/clg/ - Catholic Literature General

[Anonymous No.10099949]

Last thread: >>10055481

Atheists and members of other Christian denominations are welcome. But please keep all debate civil.

>There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us. (1 John 4:18-19)

Thread theme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dV5b8AuLHg

Recommended Reading:
https://pastebin.com/PUWNWYyG

[Anonymous No.10099978]

>>10099949
Anyone who just can't wait till this is over and we get to laugh at disgusting athetist degenerate pieces of worthless hedonist shit from Heaven, watching their torment and deriving joy from their screaming, agony, and helplessness?

[Anonymous No.10100007]

Last thread was actually this one, sorry: >>10060501

[Anonymous No.10100188]

>>10099978
You won't go in heaven with this thinking senpai

[Anonymous No.10100233]

>>10100188
>thinking you know the Lord's way
>passing judgment

Enjoy the flames, cuck

[Anonymous No.10100247]

http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/

[Anonymous No.10100293]

I missed Mass this weekend... I also fell into the trap of masturbating furiously twice over the week. Sad times. I feel dirty after having been confessed less than two weeks ago. Guess I'll go again. I have, however, been praying every evening and trying to get in the habit of that as recommended by my priest. Find it very beneficial. I particularly like to offer intercessions for the deceased and victims of tragedy worldwide. Helps me remain mindful of suffering. Might try to add Christian prayer to my morning yoga/meditation routine as well. Prayer readings are currently coming from some collection of Flannery O'Connor entitled The Presence of Joy. Some quite beautiful stuff. I'd like to read Habit of Being next. Found it at a Catholic shop. Met two guys who helped with the Latin Mass there. They had a beautiful Jerome Vulgate and Douay Rheims side by side Bible but it was huge and expensive. Kinda wish there was like a pocket Latin version. In other news, I am halfway through Lectures on Divine Humanity by Solovyov and I know he may be semi-heresiarchical but he really speaks to my intellect and my outlook. Given that someone recommended Michael Martin in regards to Sophiology and liking Solovyov so much, I decided to order Jesus: The Imagination off Amazon. Guess Amazon is gonna be really confused that i'm buying Christian books, lol. And in more heretical news, I got lots of candles and incense from a occult curio store and a fantastic Aphrodite statue for a friend's gift. I wish I coulda afforded the whole Greek Pantheon collection they had. Was kinda bummed they didn't have much saintly stuff tho. Neither did the Catholic store I went to either. I kinda wanted to do the whole pagan deity/angel and saint correspondence thing with a personal altar or shrine.

Anyway, how goes thee, fellow cat-o-licks?

[Anonymous No.10100355]

>>10099978
>>10100233
>baiting
if you want to false-flag, go do it on /pol/. If you're gonna stay here, keep your comments respectful and of good quality. Shilling here won't improve the quality of this thread.

[Anonymous No.10100374]

What books will convert me to Catholicism from Anglicanism?

[Anonymous No.10100380]

>>10100374
I'm too lazy to link you to the individual post right now, but if it wasn't you, there was a similar post to yours in the last /clg/ and it had quite a few replies >>10060501

[Anonymous No.10100396]

Any of you read pic related?

[Anonymous No.10100435]

>>10100374
Apologia Pro Vita Sua. St. John Henry Newman was an Anglican priest but converted to Catholicism and became a cardinal. Despite his conversion he's venerated as a saint by the Church of England, as well by the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.10100963]

>>10100293
All non Christian forms of meditation, yoga included are banned for Catholics. Try with removing false idols from your life first (and no, there's no such thing as secular yoga).

[Anonymous No.10100969]

>>10100435
The English have a strange way of picking saints that devoted their lives against their schism, Newman and Thomas More being obvious ones.

[Anonymous No.10101236]

>tfw had an hour long conversation with the university chaplain about Pseudo-Dionysus and faith via negativa

Feels good desu

[Anonymous No.10101654]

>>10101236
>Tfw you read more theology than most priest you know and you can't actually discuss it with them because they don't read much
Feels bad

[Anonymous No.10101672]

>>10101654
>tfw one of the nuns at your university told you that the true reason anyone is a Christian is to get into heaven

[Anonymous No.10101716]

>>10099978
Hi Tertullian.

[Anonymous No.10101780]

>>10100374
>What books will convert me to Catholicism from Anglicanism?

The bible

[Anonymous No.10101938]

>>10101236
>tfw I have no idea what that means

[Anonymous No.10103456]

>not being a panentheist
How do you niggas even experience God if you don't partake of Him?

>hurr hurr muh language of analogy
That's trying to have your cake and eat it.

[Anonymous No.10104721]

Has anyone read any Hans Urs von Balthasar? I read Cosmic Liturgy but it went way over my head because I'm an idiot. I'm really interested in his book on prayer because it sounds more practical and doesn't require memorizing the bibliography of Hegel. Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.10105295]

>>10104721
How modernism/10 is he? I know he perpetuated the stupid myth of Aquinas versus Scholasticim.

[Anonymous No.10105339]

>>10103456
>How do you niggas even experience God if you don't partake of Him?
Do you know what the Eucharist is?

[Anonymous No.10105344]

I really can't stand Woke Space Jesuit and weird leftist catholic twitter

inb4 they cap this post and spread this around like the ironic dipshits they are

[Anonymous No.10105359]

>>10105344
I just don't find them funny. It's like the Tradical Twitter, but without cool excerpts from various books and funny memes. And the Catholic left is completely incoherent.

[Anonymous No.10105554]

>>10105339
Yeah, God is experienced via the mouth, makes perfect sense

[Anonymous No.10105787]

>>10105554
It's not really via the mouth. At least the experience. It takes like regular bread you know.

[Anonymous No.10105955]

>>10099978
Fun fact, this bait is actually correct- enjoying the Justice of God is one of the joys of Haven. And justice of God is Hell and everyone in it will be there based on perfect justice and complete guilt.

[Anonymous No.10106224]

Do you guys know any comfy Christian documentaries?

Some that I have enjoyed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nz7C0Kr9OA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGqtStYEnTI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vcf-vf4aUI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSm120gFlQ

[Anonymous No.10106226]

>>10106224
One more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ouqzH9o6rg

[Anonymous No.10106255]

>>10106226
Will add a few more in case someone finds them valuable/interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuUZYMCgcyM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpfaWxZDNOk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd35W6lp3GQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdGUnSu49hg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1TzgKZQB-s

Yes, I realize some of these are Orthodox and not Catholic

[Anonymous No.10106272]

>>10106224
>The St. Paul documentary I just opened has everything I hate about documentaries.

[Anonymous No.10106294]

>>10106272
desu there are pretty slim pickings of quality "pop" production documentaries, different if you want to get into lectures or some private work. From the ones linked I enjoyed Augustine, Fr. Lazarus and Paisios the most.

[Anonymous No.10106343]

>>10100435
Its funny that Newman came up with the theory that the Anglican church is one of three legitimate branches apostolic church along with the RCC and the EOC. Anglo-Catholics still use this theory even though Newman abandoned the idea when he became Catholic.

[Anonymous No.10106509]

>>10105295
I wouldn't call him a modernist at all, he was a sort of traditionalist I suppose. I don't know about this Aquinas v. Scholasticism myth of which you speak.

[Anonymous No.10106533]

Just watched moonstruck and I want some comfy catholic literature, preferably focusing on Italian or Italian-American communities. Could any kind soul please toss a recommendation my way?

[Anonymous No.10106589]

>>10106509
The idea was that ever since Suarez and Cajetan everyone misunderstood Aquinas and that we should get rid of (basically Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange). It was extremely popular with the modernists and von Balthasar is one of the chief perpetuators of the meme.

[Anonymous No.10106603]

>>10099949
According to people on /lit/, the Jews are responsible for making this picture

[Anonymous No.10106634]

>>10101938
from my understanding faith via negativa is approaching a description of god through negations. I have only seen it mentioned in passing though so I don't know for sure.

[Anonymous No.10106646]

>>10106634
The only absolutely correct statements about God are negative. The positive ones are never enough to capture his fullness and are analogical. It's absolutely true that God is not evil as there's no imperfections in him at all. But it's only analogically correct that he's good because his goodness is impossible to grasp fully.

[Anonymous No.10106875]

>>10105344
They're heretics. What I hate though is other Catholics being all friendly to them.

[Anonymous No.10107505]

>>10106875
You mean other heretics?

[Anonymous No.10107912]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.10108142]

>>10106875
We must correct and guide without being hateful and cruel. That's the way of Christ, the gentle but insistent call to repentance.

Also please remember to pray the Rosary, /clg/.

[Anonymous No.10108501]

>>10107912
Why do people pretend he's so incredibly great and convincing?

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10108820]

>>10107912
We're here when you have an argument you want to present that we can sort out for you.

[Anonymous No.10108989]

>>10108820
Not to be rude, and I am interested in Christian faith/theology, but I don't quite understand the point and it seems to me that the entirety of God rests upon two facets: the assumption of his existence and the assumption of objective, transcendent Good as his nature.
If everything was created from nothing by God, who himself is in nature a good wholly beyond nothing and being (in this case, the "God beyond God") then would not everything have this God as its intrinsic nature, preceding creation and nothing? So if this is in fact a beginning-less beginning, would there not be an endless end? It is said man cannot approach God in terms of understanding, but if we had God as our nature, why would this be impossible?
Assuming man is subject to God, and this relationship is non-reciprocal, then what is the point of doing Good which is limited in scope to God by our place as man? If God is transcendentally Good, why is there judgement or hell? Does mercy and compassion not stem from good?
Sorry if I am not making too much sense. Like I said before I am interested in Christianity, and have attended a few services, but I still don't feel comfortable believing all of this.

[Anonymous No.10109606]

>>10108989
The assumption of his existence is obviously necessary to call this "faith" in the first place. How/why you choose to believe or have faith in God is probably down to the individual, ie as many as there are persons just as many there are ways of getting to God. That is, we could assume the notes of God's call are specifically designed for one's own set of ears.

I'm not entirely sure what your second point is about. The endlesss end and the beginning-less beginning. I'm not sure what you meant, but obviously there is a concept of eternity in the Christian faith, so yes there is an endless end when you enter eternity after your earthly death.

Man can approach God in terms of understanding, but it seems like it is impossible to grasp infinite God fully when accouting for your existence as a creature in the physical world. For understading God, or seeing Him as He is, look up beatific vision.

The point of doing Good is Good itself. You should not want to do Good on a transactional basis, ie if I do Good I will get a reward (even though that might be true). That is obviously a "lower" form of Good than doing Good because you want to do Good or because you want to be Good on its own. Obviously, the irony is that in this way you would imitate your Father in heaven as (as you said) transcendent Good.

Mercy and compassion has to be accepted. If you reject God continually and even finally, then it doesn't seem unusual that you would end up in the place you actually want to be. Many Christian mystics have said that you go to where you "belong" and where you want to go. Souls going to hell reject God. When you think of it, God in His perfect knowledge has already given humanity the rules and advice as to how to behave that is in their OWN best interest. Moreover even when we fail to do that and act foolishly we are still offered pardon so that we might return to our "best" state we were designed to be. Yet as a consequence of our free will, we get what we ultimately want. Your father tells you not to roll in the mud because you will get dirty. You do it and you know he will forgive you and give you new clothes. But if you simply say that you prefer being covered in dirt, then that is your choice and to be respected.

[Anonymous No.10110434]

Going to an orthodox church tomorrow to talk to a priest about becoming a godfather for a friend's kid. I haven't been to church since I was like 5 or 6....

I think he's gonna quiz me on the faith, so I memorized the Creed and some basics. What should I expect? What is ortho church like? Its a Russian one.

[Anonymous No.10110610]

>>10106343
It is a pretty dumb idea desu. I remember this AMA on the Catholic subreddit about a year back with a branch theory traditional Anglican. Dude just wouldnt get that the Church needs to be united and historically people died horrendously and the schism was extremely radical and sinful. Pretty sad.

[Anonymous No.10110690]

>>10110434
I hope he rejects you. You shouldn't be a godfather. It's a position that's supposed to be spiritual guidance in the faith, something which you cannot perform.

[Anonymous No.10111281]

Hey, know any sick ass catholic narrative works and epics? 10 bucks extra if they're early modern/premodern

[Anonymous No.10111326]

>>10100963
Well, I'm a bit torn between believing in a Christian heaven and hell or Eastern-style reincarnation so I'm trying to cover all my bases... Philosophy, after all, is preparation for death and thus as a man with a philosophical bent I want to insure that I have done all that I can to receive the best afterlife.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10111355]

>>10108989
Sure thing, happy to help. To begin, I would not call God as existing and being entirely good assumptions by any measure as they well argued for through Christian intellectual history. Existence through Divine Conservation and goodness through God's relation to nature through Divine Conservation. Here's a video explaining how God's goodness is understood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62iSAf4L9E4

It goes into the two major understandings of God between Christian denominations. Catholics/Orthodox/Orientals would be supporting Classical Theism as opposed to the Theistic Personalism mentioned. However, theistic personalism is supported through most Protestant sects and low-info laypeople of any denomination.

This is opposed to >>10109606 and his use of 'faith', which I'd find unjust. Surely you could have faith of God's existence and God's goodness and believe for other reasons but faith as understood by the Christian tradition as virtuous is a faith IN God rather than a faith OF. It presupposes the Christian worldview and is about maintaining trust in God and his law (what is good to do) regardless of situation and struggle.

>If everything was created from nothing by God, who himself is in nature a good wholly beyond nothing and being (in this case, the "God beyond God") then would not everything have this God as its intrinsic nature, preceding creation and nothing? So if this is in fact a beginning-less beginning, would there not be an endless end? It is said man cannot approach God in terms of understanding, but if we had God as our nature, why would this be impossible?

God creates all things from nothing through his will and so all things have an analogical connection to God. They dont have the nature of God outside of this. They are made from nothing pre-existing. For God's nature to within these things would violate God's immutability that is expressed in the discovery of God being pure actuality (I can help explain this if need be).

Part 1/2

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10111360]

>>10111355

Part 2/2

>>10108989
The point of doing good is fulfillment of ourselves, if not also preparation of the afterlife. As >>10109606 says, the good is done for its own sake. There is the idea is that a life dedicated to the good is the perfection of man. Hence the "fulfillment of the self comes from self-sacrifice" paradoxical phrases you see from monks sometimes.

>If God is transcendentally Good, why is there judgement or hell?

Well >>10109606 already says it effectively but I'll add on a part of the Catholic Catechism:

"To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."" http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#1033

Protestants tend to view this as a penal sense but Catholics view it in regards to whether they accept the grace offered to them. If you deny the good in life then you'd deny the very source of the good in death.

>Sorry if I am not making too much sense

You're making perfect sense and feel free to ask if you have further questions or complaints.

[Anonymous No.10111721]

>>10111326
If you want the best from Christianity abandon everything else, God is, as he describes himself, an envious one. He does not suffer masters other than himself.

[Anonymous No.10111726]

>>10111281
Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe, completely unironically.

[Anonymous No.10111746]

>>10111326
Cant serve two masters. Meaning you will go to hell if you are playing aroumd with antichristian things. Also bait or genuinely this stupid? Im going to error on the side of skepticism and say bait.

[Anonymous No.10111791]

>>10111721
>>10111746
Not bait. Unfortunately, Jesus never really wrote any philosophical works to clear up such things. From my understanding, there were a number of different afterlife beliefs among the early and modern jews and ancient greeks and romans some of which resemble eastern-style reincarnation. Plato is one example. I believe it is not heretical to posit a prisca theologia is it? Christians before Christ and so on? The study of different traditions is what led me back to Catholicism. I personally subscribe to Origen's view that everyone is saved, even the devil, though perhaps some spend more time in hell/purgatory than others.

[S. Donne No.10112353]

Thank you /clg/ for playing your part in helping me return to the Church. I had my first confession in a decade on Tuesday and will receive communion for the first time in in a decade this Sunday. I plan on being confirmed next year. Cheers and God bless.

[Anonymous No.10112389]

I don't really believe in God anymore but I'm thinking of joining the church just for the cultural aspect because I'm a manic-depressive who is interested in perceived exotic experiences.
Thoughts?

[S. Donne No.10112401]

>>10112389
>perceived exotic experiences

It will no longer seem exotic once you become familiar with it.

[Anonymous No.10112407]

>>10112353
This shit never ceases to be funny.

[Anonymous No.10112418]

>>10112401

I know but the process of familiarization remains.

[Anonymous No.10112425]

>>10100374
Common sense.

[Anonymous No.10112433]

>>10111791
Ye ur definitely just dumb. Thats a heresy, you are not truly subscribing to Catholicism if you knowlingly believe in heresy.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10112435]

>>10112407
Solid troll, Anon.

>>10112353
Congratulations, Anon.

>>10112389
I think you're joining for the wrong reasons if you're searching for novelty, though I'm not sure how your manic depressiveness is playing a part in this. I'd say go regardless. Do not partake in communion, however.

[Anonymous No.10112509]

Daily reminder that sedevacantism is the only correct position, there's no salvation outside the church, etc.

[Anonymous No.10112524]

>>10112509
This also never ceases to be funny.

[Anonymous No.10112534]

>>10112524
Outing you heretics and bad-willed people is getting tiring already.

[Anonymous No.10112583]

>>10112534
Lol. Feel free to stop wasting your time then.

[Anonymous No.10112584]

Catholicism is the One True Church, but let us not forget that the Prottys can write some pretty sweet hymns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or1oZ35NA2U

[Anonymous No.10112591]

>>10112584
Russian Orthodox is the most kino.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvHAqjODCcI

[Anonymous No.10112595]

>>10112591
9sR8ezoes6E

[Anonymous No.10112598]

>>10112591
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sR8ezoes6E

[Anonymous No.10112599]

>>10112595
That whole collection is 10/10

[Anonymous No.10112601]

What do I have to have read before reading The Divine Comedy?

[Anonymous No.10112604]

>>10112601
Get familiar with iambic pentameter

[Anonymous No.10112621]

>>10112601
>>10112604
Seconding this, Aenied, Bible, anything else?

[S. Donne No.10112632]

>>10112407
>>10112524
God bless you.

>>10112435
Thanks. Devoting time to reading the Bible and saying my prayers helped the most with making the return. Then I finally swallowed my pride and attended Mass twice and knew I had to confess. Going here helped because frankly most people I know are godless and would be hostile to any sympathetic discussion of religion unless it was something trendy like Buddhism. I had read plenty of compelling arguments from Catholic writers that played a part in my return but had nobody to discuss them with. I'm glad that this thread is maintained for people like me who are surrounded by the godless.

[Anonymous No.10112640]

>>10112632
>I'm glad that this thread is maintained for people like me who are surrounded by the godless.
He says on an anime porn forum.

[Anonymous No.10112645]

>>10112433
What's the difference between theosis and samadhi? Both are union with the divine. Tbh, I subscribe to a more metaphorical view of rebirth. Definitely more of a Catholic than a Buddhist or a Yogi. Just using these practices until I find suitable Christian replacements. I do enjoy the physical workout of yoga so that would be a bummer to give up. Is pilates okay? IIRC, Merton was sympathetic toward Buddhism. I quite liked Zen and the Birds of Appetite.

[Anonymous No.10112669]

during confession, are you supposed to say you've seen some questionable hentai? what about a monster rape fetish?

[Anonymous No.10112683]

>>10112407
>>10112524
You're wrong about the first thing being funny but right about the second thing being funny

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10112689]

>>10112640
You should have heard of the places Jesus preached out and spent time at. Do you expect people who intend to help would be distant from sinners behind a fence or something?

>>10112632
I definitely feel you. These threads and the ones I've made myself really helped me learn how to talk about these topics and explore my own life living like this. Very important in conversations was learning what the basic elements of the Christian life even were - such as the point of prayer. I do need to return to this more, myself. I've done something horrible recently and need to speak with my local priest for confession.

God bless you, Anon.


>>10112669
The detail is unimportant as long as you can get the problem out there and understood. However, it is best to confront your faults with honesty.

>>10112683
>he doesn't find the personal improvement and welfare of others hilarious

[Anonymous No.10112690]

>>10112669
You could just say porn. Don't need to go into that much detail.

[S. Donne No.10112691]

>>10112621
Learning Italian is probably more important than either the Aeneid or the Bible for understanding Dante. I don't mean to be snarky; you'll miss out on a lot of Dante's craft by reading him in translation. Just knowledge of who Virgil is and being raised a Christian should suffice in place of reading the entire Aeneid and the Bible.

However, if you plan on becoming a scholar of Dante, you should learn the Aeneid and the Bible very well for catching all the references and parallels. As a scholar you should also become familiar with other Italians from the Middle Ages such as Petrarch and Boccaccio. But if you just want to read Dante a few times for pleasure, I don't see why you would need to become an expert on his influences and contemporaries.

>>10112604
Italians write in iambic pentameter? I'm genuinely curious because I had thought it was a uniquely English meter.

[Anonymous No.10112700]

>>10112689
>>10112690
>Hiding things in confession because you're embarrassed to talk about it.

Enjoy retaining your mortal sins.

[S. Donne No.10112701]

>>10112640
Amazing, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.10112702]

>>10112691
Some translators may use it.

[Anonymous No.10112704]

>>10112689
>You should have heard of the places Jesus preached out and spent time at. Do you expect people who intend to help would be distant from sinners behind a fence or something?
I'd expect them not to whine about being surrounded by ungodliness while doing it.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10112705]

>>10112701
The idea of unnecessary details does, in fact, exist Anon.

[Anonymous No.10112715]

>>10112705
But is it unnecessary because it's actually unnecessary or are you just looking for an excuse to keep quiet about it? One wonders.

[S. Donne No.10112724]

>>10112689
God bless you too and your endeavors contra the heretics and godless.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10112732]

>>10112704
Then you don't people then. Especially those who don't have many outlets for this.

>>10112715
Right, that needs to be examined, hence my last comment about it >>10112689

[Anonymous No.10112735]

>>10112700
You don't need to give the priest the video's exact URL if you watched porn. Of course at some point being too vague amounts to an invalid confession

[Anonymous No.10112737]

>>10112683
Sedevacantism is probably the most hilariously pathetic manifestation of cognitive dissonance I've ever encountered.

[Anonymous No.10112752]

>>10112732
>Especially those who don't have many outlets for this.
There are plenty of actual religious forums on line, you know?

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10112759]

>>10112752
Such things are hard jumps for people.
Some people also think they can leave 4chan. Silly, right?

[Anonymous No.10112764]

>>10112640
Technically, Reddit is as much of an anime porn forum as 4chan, but you'll never see people bring attention to this.

[Anonymous No.10112766]

>>10112689
more memes like this?

[Anonymous No.10112774]

>>10112764
reddit had straight up pedo boards for a long time

[Anonymous No.10112775]

>>10112764
The fuck does reddit have to do with this?

[Anonymous No.10112776]

>>10112759
What's your take on Fisheaters Wolfshiem?

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10112780]

>>10112766
All future posts in this thread will be reaction images and comics then.

>>10112776
Never went to it, know about it.

[S. Donne No.10112796]

>>10112752
Actually I get more out of this board and the /clg/ threads because I can tell most of the posters are my age (mid-twenties) and some are well-versed in the canon. Most Christian boards are more about answering moral dilemmas and sharing Christian experience with very little or no discussion of high art and literature.

[Anonymous No.10112840]

>>10112780
Thanks. also - girlfriend thinks i'm elitist for reading theology and BMing people for not knowing anything about their beliefs or even official denominational positions besides liberal hippie jesus loving BS. am i in any way justified by this, even if i'm sounding like a pharisee?

[Anonymous No.10112876]

You have 10 seconds to explain how belief in the dogma of the Catholic Church is epistemologically justifiable in the year 2017.

[Anonymous No.10112900]

>>10112876
*copy-pastes wall of text from a catholic apologetics site*

nothing personal, kid

[Anonymous No.10112928]

>>10112876
Nothing is epistemologically justifiable. The only criterion is utility and mystic insight.

[Anonymous No.10113183]

Let's make the recommendations list into a big folder, if some anon would be kind enough to find the mobi/pdf/ebub files for each.

[Anonymous No.10113206]

>>10112876
Faith.

[Anonymous No.10113350]

>>10109606
Thanks for your response.
>as many as there are persons just as many there are ways of getting to God. That is, we could assume the notes of God's call are specifically designed for one's own set of ears.
Then what is the point of attending service, having a regulatory institution, outlining orthodoxy, ect.?
>The endlesss end and the beginning-less beginning. I'm not sure what you meant, but obviously there is a concept of eternity in the Christian faith, so yes there is an endless end when you enter eternity after your earthly death.
I meant in terms of creation/apocalypse. There are fixed beginning and end points in Christian doctrine that don't make much sense to me.
If eternity lies outside our understanding of time, or exists throughout our time, then would it be possible for those abiding in eternity to materialize again in any time?
>The point of doing Good is Good itself
>Obviously, the irony is that in this way you would imitate your Father in heaven as (as you said) transcendent Good.
>Many Christian mystics have said that you go to where you "belong" and where you want to go
So there is no incentive or theological justification to do good? Why must man do good, if God is good?
>You should not want to do Good on a transactional basis, ie if I do Good I will get a reward (even though that might be true)
Is this acting without conceptual thought of good? To draw a comparison, is it similar to Karma Yoga of Hinduism or non-action of Taoism?
>>10111355
I would also like to thank you for helping me answer these questions.
>God creates all things from nothing through his will and so all things have an analogical connection to God. They dont have the nature of God outside of this. They are made from nothing pre-existing.
Rather than having the transcendent God as intrinsic nature, creation has primordial nothingness as its fixed nature? Is that to suggest that God was preceded by this nothingness? If God is not immanent, would his nature be confined to creation? If there is not a reciprocal, immanent relationship between creator and creation, wherein both are held in reference to one another in supporting their respective form, then creation from nothing doesn't make much sense to me. A God beyond conceptions as the true nature of reality would not violate immutability because everything, both being and non-being, would exist within God, it would just be their form that grants them unique self-identity.
I am still thinking your second post, but it is making sense to me so far.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10113391]

>>10112840
This is difficult. There is good reason to leave them wallow in foolish ideas or outright falsehoods, but at the same time obviously no one listens or respects a 'know-it-all'. I have struggled with this quite a lot when I did Catholic Generals on /pol/, some criticizing me as trying to be "the authority" on the thread because I'd blatantly reject what others were saying and try to teach fact rather than opinion. I suppose part of this is inescapable but I try to have restraint and ask consent for me to go into details of their beliefs if I wish for them to be shared head-on. And if there is a scene that could be made (such as someone arrogantly stupid) focus entirely on facts rather than rhetoric but also give the person space to share their side and their reasoning that you would disagree with.

A discourse on facts is very valuable and I'd recommend it, along with heavily disagreeing but guarding actually getting into the argument about it. The trick is balancing how much you wish to let them share their mind and humor their thoughts and how much you wish to correct them.
>>10112876
If the validity of an authority as authoritative can be argued for then the authority's proclamations follow from the evidence and thus is rational inherently. Catholicism has a long, long history arguing for specifically this.

Cheers.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10113424]

By the way, I have a pastebin from my /pol/ Catholic Generals. Much of it is information and teaching of basic concepts and criticisms, however largely quickly and poorly written. There are some resources however.

Not all of this is gathered by me but also by other anons.

https://pastebin.com/u/wolfshiem

Contents:
>Recommended Youtubers
>For the Community: Finding a Mass
>For the Community: Recommended Christian Books
>For the Community: Recommended Christian Movies
>For the Community: Recommended Christian Music
>Essay on Asceticism and Christian Optimism (The best written one)
>For the Community: The Beauty of Creation
>The Basics of Christianity
>For the Community: Tales of Love and Virtue
>The Origin of the Hail Mary
>Scripture on Christian Unity
>The "Whore of Babylon"
>Why Mary is called "Queen of Heaven"
>Problem of Evil and the Problem of Hell
>Galileo, Giodano Bruno, and Wycliffe
>Sacred Tradition and its Connection to Scripture
>The Papacy and Church Authority
>The Communion and Intercession of Saints

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10113471]

>>10113350
No problem, man.

>Rather than having the transcendent God as intrinsic nature, creation has primordial nothingness as its fixed nature?

I think you're understanding 'nature' different from me. When I see a tree, its nature is that of a tree. Nothing beyond this. I don't know what you mean by saying it has "primordial nothingness as its fixed nature". And I apologize but I also do not get your comment about nothingness proceeding God. Please do explain.

God is immanent along with transcendent, however. While God's essence is fully transcendent, what exists comes about and is maintained by his nature that wills it so only in respect to God's will is God immanent. Central to the classical western theistic view is the idea that God eternally creates and sustains all of nature at all times (divine conservation) and does so in a single act of creation that plays out in time and is maintained for the good of all things in it. This is the close connection, but still distinct separation, that God has from nature.


>A God beyond conceptions as the true nature of reality would not violate immutability because everything, both being and non-being, would exist within God,

I have been assuming you're supposing a kind of panentheism for a while now but this isn't how God is perceived in the classical tradition. If the universe was seen as part of God then you'd need to explain God's parts that are now both mutable or immutable.


I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks for the interesting conversation so far!

[Anonymous No.10113476]

>>10111791
It hasn't led you to Catholicism because you are professing a literal heresy.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10113478]

Short image dump for a time.

[Anonymous No.10113484]

>>10112645
Merton was a literal heretic later in his life when he was sympathetic to it. The closer he got to Buddhism the farther he was from Catholicism.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10113485]

[Anonymous No.10113487]

I thought Wolfsheim was Orthodox. Did you post on /christian/ before?

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10113491]

>>10113484
I have Zen and the Birds on my Amazon Wishlist still: In what respect did Merton become a heretic? Specific examples please, I'm out of the know. All I've heard is speculation over his dream of being a Zen monk.

>>10113487
I have always been Catholic.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10113511]

[Anonymous No.10113512]

>>10113491
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/can-you-trust-thomas-merton
Around that time, 1966 to be exact he was doing the mixing of the Eastern approach with Catholicism, essentially abandoning the western spiritual tradition and there's a lot that was just very dubble meaning. It's similar to Lubac in the way that it's not outright blatant heresy, but is too close to it. The text is good and maybe a bit too charitable. In any case the Holy Office, if it was doing its job would have probably censured his latter works.

[Anonymous No.10113516]

>>10113511
This writing is so smooth and clear.

[Anonymous No.10113547]

>>10113476
Given that I was a acidhead occultist five years ago and a materialist atheist ten years ago, the very fact that I am entertaining Christian heresies is a step in the right direction, no?


Sometimes, I feel a bit like Augustine. I was a good catholic as a boy but got duped by mystery cults. Part of me knows it's a lie but part of me wants to know if the lie finally transforms into truth at some yet more hidden level. I still find the subject fascinating even as I read more Catholic books and attend mass. And sometimes my thoughts cannot help but turn toward looking for esotericism in catholicism.

By the way does anyone know where I could read the papal bull against the free spiritists?

[Anonymous No.10113557]

>>10113547
If it's important, the Denzinger.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10113558]

>>10113547
>free spiritists
???

>>10113512
I'll read through this, thank you.

[Anonymous No.10113580]

>>10113558
>???
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brethren_of_the_Free_Spirit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_of_the_Free_Spirit

[Anonymous No.10113598]

work of art, like every true artist expressing in his own peculiar manner a feeling he has experienced. Most people are infected by the artist s feeling ; and his work becomes known. Then criticism, discussing the artist, says that the work is not bad, but all the same the artist is not a Dante, nor a Shakespear, nor a Goethe, nor a Raphael, nor what Beethoven was in his last period. And the young artist sets to work to copy those who are held up for his imitation, and he produces not only feeble works, but false works, counterfeits of art.

It is solely due to the critics, who in our times still praise rude, savage, and, for us, often meaningless works of the ancient Greeks : Sophocles, Euripides, ^Eschylus, and espe cially Aristophanes; or, of modern writers, Dante, Tasso, Milton, Shakespear; in painting, all of Raphael, all of Michael Angelo, including his absurd "Last Judgment"; in music, the whole of Bach, and the whole of Beethoven, including his last period, thanks only to them, have the Ibsens, Maeterlincks, Verlaines, Mallarmes, Puvis de Cha- vannes, Klingers, Bocklins, Stucks, Schneiders ; in music, the Wagners, Liszts, Berliozes, Brahmses, and Richard Strausses, etc., and all that immense mass of good-for- nothing imitators of these imitators, become possible in our day.

[Anonymous No.10113904]

>>10113471
>I think you're understanding 'nature' different from me. When I see a tree, its nature is that of a tree. Nothing beyond this.
I mean to say that there is no one element that makes it substantial; there is nothing beyond form that gives an object its unique self identity. Going back to that tree, we can say that it is indeed a tree and is behaving as a tree would, but there is no single element that we can identify that makes it a tree. There is no sole aspect that you can point to that makes a tree a tree, so we can say it has no fixed nature, but its identity rather derives from its form and its realness is ultimately false.
>And I apologize but I also do not get your comment about nothingness proceeding God. Please do explain.
If creation occurred from nothing, then this nothingness must have preempted creation. I termed it primordial nothingness to distinguish it from a nothingness that is farmed in relation to creation. Primordial nothingness is not nothing, but is not creation, being beyond these concepts. Assuming a beginning-less beginning to reality - as the concept of eternity leads me to believe - then creation, or form, occurred at a fixed point by God that must have merely assumed the form of a creator. This form must have arisen from this preceding primordial nothingness in relation to the creation and nothingness that were subsequently formed. This underlying nature, neither transcendent nor immanent yet not non-transcendent or non-immanent, is "God beyond God".
I say creator is a form simply because it is not the nature of God; the description I outline aligns closely with the concept of via negativa I believe.
>Central to the classical western theistic view is the idea that God eternally creates and sustains all of nature at all times (divine conservation) and does so in a single act of creation that plays out in time and is maintained for the good of all things in it.
What do you mean by sustaining all of nature at all times? You said earlier that you understand nature by its physicality (a tree is a tree) and all things are not sustained eternally. I am having trouble understanding this divine conservation.
>This is the close connection, but still distinct separation, that God has from nature.
Does this suggest that God is only present in creation through his will, and the previous act of creation? Doesn't this limit God?
>I have been assuming you're supposing a kind of panentheism for a while now but this isn't how God is perceived in the classical tradition.
I am not sure what I am assuming, honestly. I am just trying to place this in a way makes sense to me, or perhaps find a way to change how I think about things. From my understanding, though it hasn't been an idea upheld by the church, it has been an undercurrent in church tradition.
1/2
Thanks for humoring me through all of this btw. I have been thinking about this for awhile. I have been enjoying the conversation, as well.

[Anonymous No.10113926]

>>10113904
>>10113471
>If the universe was seen as part of God then you'd need to explain God's parts that are now both mutable or immutable.
I don't see it this way. There are no parts of God in the sense that an orange is a part of God and once it is consumed it is mutated. Rather all reality, including being and nonbeing, are God by nature; completely beyond concept as the nature of God is without concept. It is only through illusion and over-reliance on form that we perceive ourselves and the universe as distinct from. Perhaps we can call this continued delusion from God sin, and perhaps divine manifestations of God can exist in material form to explain the theistic aspects of the religion, but I don't know.
I am kind of lost, spiritually speaking, and I am trying my hardest to convince myself in objective good.
I am interested in reading some theology, but I am drawn very much towards mysticism. I heard some good things about Pseudo-Dionysus, so maybe I would start there.

[Anonymous No.10113927]

>>10113511
I'm dumbfounded. This quote is brilliant.

[Anonymous No.10113941]

>>10113926
I think pantheism in all forms is problematic because it doesn't deal property with the principle of identity. If any particular thing has a being, which all things do then they cannot be parts of God because being doesn't have parts at all. I'll read the chapters on pantheism in God His Existence and His Nature to remind myself.

[Anonymous No.10113950]

>>10099949
Listen to Edward Feser: "The Distinction of Essence and Existence" (June 2017) by The Thomistic Institute #np on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/edward-feser-the-distinction-of-essence-and-existence-june-2017
Turns out there are excellent lectures given by various people for the Thomistic Institute and I highly recommend the ones Feser gave. To many of us who don't get to hear lectures and study professionally, reading, at least to me, seems insufficient because memorising and doing it yourself will leave holes in understanding and the harder texts can often just go over your head. So hearing this is really enlightening.

[Anonymous No.10113954]

>>10113941
By being are you saying something similar to what I mean by form? What do you mean by parts of God, because I don't consider God to be separated into parts. I am interested.
It might take me a bit to respond as I am about to go for a run now. I will think more thoroughly about this issue in the meantime.

[Anonymous No.10113995]

>>10113511
>Quoting Hitler

[Anonymous No.10114014]

>>10112691
italian & dante scholar here, would never ever suggest to learn italian to read Dante. Even if italian language is your native one you would have big issues reading Dante, you would lose a word every three.

Find a good critical edition and you should be guided between notes/references, then if something is of particular interest to you, you can go deeper in it looking for essays online, analysis etc.

If you want to read something before jumping in it, I would say to read smth about early italian / european literature, to get a grasp on the historical/artistic period.

[Anonymous No.10114033]

Greetings, spiritual agnostic here.

I have a question regarding the Trinity - namely, why does such a doctrine exist, and why is it necessary to believe it's true?

I know Christology is a complex subject in itself, but honestly one of the biggest reasons I can't become a believing Christian is because of just how utterly pointless I feel the doctrine of the Trinity is.

[Anonymous No.10114055]

>>10114033
It exists because it's impossible to coherently interpret anything else from the Scripture. And why would it be pointless? It's the deepest mystery of the faith, an essential part in God's self revelation, something which we can only contemplate with our souls, but can never reach it or fully grasp it. It's something which God reveals about himself that's more than what natural theology can reach.

[Anonymous No.10114061]

>>10113954
Form is that in which you are shaped as a cause of what you are. So you share atoms with a dog, but they are formed into a man specifically as a natural substance (that we can explain better by saying identity to the modern reader).

[Anonymous No.10114078]

>>10114055
Sorry, I should've worded it better. By "pointless" I mean in the sense that it doesn't really seem to accomplish anything for the believer, other than as a way to justify the "Jesus is God/Son of God" thing.

Take, for example, the doctrine of monotheism, i.e. here is One God who created the Universe. Ok, cool, I can believe that, there's a universe and I can believe it was made by something. Or the doctrine of the Virgin Birth - ok, I guess sex is kinda weird (even if I don't agree it's a sin), so maybe the Messiah really did need to be born to a virgin.

But then when we get to the Trinity, I just can't see any reason why I should believe it, other than that's what Catholicism teaches. "Ok, God is One, but then God is also Three, but still One" - well, why does he need to be three? He's the Creator, the Thing before all things, why would the most basic essence of existence exist in three distinctions? What does that accomplish? Why couldn't he just be One and stay One? Why can't Jesus just be a mode of God, why does he have to be distinct? God is all powerful, no? So why did he make this arbitrary distinction?

I'm rambling a little bit, but I hope you understand my questions

[Anonymous No.10114098]

>>10114078
The theology of the Trinity is extremely complex and I'm not on firm enough grounds to argue much about it at the moment. But I can point you in the right way. St. Athanasius wrote Four Discourses Against the Arians which I've read and mostly argues why, if we take the scripture as basis is impossible not to conclude that there is a Trinity and that Jesus is a persona or manifestation or first being or anything else that is not a person of the Trinity. There's also an 850 page tome of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on the Trinity which I haven't read yet, but can recommend him in general as an incredibly systematic thinker who was well versed in everything relevant to his work (aside the then growing analytical philsophy, sadly he never dealt with Frege and Wittgenstein). St. Augustine is also worth checking out on this, judging from The City of God and Confessions.

[Anonymous No.10114102]

>>10114098
>Four Discourses Against the Arians
Thanks, I'll check these out.

[Anonymous No.10114124]

>>10114061
I mean to say that identity is essentially false. Even if you point to atoms as the essence of this identity, these atoms are comprised of other bits; there is no one intrinsic essence, save for this primordial nothingness I tried to describe, which must be God because it is wholly above concept. Identities appear to be distinct, but this is an illusion simply because we hold onto these identities as if they were real. There appears to be "parts", but there are no parts.

[Anonymous No.10114274]

>>10113995
This was my impression. Or did Hitler copy Augustine.

[Anonymous No.10114282]

I am not catholic but I find this general very fun and I hope it continues. It seems like actual discussion is occurring, which is unfortunately very rare.

[Anonymous No.10114333]

>>10113547
Thats a pretty bad excuse, anon. Do you think we are on 4chan, specifically /lit/, because we have always been goof Christians? No, we have basically all into deep degeneracy and sin. Lots of us might still struggle with things like masturbation and porn and so on. I mean for me to go on here and say "Im a heretic (which is a sin worthy of damnation) because Ive done bad things before and I guess I just dont want to give them up" would be a pretty terrible excuse and extremely insulting to Our Lord.

[Anonymous No.10114372]

>>10112669
Saint John Climacus recommends not getting too specific with your confessor regarding sins of the flesh, lest you also provide them with occasion of sin. I would state that you've either watched porn, or at most, "deviant porn", and if he inquires further only then say more.

[Anonymous No.10114396]

>>10114124
Would you say that there's a common nature to the entities you call human and to those you call dogs etc? Have you ever found a dog that was not a dog and is a dog that is not a dog possible?

[Anonymous No.10114442]

>>10114396
This is an interesting set of questions, and I appreciate that you asked them. I would say that there is a common nature to these entities in that they exist in conventional - or what I consider functional - reality. That is, they both operate as though they were real assuming a subject-object perceptual orientation; I can expound upon this later facet if need be. I can easily distinguish a human from a dog, and vice versa, and this distinction can hold water. Looking at their intrinsic essence, however, I can say they are both the same in nothingness.
>Have you ever found a dog that was not a dog and is a dog that is not a dog possible?
This is most perplexing, to me, and therefore the most enjoyable. In my experience, I must admit that I never have encountered a dog that was not a dog, and I must agree that a dog that is not a dog is not possible, at least conventionally. However, I must ask you what makes this dog a dog? In my observation, pinpointing what makes a dog a dog is ultimately futile, because a dog is comprised of a variety of elements, not one having precedence. It is a distinction purely dependent on a variety of not-necessarily-doglike elements.
I feel that you posed this set of questions with some rhetorical motive, so I am excited to hear your response.

[Anonymous No.10114467]

>>10114442
The point is that there is a common nature to various things, which we call an essence. The fact that there is an essence it doesn't mean that it is easily grasped. It's important for dogs to have dna of dogs, which would be one of their essential features, but that doesn't exhaust their essence necessarily and we may have an incomplete grasp of it even. When there's a being with an essence whose existence is actual and not merely potential, for example me and you opposed to our possible children, who must share our essence, but not existence. The fact that we exist actually and have essences can be concluded that we have a substance which is our identity, as real entities that share it with other beings, so there cannot be a human who is not human or a dog who is not a dog, meaning that identity is not merely fictional, or just a category we impose on things, aka nominalism is false and universals exist.

[Anonymous No.10114590]

>>10113511
Where is this from?

[S. Donne !!Cgg+piu072t No.10114677]

>>10114590
It's a quote from Hitler attributed to St. Augustine. It's often posted on /pol/. See pic related (surprisingly I did not recognize it at first even though I had already saved the original quote from Mein Kampf).

I think Wolfsheim is being a bit cheeky here comparing his struggle against heretics to Hitler's struggle against Jews.

[Anonymous No.10114682]

>>10114467
I don't think I fully understand your explanation. I subscribe to the belief that this identity is in fact a category we impose on things and ourselves, but we do it subconsciously as we assume a subject-object dichotomy. This relationship we assume is non-reciprocal , when in actuality this is not the case. So the subject can serve as the object and vice-versa, but it is an illusion that we consider our "self" as the object perceiving our experience. To overcome this illusion, and to abide in truly non-conceptional reality, is to achieve theosis as Pseudo-Dionysus frames it. I admit that I have yet to read Psuedo-Dionysus in full, so it is wholly possible that I am misinterpreting his statements, and if so I apologize.
>The fact that we exist actually and have essences can be concluded that we have a substance which is our identity, as real entities that share it with other beings, so there cannot be a human who is not human or a dog who is not a dog, meaning that identity is not merely fictional,
I agree with this on the conceptual level, in that our self-identity agrees that we share the human form. However, I reemphasize that on a truly real level, we share an intrinsic nature - that is wholly devoid from a co-dependent existent form- which must be indistinguishable from God as it must logically preempt creation and serve as the foundation for non-conceptual reality. I must reiterate that I do not fully understand your argument, so if you could frame it in terms of Christian doctrine that would be most helpful to me.

[Anonymous No.10114721]

>>10113511
>>10113516
>>10113927
>>10113995

[S. Donne !!Cgg+piu072t No.10115042]

>>10114677
I should add, so that there's no ambiguity, that Augustine obviously is not the source of that quote and it's taken directly from Mein Kampf.

[Anonymous No.10115068]

>>10113511
Posting shit like this just shows everyone much of a sham these stupid threads are.

[S. Donne !!Cgg+piu072t No.10115114]

>>10115068
See my post >>10114677

It's pretty clear to me as a regular that he's just doing 4chan memetics to compare himself to liderally Hitler except against heretics rather than Jews. If you came here often enough you would see that he's quite knowledgeable in Catholic theology. I've often wondered if he's a seminarian or even a writer for a Catholic publication.

[Anonymous No.10115157]

>>10115114
Yeah, blah blah. If you honestly think this type of behavior is appropriate for a Christian you need to go talk to your priest.

[Anonymous No.10115458]

>>10115157
>>10115068

[S. Donne !!Cgg+piu072t No.10115521]

>>10115157
How is this type of behavior inappropriate for a Christian? You actually sound very similar Hitler's kosher strawman.

[Anonymous No.10115618]

>>10115521
Your post, especially with that picture, isn't worth dignifying with a response. I'll simply reiterate that you should seek pastoral counsel.

[Anonymous No.10115666]

>>10114078
As >>10114055 says, the Trinity is not an innovation. It grows out of study of Scripture. The more we examine the Gospels--which we must believe totally as Christians--the more we see three distinct entities all claiming to be God. There's God the Father, Jesus' "Father in Heaven," to whom Jesus himself prays. But there's also Jesus himself, claiming to be God, as when he says "The Father and I are one." And then there is the "Spirit of God," which makes periodic appearances in the Gospels, and also seems to appear throughout the Old Testament (as at the very beginning of Genesis, during the creation story). These entities all seem to be God. But yet they all seem to somehow be distinct. Take pic related, the Baptism of Jesus. Jesus, who claims to be God, is there. Then the Spirit, which seems to be God, descends on Jesus in the form of a dove. And then a voice from Heaven, which seems to be God, speaks and says, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Our faith in Christ compels us to believe that Scripture and Tradition teach the truth when they talk about God and Jesus. But so what, then, do we make of these three entities that all claim to be God? Especially considering Christianity clearly descends from Judaism, and claims to maintain Judaism's monotheism?

The Trinity is an attempt to square the circle. As that Anon says, it's a mystery. We don't exactly know how it works. We just know that this is how it must be for all the teachings of the faith to be true, and so we believe, and trust that the mystery will be revealed to us upon our deaths, at least as far as we are capable of comprehending it. This is a good example of how rational, logical consent is only part of being a Christian. Faith is required as well, faith in that which exceeds the grasp of reason.

[S. Donne !!Cgg+piu072t No.10116078]

>>10115618
What about this picture? The lady in red is a bit of a tart too, isn't she?

[Anonymous No.10117042]

>>10116078
>Dante_slowly_unravels_the_clonespiracy.jpg

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10117186]

>I mean to say that there is no...

If I'm understanding you correctly, I'm entirely there with you.

>If creation occurred from nothing, then this nothingness must have preempted creation. I termed it primordial nothingness to distinguish it from a nothingness that is farmed in relation to creation.

Seems like a distinction without a difference to me, honestly. Nothing is nothing regardless of the time frame of the nothing.

>concept of eternity leads me to believe - then creation, or form, occurred at a fixed point by God that must have merely assumed the form of a creator.

This leads us into a kind of gray area of speculation. Given what God is, the idea of God suddenly coming into form would not make sense at all. God is understood to be purely actual and so could not have came into being. But if God creates from a position of eternity how could there be a beginning without this? This has led to three views in Catholic theology:

1. There was no temporal beginning, but God has always created it. In the sense of a foot eternally in the sand eternally creating a footprint.

2. There was a temporal beginning to this world, but there was creation before this. I've seen this come up a few times but never more than just conjecture, to be honest.

3. It just works, m8. Appealing to the miraculous as they struggle with it logically.

>What do you mean by sustaining all of nature at all times?

I mean that creation - even with its mutability - comes about and exists due to God. And if you wish to understand causation in relation to this I'd recommend looking in Concurrentism.

part 1/2

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10117190]

>>10117186
was for >>10113904
part 2/2


>Does this suggest that God is only present in creation through his will, and the previous act of creation? Doesn't this limit God?

Yes, but I don't see how this is limiting. God's essence is transcendent. What we call the logos, grace, and the rest all play into God's will.

>I am not sure what I am assuming, honestly.

I'm sorry to assume of you, then.

>>10113926
>There are no parts of God in the sense that an orange is a part of God and once it is consumed it is mutated. Rather all reality, including being and nonbeing, are God by nature; completely beyond concept as the nature of God is without concept. It is only through illusion and over-reliance on form that we perceive ourselves and the universe as distinct from.

This is speculation, and fair speculation, but I don't see any evidence coming up to explain away the existence of parts in nature (in the sense that you define parts) and if that were the case it would separate the nature of the universe from the nature of God (without parts, as you've already stated).

>Perhaps we can call this continued delusion from God sin, and perhaps divine manifestations of God can exist in material form to explain the theistic aspects of the religion, but I don't know.

By Catholic doctrine, sin is the willful separation from the will of God. This is parsed between negligible mistakes (venial sins) and direct separations of interests (mortal sins). The latter is damning.

>mysticism

Do not read mysticism without first knowing the concepts they speak about. There is much use of poetics in mysticism and you don't want to be even more confused.

I'd suggestion Edward Feser's "Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction". It's very recent and responds to common criticisms and is in defense of traditional Scholastic ideas, even natural law and teleology - the last two heavily involved in the idea of objective good.

[Butterfly No.10117204]

Pic related Is a good read.

>>10117190
Hello fellow papist, Luther never left the Catholic Church, the church left him.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10117225]

>>10113995
>being on 4chan
>surprised or at all disturbed by this

>>10114033
>I have a question regarding the Trinity - namely, why does such a doctrine exist, and why is it necessary to believe it's true?

It exists to understand the nature of Jesus in relation to God and, to a larger degree, God in relation to creation.

I could go into this further if you wish, though I'm not much educated here so I'll have my limits.

>>10114590
>>10114677

I got the post from /pol/'s Catholic Generals. I'm doubtful the quote is real, seeing the last line. I thought it was cute and saved it. Having ready Augustine I do know it does not read like what he's written before.

>>10115068
Why? Please explain.
Generalizing individuals is not sound practice and uncharitable but you must understand that the image is a joke and not declarative but rather a quotation, yes?

[Anonymous No.10117233]

>>10117204
The Church is infused with the Holy Spirit. Anyone who leaves it is in error, regardless of their justification. This is the great mistake of sedevacantists.

[Anonymous No.10117234]

Can anyone explain to me why Jesus told his disciples to buy swords? It seems contradictory to what Jesus had preached before that and the idea that is was meant to only fullfil a prophecy and then this teaching to be completely discarded doesn't seem likely either.

Anyone know? Was it to prepare them for the troubled times ahead? Most of them seems to have willingly gone to their executions though.

And how has this line been understod after the time of the disciples?

Thanks!

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10117245]

>>10115114
>>10115114
>I've often wondered if he's a seminarian or even a writer for a Catholic publication.

I'm honestly just a layperson who took the time to do research. My hobby of anthropology led me to religion and eventually Catholicism. If you could lead me to a job in which I could do this stuff on the regular I'd be absolutely thrilled, really.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10117266]

[Anonymous No.10117276]

>>10117234
The swords must be folded 4000 times in symbolic reverence to the age of the earth in years.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10117282]

[Butterfly No.10117283]

>>10117233
https://youtu.be/cjpLdHCMsCU

[Anonymous No.10117311]

>>10117283
fuck I just realized they don't even perform the eucharist, not that they just think it's symbolic. they simply don't do it? or am i wrong

2spooky4me

[Butterfly No.10117313]

>>10117311
You're not wrong.

[Anonymous No.10117317]

>>10117313
Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you.

[Butterfly No.10117336]

>>10117317
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Romans:12:1

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John:6:63

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John:3:16

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10117383]

>>10117234
>Can anyone explain to me why Jesus told his disciples to buy swords?

The whole section here is:

>35 He said to them, “When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?” “No, nothing,” they replied. 36 He said to them,[l] “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, ‘He was counted among the wicked’; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment.” 38 Then they said, “Lord, look, there are two swords here.” But he replied, “It is enough!”

And then the next section forgets swords altogether. And honestly I don't know the official understanding of it. If you mind speculation from a layperson, I'd say there are two ways to understand it:


1. Telling his disciplines to be ready to get the job done. There will be resistance so be ready with armaments. They find a little and go with that as it's enough. This reading would have problems with shortly thereafter when Jesus tells Peter to not use his sword to cause violence.

2. It's a gaff as Jesus is trying to give another little parable in a short sentence about the necessity of being prepared to fend for yourself in changing times and the disciples take it literally. Upon revealing this to Jesus, Jesus drops the conversation. This could be seen as a test to see if they grasped the non-violence that Jesus taught, hence having to be further corrected just soon thereafter when Peter draws a sword on a guard.

I'd be willing to think 2 is likely the correct understanding.

[begom ordodox No.10117409]

>>10117234
>>10117383

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.
—Gospel of Luke 22:36-38

two swords could not possibly have been "enough" to defend Jesus from his pending arrest, trial and execution, so their sole purpose must have been Jesus' wish to fulfill a prophecy (Isaiah 53:9-12)

[Anonymous No.10117417]

>>10117383
Thanks.

So it can't be used to disprove the christcuck nature of the religion like some "trad Christians" like to do?

[Anonymous No.10117442]

>>10113424
>https://pastebin.com/u/wolfshiem
This is nice. I'd like to see the future /clg/ OPs incorporating aspects of this list.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10117449]

>>10117417
If it says to be prepared to defend yourselves but just not violently it's not supporting the doormat Christcuck stereotype at all and works against the claim.

>>10117442
I appreciate this. If anyone wants to rewrite or correct my shitty writing in different sections, I'll be happy to make the change.

[ordodox No.10117469]

>>10117417
>>10117417
Christ made a whip of cords and drove out shills from his temple. So some violence is still in the realm of possibility, defending holy sites and loved ones, etc.
But eye-for-an-eye vengeance seeking should not be engaged in.

[Anonymous No.10117472]

>>10117449
Well I think the christcuck stereotype relates to violence and things like that not just defending yourself against mean words or some shit.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10117506]

>>10117472
I mean to say that we should not turn to violence or repay violence in kind. Self-defense is its own thing and requires being physical, as does Just War Doctrine, but these are different from what is spoken about. As always, we should look to act in the good of all things. This includes those who wrong you, even as they wrong you.

People confuse this as being a doormat because they foolishly think that loving your enemies and acting against violence with charity means to leave them be as they are and as they wish to be rather than act to reform their misdeeds towards the good as well. We do no good to leave the violent to do violence upon us. That would be being a coward against sin rather than fighting it.

[Anonymous No.10117524]

>>10117506
Thanks for explanation, interesting take.

Been edging myself toward Christianity but I have also soundly vowed that I'd rather live not on my knees and then spend eternity in hell than the other way around.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10117554]

>>10117524
>I have also soundly vowed that I'd rather live not on my knees and then spend eternity in hell than the other way around.

It's very late but could you explain your rationale here?

[Anonymous No.10117605]

>>10117524
Kneeling is great desu. I can't understand why the V2 kicked it (almost) out of the mass. Nothing to focus you on the sacrament like a bit of dull pain.