edgy for theist tastes: why is this so? (assuming your 'justly' refers not merely to being justified in being reverent and obedient, but to the idea that it is the right thing to do).

File: 2Q==.jpg (6KB, 228x152px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 228x152px

>>9336406
>tfw complete historical-critical heretic

g'bye faith

>>9335935
Ciardi is good

>>9335208
Why would we mention an anti-Catholic book in a thread about Catholic literature?

>>9336408
Because if Christianity is true, God is all-good. Christ tells us that God has provided a place for us if we accept him, and that he loves us despite anything we may do. According to Jesus, God is the ultimate good, which is why it's so easy to identify him with the Form of the Good in Platonism. He's the source of all goodness, and therefore if one wants to be good one should devote oneself to God.

>>9336163
Do you mean "why do Catholic authors often explore the issues of sin and suffering, two of the most constant and puzzling aspects of the human condition"?

>>9336547
Why dont individuals who explore suffering take Job at face value? IE, im G-d, shut the fuck up...

>>9332429
the bible is good

>>9336562
Not for Catholics

Take Matthew 5:33-37 vs the Nicene Creed

>>9336163
>protestant wonders why his denomination never writes good books

>>9336304
his criticisms of Christianity are the criticisms you can level against scientism and fedora atheism (which he also makes). people need to believe in something, but it doesn't have to be nihilistic and absolutist. a lot of catholics lapsed because they object to the nihilism and didndonuthin of the church as an institution, but still believe in a spiritual progression, which can lead to a transvaluation of values equal to what Nietzsche describes in terms of the overman.

Nietzsche would be abhorred that people would use him as a new prescribed method, and if you tried to bar someone from reconciliation merely by categorising them as a religion, since he's tsundere as fuck about all religion and religious rhetoric. most Catholics are basically born into it and reconciling that with the formation of your values and continued belief despite the institutional problems is kind of an act of amor fati. i think Nietzsche would like people resolved to go to hell on matters of principle.

File: 1490200324808.jpg (134KB, 653x1024px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 653x1024px

What's some essential literature on Catholicism and the Catholic church? I was raised in a Catholic family but was an atheist through most of my life, I recently rediscovered the church but I know very little about the structure, the mysteries, and such. A history of the church would be best too.

>>9336565

What's the problem with the Nicene Creed?

is walker percy good or bad

>>9336686

These are the books I find most useful because I'm always rereading or referencing them.

The Fullness of Truth by James Seghers
The Spirit of Catholicism by Karl Adam
Hard Sayings and Answering Atheism by Trent Horn
A Pocket Guide to the Bible by Scott Hahn
The History of the Church by Eusebius
The Last superstition and Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide by Edward Feser

>>9336618
But any sincere Christian would be horrified at someone who wanted to go to Hell for whatever reason, because they would know something of the terror and torment of Hell and wouldn't want to see anyone in it, even their worst enemies.

>>9336833

Sure, it's preferable that nobody go to hell but the reality of the world is that some people are going to reject God. That's what hell is, the absence of God and because God loves us he gives us the choice to not spend eternity with him if we don't want to.

>>9336698
good

>>9336304
He isn't criticizing Christianity, he's criticizing a communal circlejerk that is completely divorced from Christianity in everything but name. He equates Christianity to Platonism because it has permeated European culture dogmatically. The fact that Christianity developed its theology from Platonism is just a side point.

Some millionaire airhead that fucks a dozen guys a week, smokes weed among other things, has absolutely no faith and probably couldn't differentiate any book of the Bible from a secular book other than Harry Potter, the Hunger Games, the Divergent series, the series that fat man wrote, and 50 Shades, something something etc, is not Christian by anything but name.
Would you say a woman that sucks a dick and smokes a joint before going to church because it means her grandparents will include her in their will is a Christian?
>>9336370
God is dead because God cannot even be said to exist without committing heresy. When one speaks of God truthfully, they are left speechless.

>>9336618
What do you mean by your last sentence?

>>9336734
Thanks anon-kun

>>9336547
>human condition
Fuck off

>>9336686

"The Everlasting Man" -G.K. Chesterton

"Confessions" -St. Augustine

"The Consolation of Philosophy" -Boethius

"The Christian Idea of Man" -Josef Pieper

"Europe and the Faith" -Hilaire Belloc

"Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church" -H.W. Crocker III

Poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins

"The End of the Affair" -Graham Greene

>>9336163
Because the primary focus of Catholicism is sin and suffering. Self sacrifice and guilt have become so fetishized in Catholic scholarly culture that it dominates most non-biblical literature.

>>9336547
You mean like when Jesus became man in order to tell us to stop whining about suffering?

>>9337050

Fuck, meant to reply to >>9336561

>>9336947
>only real christians
get a load of this guy

File: 1490938230836.jpg (23KB, 352x482px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 352x482px

>>9336167

>>9336698
bad

File: Screenshot_20170404-210400.jpg (499KB, 1402x1961px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1402x1961px

>>9337045
>>9336734
Is this book any good?

Also, where to start with Augustine, I already have City of God but it looks very dense and pragmatic, not sure if I'm ready to tackle it.

I want to get this straight, the proof that Jesus is God's son is that he did miracle's right?
Also, in Christianity, is there any other proof for God other than prophets and miracles?
Not to imply those wouldn't count as proof, I'm just wondering if there is more.

>>9337743
Also excluding the teleological and Aquinas' five arguments, since those are not specifically Christian.

>>9337743
>Not to imply those wouldn't count as proof, I'm just wondering if there is more.

The existence of the Jews.

>>9337758
How so?

File: IMG_0082.jpg (473KB, 1784x1024px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 1784x1024px

>>9336406
Oh Origen is so good desu

>>9337540
>Also, where to start with Augustine, I already have City of God but it looks very dense and pragmatic, not sure if I'm ready to tackle it.
read the basic works of Plato (euthyphro, apology, crito, meno, phaedo, symposium, and timaeus) and you'll be good to go

its very accessible, just long, and the earlier books (2-8) can be a bit discouraging because theyre all about pagan civic religion.

also im assuming youve read the bible when i say this

>>9337743
The proof within Christianity is the resurrection

>>9337770
Well shit. I've read Plato but I'm only partway through Exodus in the NOAB. I guess I'll push City of God back, then. Thanks.

File: St Athanasius the Great 1.jpg (44KB, 304x400px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 304x400px

>>9336947
>God is dead because God cannot even be said to exist without committing heresy. When one speaks of God truthfully, they are left speechless.


But we have revelation. We know God is real because he's told us. We also know certain things about him because he's told us, and we've been able to extrapolate certain other things about him by taking the things he's told us and applying our reason to it.

>>9337743
>proof
Fuck off to reddit

>>9337854
That's still giving qualities to God.
>extrapolate
>reason
Why do you dopes think this is somehow divine? It's foul.

>>9337872
How is it giving qualities to God? It's God giving qualities to himself.

Many beliefs that protestants hold rest solely on tradition and not the bible, for example:

-The determination of which books belong in the bible.
-The sanctity of human life from the moment of conception.
-The belief that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.
-Switching of the Lord's day, the Sabbath, from Saturday to Sunday.
-The prohibition against polygamy, which Martin Luther approved: "I confess," Luther wrote, "that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the scripture."

Putting aside the fact that this contradicts sola scriptura, how do protestants select which traditional beliefs to accept and which ones to disregard?

>>9339036
>The determination of which books belong in the bible.
The canon itself is not inscribed in the verses of Scripture, sure, but it doesn't rest on Catholic tradition either, because they get rid of the apocrypha. And the Jewish and Christian canons for each of the two Testaments were closed well before the word pope began being used exclusively for the bishop of Rome in the 5th century.

The canon is kept in the Protestant confessions of faith because the goal is to reform, not to reinvent.
>The sanctity of human life from the moment of conception.
Let the children come to me, Gen 9:6, Jer 1:5.
>The belief that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.
It's simply because everybody after is fallible, case in point the "aerial toll houses" that you can find in patrology, the one example of an actual extra-Biblical "apostolic" tradition, but isn't followed by Catholics either, only a select few Orthodox care for it that doctrine this point.
>Switching of the Lord's day, the Sabbath, from Saturday to Sunday.
Christians all over the place are just following Col 2:16–17 and Acts 20:7
>The prohibition against polygamy, which Martin Luther approved: "I confess," Luther wrote, "that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the scripture."
Jesus said one flesh, not one flesh and a half. Lutheran theology is not Scripture nor infallible, he isn't followed even by Lutherans today, just ask them about their views on predestination.
>how do protestants select which traditional beliefs to accept and which ones to disregard?
By testing them against the Bible and leaving neoplatonism, Aristotle, patrology alone.

No wonder these threads never suggest one should read the Bible or even the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

>>9339187

>The canon itself is not inscribed in the verses of Scripture, sure, but it doesn't rest on Catholic tradition either, because they get rid of the apocrypha. And the Jewish and Christian canons for each of the two Testaments were closed well before the word pope began being used exclusively for the bishop of Rome in the 5th century.

What do you mean when you say Catholics got rid of the apocrypha[ha/deuterocanonicalbooks? They're still in the bible and were removed by protestants in the 16th(?) century. I agree that the word pope came much later but it's merely a word to describe an office or role in the kingdom as described in Isaiah 22.

How do you know the canon for scripture is closed? Before the bible became what it is today there were over 70 gospels that were seriously considered for the New Testament. Without the magisterium to declare the canon closed how would a protestant argue against adding books to the bible? You would have to invoke tradition but this contradicts the "bible alone" doctrine.

>>9333794
>read aCfL
>start autistically categorising and buying books

>>9339221
>What do you mean when you say Catholics got rid of the apocrypha[ha/deuterocanonicalbooks?
The "they" that "got rid of the apocrypha" in my previous post refers to the Protestants. That said the Catholic canon does have less OT books than the Orthodox, for example.

The OT authority for the Protestant canon are the Hebrew writers and speakers. The word "apocrypha" comes from the prologues of Jerome, the very man that gave the Latin world the Bible after the Vetus Latina, who knew Hebrew and was in contact with churches that also knew it. Unsurprisingly this canon is coincident with the TaNaKh or Hebrew Bible.

>What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us
This and other Greek crap was added by the Catholics, not removed by the Protestants.

>How do you know the canon for scripture is closed? Before the bible became what it is today there were over 70 gospels that were seriously considered for the New Testament.
By listening to the historians of the Church and the Bible, instead of Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code. Find me a Chruch Father that quotes from these seventy gospels as Scripture, will you?

The NT canon of exactly 27 books goes all the way back to Athanasius, if not even Origen - another guy who could read Hebrew. Augustine himself also declared the canon closed. Finished. Done. The Church in the East had a problem with Revelation for another century or so, but we don't care.

There's a reason the New Testament is the best preserved book in all of antiquity and the gnostic "gospels" are not.

>>9339282

The historical evidence is overwhelming that the scriptures of the first Christian centuries was the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonical books. It was well into the third century when Jewish rabbis started rejecting these books as part of the Jewish canon.

The noted protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly affirms that the Christian church of the first two centuries accepted the deuterocanonicals as inspired, and the Baptist scholar Lee MacDonald affirms that there is no evidence to support the idea that the Jews had a different canon from the Septuagint between the period of the second century BC to the second century AD. The Septuagint was widely used by Jews throughout the Roman Empire, and it was also commonly used in Israel. This explains why its use spread with amazing rapidity among Christians even where the Hebrew texts were available. All the evidence points to the fact that the scriptures for the early Christians were "the same widely diverse body of scriptures that were considered inspired and therefore authoritative by Pharisaic Judaism or the various Jewish sects that existed before the separation of the church from the synagogue."

The recognition of the inspiration of the books that make up the NT and their acceptance on a par with the OT developed gradually. The Catholic church needed to sift through more than 50 Gospels, 22 Acts and many other writings during the gradual process of determining which Christian writings should be included in the NT. This process was completed by a decree of Pope St. Damasus O in 383, and confirmed at the councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 and 419. Subsequently, the councils of Second Nicea in 787, Florence in 1441, and Trent in 1546 approved the identical canon of the bible that Catholics still recognize today as divinely inspired. The Church made this determination by drawing on sacred tradition.

In the 16th century, Luther rejected the seven books that comprise the deuterocanonicals together with parts of Daniel and Esther. He did so because they contained passages that disagreed with his theology. Luther claimed that all matters of faith and practice were based on the bible alone, but the bible never gave Luther the authority to determine the books that belong in the bible. Luther also questioned "Whether James was in fact scripture: along with Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He referred to Jude as a "superfluous document" and claimed that Revelation "lacks everything that I hold as apostolic or prophetic."

In rejecting the canon of the bible that was accepted by Christians for over one thousand years, Luther wrenched sacred scripture from the certain foundation upon which they had been established, namely, the infallible authority of the Catholic church.

>>9339355
>>9339282

Since protestants teach that the bible alone is their ultimate authority, each book of the bible has a cloud of suspicion hanging over it because the bible does not have an infallible table of contents that lists the books that are divinely inspired and, therefore, should be included in it. If, as Luther taught and protestants believe, the Catholic church was wrong about the deuterocanonicals, isn't it reasonable to suspect from that perspective that the Catholic church made other errors? Perhaps other books should be rejected from the bible?

>>9339355
>the scriptures of the first Christian centuries was the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint
It doesn't explain why the Gospels, for example Matthew, would occasionally quote the (proto-)Masoretic Text instead of systematically always agreeing with the reading from the LXX. For example in 2:15 and 2:18. Again, proven wrong by the text of the Bible itself.

>there is no evidence to support the idea that the Jews had a different canon from the Septuagint
I just gave you the quote from Jerome. Duh.

Would you at least listen to your saints, once in a while?

>This process was completed by a decree of Pope St. Damasus O in 383, and confirmed at the councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 and 419.
I told you it was Athanasius, already calling it a canon.

>In rejecting the canon of the bible that was accepted by Christians for over one thousand years
That's my point, yes. The NT canon was already there, long before Trent.

>isn't it reasonable to suspect from that perspective that the Catholic church made other errors?
The historical authority is not Luther, it's Jerome and others in the 3rd to 4th century, that could read Hebrew without the need for a translation, and were looking for the "Hebraica Veritas" as Jerome called it.

Today, the OTs of the latest Catholic Bibles are translated not from Greek or Latin, but from Hebrew and Aramaic whenever possible.

>>9339442
>for example Matthew, would occasionally quote the (proto-)Masoretic Text instead of systematically always agreeing with the reading from the LXX. For example in 2:15 and 2:18

Assuming Matthew did use the Hebrew text what does that prove? It doesn't say anything to what books were canon especially when you consider the historical evidence that the Jews accepted the same canon that the Septuagint used. Your logic is tenuous in this matter because you're operating under the false assumption that the Hebrew canon then is the same as it is today when all historical evidence suggests that this was not so, but instead that the Hebrew canon was exactly the same as that in the Septuagint in the first and second century. You make another assumption that because Matthew used one over another that means he "disagreed" with the other despite no evidence to support it. It is pure conjecture on your part.

>>9337540

I can't tell you anything about the book itself since I haven't read it but I do know Diarmaid MacCulloch has a bit of an anti-Catholic bias, so at least be aware of that while reading it.

>>9339492
>Assuming Matthew did use the Hebrew text what does that prove?
That the LXX isn't "the Scriptures", it's just a translation, and when given the opportunity New Testament writers would go for the Hebrew.

The LXX is not the Old Testament of the Catholics either, because it contains the 3rd and 4th books of the Maccabees, and they aren't in the Catholic canon.

>the Jews accepted the same canon that the Septuagint used
No. The apocrypha are called that way because the Jews copy and transmit the TaNaKh and do not copy the Greek books. Jerome calls in the prologue to his edition of the Vulgate and in his letters to go with the Hebrew precisely because that's what the Jews, and the churches in contat with him for that matter, are doing. This is the very circumstance the word apocrypha came to designate that. They're hidden books, hidden away from the canon. Listen. To. Him.

Not all Hellenistic Jews could read Hebrew, of course, this is true for all of the Jewish diaspora through the ages, but no Jew ever goes for a translation disregarding the original if he can read the latter, and this was true for Christians too, such Jerome, Origen and all Biblical translators, including today's Catholics.

>You make another assumption that because Matthew used one over another that means he "disagreed" with the other despite no evidence to support it.
I'm using the word "disagree" as Biblical scholars use it. The LXX says one thing, the (proto-)Masoretic Text another, the Gospel writer quoting the OT goes with one and not the other.

>>9339876

You're talking past me. The conversation is about which books belong in the bible, not which translations are the best, or which translations were commonly used because it's ultimately irrelevant. It would have been perfectly acceptable for early Christians to use either the Hebrew or the Septuagint because the canon was the same at the time, and both of the canons included the 7 deuterocanonical books and were considered inspired by both Jews and Christians in the first and second centuries. I've given you two prominent protestant sources that affirm this, J.N.D. Kelly and Lee MacDonald.

You seem to be using the word apocrypha as evidence in itself that the books shouldn't be in the bible. This is a circular argument because you name the books apocrypha and then you reject the books for being called apocrypha. You can call them whatever you want but this doesn't change the fact that first and second century Jews and Christians accepted these books as inspired regardless of what translation they preferred.

>>9339036
>-The prohibition against polygamy,
Adam and Eve not Adam, Eve, and Janet.

>>9340091

I understand this argument, that because God in the beginning only made Adam and Eve, that this was the ideal way that man and woman should relate to each other. It's reasonable until you ask why God would later allow or permit polygamy among the Jews. If polygamy is intrinsically disordered or immoral then how could an all-good God explicitly permit it at any point in salvation history?

>>9340125
Jews had a different culture and they needed polygamy for their society to function.

It means the possibility of more sons even after one's wife is past child-bearing years.

>>9339974
>you name the books apocrypha
My name is not Jerome.

>you reject the books for being called apocrypha
I reject them because Jews and Christians reject them, and Jerome was ordered to put them into the Vulgate against his will and their input. A historical mistake that Protestants sought to reform. I, like him, go for the Hebraica Veritas.

>You're talking past me.
No, you're just too Catholic.

>>9340159

I agree, you hit the head on the nail. Polygamy is not inherently disordered or immoral because there are certain circumstances where it could be morally acceptable. This explains why God could allow it.

The reason it was important to point this is out is because when you use the Genesis argument to support the idea that polygamy is bad or shouldn't be accepted you're setting the standard for the way men and women should relate to each other, which would automatically make any deviation from that intrinsically disordered. By invoking Adam and Eve as an argument against polygamy you create a problem of evil where God is encouraging people to commit evil acts so I think it's reasonable to conclude that you were reading into scripture something that isn't there.

>>9340199
>you hit the head on the nail

I mean head of the nail, or whatever that stupid expression is.

>>9332429
more like KEKOLIC. Pope and vatican are memes. Orthodox is the way to go.

>>9340263
Insightful post

What is the biblical justification for the papacy? Tradition relies on several texts, but one most especially. In Matthew's gospel, Jesus asked his apostles what sorts of things people were saying about him. They gave him a summary of the current rumors. Then Jesus asked them, collectively, who they thought he was. And Simon answered for the group:

Simon Peter replied, "you are the Christ, the son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but for My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note first that Simon served as a spokesman for the group, and he uttered a profound doctrine: the dogma of the incarnation (see Jn 6:68-69). Jesus explained to Simon that such truth could not be gained by natural means; Simon had received a special revelation from god. And Simon, with god's help, had spoken infallibly. Jesus then gave Simon a new name, Peter--literally, "Rock"-- a name that appears nowhere in the historical record before that moment. Jesus promised to build a divine edifice upon that rock foundation. He called the edifice "My Church"; for it would be not merely a human institution. It would be, in some sense, incorrupt, too: "the powers of death [or 'gates of hell'] shall not prevail against it." So we see that god himself gave a guarantee to preserve Peter's authority.

1/2

>>9340468

2/2

Now, some critics argue that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the "rock" on which he would build his church. They point out that the word used for "rock" is the Greek 'petra'--meaning a large rock--whereas the name he gave to Simon was the Greek 'petros', meaning a small rock. The critics say that Jesus meant, essentially, that Peter was a little pebble, and Jesus was the boulder from which the church would rise up.

There are several problems with that interpretation. First of all, Jesus probably did not speak Greek in this exchange. It is very likely that he spoke Aramaic, and his words were later translated into Greek when the gospels were written. In Aramaic there is only one word that could be used for "rock": 'kephas'. In Aramaic, there would have been no distinction between Peter's name and the church's foundation.

Still, critics might press the point, noting that the holy spirit inspired Matthew to employ two different Greek words in his written gospel. But Matthew did not have much choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so 'petra' would certainly be the right choice; but 'petra' is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon's new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus Matthew, guided by the holy spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, 'petros', to render Peter's name, 'Kephas.'

Was Jesus giving Peter a unique role in the church? The answer seems obvious from the remaining pages of the New Testament. Peter is everywhere, shown to be the chief spokesman, preacher, teacher, healer, judge, and administrator in the newborn church.

Proddies #BTFO

>>9340472

3/2

Did Peter exhibit any signs of infallibility when he taught doctrine? Critics might point out that, almost immediately after Jesus commissioned him, Peter fell; he contradicted Jesus, telling him he must not suffer. Jesus then reproved Peter in the strongest terms, calling him "Satan"! Critics note too, that much later in Peter's life, he found himself in conflict with Paul over the treatment of gentiles in the church. And Paul publicly corrected Peter! Now, how could a man graced with the charism of infallibility endure public correction by both Jesus and Paul?

We should note right away that both Jesus and Paul were reproving Peter not for his doctrine, but for his failure of will. Indeed, they were faulting him for not living up to his own doctrine. In Matthew's passage, Peter had moved from confessing the lord's divinity to rejecting the lord's will. In the conflict with Paul, Peter had moved from eating with gentiles himself to forbidding other Jewish-Christians to practice such fellowship. Both Jesus and Paul were exhorting Peter merely to practice what he infallibly preached.

Is there biblical justification for our calling Peter the "vicar of Christ"? Doesn't that put Peter in a place occupied by god alone? No, because Jesus himself had said to the apostles: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk 10:16). Jesus is clearly assigning the twelve as his vicars. He is telling them that he will act vicariously through them. And what Jesus said of all apostles is pre-eminently true of the prince of apostles,

Proddies doubly #BTFO

>>9332429
>>Laurus
This is Orthodox, not Catholic, mon ami.

>>9340263
Care to explain why, friend?

>>9332437

You can't actually.

File: image.jpg (86KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 633x758px

>go to confession on Monday
>have probably committed several mortal sins just by browsing this board

>>9341661

Being inclined or having the thought to sin is not something that needs confessed because that's a consequence of original sin. You only need to confess actions.

>>9332429
George Bernanos is never mentioned here.
Nicolas Gomez Davila if you can read spanish or german.

File: image.jpg (42KB, 542x460px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 542x460px

>>9341718
But isn't putting oneself in a position where one would be tempted to sin also a sin?

Not that it matters anyway. I am not strong enough to live a life away from foolish pleasures

>>9342082

Possibly, or at least its heavily dependent on what sort of sin we're talking about and whether you have an ongoing issue with avoiding it. Some versions of the Act of Contrition contain a promise to avoid the near occasion of sin so it could be a condition of repentance, meaning that you have a history of confessing a certain sin then you should make an effort to avoid situations where you may be tempted, but if we're talking about something that can't realistically be avoided then I don't see how anyone can hold that against you. I see a lot of things on the internet that may tempt me to sin but I can't realistically not use the internet because it's too important for my job and studies.

You have to find one of them canon lawyers. They live for these sorts of questions.

File: 1491431730517.png (14KB, 232x265px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 232x265px

>>9336304
Nietzsche just outlines how to live your life if you're an atheist. He doesn't disprove Christianity.

File: 1452409259926.jpg (219KB, 1026x548px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1026x548px

>>9335935
Divine Comedy is overrated, honestly.

>>9336167
reprehensible behavior

>>9337854
Whoa did St. Athanasius actually look like that?

>>9332429
>Origin of Species
>A Brief History of Time
>Cosmos
>The God Delusion
>Organon
>Common Sense (for Dummies)

>>9344889
reee, etc.

Here's your reply.

>>9344896
I was expecting le tipping fedora man

>>9341718
Browsing 4chan is an action. Googling trap porn is an action.

>>9333794
>Winner of the 1961 Hugo Award for Best Novel

Isn't that an award for fantasy novels? lol

>>9345352

Yeah it is. A Canticle for Leibowitz is a science fiction novel.

>>9345106
God's mercy is infinite

>>9345352
Yes.
But it's a damn good novel.
The themes of it intrigue me.

File: giphy.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>9345822
Cool, I'll check it out.

>>9345887
It's mainly about the scribes preserving the works that made a big impression on me.
The value of knowledge.

>>9344147
All the Churches have done some shitty things, and continue to do so, but I feel like Protestants in particular are a prime example of "By their works, ye shall know them."

>>9345915
That's a theme that interests me as well.

>>9345955
I started getting a lot of books after reading it.
Turns you into a bibliophile.

I also believe in God now,sorta

>>9345976
I've been a "bibliophile" for most of my life desu. I guess I would recommend reading the Bible or going to a local church if you want to take a step further.

>>9346013
I have two Bibles. (One is a gift from my mother, the other is from my Grandmother)
I like sitting down and reading a story from them every once in a while

File: 1490000898526.jpg (17KB, 260x273px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 260x273px

>>9332437
Sure kid

>>9346022
Nice, it's usually easier to convert if you have religious family because you can just talk with them.

You should read Augustine's Confessions if you haven't. That's a great one.

>>9346040
They aren't exactly religious.
My mother believes but she doesn't go to church.
My only background with religion is that I went to a church owned kindergarten.

We read excerpts from Confessions in High School

>>9346060
>We read excerpts from Confessions in High School

That's interesting. Considering how secularized everything is nowadays, I would have never expected a public school to teach Augustine.

>>9346075
I'm not american.
It's part of the "Medieval Literature" section of literature along with other works.
What made me angry is that Chaucer was never brought up and when I asked why they just said that "he hasn't been part of the curriculum for a long time"
I was on friendly terms with the teacher but she didn't really impress me. I was on better terms with the history teacher.
He quoted Hegel and Wittgenstein in his classes. Always recommended additional literature besides the textbook.
Even gifted me a couple of his unneeded books like Tractatus and "Will and Representation"

>>9346100
Neato, my man. You sound decently well-read. You can stay.

File: dr joeseph goebbels.jpg (310KB, 921x1200px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 921x1200px

>>9346288
Literature class was pretty good. Started with the greeks.
Liked odyssey more than Iliad.
Then Resumed with the Romans.
After that we had two months of reading the Bible and discussing themes.
God (If I may use this word), the face of the edgy atheist weebs were priceless.
>mfw I had a debate where I convinced the whole class that Harry Potter holds no literary value (currently)
>mfw they bring up LoTR
>mfw I tell them how it made modern fantasy and btfo them

>mfw teacher asks for horror writers and someone says Stephen King
>I say Poe
>Then "If you want to complete this nice little tree,please write Lovecraft in the middle, he was influenced by Poe and he [Lovecraft] influenced King

I felt like a fucking troll in that class.
And now I'm sad it's over.

>>9335935
>tfw I acquired today the German translation by King John of Saxony
>tfw no face
Feels pretty patrician desu

>>9336686
nothing beats the bible and commentaries on it

>>9337540
For Augustine I would recommend starting with Confessions, Enchiridion, and maybe some of his early dialogues like Soliloques or Against the Academics before tackling City of God.

>>9332446
Second the Walker Percy rec. Lancelot is one of my favorite books I've ever read.

>>9337813
That would fall under miracle, it's a big miracle, but it's still a miracle.
>>9337864
So I assume that's a no then.

Anybody familiar with Bernard Lonergan? My atheist boyfriend gave me a bunch of his stuff from a class he had to take at a Catholic university. Should I read it and what am I in for? I'm Lutheran btw.

>>9345934
Because Protestants are usually antinomians.

>>9346902
The greatest Catholic philosopher and theologian of the 20th century, and Quebec's greatest pride.

>>9346902
>boyfriend
Statistically speaking the chance is higher that you are a faggot than that you are a girl.

Really gets my cranium cracking.

File: 1491416024811.jpg (38KB, 495x349px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 495x349px

>>9347166
Truly we live in different times...

>>9336960
>What do you mean by your last sentence?
He has a section that says having the courage of your convictions is not enough, you have to withstand the attacks upon your convictions.

>>9345106
the names of god are both male and female

>>9347166
I would have thought being a Lutheran in this thread would be more frowned upon than being a fag but okay man

>>9346902
>>9347148

Just started reading about this guy the other day. Seems like an interesting guy.

>greatest Catholic philosopher and theologian of the 20C

wow

File: 1491235440047.jpg (26KB, 275x295px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 275x295px

Who were the most literary saints?

>>9348329
St John of the Cross
St Ephrem the Syrian
St John the Theologian
St Symeon the New Theologian

>>9348329
Augustine was trained in rhetoric and made his living as a teacher of rhetoric for a while.

>>9348329
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310238.htm

Christ is born, glorify Him. Christ from heaven, go out to meet Him. Christ on earth; be ye exalted. Sing unto the Lord all the whole earth; and that I may join both in one word, Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad, for Him Who is of heaven and then of earth. Christ in the flesh, rejoice with trembling and with joy; with trembling because of your sins, with joy because of your hope. Christ of a Virgin; O you Matrons live as Virgins, that you may be Mothers of Christ. Who does not worship Him That is from the beginning? Who does not glorify Him That is the Last?

>>9347413
u wot

>>9336304
I'm an esoteric Christian, mostly Catholic in terms of "intellectual culture" but effectively heretical, so I might not be able to answer your question properly. But I see Nietzsche as completely compatible with faith and knowledge of God, just like anything else.

Nietzsche was a man trying to follow truth and justice (in a sense higher than the "justice" as it was actually manifested in history at his time). He allowed people like Heidegger and Foucault to open their eyes, to see the ossification of human understanding, and the ways in which that ossification excluded, deformed, and degraded humans. Nietzsche is one of the reasons we can critique institutions, power-knowledge, capitalism, and ourselves in general. He may have a gigantic share of responsibility for allowing mankind to prevent some kind of spiritless technological singularity or dead-end supertyranny.

None of that is incompatible with my faith, at least. But I see Christ as a principle and a telos, not just a revealer of an ethical code. The fact that you in some sense want to be Christian, to understand how to be Christian, because the idea of a community of meaning and hope and mutual striving is innately good, that fact is Christ.

>Men are admitted into Heaven not because they have curbed and governd their Passions or have No Passions but because they have Cultivated their Understandings. The Treasures of Heaven are not Negations of Passion but Realities of Intellect from which All the Passions Emanate Uncurbed in their Eternal Glory.

>>9337768
wow so this is the progress of 1800 years

>>9333829
It seems like Southern America is the only part of America that produces good writers.

File: 1434598887624.png (2MB, 1364x908px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1364x908px

>>9339036

>>9349464
Because it has a culture besides American consumerism

File: 1487865663048.png (377KB, 594x422px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 594x422px

>>9349770
>Hello yes of course the Demiurge of the old testament is the same God

File: capture6.png (224KB, 468x365px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 468x365px

>>9349971

>>9349823
Yeah, consumerism is a shit culture.

>>9349051
the various names God is called even in psalms are both male and female, and the gender changes in different books throughout the bible.

there's a lively debate about whether El Shaddai, which is usually translated as "God Almighty", actually means "God the destroyer" or "God With The Two Titties".

El Adonai etc all have gender within Hebrew too and some Jewish communities opt to change the wording to The Eternal One, a gender neutral, to avoid gender issues. Some are explicitly male like Adonai (Lord of Lords) but some are explicitly female, and some are used in strange contexts (you'll see Elohai Abraham as much as Elohai Sara or Rakhel)

>>9350278
That's ridiculous. Jewish people are mentally insane.

>>9350297
>monolingual detected
leave, you've no hope of getting the allusions.

>>9350303
I'm bilingual, I just don't speak Rabbibabble.

>>9350306
how interesting. which of your two languages was the bible originally written in?

File: 1491455338900.webm (598KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 480x360px

>>9350430
You're right. I can't speak Koine Greek, my Jewish friend, so I can't read the original transcript of when God rose Christ from the dead.

Walker Percy interviews himself
http://www.mbird.com/2011/05/walker-percy-interviews-himself/

>>9350466
You also can't find out Jude quotes Diogenes apocrypha. Consider a study bible, the different meanings are really interesting.

>>9350476
Do you speak Greek?

>>9350604
OMG PEDERAST!! I NEED AN ADULT! FBI!!!

>>9350663
>new IP
>FBI
>anti-Catholic

America proving once again that it was a mistake.

>>9350668
I was making a joke about buttsex and double entendres, anon.

>>9350468
>This life is too much trouble, far too strange, to arrive at the end of it and then to be asked what you make of it and have to answer “Scientific humanism.” That won’t do. A poor show. Life is a mystery, love is a delight. Therefore I take it as axiomatic that one should settle for nothing less than the infinite mystery and the infinite delight, i.e., God. In fact I demand it. I refuse to settle for anything less. I don’t see why anyone should settle for less than Jacob, who actually grabbed aholt of God and would not let go until God identified himself and blessed him,

So good.

>>9335935
>>9336422

I went with this one and so far it's amazing. This is quickly becoming one of my favorite books and the summaries by Ciardi are really great.

>Phlegyas deposits them at a great Iron Gate which they find to be guarded by the rebellious angels. These creatures of Ultimate Evil, rebels against God Himself, refuse to let the poets pass. Even Virgil is powerless against them, for Human reason by itself cannot cope with the essence of Evil.

>>9351403
Good man. I'll have to read his books now.

>>9336686
The Bread Pill reading list

>>9334707
Next time.

>tfw you turned away from God for 25 years because of fucking protestants
Woo Southern Baptists in the South shitting the place up!

File: DiarmaidMacCulloch.jpg (38KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x600px

>>9337540
>Does being gay make you a better historian? ‘Immensely, immensely,’ says Diarmaid MacCulloch. ‘From a young age, four or five onwards, I began to realise that the world was not as it pretends to be, there are lots of other things there. You learn how to listen to what is being half-said or implied, and that’s a transferable skill.’

>>9353956

I think it's the same deal for most converts in the US. Protestants are the majority so they represent what Christianity is to nonbelievers and so they turn a lot of people away because of the stupid things they believe and do. You can see evidence of it in this thread, they're wholly incapable of defending their beliefs but they don't let that stop them from running their mouth and condemning what they're not willing to understand in their pride and ignorance.

>>9332437

Nah but you can do certain things to reduce your time in purgatory. afaik none are monetary, it's stuff like reading the Bible, or going to Jubilee in Rome.

>>9337045

>Chesterton

He's a genius but he's not very fair to his opponents. Many of his arguments against "the moderns" are strawmen to be honest.

Any atheist owes it to himself to read Chesterton to get an idea of how a rational person can embrace the "unreason" of Christianity.

Chesterton frankly addresses the biggest problem - why Christianity and not Islam, or Buddhism? etc.

He's a blast, his non-apologetics stuff is really good too.

They don't teach him in college because he was really fat and Catholic, though.

It says something that a college educated person knows what kind of huts the Igbo lived in but doesn't know what the Trinity is about.

If I'm a fairly entry-level Catholic and haven't read much philosophy except basic stuff, will I be to stupid to get The Cloud of Unknowing? The concept really intrigues me but I don't want to waste my time if it'll be way out of my level.

File: S1.png (111KB, 1309x714px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1309x714px

Anyone have any experience with Xiphos? I'm having trouble figuring out which commentary to go with.

>>9355048
Ask your spiritual director. It's not philosophy, it's a mystical treaty.