/lit/ - Literature

>bought a pocket version of The Imitation of Christ
>Now see an ad for a hardback extremely cheap
ngl kinda wanna buy it again

Ave Maria

"And if none who is defiled
can enter that place,
then allow me to live by its enclosure,
residing in its shade.
Since Paradise resembles
that table,
let me, through Your grace,
eat of the "crumbs" of its fruit
which fall outside,
so that I too may join
those dogs who had their fill
from the crumbs of their masters' tables.

And may I learn how much I will then have received
from that parable of the Rich Man
who did not even give to the poor man
the leftovers from his banquet;
and may I see Lazarus,
grazing in Paradise,
and look upon the Rich Man,
in anguish,
so that the might of justice outside
may cause me fear,
but the breath of grace within
may bring me comfort.

Allow me to dwell by the enclosure
of that Garden, so that I may be
a neighbor to those within,
envied by those outside.
Yet who is able to look, at the same time,
on delight and torment,
to behold both Gehenna
and the Garden?
May the crown of those within
rebuke me for all my sins;
may the punishment of those without
teach me how great is Your mercy toward me." (St. Ephrem, Hymns on Paradise)

>>19460746
yup that's a vagina all right

>>19460746
It's meant to look like a vagina?

>>19460669
Thread theme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Y_ztEW1NE

>>19460898
Welcome to square one. Stick around, keep decoding this shit

>>19460746
>vagina worship
Repent pagan

You chaps reckon stoicism can be reconciled with Christianity?

>>19460669

Fuck the Holy Spirit, Fuck the Holy Spirit and Fuck the Holy Spirit. Don't @ me, don't pray for me

>>19461963
The fact that you are posting this again just shows that you need our prayers more than ever. God bless you, brother, I'll continue to pray for you.

>>19461956
Absolutely - the heavy Stoic influence of trusting the Logos and entrusting oneself to the uncontrollable movement of divine providence throughout history was actually summed up and perfected in the Gospel of John, where that Logos became flesh, and we now personally can know and trust in that Logos, and befriend Him - and that because of the revelations of that divine Logos, we now know the nature of the Godhead that the Stoics could only speculate on to the best of their knowledge.
This article might help give some points to further research:
https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011.06.11

Favorite Saint, /lit/?

>Jesus's contemporaries all dead
>no apocalypse
>still believing
wtf. he said in their lifetimes. go home

>>19462512
Saint Dante

>>19461963
Praying for you Anon

>>19460847
>>19460898
Yes, that's an incredibly common motif, even in Renaissance art

Any good Protestant literature outside of Kierkegaard?

>>19461963
I will pray for you

>>19462553
Marianne Williamson
James Agee
John Gardner
John Updike
John Milton but I think Paradife Loft is a crypto-Catholic mea culpa

>>19462553
No there is not

>>19461956
they were always the same slave morality

>>19462567
>Paradife Loft
kek

>>19462580
is he lifhping

>>19462567
>trying really hard to not do the "whats up dyke" updike joke

>>19462590
ligma balls

>>19462593
lmao gottem

>>19462603
this is actually based. TradCaths are Prots in denial. Say Bergoglio one more time motherfucker, I double date you

lmao *dare

>>19462531
>not understanding that Jerusalem and the Temple is a microcosm for the world as a whole, even after the book of Revelation clearly states that the kingdom of God on earth to come is a New Jerusalem
The destruction of Jerusalem is a foreshadowing, and type, of the end of the world. Jesus' contemporaries were alive when Jerusalem and the temple fell, just as He prophesied. And that while the microcosm of the destruction of the world (the first type of the anti-Christ and the end of the Temple) would occur while those in attendance were still there, the macrocosm to which it refers (the last type of the anti-Christ and end of the World) would occur before the generation of believers passes away.
See what the Church Fathers made of it here:
https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/matthew-commentary/catena-aurea-on-matthew/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5/chapter-6/chapter-7/chapter-8/chapter-9/chapter-10/chapter-11/chapter-12/chapter-13/chapter-14/chapter-15/chapter-16/chapter-17/chapter-18/chapter-19/chapter-20/chapter-21/chapter-22/chapter-23/chapter-24

>>19462629
>just as He prophesied
it was a postdiction, idiot

>>19462578
>t. can't understand any of those two things

>>19462644
>prophesies can't exist because....
>just because, okay????
Daniel 9 has entered the chat

>>19462644
>everything I don’t like is postdiction

bros isn't it a little suspicious that God only interacts with you in ways that look the same as make believe?
>prayer
sending supernatural thought beams to God
>confession
supernatural action by the priest in persona christi
>eucharist
the bread is manflesh, but on the down low

dude is omnipotent but if you were just pretending to get His magic...it would look the same wouldn't it

>>19462710
I don't get it, are you surprised that a system which predates empiricist-materialism by two thousand years accepts the reality of immaterial phenomenon?
Plus, if you want visible signs, that is why miracles exist. For an easily understandable, well-documented, unbiased (the analyst is a highly credentialed non-Christian), and scientifically unexplainable example, see the canonization miracle of St. Margaret D'youville.

>>019462731
>Margaret D'(You)ville
yeah but these miracles...you just heard about them, didn't you? I'm talking about every day. God is doing magic in the life of a Catholic every few hours. And yet every single time it's indistinguishable from you fooling yourself. Curious!

>>19460669
PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO PORCO DIO

https://youtube.com/watch?v=if5ZNV1Zk1s

Those two words makes every christcuck cope

>>19462731
>empiricist-materialism
you mean...things...that happen IRL? that's my -ism

>>19462750
>yeah but these miracles...you just heard about them, didn't you?
I'm not sure what you mean to imply? I have experienced numerous miracles, but as I have never had a devastating illness, I have never had a miraculous healing.
>I'm talking about every day.
Why would you expect that visible miraculous signs should happen on your schedule, or when you think they should happen?
> And yet every single time it's indistinguishable from you fooling yourself. Curious!
You should tell that to the only woman who ever survived acute myeloblastic leukemia, "the most aggressive leukemia known", through the direct intercessory prayer of Marguerite D'youville.
>>19462762
The healing of the most aggressive leukemia known to man is a thing that happened empirically. Given that even a fully-credentialed PhD hematologist could not find a scientific explanation, what is yours?

>>19462756
Why would we be seething? It just makes me sad that your eternal destiny in heaven is in jeopardy. I will pray for you, friend.

>>19462781
>It just makes me sad that your eternal destiny in heaven is in jeopardy

:(

>>19462756
Based bestemmiatore

>>19462781
>someone's cancer went into remission
hooray. perhaps no one knows why. that doesn't help Yahweh. he would do stuff when called upon in the OT (like with the pagan priests and the two altars...they literally did "my god can beat up your god"). now that's proof! too bad he stopped

How do I venerate a saint?
Do I just look at an idol of him and feel happy?

I'm very scared of accidentally worshipping the saint, I don't want to go to hell

>>19462841
icon*

>>19462841
you ask them to pray for you. if a regular prayer is a score, asking a saint to pray for you is an assist. praying for someone else is a rebound. asking Mary, the saintliest saint to pray for you is like an alley-oop slam dunk

>>19462833
>someone's cancer went into remission
It is not just "someone's cancer", it is the most deadly form of leukemia known to man, which went into relapse after treatment, returned, and then miraculously disappeared (with admittedly no medical explanation) after intercessory prayer to Jesus Christ. The woman is the only known long-term survivor in the entire world, having lived more than 40 years from a condition that typically kills people in 18 months.
>hooray. perhaps no one knows why.
Well, given that it occurred immediately after the person in question prayed in the name of Jesus Christ through the intercession of Margurite D'youville, and that there is no medically explainable cure, it is strong evidence supporting the power of the being invoked, which is Jesus Christ.
>he would do stuff when called upon in the OT (like with the pagan priests and the two altars...they literally did "my god can beat up your god"). now that's proof! too bad he stopped
Except he didn't stop, which is why when this woman called upon His name, He performed a medically unexplainable miracle which, to this day, is the ONLY case of long-term survival for that type of cancer.

>>19462841
It's not like you have to do anything formal. You are basically just talking about recognizing the good qualities that person portrayed during life. I know you are a trolling Protestant, but your misunderstanding of the doctrine of honouring/venerating saints is what makes it sound so ridiculous to you. There is an infinite gap between worship and honour. You can test this by asking yourself if you are ever worried that you are accidentally worshipping somebody you love when you honour them for their virtues or actions.

bro it's one sick person getting healthy. have you ever heard of outliers? there are like eight billion people and half of em pray for cures

>>19462895
Exactly, except instead of one "sick" person getting healthy, it is the ONLY CASE in the entire history of planet Earth where an individual with that particular type of cancer, the most aggressive leukemia known to man, went into spontaneous remission - immediately after praying to Jesus Christ through the intercession of a saint. Even the atheist who analyzed the case says it is a miracle, and admitted that it was medically inexplainable. If you still can't understand, and try to downplay how significant this is, it just seems like your heart is closed off to all things beyond the material world, just like how the Pharisees said that Jesus' healings were performed by demons. If you open your heart, and try to imagine that situation in your head, and try to comprehend how remarkable it is, I am confident that you will also accept it is truly remarkable, and that materialism alone cannot explain it.

I dont know who to reply to so I'll just make a post. Miracles happen regularly in Churches all across the world. You can visit any Church and find a story about how someone had a horrible illness the doctors said had zero chance of making it etc, yet they pull through. The thing is that people dont like to talk about them outside of the Church because of humility.
I myself recovered from a heart condition as a child because of continued prayer from family, friends and members of my Church.

>>19462841
You either pick the saint of your name or if you have a job a saint that "protects" that job.

There are even saint for homosexuality, you can choose whatever you want

Former catholic here

>>19462930
[illness the doctors said had zero chance of making it

It's about statistics, it also happen to atheist

>>19462930
Yup, absolutely. And because most people are not into the type of networks which would even report these miracles, they often miss them.
It's, of course, not exclusive to the Catholic church, because the Holy Spirit moves throughout the world on those who call upon Him. It is just much more common with us.
For example, here is an Orthodox priest healing a girl with MS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kibBuutkoVw
Let those who have eyes to see, see.

>>19462933

>>19462917
bro, you'd only have a point if it were the only time people prayed

if this leukemia kills a million, 500,000 are prayed for, and the one who recovers was in that half, it's not impressive. use your noodle

All those crutches discarded at Lourdes and not a single peg leg...

>>19462963
>if this leukemia kills a million, 500,000 are prayed for, and the one who recovers was in that half, it's not impressive. use your noodle
It is impressive when it is the only case of that cancer being cured spontaneously, and that cure being medically unexplainable, and that woman becoming the only woman to ever survive that cancer long-term in the history of planet Earth, simply because she asked Jesus Christ to heal her through the intercession of a saint. If you find this "not impressive", despite being literally unprecedented in human history even with the most advanced technology and medical understanding we have, you are simply choosing to keep your eyes closed, and not open your heart. Which is fine, but just know that the light was shown to you.

You see, miracles seem to be performed specifically on the basis that they are unexplainable to modern science. This is why things like Eucharistic miracles generally have some other quality about them which makes them impossible to attribute to the insertion of the tissue of a dead human - and that the types of healings, are generally done on diseases which are considered (at the time) incurable.

>>19462953
I'm from southern italy, where catholics do pagan rituals like evil eye and things like that.

Saints are literally idols, used by people to protect themselves.

My mother goes to the church every week because she's scared by her former bestfriend who is a "witch" and casts spells

My mother knows absolutely nothing about the doctrine (used to buy me condoms some years ago) like every real catholic.

My grampa says God hates him because he's 95 years old and he cant get an erection.
Most of his catholic old friends have sex with prostitutes he says

I think if you aren't ignorant enough you're just a catholic wannabe, this is what real catholicism look like:
Doing the fuck you want and then ask God for forgiveness and protection.

>>19462993
>people within a religion doing bad things and not being perfect means that the religion itself is bad!!!!
Jesus Himself heavily implies that most people go to Hell. It is no wonder, then, that most Catholics seem to be practicing their faith in a way that is only nominal. This has no bearing on whether or not the doctrine is true or false, though.

>>19463006
Didn't say the religion is bad and didn't said the people are bad.

>>19462953
Brilliant kek

>>19462985
>It is impressive when it is the only case
this is where you went wrong. just got wringer after. something to keep in mind if you ever decide to get started on rationality

Why God cure some cancers but not other?
It seems expected that he would either answer all prayers, or none

>>19463035
exactly

When I was kid (around 3 years old) I was very devoted, I got all the saints picture in my pocket.

My school teacher was sterile, I gave an angel to her and then she was pregnant.

Is this a miracle?

Also miracles do happens a lot with Hindu saints.

So there are two possibilities:
1. There is some sort of divine energy which is universal and is not tied to any particular religion, maybe it is fueled by devotion itseld
2. Miracles happening are actually a consequence of statistics, if you got a cancer with the 99.9% of possibilities to die (no cancer has this high chance) it means that every 1000 people 1 is saved, 1'000'000'000 of catholics? 1'000'000 of miracles!!

>>19462985
>Eucharistic miracles
I thought they were quite literally all frauds

I really don't understand why Catholics, under their theology
think it's expected that God will sometimes make statues bleed blood from their eyes
like, why would God want to do that?

>>19463052
3. Hindu miracles are fraudulent, but Catholic miracles are real

>>19463035
>It seems expected that he would either answer all prayers, or none
I don’t know why you would expect that. God is not a genie.

>>19463091
only easily fakeable miracles happen in Catholicism. God could come down and do one beyond doubt at any time. He could stream it or better, just appear simultaneously in every house/apartment/bugpod

>>19463118
Why he do some miracles and not others?

>>19463029
>this is where you went wrong. just got wringer after. something to keep in mind if you ever decide to get started on rationality
I have already went through my cringe "rationality rules, le bayesian skepticism" faze. My conclusion was that the most rational option is that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead, and that thus His words are the infallible words of God Himself.
>>19463008
Sorry for misinterpreting you. I'm sorry you have to deal with a bastardization of the true faith because of poor Catechesis. I am also a southern Italian, so I value your words. Hope it doesn't turn you off from the faith entirely - the true doctrine is especially beautiful, when understood well.
>>19463035
There are many reasons: first, because of the faith of the person asking for the prayer (people who have more faith will get healed more often) - second, because God specifically performs miracles so that they are scientifically unexplainable - third, because sometimes the best way for a soul to be sanctified is by going through the suffering they are seeking to be healed by. There are many more reasons. God is not a vending machine or a monkey who you can ask to dance - and miracles are not just random events. They have symbolic meaning, which is why miracles occur more often in cases where such a cure or miracle would be scientifically unexplainable (like the D'youville case).
>>19463055
I have not seen evidence proving that the most notable Eucharistic miracles (like the one in Poland) are frauds. I have seen evidence to the contrary, though. I would be happy to see any evidence you might have.
>>19463091
To prove that He is real, for the sake of only those who are seeking with all their heart.
>>19463052
It could be a miracle, but it also could be a naturalistic phenomenon. We believe the Holy Spirit moves throughout the world, and that God can be found by all who seek for Him, but Catholic miracles have to go through a very rigorous process before being definitely proclaimed as miraculous - the same is not true for Hindu miracles, many of which are undocumented scientifically.
>>19463121
God isn't a dancing monkey who owes you, or the world, proof. He gives proof to those who are earnestly seeking Him with all their heart.

>>19463121
That would rob people of the free will to choose belief or not

>>19463139
>people who have more faith will get healed more often
How do you know this?
How could you know if this was a false belief?

>>19463133
>Why he do some miracles and not others?
Miracles are a special mercy. They are not owed to humanity.

>>19463139
>He gives proof to those who are earnestly seeking Him with all their heart.
trying to believe something before encountering evidence...explains the copewalls

Does anyone actually have the "World on Fire Bible: The Gospels"? I know it got shilled when it came out, but I've never actually heard from someone who wasn't paid to talk about it actually talk about it. I'm curious because supposedly the rest of the NT is coming early next year.

>>19463161
Nah I don’t like Barron

>>19463139
>Undoubtable miracles would rob people of the free will to choose belief or not
>>19463145
>There exist solid proof of miracles

Uhhh... which one is it?
Do God rob cancer patients of their free will when he heals them?
Are priests who witness Eucharist miracles reduced to robots?

>>19463156
For what reasons are some people granted special mercy?

>>19463121
My favorite miracle that atheist can't debunk is Our Lady of Guadalupe. Whenever an atheist tries to disprove it they say it's a painting (not a drop of 'paint' is on the image) created by an artist (not a single candidate of a painter who went to New Mexico to make the image as ever materialized) and the church constantly 'repaints' it to keep fooling ignorant Mexicans. An atheist has to make up a grand conspiracy in order to 'explain' the miracle.

>>19463139
>I would be happy to see any evidence you might have.
Same to you, my dude

You'd think an actual miracle would make the news, at the very least

>>19463194
weird how it completely fits into its time and place in art history terms

now a vtube Mary in the 16th century. That would have done it

>>19463194
>My favorite miracle that atheist can't debunk is.. uhh some not-painting I've never heard about
You'd think would be something grander

>>19463194
>An atheist has to make up a grand conspiracy in order to 'explain' the miracle.
What's the logic here? That Catholics have never been caught doing miracle fraud? That such a thing would be inconceivable.
Delusional

>>19463150
>How do you know this?
I believe that to be the case because the cases of most miracles which I have seen involve individuals who were extremely devoted to the faith in this life, and I have seen many - and in contrast, I have not seen many miracles which occurred in people with no or little faith, although I am sure they do occur).
>How could you know if this was a false belief?
A systematic meta-analysis of cases of miracles which show that the majority of people who experience healing miracles are non-practicing Christians, or non-Christians.

>>19463158
Call it what you want, but God does not owe anybody proof for His existence, especially not proud atheists who demand signs like the Pharisees - yet He is happy to show proof to anybody who humbly and earnestly wants to know if He exists. Happens all the time.
>>19463179
This post >>19463145 wasn't me, so I would make a small correction - I would formulate "A miracle which did not leave ANY possible room for it not being a miracle (for example, God speaking in a booming voice telling the whole world simultaneously that He exists) would rob people of the free will to choose belief or not". Other miracles, like healings of incurable diseases and Eucharistic miracles, obviously do have possible room for it not being a miracle, as is attested to in this thread - although they are obviously more likely to be interpreted as miraculous by those who are seeking proof, or experiencing them.
>>19463204
You can start with this for the miracle of Sukolka:
http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/scheda_c.html?nat=polonia&wh=sokolka&ct=Sok%C3%B3%C5%82ka%202008
And if you have any questions or requests for specific sources within it, I can find you the primary source referenced.
>You'd think an actual miracle would make the news, at the very least
They often do, like the apparition of Our Lady of Zeitoun. Most people just don't hear about it, either because they do not live there.

>>19463188
God’s will

>>19463238
>most miracles which I have seen
Should've of have taken a picture

>>19463161
It's decent. The use of the NRSVCE is unfortunate, but as a commentary, you can easily just apply all the commentary to the RSV2CE without missing a beat. Picrel is the second volume. I'm in no rush to get it. It's not a groundbreaking commentary series or anything, but it's not bad.
>>19463165
I'm not a devotee of his, but while it's produced by his company and promoted by him, it's not his Bible. Some of his sermons are turned into commentary here and there, and those are all pretty orthodox (and not the universalism he seemed to be pushing prior to the 2020 incident forced him to become more conservative and orthodox), but most of the commentary is other, more respectable people. Apparently, volume 2 is even more so like that.

>>19463211
It doesn't for many reasons, for one, there's not an underlying sketch underneath the 'paint' nor does it fit with renaissance art of it's time charactized by its use of classical Greek and Roman figures, linear perspective, and humanism, the image is very cosmic in contrast to the later.

>>19463235
For one, the biggest skeptics of miracles are Catholics themselves. And attempts to try to prove the conspiracy of sneaky priest constantly replacing the image in the dead of night with a new one has 100% of the time come up short. This conspiracy would have been found out by given the images 500 year history.

>>19463238
How do scientists feel about your miracles disproving the uniformity of nature? I bet they are pissed.

>>19463277
>For one, the biggest skeptics of miracles are Catholics themselves
I don't believe you

>>19463287
Wrong quote.

>>19463282
>This conspiracy would have been found out by given the images 500 year history.
I guess if you assert it, it must be true.
Why don't you guys show off this miracle to atheists, Hindus and Muslims? Souls are at stake.

Is very convenient how these claims about miracles are compatible with literally any set of observations.

>>19463283
The uniformity of nature was never proven to a sufficient degree, given that miracles have been occurring throughout human history - although by their very nature, infrequently. Most scientists are content to ignore the purported miracles (while some admit they do exist, like Jacalyn Duffin), because studying them would, from their perspective, not be very profitable. It is much more utilitarian for a scientist to behave as if miracles do not occur within their field of study - and this fact is actually what Catholics use to verify their miracles, as shown in the case of St. Marguerite D'Youville, whose canonization testimony relied on the expertise of an atheistic expert hematologist. I find it funny how all people work in the service of God, even if they don't understand how.

>>19463238
>miracle of Sukolka
okay, I googled it this
If this miracle was show to be fraudulent, it's not like it would stop you being Catholic, right?

Seems like there is no evidence available to the public
that the MDs doing the test was Catholics with a motive to get the result they did (kinda fraudy)
https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-bad-fruits-miracles.html
Even other Catholics are suspicious

This is all so pathetic

>>19463322
>The uniformity of nature was never proven
I know.
But now it's disproven.

>>19463322
>given that miracles have been occurring throughout human history
You must realize that I don't believe this

I could assert the exact opposite. Would that convince you? Of course not.

>>19463322
You keep going on about miracles being proven and verified
Why don't the you/Catholic church share these proofs?

>>19463295
Read up on the literature surrounding the image, it's already been examined by scientist for the past hundred years form around the world. I see people complaining that not enough science has been done on it but what more evidence would even suffice until it's cut up into a thousand pieces? It's already proven there's no sketch underneath and the 'paint' on Mary herself is not paint at all let alone that fact that tilma which is made out of cactus fiber should have disintegrated centuries ago.

The connection to Muslims is actually not far off as Muslims already believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but the connection goes further than that. I haven't read up on Guadalupe for a long time but there's a connection with the name 'Guadalupe' as the word is Arabic in origin.

As for Hindu's I imagine the image wouldn't make much impression on that because they see the world and religion differently, I simply haven't read anything from a Hindu perspective on the image. This is not a cop-out or whatever because for example non of the standard methods of conversion worked in New Spain until the image appeared to Juan Diego. All the Catholic apologetics about sacred blood of Christ and his sacrifice meant little to them because they already had their ways of sacrificing mainly in the way of cutting hearts out of people to keep the Earth from dying or however they put it.

>>19463334
>If this miracle was show to be fraudulent, it's not like it would stop you being Catholic, right?
My faith does not rest upon this single miracle, no. I base my faith solely on the resurrection, which, while falsifiable, is admittedly unlikely to be proven false unless new evidence or hypotheses arise.
>Seems like there is no evidence available to the public
Sorry, friend, but there is the primary source available, only in Polish (but probably you can translate it easily):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330400580_Eucharistic_miracle_from_the_scientific_perspective
And I can try to find the report submitted to the Metropolitan, but this will require much time of mine combing through exclusively Polish sources.
Keep in mind also that as practicing Catholics, were these scientists to be lying, they would be in full knowledge that when they die, they would spend eternity in Hell. Although charlatans are common, it does not make sense to me why one would risk their entire distinguished scientific career, and eternal salvation, on a lie that they would have to repeat over and over (and still repeat to this day).
>Even other Catholics are suspicious
Naturally. We are supposed to be suspicious of all miracles.
>>19463338
>>19463353
>I could assert the exact opposite. Would that convince you? Of course not.
Well, of course you could assert it, but we have positive evidence for our claims, and your side is only relying on the absence of evidence. You are perfectly within your rights to deny that the evidence is convincing to you, but that does not mean that the hypothesis of uniformitarianism is proven, only that the scientific analysis is ongoing.
>>19463363
I shared the testimony of the atheistic professor who performed the analysis of Marguerite D'youville's canonization miracle on the deadliest form of leukemia. The information is very easy to find, and publicly available for one to verify, but if somebody has tried and cannot find it, I am happy to provide, as above.

>>19463421
>The information
You think words on the internet constitutes proof?
If I link you a site that "debunks" the miracle, do they cancel each other out?

>>19463432
What? We have firsthand testimony from the scientist herself. Did you even do research at all? It is not just secondhand reports.

>>19463139
Guarda io conosco la dottrina e mi interessa l'aspetto mistico
Ho letto Eckhart, roba su Juan de la Crux e misticismo cristiano in generale (e anche "scienza cristiana", chemicalization).
Ho letto anche libri sull'Induismo ad esempio Gopi Krishna, lo Yoga di Mircea Eliade e il famoso Vijnana Bhairava oltre al ~più mito che altro~ baghavad gita.

Io sono ateo e da una prospettiva agnostica e neutrale preferisco "la dottrina" indù e vedo nel cattolicesimo una grande tradizione (e che rimanga tradizione) che però stona con una visione a 360° dell'essere umano e delle sue pulsioni.

Aldilá dei vari -ismi, che altro non sono che iperbole inutili che nulla hanno a che vedere con il reale credo che la dottrina cattolica oggi serva solo ed esclusivamente a mantenere un elite (quella ecclesiastica). Poi ovvio ci sono santoni indù che lucrano e anzi ce ne sono molti di più credo rispetto ai cattolici.

Non sono utilitarista, ne per la libertá assoluta, ne per la patria o sovranismi di varia natura.
Sono semplicemente un essere umano

>>19463438
wow. romance languages really are alike. I could understand most of that with portuguese.
I disagree with a lot of what i read, but i cannot write a rebuttal because i didn't understand everything.

>>19463438
Grazie per aver sollevato le tue preoccupazioni. Se vuoi che ti aiuti, forse puoi spiegare esattamente come la visione cattolica degli scontri umani si scontra con una visione a 360 gradi? A me sembra un sistema completo che risponde alle stesse domande che fanno gli indù, ma con un'autorità esterna, ovvero l'episteme storica della risurrezione di Gesù. Nell'Induismo, basta prendere le parole dei saggi "illuminati", anche quando sono reciprocamente contraddittorie (ad esempio, Buddha come saggio sramanico che insegna in modo diverso da Adi Shankara). E come hai detto tu, ovviamente ogni religione ha i suoi intriganti e ladri, ma come hai detto tu, non caratterizzano la dottrina stessa.

Non parlo italiano, quindi puoi rispondere in inglese?

>>19463477
kinda surprised how alike they are. Guess learning Italian will be quite a breeze.

>>19463421
>We are supposed to be suspicious of all miracles.
But not TOO suspicious, lmao

>practicing Catholics
So we are down to trusting "evidence" about miracles, because the doctors are Catholics, which they are not supposed to be, they are supposed to be independent researchers (and apparently close friends with the bishop trying to have the miracles verified, what's the odds!) <- Internet said this, internet lies all the time, though
Still ...Religious people have never done bad things for what they percived as good reasons (this is sarcasm). Holy moly.

You gotta have such a different mental attitude to frauds, than me. To not have several warning bells start chiming.

>we have positive evidence for our claims
I think the evidence fails. (fails as being evidence) So we stand at the same ground.
You guys are making a positive claim. I hold a null hypothesis.

A litmus test could be: Do you think any of this evidence would be submittable in a court of law?

>>19463489
>But not TOO suspicious, lmao
Well, only after the miracle has been analyzed scientifically, should we say with confidence publicly that it is a miracle. Doing so beforehand is imprudent, in case it is proven a fraud.
>So we are down to trusting "evidence" about miracles, because the doctors are Catholics, which they are not supposed to be, they are supposed to be independent researchers
There are many cases which have atheistic independent researchers, like the example of the canonization of St. Marguerite D'Youville which I have mentioned repeatedly.
>Religious people have never done bad things for what they percived as good reasons (this is sarcasm).
I'm not saying that their testimony being a lie is impossible, I am only saying that because there is no financial incentive or career benefit, and because of religious tenets which make lying an incredibly serious sin, it is less likely. I think that's reasonable.
>You gotta have such a different mental attitude to frauds, than me. To not have several warning bells start chiming.
I try to always be skeptical. I use Bayesian probabilistic reasoning to make cumulative cases. I see how you could attach a low prior probability to the miraculous events, but I believe continuing to investigate the miracles will show you that it is much more rational to believe, even if remaining agnostic/atheist (at least at the beginning), like Dr. Jacalyn Duffin.
>I think the evidence fails. (fails as being evidence)
On what basis do you assert that? Why, for example, discard the testimony of Dr. Duffin?
>A litmus test could be: Do you think any of this evidence would be submittable in a court of law?
Which evidence? Sokolska only, or the cumulative case for all medical miracles (including St. Marguerite's)?

>>19463436
>people never lie
This is some baby-tier stuff

Is there a reason the cookie that turned into heart tissue is no longer available?
Is there a reason someone simply couldn't have gotten their hands at heart tissue and claim it was a cookie? Switched them up, you know. Fraudulently
(like the original priest guy, that kept it secret for 3 years, instead of reporting it. Suspicious stuff) or any point of custody

If we ran a DNA test on it. Would it be Jesus DNA we found? Could we clone him?

>>19463477
Catholicism and christianity in general don't acknowledge the different roles a man can have, the different impulses and thoughts. It's more about social control than an individual spiritual experience like it could be in *some* hindu doctrines (some).

Very nice italian grammar btw but some wrong words, you almost sound (or i should say write?) like a native italian
And considering the situation in southern italy, you sound better than most of them

>>19463518
>people never lie
Why would a well-credentialed atheist scientist lie and say that a healing from the deadliest form of leukemia was medically unexplainable, when she didn't know that the anonymous contract to analyze it was even from the Vatican? I'm not sure what you're insinuating - perhaps you are mixing the two incidents up (Sokolska and Dr. Duffin/St. Marguerite)?
>Is there a reason the Eucharistic host that turned into heart tissue is no longer available?
It is still available to this day, you can go see it, as far as I know.
>Is there a reason someone simply couldn't have gotten their hands at heart tissue and claim it was a cookie? Switched them up, you know. Fraudulently
Translated from the original source from Polish: "Instead, a more unusual phenomenon was observed:the heart tissue that appeared on the Communication was formingan unbreakable structure with a delicate hem left around the perimeterthe white host. This phenomenon is well visible even macroscopically, i.e.without the use of microscopic magnification. So it was found mutualpenetration of the heart muscle fibers with the structure of the Communication. [...] [The] way sconnections of muscle tissue with the host material, according to scientists, it excludes the possibility of human interference in order to artificially obtainsuch an effect. And what is important, it is analyzed by pathomorphologiststhe mysterious material that appeared on the Communiqué is in its entiretyheart muscle tissue. [...] before October 19, 2008, the material tested consisted of partsa check of bread typical for communicants, and after that date in hisstructure contains a significant amount of tissue of the human heart musclewith characteristic morphology"
>If we ran a DNA test on it. Would it be Jesus DNA we found? Could we clone him?
Hypothetically, yes (if cloning humans was even possible). We also know it is AB blood type.

I have a meeting, I will return soon. God bless you all.

>>19463477
And how come you don't speak Italian if you previously said you are from southern italy?

>>19463516
>There are many cases which have atheistic independent researchers, like the example of the canonization of St. Marguerite D'Youville
Which seems a much better method. Well, they don't need to be atheist, just not know/why what they are doing, to not be biased.
I don't know what this miracle is, so I got no comets about it.

But in regards to the heart-waffer, the criticism against the scientists, was supposed to be specific criticism of this one case.
This one I actually have heard of before, several times.
People thinks it's a really good proof a miracle (I obviously disagree). Despite all the problems that indicate fraud. Or at the very least easily allows for the possibility, and no way to rule it out.

>>19463563
Why would all the other people that have been caught doing fraudulent miracles lie?

I'm sorry for those who don't speak italian.
I'm an atheist but I can say that one of the man I respect the most is a catholic priest:
https://youtube.com/user/dongiorgiodecapitani

He's against the vatican and it is more rational than most catholics as well as atheists on the doctrine.

>>19463543
>Catholicism and christianity in general don't acknowledge the different roles a man can have, the different impulses and thoughts. It's more about social control than an individual spiritual experience like it could be in *some* hindu doctrines (some).
I would appreciate if you elaborate more, because I am really not sure what you mean here. We have many well elaborated systems of mystical development, both in East and West.
>Very nice italian grammar btw but some wrong words, you almost sound (or i should say write?) like a native italian
Also, I am afraid you are complimenting Google Translator LOL. I wanted to see if it was sufficient to communicate with you effectively.
>>19463564
I meant that I was genetically southern Italian. I am a second generation Canadian citizen, haha. Should have been more clear.

>>19463570
I highly suggest you do research into the St. Marguerite miracle, look up Jacalyn Duffin, it is by far (to my knowledge) the most scientifically documented recent miracle, mostly because it is so recent. Thanks for the good discussion, I hope you continue to pop in and ask questions.
>>19463576
The scientist in question, Dr. Jacalyn Duffin, had nothing to gain from lying. She is an atheist who didn't even know the contract she accepted was from the Vatican, or at all religious in nature. Check out her book, if you can, "Medical Miracles". Otherwise, her firsthand testimony is all over the internet, and on video.

>>19462661
The atheist on /lit/ fears Daniel 9

>>19463563
>It is still available to this day, you can go see it, as far as I know.
Huh, I just assumed it was gone.
I must be thinking about the scientific report or something.

A better point, would be that there is no way of knowing. That it actually is the waffer that turned into a heart.
That at some point of time, someone didn't just slip some heart tissue in there.

This would require no cheating on the medical doctor's part. It could be way before that, like with the original guy that spat it out and put it in a jar. Maybe he put something extra in the jar.

It's why I find this case so ridiculous. How could you possibly verify what it's claiming to have occurred. There are so many chains of uncertainty.

Almost a year as a Catholic, I've been doing alright but the lust is just killer. As an ex-degenerate, it's insanely hard to continue. Please pray for me and perhaps offer some advice. I'm plagued with lust every day and since I'm in school, I'm in no position to have a girlfriend, let alone a wife. Yeah sounds like first world problems but my priest said I shouldn't even think about getting a gf until I have a career and roof over my head, which won't be for at least 3 years. Help me out brothers

Thoughts on The Chosen?

>>19462586
no he's referring to this

>>19463609
Go to an Orthodox Church, I was a serial degenerate watching pornography for hours daily, and I went to a Divine Liturgy for the first time and I was cured. I tripped up occasionally, but it was night and day

>>19463145
ah, so this is why the bible is a corrupted, contradicting heap. I've always wondered why God doesn't just make himself obvious, and plays these games with far-off myths and flawed texts

>>19463637
i know, i just had to do the lisp joke

>>19463609
It's not a 'first world problem' it's a matter of your soul which last forever. For me, I've found that cultivating the virtue of temperance helps a lot. Start by fasting and going through most of the day without eating and eating only once, sounds hard but you'll be surprised how far you can go. People think i'm crazy when they ask why I skip breakfast and lunch and I tell them i'm fasting and only eat once a day. If you can control your hunger you can control other things including lust which is the hardest to resist. I got really good and fasted just like for almost a year but lately there's days where i'll break the fast and eat in the morning. I've had my longest no fap streaks when my temperance was at my strongest and you'll feel amazing. Plus fasting is a trend that's popular among secular people who do it 'science' reasons, ha. Little do they know it helps more than just longevity.

Also keep a colander and mark everyday you go no fap and count it as a victory, it's no small feat to reject sexual pleasure in our current world where sexual pleasure has become a religion to a lot of people. Hope this helps.

>>19463145
didn't rob Adam of free will

faggot

>>19463277
>the 2020 incident
what is

>>19463596
>Frank Herbert writes Dune books
>his kid keeps writing Dune books
whoa...athiesm BTFO

>>19463692
In the summer of 2020, rioters vandalized a statue of St. Junipero Serra right in Bishop Barron's archdiocese, as well as statues of St. Junipero Serra across California. Overnight, he went from telling people that it was the parishioners' jobs, not the Church's, to tackle these cultural matters, to full on "Repent sinners!" against the rioters. All the universalism talk and "we just need to be nice, and they'll all become Catholics" started to disappear and his teachings became much more orthodox and critical to the culture.

>>19463767
Typical boomer. Takes rioters smashing his shit up for him to wake up to whats happening in the culture. The biggest threat to Catholicism is boomers who just don't understand how virulently anti-Christian progressive left culture is, they keep trying to appeal to it not understanding that no amount of "Hey we like helping the poor too!" ass kissing is ever going to stop the progressives doing all they can to destroy the Church

>>19463788
>how virulently anti-Christian progressive left culture is
the progressive left is just more Christian than the Christians. the Christians are now the Roman pagans

>>19463788
Yep. Hoping for the best at the USCCB's conference on the Eucharist about to happen, but we all know the true boomers are going to water down the result. I hope this cultural violence stiffens the upcoming generation of bishops, and those who are there now when it comes to their turf.

>>19463803
People thinking secular humanism is the Christian ideal are so misguided. Good works are of negative value unless you glorify God first.

>>19463833
>Good works are of negative value unless you glorify God first.
How do you know?
How would you know if you were wrong about this?

>>19460669
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/faith-and-character/faith-and-character/mother-teresas-long-dark-night.html
>For more than fifty years following her initial visions and locutions, Mother Teresa was wrapped in a dark, pitiless silence.

She only once more heard the voice of God, and she believed the doors of heaven had been closed and bolted against her. The more she longed for some sign of his presence, the more empty and desolate she became.

Holy shit that bitch really did commit the unforgivable sin. Catholics beware. You can shut the door to salvation permanently with your religion.

>>19463646
Eastern Catholic Churches do the divine liturgy as well, with the benefit of not being a heretical schismatic sect. The fact that demons stopped tempting you after you went there sounds about right.

>>19463856
>doesn't understand how spiritual development works
There's a reason all apostolic Christian churches, including ones from before the great schism (hundreds to thousands of years before the man-made churches were created), warn against the seeking of consolations and "warm feelings", and teach the discarding and non-attachment to mystical experiences. Of course, Protestants don't have the system available to discern things like this, because they have rejected both the East and the West's wisdom.

>>19463874
Uh huh yeah its just a coincidence that all catholic clergy are dead inside from the moment they profess their vows. Keep telling yourself that. Its also a coincidence that this feeling is described as God being absent. I'm sure when you're in hell, where God is also absent, you can seethe against Protestants in heaven who "still don't get it".

>>19463788
>typical Boomer response to progressivism
>required the destruction of a statue to wake him up

He’s been very aware of the secular, anti-catholic culture for decades now. He was one of the first to speak against the New Atheists back in the day. Yet, why the sudden conservative/traditional shift from the Bishop?

As someone who frequently watches his channel, Bishop Barron was formerly a Democrat prior to them taking a fanatical pro-abortion stance. The Serra statue being removed is just one of the many catalysts that led to that change.

>>19463874
Roman Catholicism was formed out of a great apostasy that took place in the late 4th century and many of its doctrines—its own apologists admit this—cannot be traced any earlier than that. As is typical for Roman Catholic apologists, too much later Roman Catholic doctrine is read into too little information from the Fathers—and always through Roman Catholic lenses that assume the Early Church was Roman Catholic.

>>19463667
Thank you bro. Haven't fapped since February and haven't had sex in over a year. It's just crazy that the thoughts are intrusive and distract me from work and even hobbies. I think the fasting I will definitely try, I know many at my parish who do it as well (besides on obligatory days.) God bless

>>19463849
Scripture would tell us

The Church Fathers believed in sola fide.

>Whosoever, He declares, shall hear you speaking, and believe, shall live for ever.” (Epistle of Barnabas, 11)

Justin Martyr sees the baptism as a public “dedication” made by those who already “had been made new through Christ.” Again, the rebirth—i.e., “had been made new”—was “through Christ,” and the water baptism was a “dedication” that followed the renewal. That Justin Martyr is not speaking of regeneration by the act of baptism, but rather that those who are regenerated are baptized, is plainly evident in his closing sentence:

“And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61)

I highlight the fact that Justin Martyr called baptism the “washing of illumination” because it is only they who are first “illuminated in their understandings” that are “washed,” and illumination, as Justin wrote, is being “persuaded and believ[ing] that what we teach and say is true.” In other words, they who are first illuminated who are then “brought by us where there is water.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tries in vain to rescue Rome’s Baptismal Regeneration by citing Justin Martyr’s First Apology, but we note that Rome gets him backwards. The Catechism says, “Having received in Baptism … ‘the true light that enlightens every man,’ the person baptized has been ‘enlightened.'” (CCC, 1216). But Justin Martyr did not say that “he who is washed is illuminated.” He said, rather, “he who is illuminated is washed,” for the illumination clearly came first, as did therefore the regeneration.

>>19463667
>colander
Aside from this, I advise against marking something every day like that as it builds it into a "bigger deal". The real trick is to stop counting days and think of the issue as little as possible, rid it from your mind and being. The more you focus on it and make a big deal out of it by marking every single day, the more difficult you actually make it for yourself by holding it in your mind constantly.

>>19463946
Protestant apologetics havn't gotten any better these days huh.

>>19463968
Nope. Still just James White's old talking points.

Take Theophilus of Antioch. When Theophilus speaks literally of rebirth, he speaks of the preaching of the Word:

“Who is the Physician? God, who heals and makes alive through His word and wisdom. God by His own word and wisdom made all things; for by His word were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. … For God will raise your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the Immortal, if now you believe in Him; and then you shall know that you have spoken unjustly against Him.” (To Autolycus, Book I.7)

Then: Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.

“Who is the Physician? God, who heals and makes alive through His word and wisdom. God by His own word and wisdom made all things; for by His word were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. … For God will raise your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the Immortal, if now you believe in Him; and then you shall know that you have spoken unjustly against Him.” (To Autolycus, Book I.7)

Thus we see that not all who pass through the waters come to life, but only “as many as come to the truth, and are born again” by the Word. It is they who “receive repentance and remission of sins … and receive blessing from God,” for He “makes alive through His word and wisdom.”

How does Theophilus view rebirth? We need only read his explanation of his own conversion, by which example he points Autolycus to the Word of God which “heals and makes alive”:

“Therefore, do not be sceptical, but believe; for I myself also used to disbelieve that this would take place, but now, having taken these things into consideration, I believe. At the same time, I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened,…. Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve, but I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eternal punishments, … But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures.” (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book I.14)

Nary a word about the baptismal font. Clearly Theophilus is consistent in this: new life is by the preaching and reading of the Word, and it is to the Word, not the baptismal font, that he sends Autolycus for rebirth and eternal life.

>>19463964
>>colander
I know, I laugh at myself all the time. Your advice is sound though and perhaps I'll advance to that but the calendar marking is still useful for now. God bless.

>>19463903
>its just a coincidence that all catholic clergy are dead inside from the moment they profess their vows
Completely untrue, I know many Catholic priests who are on fire with love for the Lord, and are in the priesthood. Your bias and hatred against the Catholic church is clouding your judgment. Christian writers for centuries before your man-made churches were created wrote on how God allows spiritual desolation for our development, just as Jesus cried out to the Father why He had forsaken Him in His lowest moment, on the cross. You really do not know what you speak about. I hope you come to allow the Holy Spirit to dwell in you by leaving behind your man-made tradition and hatred, and allow Him to lead you where He wants, not where you want.

>>19463916
>Roman Catholicism was formed out of a great apostasy that took place in the late 4th century
I guess it still was not apostate when it gave you the Nicene Creed, the canon of the New Testament in 382, the declaration that Christ has two natures, protected the apostolic faith against the Arians, etc. etc. Typical Protestant ignorance of history.
>As is typical for Roman Catholic apologists, too much later Roman Catholic doctrine is read into too little information from the Fathers
Hey, don't take our word for it, literally just begin reading the Fathers themselves with an unbiased a lens as possible. I don't mean going on Pastor Jim's website and reading prooftexts, I mean pick up the Apostolic Fathers collection, and start reading chronologically from there. Tell me how much Protestantism you find there, I'll be excited to hear back from you.

>>19463953
>>19463946
>>19463995
You literally don't understand our doctrine (as is typical). We don't believe that THROUGH baptism we come to have saving faith in the Lord, we believe that being baptized we CONFIRM our saving faith in the Lord, as a visible sign of an invisible grace which existed beforehand, like how the Ethiopian Eunuch asked to be baptized after coming to know that Jesus is Lord. Please, before you start spamming our thread, at least do the due diligence of reading a couple paragraphs of our catechism. These types of elementary misunderstandings could easily be dispelled by doing research before wasting your time typing our such garbage. Really try and ponder what St. Peter means when he says, "In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. 21And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". What is he trying to say here? Why do many Protestants believe in baptismal regeneration? All are good questions to meditate on while you do your research.

>>19463833
>secular humanism
I was thinking savage iconoclasm and butthurt hatred of Aryans

>>19464009
not him but I noticed you didn't even try to refute his interpretation of the fathers. Are you conceding that they did not teach baptismal regeneration, and are you also claiming that catholicism doesn't either? Because in that case I don't see what the problem is with protestants

>>19463982
> Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God
>water and laver of regeneration
uhhh, protestant bros, i don't feel so good...

>>19463856
you literally posted this exact same thing on the last catholic general. No one cares.

>>19464036
>is a sign
Non calvinist bros wtf...

>>19464034
>>19464034
"His" interpretation is completely biased and dishonest, and the only reason "he" is quoting them is because he thinks we believe that baptism gives us faith, or that one can't have faith outside of baptism. Also, I'm not sure if you realize this, but he's not even writing these posts - he's just copy and pasting them from an apologetics website he found by googling, and pretending like those are his own thoughts. It's not exactly like he tried super hard to formulate these quotations he found from his reading of the Church Fathers - just like most other Protestants, he relies on outsourcing his brain to blogs like "White Horse Blog" so that he can avoid thinking too much. If I was a betting man, I would put heavy money on this guy not even having read the Fathers beyond prooftexts on Protestant websites. What a shameful display.

>>19464054
Are you incapable of reading English syntax? Theophilus clearly says "the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God [eg. Genesis 1:22], that THIS [the things proceeding from the waters being blessed] also might be a sign of [!] men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, THROUGH the water and laver of regeneration [!]", not that baptism is itself the sign. If you really read that passage and didn't realize it literally teaches baptismal regeneration (as do all of the fathers who speak on it), your eyes are truly clouded by your man-made doctrines.

Arguing with this level of dishonesty would be frustrating if it wasn't so sad. When will you people see that quoting random blogs is not a substitute for thinking for yourself?

>>19464111
Yeah no, your "interpretation" of that syntax is simply not correct. There's not even anything to say about it. It's just a desperate attempt to save face. You still didn't interact with the arguments at any point. You have at least 4 church fathers saying sola fide word for word and your response is to call that and everything else bad faith for daring to bring it up. I think I've learned everything I need to.

Hi I'm thinking about becoming Catholic, but the posts above make me feel a little uncertain. It does seem like certain Fathers advocated salvation by faith alone. It's possible that some of the others were speaking in a lofty, metaphorical tone too. I don't know...

>>19464145
Hey man, no worries. Check out the thread on Presbyterianism in the catalog. You might just find what you're looking for there. God bless, and please don't let the unchristian, aggressive tone of the "catholics" on here dissuade you from seeking Christ. If you have any questions about legitimate strands of Christianity like Calvinism, let me know.

>>19463874
>they have rejected both the East and the West's fabricated extrabiblical bullshit
FTFY

T

F

Y

>>19464135
>Yeah no, your "interpretation" of that syntax is simply not correct. There's not even anything to say about it.
I don't know how you can actually say this with a straight face. Or maybe you know that you're wrong, but are too embarassed to admit that the Protestant blog you copy-pasted from was as misguided as you are? Let's go through it step by step:
1. The things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God [eg. Genesis 1:22]
2. that this also might be a sign
[a sign of what?]
3. of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins
[how do they receive that repentance and remission of sins?]
4. through the water and laver of regeneration

>>19464145
>>19464150
Please, quit samefagging, we can all see that the number of unique posters is not going up. You are embarrassing yourself.

>>19464167
Wrong, it's a sign of [men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins through the water and laver of regeneration]. You're getting pathetic now.

>>19464167
>Please, quit samefagging, we can all see that the number of unique posters is not going up. You are embarrassing yourself.
I am an inquirer who posted earlier. I am shocked and hurt by your accusation. I don't feel that you are being Christ-like. I sought the true Church and you are turning me away. I don't believe this...

>>19464034
Protestants don't give a shit about the Fathers unless they're arguing with Catholics or Muslims; and in the case of Muslims, Protestants will even cite Popes.

>>19464167
You're not analyzing the sentence right. How could you do so and possibly harmonize it with the other statement you ignored: "For God will raise your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the Immortal, IF YOU NOW BELIEVE IN HIM"

I don't see anything qualifying that. Do you?

>>19464210
Calvinists can and should cite popes, not as infallible, but as leaders of our Church. Presbyterianism is the heir of the one Church that Rome ceded when they formally apostatized at the Council of Trent. Every pope prior to that was part of our Church, not the apostate church you belong to. Ever heard of the Development of Doctrine? As a challenge to the heresy of Rome, Calvinists needed to clarify the one true faith, leading to the clearer portrait we have today. We also have ministerial succession, which is taught by the Bible, leading from the apostles to all present day Presbyterians, guarding our faith. This succession came by way of Rome to the Anglican church to Presbyterian denominations throughout the world, guaranteeing we have the teachings of the apostles.

>>19464183
>>19464189
>>19464214
Samefag-kun, you seriously don't understand? You're absolutely right - the fish being blessed by God in Genesis 1:22 IS a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins through the water and laver of regeneration. I honestly can't tell if you are another Catholic who is trying to make Protestants look bad, but either way, thanks for at least helping to prove that the fathers taught baptismal regeneration.
With regards to your second point, your confusion comes as a result of not understanding Catholic doctrine of justification. We believe that belief in Christ, and acceptance of His sacrifice, is necessary for justification. We just believe that faith is confirmed THROUGH baptism, which is an visible sign of an invisible grace (being born again into the death and resurrection of Jesus).

Please, keep these plagiarized takes from "White Horse Blog" in your containment thread, you've already proven that you can't think for yourself, or understand clear English syntax. What more could be left to discuss? Pray that the Holy Spirit guides you into all truth, even if you are afraid, and I will pray for you as well. If you are so sure you are in the true church, then there should be nothing wrong with saying such a beautiful prayer to the Holy Spirit.

>>19464231
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

>>19464237
I still am not seeing your rebuttal to the Fathers advocating Sola Fide. Are you conceding that this is what they taught? I gave you several specific quotes that you ignored because you can't cope with them. Isn't that... not good?

Catholics have a long history of being cozy with the state. I doubt very seriously Christ's true church behaves thusly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

>>19464329
The heads of protestant churches have always been the heads of their realm, at least until American autism. Protestant churches in Europe are all national churches. How is that not "getting cozy with the state"?

>>19464329
The Church condemn Nazi's. Why do people still think the Pope was some puppet to Hitler? Also, it's precisely the Churches' opposition to Nazism that /pol/tards frequently bring up to show how 'cucked' the Church was/is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge

>>19464323
I did rebut you, and you had to samefag to save face, and change the topic. Please see my rebuttal here >>19464111, here >>19464009, and here >>19464237. I look forward to hearing your response, if you don't run away again. I understand that it might take you a little while to find a new blog post from "White Horse Blog" to copy and paste from, but I'm confident that if you put your mind to it, you might just avoid having to think too hard! Truly, you are the best Protestant apologist I have yet encountered, because in your ignorance, you are actually doing apologetics for the Catholic side! What a grace! I hope you stay as long as you want, friend. You are welcome here any time.

>>19464329
I guess you have to discard the Nicene Creed, because that Council occurred under Roman Imperial auspice.

>>19464381
You didn't provide a rebuttal. You equivocated on what baptismal regeneration means and what your opinion of what catholics believe. I don't care. What I want is for you to specifically refute the church fathers I provided and the specific quotes where they specifically said that belief in Christ is what saves.

You wrote walls of text about everything but this. It's very transparent.

>>19464402
You might have missed the part where your prooftext said, quite clearly, "the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God [eg. Genesis 1:22], that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, THROUGH the water and laver of regeneration". If you think that doesn't teach baptismal regeneration, I would love to see you articulate your thought process. Hard mode: no copy-pasting from White Horse Blog.

>>19464381
>I guess you have to discard the Nicene Creed, because that Council occurred under Roman Imperial auspice.
yeschad.png
My "creed" is Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
>>19464341
>>19464376
Cope, the true church makes no contracts with state officials beyond rendering to the state that which is the state's.

>>19464413
>dismisses the Nicene Creed
Got it. Thanks for contributing, have a great day.

>>19464413
>the true church
And which one of the several thousand protestant branches would that be? Pray tell.

>>19464381
>Truly, you are the best Protestant apologist I have yet encountered, because in your ignorance, you are actually doing apologetics for the Catholic side! What a grace! I hope you stay as long as you want, friend. You are welcome here any time.
Also this feels unironically manic. Maybe the holidays/loneliness around them messes with your mental health. The grandiosity is bizarre. No one fucking reads these threads, dude. They get made constantly and there are at most 15 Catholics with the number declining.

>>19464409
I posted several other quotes and even on that point, it has nothing to do with the rest of the passage.

For Theophilus:
>but I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eternal punishments

>For God will raise your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the Immortal, if now you believe in Him

>>19464423
>noooooooo you can't just agree with it in spirit even if it didn't exist, you have to monotone recite the heckin creederino
>>19464424
Christ's true church isn't a named and registered institution. There are members within all of them and members that are in none of them. There are also many that are in any and all of them who are not members.

>>19464150
The PCA dude in that thread talks like a demon

>>19464501
Hoo boy we gettin mentally ill up in here

>>19464511
Oh there you are. No one is convinced by your arguments and no one will be converting to your denomination. Have a good day.

>>19464429
>I posted several other quotes and even on that point, it has nothing to do with the rest of the passage.
I'm just pointing out that you are posting quotes from the fathers (which you haven't actually read, but that you are copying and pasting from Protestant blogs) which clearly teach baptismal regeneration.

With regards to your quotes that "prove sola fide":
>but I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eternal punishments
Where does that teach faith alone? It teaches that faith/belief are necessary for salvation, which Catholics affirm.
>For God will raise your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the Immortal, if now you believe in Him
Where does that teach faith alone? This teaches that you will see God if you believe in Christ, which Catholics affirm. Did you miss the very next part? Because it clearly teaches that "repentance and remission of sins" are received "through the water and laver of regeneration".

I think the only thing that could make you copy-and-paste such quotes is if you really don't understand the Catholic view on justification. Would you like me to link you to our catechism so you can understand our positions better, before copy-and-pasting from blogs to try and debunk us?

>>19464491
>dismisses the Nicene Creed
Listen, I appreciate that you are trying to discuss these things, but this is all you needed to say. If you are so uneducated in Church History that you do not understand the significance of this statement, there is no point in arguing with you further. I do appreciate you trying to at least interact with people who disagree with you, though.

>>19464521
The statistics and facts beg to differ, so that's simply not true. You also really do sound sick. The anxiety and passive aggressive effeminacy telegraphs real pain. Stop doing it to yourself. You don't need to post here. It's not helping anything either. Catholics have an outrageously negative reputation on this board and 4chan largely because of people like you.

You're a net negative for Catholicism and you hate yourself.

>>19464523
>Where does that teach faith alone?
Uh probably the part where it says if you believe you go to heaven, and if you don't you don't? There are no qualifications there. There's nothing else to it. So it is faith and nothing else.... faith... alone??

>>19464556
>So it is faith and nothing else.... faith... alone??
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24 KJV)

>>19464556
>Uh probably the part where it says if you believe you go to heaven, and if you don't you don't?
Do you think that Catholics don't believe that faith is required to go to heaven? I'm really confused by what you think we believe. Again, would you like me to link you to our Catechism, so you can educate yourself?
>There are no qualifications there. There's nothing else to it.
Perhaps you missed the very next part, where it talks about how man is "destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration"? Do you think you can go to heaven without repentance and remission of sins, which according to the father you quoted, is received through the water and laver of regeneration? Because, I mean, if we both agree that this repentance and remission of sins is received through the water and laver of regeneration, and thus we both agree that by believing and being baptized you can be saved, you then what exactly are we disagreeing on? I mean Jesus clearly teaches the same doctrine, when He says "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved".

>>19464579
Is this a concession that the quote we were discussing proves sola fide was held by the church fathers? We can talk about James and rehash the 500 year old talking points after.

>>19464585
>Do you think that Catholics don't believe that faith is required to go to heaven? I'm really confused by what you think we believe. Again, would you like me to link you to our Catechism, so you can educate yourself?
I'm still not biting. I have zero interest in discussing what catholics believe. If it's not sola fide, I don't care.

>Jesus clearly teaches the same doctrine, when He says "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"
Now please go ahead and reconcile that quote with all the parts of the Bible that reference salvation without mention of baptism. A tell tale sign of a Satan is someone who uses Scripture as a battering ram like this. If you truly care, you would balance that quote with others that seem to contradict it and then resolve them, since all are true. When you proof text like Satan did in the Garden, it becomes very suspicious.

>>19464523
>how the creed came into being makes it matter, you can't just believe what Scripture says and not rely on anything that was fabricated afterwards even if you do agree with the creed or any other parts
Enjoy being yoked with the doings of men, I'll stick with what God inspired and sealed.

>>19464551
I’m not here to build a reputation for Catholics on 4chan as I probably spend less than an hour on this site weekly, I’m here to tell you that your proselytizing is obnoxious and ineffective

>>19464611
>projection and denial
You're reaching into the psychotic-neurotic Freudian defenses. I'm really worried for you. I won't pray for you though because you're obviously not elect.

>>19464602
>I'm still not biting. I have zero interest in discussing what catholics believe. If it's not sola fide, I don't care.
If you don't care about discussing what Catholics believe, why are you in the Catholic thread? Are you lost?
>Now please go ahead and reconcile that quote with all the parts of the Bible that reference salvation without mention of baptism.
Uhh, bro? You're the one who needs to reconcile that quote. We have a coherent view of salvation which includes baptism, somewhat similar to the Lutherans, and you are the one who rejects what Jesus clearly teaches - "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved".

>>19464606
>I'll stick with what God inspired and sealed.
You don't even realize the irony, LOL. Have a great day my anti-Nicene brother, I hope you have a good time at Pastor Jimbo's anti-Nicene church, where you discuss how much those Nicene Christian heretics are all going to Hell. LOL

>>19464615
I’ll pray for you

>>19464633
>Uhh, bro? You're the one who needs to reconcile that quote. We have a coherent view of salvation which includes baptism, somewhat similar to the Lutherans, and you are the one who rejects what Jesus clearly teaches - "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved".
OK so you're just prooftexting and refusing to treat the word of God with reverence. Interesting. I'll keep that in mind next time I consider arguing in good faith with Catholics! I guess it's easier to troll and shitpost after all. Glad we cleared that up.

>>19464640
God doesn't listen to people who commit the unforgivable sin, whose hearts he has permanently closed out of his hatred for you.

>>19464648
>OK so you're just prooftexting and refusing to treat the word of God with reverence. Interesting. I'll keep that in mind next time I consider arguing in good faith with Catholics!
I couldn't help but notice that you haven't explained how you reconcile the fact that Jesus Christ, Lord of the Universe, says "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved", but you believe instead that you don't need baptism to be saved. I know that you don't care what we believe, as you said, but what do YOU believe? You can run away if you want, and make accusations, but don't you think you should figure out how to reconcile scripture and your man-made beliefs?

>God doesn't listen to people who commit the unforgivable sin, whose hearts he has permanently closed out of his hatred for you.
If only you understood the irony. I'll pray for you too, lost sheep.

>>19464648
>God doesn't listen to people who commit the unforgivable sin, whose hearts he has permanently closed out of his hatred for you.
I’m curious, what am I supposed to get from this? Should I live the rest of my life in bitter hatred and resentment of the God that I have hitherto loved? Should I toil and fear in the knowledge that I am damned?

>>19464673
If you could actually feel fear and repentance then you haven't committed the unforgivable sin. But since you don't feel those things...

>>19464663
>I couldn't help but notice that you haven't explained how you reconcile the fact that Jesus Christ, Lord of the Universe, says "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved", but you believe instead that you don't need baptism to be saved. I know that you don't care what we believe, as you said, but what do YOU believe? You can run away if you want, and make accusations, but don't you think you should figure out how to reconcile scripture and your man-made beliefs?
Well for one, and this is the most obvious thing: Jesus never said that. Mark 16:16 isn't Scripture.

>>19464673
He thinks God created our souls specifically so that he could predestine us to be damned for all eternity, because he's ensnared in a Satanic false doctrine. Just pray for him earnestly, because he's legitimately in actual danger of going to Hell.

>>19464690
>The Bible doesn't agree with my man-made doctrine, therefore the part of the Bible that doesn't agree with me isn't part of the Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

>>19464696
>The Bible doesn't agree with my man-made doctrine, therefore the part of the Bible that doesn't agree with me isn't part of the Bible
No, that part of Mark was a much later addition that the manuscript evidence clearly attests was not a part of the Gospel of Mark until centuries or more later. Catholicism "infallibly" canonized it by mistake, because they're not infallible. Unfortunately, that's on you, not me.

It is a very well attested fact that it was not original to Mark, not even close. The fact that you have to come up with a reason why this is ok is your problem, not mine. But really this is an example of a clear cut case of your infallible church fucking up.

>He thinks God created our souls specifically so that he could predestine us to be damned for all eternity, because he's ensnared in a Satanic false doctrine. Just pray for him earnestly, because he's legitimately in actual danger of going to Hell.
As opposed to your false god who creates souls the he foreknows will be sent to hell but technically he gives you a chance that he foreknows won't work out because he handicaps himself or something?????

>>19464719
>Catholicism "infallibly" canonized it by mistake, because they're not infallible. Unfortunately, that's on you, not me.
Yeah, Catholicism and all of the other ancient apostolic churches since the beginning of Christianity, even including non-apostolic branches of Protestantism. I guess from your perspective, the Holy Spirit who was supposed to lead the apostles and their successors into all truth fell asleep at the wheel. Even granting that your take is true for the sake of argument, how can you possible reconcile things like "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost", "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord", and "In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also"? Do you think those were forgeries too?
>As opposed to your false god who creates souls the he foreknows will be sent to hell but technically he gives you a chance that he foreknows won't work out because he handicaps himself or something?????
Are you confused as to what we believe? We believe that gives every single person free-will to decide whether they end up in heaven or hell, but that He obviously knows what choices they will make. The difference between the true God and your God is that you believe that God wills all sin and evil, including child rape and brutal torture of innocents, and also creates souls specifically so that he can torture them for all eternity, and they never had a chance to do otherwise, because God was the one making them sin and not repent.

>>19464741
Are you really just going to sidestep the issue of Trent fucking up and canonizing a forgery? You realize if that's true, nothing else in the discussion matters, because it is an example of an infallible mistake and thus you don't have the true church. One false move like that, and by your own rules, you're done.

>>19464896
I obviously don't side with the liberal scholars on this issue (or, frankly, on many other issues), and believe (in such good company as Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and every single ancient church) that the longer ending to Mark is authentic. I'm glad that you recognized you can't respond to the other issues though. I'm praying for you man, I hope you make it out of your Satanic false doctrine that makes God the author of sin.

>>19464902
Oh I easily can, but I'm not letting you weasel out of this first. Because it is an objective fact that it is a forgery. It's not subject to opinion, and it's not "libs" who think it. The oldest manuscripts of Mark do not have it. Well attested manuscript traditions know nothing of it. It only shows up later in very limited circulation.

Why would church fathers be a good source on this topic? Did they have access to the same number of manuscripts that contemporary scholars have? Of course not. Not by orders of magnitude. And not every single ancient church thought this, because THEY DIDNT HAVE THE LONGER ENDING BECAUSE IT WASNT WRITTEN YET. In fact, every ancient church thought the opposite because that is what happens when something doesn't exist.

If anything, this proves that relying on church fathers for your info is a retarded decision for myriad reasons. It also shows the hilarious limits of your false church.

Also just fyi you don't understand calvinism if you start slinging around that author of sin crap.

>>19464960
I'm not sure what you don't understand - it is not an objective fact that it is a forgery. That is the opinion of many liberal scholars, but it is nowhere close to a consensus. Many scholars hold that the longer ending is originally Markan.
>Also just fyi you don't understand calvinism if you start slinging around that author of sin crap.
You literally think that God predestines souls to go to Hell, and that they have no choice in the matter, because their choices were predestined by God. That makes God the author of sin.

>>19464982
>You literally think that God predestines souls to go to Hell, and that they have no choice in the matter, because their choices were predestined by God. That makes God the author of sin.
sure is weird how the calvinist confessions explicitly state otherwise then, huh?
>yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin” (WCF 5:4).
I mean that is the confession and that's it. Whatever argument you think you can frame is irrelevant, because that's not what we believe and that's not what the confession says. It says the opposite.

>I'm not sure what you don't understand - it is not an objective fact that it is a forgery. That is the opinion of many liberal scholars, but it is nowhere close to a consensus. Many scholars hold that the longer ending is originally Markan.
Who are these scholars? Scott Hahn? Name a few. What are their arguments?

>>19464993
>sure is weird how the calvinist confessions explicitly state otherwise then, huh?
So you don't believe that God predestines every soul to either heaven or hell?
>Who are these scholars? Scott Hahn? Name a few. What are their arguments?
To name a few, see David Alan Black's "Why Four Gospels?", Nicholas Lunn's "The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9–20", Bill Cooper's "The Authenticity of the New Testament Part I: The Gospels", and the work of James E. Snapp. There are many arguments to support the authenticity of the longer ending, and many of the scholars are not Catholic/Orthodox. I'm going to sleep, but if the thread is still up, I'm happy to discuss further.

Any opinions on Hans Urs Von Balthasar? I've been thinking about starting to collect his "trilogy". I very much like his idea of partitioning theology into the Good, the True and the Beautiful but I know he has a reputation among trads for being a V2 supporter.

>>19464413
Simply "making contacts" with the state is not intrinsically immoral, even if that state is imperfect. The state is the instrument of worldly justice, so the Church is obliged to exert great efforts to influence the system to act in a just manner.

QRD on the Jerusalem Bible? It's the only one of the major Catholic Bibles I've never read even partially. I just know it was the Anglo standard for decades.

>>19462567
The Recognitions apparently has a lot of theological discussion (everything I know about it comes from browsing /lit/). Could the book be described as 'Protestant literature'?

>>19462629
That's a nifty link, thanks.

>>19462615
My friend, I think you're confused. I'm a traditional Catholic, attend Latin Mass, etc and don't follow any Church politics. Your view has been warped by the Internet.

>>19467562
No problem, brother.

>>19464960
>THEY DIDNT HAVE THE LONGER ENDING BECAUSE IT WASNT WRITTEN YET.

O RLY?

In FACT, we KNOW that the longer ending of Mark was written BEFORE Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Read on:

QUOTE:
Irenaeus (c. 130-202), a very early writer, was a Christian theologian and minister who spent his adult life defending orthodoxy and fighting heresies, writes in Against Heresies 3.10.6: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God’ (Mark 16:19) confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool.’ (Psalm 110:1) Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.”

Clearly Irenaeus, living about 200 years before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were copied, KNEW the Long Ending of Mark and quotes a verse from it.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), one of the first and best apologists for the faith, in his First Apology uses words in Mark 16:20 as a fulfillment of Messianic prophecy in his examination of Psalm 110.

His pupil Tatian the Syrian (c.120-180), writer and theologian, in his Diatessaron (Harmony of the Gospels) incorporates material from all the four Gospels and includes Mark 16:9-20.

Hippolytus (170-235 A.D.) was a contemporary of Irenaeus. He was bishop of Portus near Rome from 190-227 A.D. In his writings in one of the fragments he quotes Mark 16:17,18 and when speaking of Christ has reference to Verse 19.

Irenaeus, Justin, Tatian and Hippolytus were very early Christian men who were born and raised when some who had heard/seen Jesus as youngsters or teens and some of the Seventy Disciples were still alive.

It is very persuasive that all four of them, born in the 100’s AD, KNEW AND CITED the Long Ending of Mark, the ending that has been traditionally in the New Testament.

The book by Irenaeus quoting Mark 16:19 is OLDER than the earliest manuscripts we have of the Gospel of Mark.

These four attestations of the Long Ending being included in Mark pre-date any edition of any other early Bibles.

Source: https://earlychurchhistory.org/beliefs-2/long-or-short-ending-in-mark/

Can anyone explain why the fourth Lateran council says that the essence of God does not beget nor is begotten nor spirates yet the persons of the Trinity are equal to the essence.

Like I get that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit don’t beget and aren’t begotten and don’t spirate, but the Father begets and spirates, the Son is begotten and spirates, and the Holy Spirit is spirated and unbegotten.

Also I understand that the essence is the communicable mode of deity while the persons are incommunicable oppositional relations. So the persons have these personal properties while the essence doesn’t. So deity and the attributes of God like His omnipotence and love aren’t begotten and don’t beget or spirate but the persons do beget and are begotten and spirate and are spirated.

Can anyone go more in depth in this for me?

just listened to Bishop Williamson's interview with Ed Dutton

he says that Francis lawfully became Pope, but the question is whether he has remained Pope.
With Benedict still alive it's possible that Benedict has become the real Pope again.

>>19468221
>Can anyone go more in depth in this for me?

I can't go into more depth, because I have only a cursory understanding of these matters.

But I think the key to understanding the specific issue you present is to understand the Council's statements against the background material they were condemning.

Thus, Abbot Joachim asserted that "Peter Lombard ascribes to God not so much a Trinity as a quaternity, that is to say three persons and a common essence as if this were a fourth person."

Thus, "the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds."

But it is *incorrect* to say that the "substance, essence or divine nature," as such, begets or is begotten or proceeds.

Why? Because to so hold would effectively make the divine nature, or "common essence" into a fourth Person.

I used the translation found on this page:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm

>>19468183
Thanks for this post. I didn't know this about the "long ending" of Mark.

Could someone recommend some literature for someone new to the Christian faith wanting to learn more about Catholic doctrines and prayer?

>>19468480
The King James Holy Bible and the Moody Bible Commentary.

>>19468480
The Catholic Catechism is a good, well-written overview of the whole kit-and-kaboodle of Catholic doctrine.

Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life is a very good introduction to prayer and the spiritual life. It is a book that has been in print for 400 years, and there's a reason for that. People keep buying it because it's message is very clear, well-written, and helpful. You can't go wrong with it in terms of a good introduction to prayer.

>>19468460
You're welcome. I'm glad the issue was raised because it prompted me to do a search. I had read bits and pieces of that information before, but had never come across that particular article before, which puts it all together into such a nice, concise and forceful little package.

>>19460669
Out side of the holy bible what should i read ? Where do i get my morals and sense of godliness from

>>19468599
>Kang James
booo

>>19468480
If you're totally new to the Christian faith and Catholicism then give Bishop Robert Barron's 'Catholicism' a shot.

>>19468834
>the Christian faith and Catholicism
At least you have correctly spoken of these as separate things.

>>19468840
You mean like responding to that anon as requested? You think you got me, Bible idolater.

>>19468854
They said they are new to the Christian faith so they need the Holy Bible and a good commentary so that when they start seeing the claims of Catholicism they will readily recognize it as nonBiblical Satanic pagan Babylonian lies, so I perfectly answered exactly their query.

"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour"

If anyone is starting to get into Patristics I highly recommend the "Faith of the Early Fathers" series. It has a large selection of long quotes from the Church Fathers that gives a pretty good overview of them, and includes quotes from lesser known Fathers like Vincent of Lerins and Fulgentius of Ruspe.

Even better it has an extensive concordance at the back of each book that lists all the quotes relevant to a specific topic, for example Baptism or the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

>>19464690
>Mark 16:16 isn't Scripture.
Not even your fellow Protestants agree with you on that. Why do you say you're a Calvinist but all your arguments are predicated on secular assumptions?

>>19469264
Sweet. I've been thinking about pic related and co., but this could be a temporary option to hold me over.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

"SYSTEMIC EVIL AND THE JUSTICE OF ADVENT"

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/11/systemic-evil-and-the-justice-of-advent

"We live in a world of systemic evil. Asian and Latin American drug cartels produce and transport their merchandise with impunity because they have bought off or killed the public officials who would stop them and the journalists who would expose them. On the other side of the world, corner dealers battle for turf to sell to the wretched addicts who stumble and sleep on the sidewalks of American cities. Sex traffickers in Thailand entice vulnerable girls and boys into sex slavery and bribe politicians to turn a blind eye, as they sell perverse fantasies to thousands of wealthy Western sex tourists. Pharmaceutical companies conduct drug trials on unsuspecting Africans and collude with health regulators to cover their tracks. For most of our history, the United States deprived blacks of liberty, dignity, and political and legal rights.

Such injustices can’t be resolved by moral exhortation or by rescuing individuals, as important as exhortation and rescue are. Global systems are organized for the benefit of greedy brutes, and justice won’t be done until these systems are demolished. This is what creation longs for:

May the sea roar and all it contains,
The world and those who dwell in it.
May the rivers clap their hands,
May the mountains sing together for joy
Before Yahweh, for he is coming to judge the earth;
He will judge the world with righteousness
And the peoples with fairness (Ps. 98).

..."

>>19463833
>Good works are of negative value unless you glorify God first
Good works without grace, which requires faith, don't give us salvation but I wouldn't say they have negative value. either. They are irrelevant.

>>19465406
He's on the edge between heterodoxy and heresy.

Got it. I'd say the notes are very useful for where they get their anti-Christian talking points from.

>>19468815
The Catechism of St. Pius X, the Catechism of St. Bellarmine, and the Baltimore Catechism are all very good for lay people. However, if you really have never been catechized, you ought to learn from a good priest. Notice, when you read the Bible, that Jesus did not leave behind a book for people to read, but instead told his disciples to go and teach all nations. To be Christian, we must be taught. It is a living faith of action, practice and habit, not a collection of abstract knowledge. To be a Christian is not simply to know of Christ, but is to live in imitation of Him. Therefore, you ought first to learn from those who are already trying to imitate him. Once you have begun, you will find immense help by reading what has been written by those who have already succeeded in their imitation--that is the saints.

how bad is the modernist heresy in your country?

do you guys really not see a problem with this?

do you guys really not see a problem with this?

>>19473659
The Pope is a man. The Papacy is an instrument of God. In the early Church, it would have been easy to confuse the two. Now, it is not hard to remember the Pope is just a man, so it is necessary to remember that he has been put there by God.

>>19473659
Chick tracts aren't an argument.

>>19469264
Also, Jimmy Akin's "The Fathers Know Best" is a good reference work for instances of specific doctrines that the Fathers taught. Thanks for the recommendation!

>>19468815
Imitation of Christ

>>19472797
Really? Why?

A Catholic anon posted a thread last week asking whether it would be a danger to his faith to read Kant. I responded suggesting he proceed with a certain caution.

If that anon happens to see this post, I came across a very interesting discussion about Kant by a *very* knowledgeable Catholic PhD student on the excellent Catholic website Reason & Theology:

Andrew Beddow on Kant's Criticism of the Ontological Argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i61wxetrUHA

>>19474927
I'm interested in reading Kant from a Catholic perspective as well, from a cursory glance I don't see how he can be all that dangerous. His greatest contribution is showing how flawed reason and empiricism are that was all the rage in his time, is it not?

What is the first year of Seminary called? The one where one gets prepared for further instruction?

>>19463849
There's no salvation outside the Church. That is, without baptism and without faith.
Almost the whole world knows about catholicism, so the argument that goes like "even if I'm a heathen, atheist, blasphemer, etc., but I do good things, I'm still going to be saved because God is mercyfull" is wrong.
St. Paul tells us in his epistole to the romans that it is impossible to achieve salvation without faith. That is because of original sin. Obviously, I'm not taking a protestant "sola fide" stand, but the fact that men are sinners, tells us that we NEED Jesuschrist and faith in his work in order to be saved by his sacrifice in the cross.

I don't know if "God's works are of negative value unless you glorify God first", but I reckon that without the faith in Christ, those works are barren if you know the Word, but don't follow it.

We all have to pray to have more faith and get the Holy Ghost to give faith to others.
Remember, love is the vehicle of faith. You can do good works without faith but it will be more difficult. If you have faith, love will start to express through your actions.

Also, general question. What do you think about "The Last Temptation of Christ"?

>>19475028
>from a cursory glance I don't see how he can be all that dangerous.

Well, it all depends on the individual. Kant was on the Index at one time, in my understanding. Under his epistemology, God is not accessible to natural reason in the way that Vatican I requires (I take this point from Mr. Beddow's remarks in the video linked here >>19474927).

His greatest contribution is showing how flawed reason and empiricism are that was all the rage in his time, is it not?
He criticizes those things, but also develops his own system that really does not jibe with Catholicism. Beddow remarks on this with a studied understanding; he's a pretty smart guy.

My larger point to the other anon was simply that, even though the Index is gone, the prudential principle that undergirded the Index is still in effect. All things being equal, one should avoid things that could risk one's faith. It is more important to be saved than to achieve mastery of a particular philosopher. This may not be at all an issue for you as it was for the other anon, and that's fine and entirely understandable.

>>19475340
That's a fine post, thank you, anon.

>>19467565
>attend Latin Mass, etc and don't follow any Church politics
impossible, you already went out of your way to avoid novus ordo

Thoughts on E. Michael Jones?

>>19476282
One of the great intellectuals of our time, not prefect, he's on the money on a lot of issues though I wish he was more nuanced on his approach towards Jewish people. It's all too easy to write him off as a crazy ol coot instead as someone with value.

>>19476369
Interesting. So, is his JRS book not worth reading but his other works are? Or is it all worth reading but in need of greater perspective where nuance is lacking?

>>19476282
>>19476369
Nuance, my foot. Jones tells the truth, names the Jew. It's pure education as education should be.

>>19476282
For me, it's the Medjugorje Deception.

>>19476379
It's worth reading but the gist of JRS isn't at all unfamiliar with broader Christian thinking on the Jewish people, basically they shouldn't remain as 'Jews' but become Christians. Christ, the messiah came for them but they rejected and continue to reject him and form a new religion in the form of 'Talmudic-Rabbinic-Judaism', a form of Judaism that is not found in the OT. Funny how people think that the Judaism that we see today is older than Christianity when it's not, it's much younger and an invention of man. Jewish people are still waiting for an earthly king David figure who's going to come to rule over the world like some kind of superman but that's not happened and won't happen. There are critiques on his books but none of them really demolish them so that's why I hope student's can improve and build upon his work.

>>19476387
See, I think students of his will continue from him and improve but bee more subtly and careful how they say things, EMJ is an old man with little time left to fool around whereas his readers have much to gain and lose.

>>19469264
>>19474314
call no man father

>>19476420
The only time I've seen JRS mentioned outside of tradcath circles was by blue-checkmark Jews from Buzzfeed losing their shit over someone owning a copy. On that basis, I think it's worth someone owning and reading, even if, as you said, it's just a compilation of centuries of Christian thought that can be found in other works.

>>19476456
To give EMJ more credit though, he's a historian as you know, and he takes this centuries long understanding and puts all out in a historical from the beginning of Christ life (they rejected and tired killing Him as soon as He was born) to our present time in a cohesive way that's easily understandably, a kind of taboo history that we're not supposed to talk about in polite society. That's what makes EMJ unique, no one else to my knowledge as written a history with a focus on the Jewish rejection of Christ. Once you understand that the core of Talmudic-Rabbinical-Judaism is just a rejection of Christ and the Christian message as a whole then a lot of history surrounding Jewish people makes more sense than any neutered and secular history can provide.

>>19476456
To give EMJ more credit though, he's a historian as you may know, and he takes this centuries long understanding and puts all out in a historical context from the beginning of Christ life (they rejected and tired killing Him as soon as He was born namely King Herod) to our present time in a cohesive way that's easily understandable, a kind of taboo history that we're not supposed to talk about in polite society. That's what makes EMJ unique, no one else to my knowledge as written a history with a focus on the Jewish rejection of Christ in mind. Once you understand that the core of Talmudic-Rabbinical-Judaism is just a rejection of Christ and the Christian message as a whole then a lot of history surrounding Jewish people and their relationship with western and eastern Catholicism/Orthodoxy makes more sense than any neutered and secular history can provide.

>>19476395
Tell me about this. I was on the web page and it was pretty schizo, typos and bad English. Sounded like somebody trying to debunk Catholic Esotericism on a right-with Tradcath Larper page.

>>19476644
https://www.fidelitypress.org/book-products/the-medjugorje-deception-queen-of-peace-ethnic-cleansing-ruined-lives
Just scroll down to the embedded video.

Sunday morning, time for mass bros

>>19476395
He really sets out a very persuasive case in the form of an engaging description of that whole peculiar situation.

>>19477324
It's the beginning of a new liturgical year - 'Year C' in the three-year cycle of Sunday (and Solemnity/Feast day) readings - the year of Luke. (The weekday readings for Ordinary Time are arranged in a two-year cycle: Year 1/Cycle I in odd-numbered years, Year 2/Cycle II in even-numbered years. Each cycle lasts one year, from January to December.)

Happy first Sunday of Advent, lads. I hope you all enjoyed Mass today.

>>19478052
>Advent
Weird, can't find this in the Bible.

>>19478171
>Bible
Weird, can't find that in the Bible, and I'm reading the Kang Jim.

this thread needs some serious air conditioning

Thoughts on the Shroud? I've believed in its authenticity for years, but this recent interview has strengthened even that belief.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ8KRXDtCgI

Happy first day of Advent brothers, let's keep the oil topped in our lamps through repentance, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, so that we can be ready for the coming of the Lord. Love you all!

>>19478564
Holding the Shroud as anything but a 14th century fake is one of the most anti-Christian things that you can do. You're not only completely rejecting the Church, but you're also saying that the Bible is completely wrong.

This is why the gay communist that runs historyforatheists says that it's not a 14th century fake btw.

>>19478758
>Holding the Shroud as anything but a 14th century fake is one of the most anti-Christian things that you can do. You're not only completely rejecting the Church, but you're also saying that the Bible is completely wrong.
What are you even talking about? How does the Shroud's authenticity make one anti-Christian or anti-Biblical? The 14th-century argument is completely debunked anyways, because the strands that were tested were part of the reconstruction by the nuns who restored it after the fire - none of the strand tests were from the original core.

>>19478758
Meds.

>>19478171
John 21:25

Columba Marmion, Christ in His Mysteries, is a good book for taking you deeper into the meaning and spiritual richness of the annual liturgical cycle. Probably Marmion's best book.

>>19478813
Including building a rocket and taking the Apostles to the moon and back one weekend.

>>19478171
>Bible.
Weird, can't find this in the Bible.

>>19478875
>Catholic
>holds Bible
>can't find Bible
checks out

>>19478773
>none of the strand tests were from the original core.
You do realize that that part of the shroud has never been tested, right? You also are aware that the shroud has been tested multiple times, and every single one dates it to the 14th century, right?

>>19478751
This post comes close to making me want to become Catholic.

>be born in 3rd world country, poor and mentally retarded
>develop severe depression and commit bathtub in toaster because of it
>"FOR DENYING THE PRICELESS GIFT OF LOFE I CONDEMN YOU TO ETERNAL SUFFERING"
does God really?

>>19478751
Peace be with you, brother.

>>19479042
Look at the image he posted.
"Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you."

>>19479042
now just listen to some gregorian chants and watch a documentary about monasticism and you're one of us!

Does anyone know why the translator of the Bible chose “fowl” over the word, “bird,” in the KJV? It seems really specific to me. Also why did god make whales before most other beasts?

>>19479134
Because birds are fowl.

>>19479015
>in

>>19479280
>I can't find the swimming pool that I'm swimming in

>>19479382
That's the standard you've set for yourself. If X isn't the Bible, like 'pope' that means it's an invention of man. So tell me, where in the Bible is 'Bible', or even 'King James'? Sounds like I'm playing some word game or trick? That's how you protestants sound. Don't even believe in the Trinity, I'd wager.

Recommended Bible? I'm hesitant to buy because I keep seeing bad reviews claiming omissions in the text.

>>19479450
the septuagint

>>19479450
King James. Just kidding, get the Douay-Rheims or RSV2ndCE.

>>19479450
>>19479468
This. DR if you want formal equivalence (more literal translation with 'ye olde' language) or RSV2ndCE if you want something with a translation leaning more towards dynamic equivalence (easier to read).

>>19479422
This is either ignorant or intentionally disingenuous. Popes aren't only missing from the Bible, but also from the first 4 centuries altogether.

>>19479503
Such as yourself? Asking where's 'advent' in the Bible.
>but also from the first 4 centuries altogether.
Wrong, again. Don't bother me with conspiracies and Chick Tract comics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml9FcT5JO5c

>>19479503
>Popes aren't only missing from the Bible, but also from the first 4 centuries altogether.

Oh, really?

>In the last part of the SECOND CENTURY, POPE VICTOR I (who reigned c. 189-199) was in a heated dispute with the bishops of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) over the dating of Easter. The difficulty is that the first Easter was both three days after the start of Passover and on “the first day of the week” (John 20:1). Most years, however, Christians had to choose between either celebrating Easter in relation to Passover, regardless of the day of the week, or else celebrating on Sunday, regardless of when Passover fell.

>The bishops in the west, including Pope Victor, wanted uniformity in the Church and agreed to have a common Easter celebration on Sunday. As the early Church historian Eusebius (263-339) would recall, “Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account” and unanimously declared that “the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only.”

>But the bishops of Asia Minor dissented. Their tradition of celebrating based on the dating of Passover was descended directly from the apostle John, and they were loath to change it. They responded not to the various synods and councils but in a letter “addressed to Victor and the church of Rome,” which declared that “we ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29).

>Everything about their response suggests that the Asian bishops viewed Victor as possessing—but abusing—legitimate authority. It’s unthinkable that one would write to a subordinate “we ought to obey God rather than man” in denying a request, and it’s striking that their refusal was strictly on the grounds that they viewed it as a violation of apostolic tradition.

>More shocking is Pope Victor’s response: Eusebius records that he “immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.” St. Irenaeus of Lyon, one of the pope’s allies in setting a Sunday dating for Easter, successfully acted as “a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches.”

>But the point here is not that the pope acted rightly in excommunicating a huge swath of the Church for holding to what they reasonably viewed as apostolic tradition (he almost certainly did not). It’s rather that none of the parties seriously contested whether or not Victor had such authority.
Source: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-papacy-in-the-early-church

Yeah, anon, that's why it's said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

>>19479466
/oclg/ says Newrome Press has apparently been working on an "Illuminated Septuagint" since 2020, as a revision of the Lexham LXX; if it still comes out next year, that'll be the best option for an English LXX.

This is the first year I won’t even donate to the church at xmas. Honestly we’re like 6 months away from does endorsing sodomy and abortion outright. It’s all such a big political jerkoff.

>>19479497
>RSV2CE
>dynamic equivalence
No, both the Douay and the RSV2CE are formal equivalence translations of two separate sources: the Vulgate and the Greek/Hebrew, respectively. Dynamic equivalence would be the Jerusalem Bible, which is the only major Catholic Bible I don't have because I feel like it won't add anything I don't already have, or the NABRE. My "dynamic equivalence" Bible is the Knox.

>>19479708
>catholic.com

>>19480266
No argument detected.

>>19480286
No actual source detected.

>>19480266
>chick tract. com alternatively

>>19480266
Eh, the facts are well known and well documented.

If you prefer, read about Clement, the first century Bishop of Rome, intervening in an intramural dispute in Corinth, across the ocean -- thus exercising papal-style universal authority.

>>19480266
>>19480479
>>19480296

Here's another source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Victor_I

If you don't trust wikipedia, I'll find another one. (I haven't posted the old Catholic Encyclopedia, because presumably you'd equate that with catholic.com.)

Do you actually think the facts about Pope Victor were made up by the writer at catholic.com?

>>19480487
All bishops were know as popes at that time.

>>19480499
It's not a question of the word "pope," it's a question of the early (pre-4th century, per your objection >>19479503) of the Petrine Ministry consistent with the Church's (and the world's) understanding of the Petrine Ministry -- the Office of Peter.

>>19480522
Funny how it wasn't until 1054 that half the church left over it.

>>19480567
What's your point?

>>19480588
You just made THE POPE up later. Your "church" is built on lies from the serpent.

>>19480610
Nope. The Petrine Ministry was clearly established by Jesus Christ, when he declared Peter, Rock, and gave him, individually, "the keys to the kingdom of heaven."

The office developed just as the Church as a whole developed -- organically, over time, as it grew larger and larger, from local in Jerusalem, to regional, to national, to international, to perduring internationally over a period of centuries.

The post-biblical era Petrine Ministry is evidenced as early as Pope Clement in the first century, Pope Victor, and so on.

The biblical and historical case is irrefutable, but the Petrine Ministry, like Christ Himself, is a rock of stumbling, and many have and will continue to stumble against it, and kick against the goad. Regardless, the papacy will continue, not because of the holiness of its occupants, but because THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY WAS ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST, AND IS PROTECTED -- AND ALWAYS WILL BE PROTECTED -- FROM TEACHING ERROR IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

>>19480649
muh graphics

How much of Aristotle's natural philosophy is worth reading and taking seriously in AD MMXXI? As far as I understand, Aristotlelian physics was deboonked and left for dead after Newton. I'm asking here because a lot of Catholic theology, esp. Aquinas, is rooted in Aristotelian philosophy.

>>19480757
if nobody answers, would suggest you put this in the next thread. would like to see an answer to this myself.

>>19480757
>Aristotlelian physics was deboonked and left for dead after Newton
Newton was deboonked by quantum physics but no one wants to really face that reality.

>>19460669
>be me
>got married yesterday
>now reading this cozy thread with my wife sleeping next to me

God bless all you anons. We are all going to make it

>>19480989
very nice. blessings, anon. a new liturgical year, and a new life.

Is Dante good Catholic literature or is it a meme?

>>19481083
It is good Catholic literature.

>>19480757
I recommend Wolfgang Smith work. He is a thomist/physicist. He rescues thomism, ergo aristotelism, using quantum physics. Great read

>>19481083
It's not just good Catholic literature it's good human literature

>>19462756
>>19462813
Dio è divino
I will pray for both of you

>>19462841
Always remember you are praying to Jesus through the Saint. Similar to how the people beg for Jesus' help through the apostles.
>>19462993
>Doing the fuck you want and then ask God for forgiveness and protection.
>
Anon, read the catechism at least.

>>19481225
Thanks Anon, I've just read the short of it and it's satisfactory to me.
https://philos-sophia.org/schrodingers-cat-thomistic-ontology/