/Catholicism/ general

[Anonymous No.13085081]

Ask questions, recommend books, discuss, anything related to the Gospels, the OT, the Church, her history and her teachings, but keep it text-based as this is /lit/. (As in, this is not the place to discuss Palestrina, or the siege of Damascus, or corruption under the Borgias, etc.).

It would be really cool if we could build up a catalogue of /lit/'s Catholic resources/links/pdfs.

Skeptics, non-believers, other Christians and religious groups, perennialists, pagans, all are welcome, but let's at least attempt to keep the discussion reasonably civil and elevated.

"In opposition to Christianity degraded into a manual of ethical recipes stands Catholicism, i.e., Christianity as a work of art."
-Nicolás Gómez Dávila

[Anonymous No.13085147]

>>13085081
I have some authors that should go in the catalogue:
-Meister Eckhart
-San Juan de la Cruz
-Chesterton
-Dante
-Fray Luis de León
-Maurice Barrès
-Pascal
-Montaigne
-Descartes
-Valéry
-Gómez Dávila

[Anonymous No.13085152]

bump

[Anonymous No.13085156]

I found this interesting article on the Judaization of Christianity and how that played into or contributed to things like Calvinism, Protestantism, Christian Zionism etc.

The authors seems to suggest that Christianity can only be saved by some sort of Quasi-marcianism. Obviously much of what he rights here would be rejected by orthodox catholics but I would be curious what people have to say or whether anyone thinks he makes valid points

http://www.unz.com/article/the-holy-hook/

[Anonymous No.13085171]

>>13085147
Also
- Ezra Pound

[Anonymous No.13085252]

>>13085147
>Eckhart
>Barrès
>Pascal
>Montaigne
>Descartes
>Valéry
you what lol
I can understand for Eckhart and Pascal, and to a smaller extent for Barrès but for the other i quoted : big wot, m8.

>>13085171
He's a sort of theosophic/gnostic guildist, lad. Far from being Catholic.

[Anonymous No.13085268]

>>13085081

Why does Jesus never call Mary "mother"?

[Anonymous No.13085270]

Any books on the church fathers?

[Anonymous No.13085315]

>>13085268
I can't believe you're still going on about this. I saw this shit weeks ago and even then you couldn't explain why it matters.

[Anonymous No.13085322]

>>13085081
I have a question. Why are you a retard who believes in fairy tales? And why do you torment yourself for having natural sexual urges?

[Anonymous No.13085367]

>>13085315

"This shit" as in what? The word of Jesus?

[Anonymous No.13085482]

>>13085268
Imagine being this obstinately retarded because it's the only way you can attempt to justify being Protestant.
>When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
>In a loud voice she exclaimed, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
>And why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
>For as soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.
>Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord’s word to her will be fulfilled."
>Then Mary said:
>"My soul magnifies the Lord,
>and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior!
>For He has looked with favor on the humble state of His servant.
>From now on all generations will call me blessed."
And as >>13085315 said, you can't explain why it's relevant that Jesus Himself didn't say "Mary is my mother".
>>13085367 is also incredibly disingenuous, since no one could in good faith interpret "this shit" in >>13085315 to refer to the word of Jesus. I wonder if Jesus would approve of you using His name to slander people.

[Anonymous No.13085514]

>>13085482

In neither of those verses does Jesus call Mary "mother", nor in any other verse. It is relevant because it means she is not his mother, in explicit contradiction to the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.13085517]

What’s the most philosophical of the gospels?

[Anonymous No.13085522]

>>13085517

John.

[Anonymous No.13085537]

>>13085514
>she is not his mother
This is why I respect Catholics much more than Protestants despite the idolatry. Protestantism is simply not coherent

[Anonymous No.13085549]

>>13085537

Jesus never calls Mary mother therefore she is not his mother. Incoherent.

Jesus never calls Mary mother therefore she is his mother. Coherent.

Intriguing.

[Anonymous No.13085557]

>>13085514
>It is relevant because it means she is not his mother, in explicit contradiction to the Catholic Church.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Where did you get the idea that if Jesus doesn't explicitly affirm something, the opposite is true? Where did you get the idea that the woman who gave birth to Jesus is not His mother?

>This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18)
>On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. (Matthew 2:11)
>When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." (Matthew 2:13)
(I suppose you think the angel was mistaken about Mary being the mother of Jesus)

[Anonymous No.13085571]

>>13085549
>Mary gave birth to Jesus therefore she is not His mother. Coherent.

[Anonymous No.13085572]

>>13085549
Mary is objectively his mother unless you deny that she gave birth to him, you filthy kafir

[Anonymous No.13085617]

>>13085557

Jesus is asked about his genealogy or Ontology many times, mentioning God as his Father plenty of times, but never mentioning any mother. He also implicitly denies that Mary is his mother in Matthew 12:46-50. And, again, in neither of those verses does Jesus call Mary "mother", nor in any other verse. An ANGEL, he says...

[Anonymous No.13085631]

This is something Ive heard conflicting information on: what did Jesus do until he turned 30? I know he likely worked as a carpenter with Joseph, but did he always know he was divine? Did he sin as a child? Was he just a normal teenage boy? He was fully human after all, so did he indulge in human temptations?

[Anonymous No.13085665]

>>13085549
Jesus calls himself The Son of Man. He acknowledges it before the Sanhedrin. He is quite clear that he is flesh and blood, that he is made of man. But we also know and accept that he is not biologically the son of Joseph. Further, he is a descendant of David, and this lineage is given by Mary's family. Jesus was the son of Mary, and Mary was his mother. We do not hear Jesus call her mother because Jesus was also God. Although he respected and honored and loved his mother, he also is above his mother, and is Lord over her. In the bible, we are not told of the life of Jesus, but of the ministry, mission, and passion of Jesus. We are not told of any conversation Jesus has with his family except as it reveals something regarding Jesus' nature and purpose. Mary is the Mother of God and the Daughter of God. Jesus is the son of Mary, and the Lord of All Creation.

[Anonymous No.13085679]

>>13085571
>>13085572

That birth does not have the Ontogenic authority attributed to it, not even regarding mere genealogy, is integral to what Jesus says. He even alludes that it's bad by saying it must be superseded, being "born again" and such.

[Anonymous No.13085682]

>>13085631
Humanity is not defined by sin. But as a man, Jesus knew temptation. As God, how could he be tempted away from himself? There are a few passages of Jesus as a child, primarily as he teaches in the Temple. It is quite clear by this that Jesus always knew, but as God, as a perfectly righteous and perfectly loving and perfectly merciful being, understood always what was right to do, not simply for that moment, but for all time.

[Anonymous No.13085699]

>>13085171
>>>13085147
>Also
>- Ezra Pound
Pound was straight up anti-Christian at the end. Couldn't get past the fact the old testament wasn't tossed right out. Called it straight up evil.

t. Catholic and huge fan of Pound who struggles with these things

[R Æ V S S Q A N D V S !KNDYYIIins No.13085757]

JESUS NEVER REFERS TO MARY AS HIS MOTHER, NOR TO JOSEPH AS HIS FATHER, BECAUSE HE IS AWARE THAT HE HIMSELF IS AN INCARNATION OF CHRIST, THEREFORE, HE KNOWS THAT MARY IS ONLY HIS GENERATRIX, AND JOSEPH HIS GENERATRIX’S HUSBAND, WHILST HIS FATHER IS GOD, AND HIS MOTHER IS THE HOLY SPIRIT.

TO DENY, OR TO OCCLUDE, THIS, —LIKE CATHOLICISM DOES— CONSTITUTES INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY, AND THEOLOGICAL ERROR; TO UTILIZE THIS TO DENY THE IMPORTANCE, OR THE SANCTITY, OF MARY —LIKE PROTESTANTISM DOES—, CONSTITUTES SACRILEGE.

THE SAME LOGIC IS APPLIED TO ALL CHRISTIANS, BY WHICH ONE'S REAL FATHER, AND REAL MOTHER, ARE, RESPECTIVELY: GOD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT —SOFIA TO SOME—, WHICH IS WHY JESUSCHRIST COMMANDS HIS DISCIPLES TO SEVER FAMILIAL ATTACHMENTS.

QVOD VIDE:

>«But I answered and said to him: "Lord, we can obey you if you wish, for we have forsaken our fathers and our mothers and our villages, and followed you. Grant us, therefore, not to be tempted by the devil, the evil one."»

— APOCRYPHON OF JAMES.

>«The disciples said to him: "Your brothers and your mother are standing outside." He said to them: "Those here who do what my Father wants are my brothers and my mother. They are the ones who will enter my Father's kingdom."»

>«"Whoever does not hate [father] and mother as I do cannot be my [disciple], and whoever does [not] love [father and] mother as I do cannot be my [disciple]. For my mother [BIRTHED ME], but my true [mother] gave me life."»

— GOSPEL OF THOMAS.

[Anonymous No.13085780]

This thread became an advanced scholastic discussion out of nowhere. I love you /lit/

[Anonymous No.13085803]

>>13085665

This is not to deny the fully God and fully Man principle, quite the contrary:

If you take the Logos becoming flesh in terms of non-contradiction, as you should, not in terms of Dualism, the clash between the ostensibly inevitable deduction that Mary is his mother and the fact that he never says so seems to resolve itself if you simply take Jesus for his word. That your idea of motherhood, indeed, of human reproduction itself, might be flawed, and that women literally have no input therein, being "metaphysically" virgin forever. At least consider it.

[Anonymous No.13085848]

>>13085679
The geneologies are contrary which discredits at least one and makes both suspect

[Anonymous No.13085849]

>>13085757
By suggesting that God and the Spirit are the Father and Mother of Jesus in a generative way, you are saying that Jesus is a creature. If so, you must either deny the divinity of Jesus or you must deny the trinity. Both these positions are certainly false. God does not command us to sever familial attachments. Rather, he says that if our familial attachments would interfere with our duty to God, our duty to God takes precedence. It is confirmed by the commandment that if our hand would cause us to steal, cut it off. Do you not think that as much as Jesus did not do as his parents asked, he was not working for them?

[Anonymous No.13085866]

>>13085848
>>13085849

Meditate on Trialism and stop reading Lizzy's twitter.

[Anonymous No.13085867]

>>13085803
What contradiction is raised by his never calling Mary his mother? What dilemma are you even trying to solve?

[Anonymous No.13085882]

>>13085867

See: >>13085617

[Anonymous No.13085891]

>>13085848
What genealogies are you talking about? Matthew traces Joseph’s descendants from King David via twenty-eight intermediate generations, while Luke has forty-one generations but this isn't a contradiction. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not intend to record every father-son pair going back a thousand years from Jesus to David. The Hebrew word for son, or ben, is very flexible and can mean grandson or even great-grandson. This is why Jesus could be called the “son” of David even though David lived long before Jesus did (Matt. 15:22; 20:30).

The reason Matthew describes twenty-eight generations between David and Jesus is because Matthew divided his entire genealogy into three parts, each containing fourteen generations. Matthew tells us, “all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah,fourteen generations” (Matt. 1:17). The three Hebrew letters that make up David’s name also have a numerical value that adds up to fourteen. This means Matthew was probably creating a mnemonic device to help his readers understand that Jesus is descended from David.

In the twenty-first century, with our seemingly endless supply of paper and digital hard-drive space, we are obsessed with recording every single detail of past events. But ancient people, who had little access to paper and primarily transmitted their accounts through oral tradition, didn’t feel the need to be exact in their details. The Bible’s genealogies show us that the sacred authors had no qualms about compressing generations or leaving some out in order to make a literary point.

[Anonymous No.13085898]

>>13085866
You cannot define or limit God by the appearance of Man. You are anthropomorphizing God.

[Anonymous No.13085921]

>>13085891
They follow different sons of David

[Anonymous No.13085926]

>>13085882
>implicitly denies Mary is his mother
If that is what you take from Matthew 14:46, you are very far astray. But also, you've avoided the question. What issue are you trying to resolve? So Jesus never refers to Mary as mother--why are you jumping to interpret this as a statement about the nature of God's being as Man? Why have you gone through the Bible simply to see how many times Jesus mentions Mary as his mother? You would not do this unless you began with the purpose of deciding whether she was or wasn't. And for what purpose did you ask this question?

[Anonymous No.13085929]

>>13085921
I don't know what that means.

[Anonymous No.13085948]

>>13085929
I mean Luke says he is descended from David's son Nathan, Matthew says Solomon.

[R Æ V S S Q A N D V S !KNDYYIIins No.13085953]

>>13085849
>By suggesting that God and the Spirit are the Father and Mother of [CHRIST] in a generative way, you are saying that [CHRIST] is a creature.

NO; THE PRODUCT OF GENERATION IS THE PROGENY; A CREATURE IS THE PRODUCT OF CREATION.

[Anonymous No.13085955]

>>13085948
Couldn't both be true?

[Anonymous No.13085993]

>>13085921
Understand that this royal geneology was a prerequisite for the prophesied King of Kings. Many were disappointed by Jesus. They expected an earthly king who would liberate the Jews from Roman rule. Many people sought every possible way to deny that Jesus was the promised one. That there are multiple geneologies given today looks like a weakness, because we only follow one way of measuring these things. But in the time of Jesus, these things were a matter of tradition. Possession, inheritance, lineage--there were many ways of dividing these things. The many geneologies are not in conflict with another, but rather fulfill each other. Today, we have lost the context surrounding them. We have Jesus' geneology, but no others. Taken in our frame of mind, we are confused. But consider, these accounts were passed by word of mouth, among rich and poor, among the learned and the ignorant. Do you really think that people were more gullible in the time of Jesus, when lying was easy? As we recieve the Bible today, it is important to remember that it did not always carry the same weight and prestige as it does today. That we know of it at all is testament to the fact that skeptical people found it reliable and true. It would be reassuring to have a full explanation of the genealogies, but we can be confident that those who first heard these stories, and decided they were worth preserving, had the context we now lack. If not, why would these portions remain?

[Anonymous No.13086011]

>>13085955
Not unless the geneologies converged down the line, which they don't, they terminate in two different fathers for Joseph

>>13085993
If it is passed by word of mouth (hearsay), the chain of narration should be cited (as with a Hadith).

[Anonymous No.13086019]

>>13085926

Affirming God as your Father and NO ONE as your mother is a stark contrast, by far the starkest in the Gospels. I have both gone through the Bible and had no preconceptions thereof by virtue of not being Catholic, by the way.

[Anonymous No.13086028]

>>13085953
You are making a meaningless distinction. If something is a progeny, it still comes after. To be the product of something, the product must have come second. For Jesus to be generated, this means there was a time when he did not exist. You are saying that Jesus is not co-eternal with God and the Holy Spirit. What's more, by making the distinction between produce and create, you are suggesting that anything can be made without God's will. The Greek and Latin church split over a more minute semantic disagreement. What you are saying is clearly and obviously heterodox.

[Anonymous No.13086036]

>>13086011
Did you see the point I made earlier about the Hebrew word "ben" which can mean son, grandon, great grandson and so on?

[R Æ V S S Q A N D V S !KNDYYIIins No.13086038]

>>13086028

THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCE, NOR DISCERN, BETWEEN GENERATION, AND CREATION, DOES NOT ENTAIL THAT THE DISTINCTION IS FALSE.

[Anonymous No.13086055]

>>13086038
have sex

[Anonymous No.13086062]

Why would the genealogies say that Jesus is Joseph's son despite the whole virgin birth thing?

[Anonymous No.13086082]

>>13085848
>>13085891
>>13085993

Guys seriously, Jesus is as intentional in humor as he is in transgressing Judaism.

>"Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

[Anonymous No.13086092]

>>13086062
Because Joseph was his guardian. What people have historically understood the work son to mean is a little different than what we understand it to mean, otherwise people would have immediately used the gospels as proof against the early Christians. It wasn't uncommon for brothers to marry their brothers wives in the event that their brother passes away. The deceased brothers children would then become the living brothers children. "Fathers" and 'sons" aren't necessarily a biological title.

[Anonymous No.13086093]

>>13086028

Forgot the picture when I said meditate on Trialism. Just the schema, don't mind the text, or...do.

[Anonymous No.13086102]

>>13086011
The entire bible is passed by word of mouth. All of human life was passed by word of mouth. Hearsay is a modern invention. If most people cannot read, then most everything is known only by what is spoken. And if the chain of recitation is included, how is that any more reliable, because it too is, as you call it, hearsay. The people cited are not more present than those being described. And what is it saying about the person telling the genealogy that they must rely on the (supposed) authority of someone else. After all, what would stop someone who would lie about the genealogy from lying about those who recorded the genealogy?

[Anonymous No.13086112]

>>13086038
I did not say that the distinction does not exist. I demonstrated that, at least in this case, the distinction is without meaningful effect. Whether you say Jesus was generated or created, you are still denying him divine attributes, you are still denying the trinity, you are still denying essential truths, without which none of the rest can even matter.

[Anonymous No.13086117]

>>13086102
>The entire bible is passed by word of mouth.
Even the letters from Paul?

[Anonymous No.13086118]

>>13086093
So it is even worse. You have not simply conflated Man's being with God's being, you have conflated rational philosophy with Theology Proper.

[Anonymous No.13086133]

>>13086117
If you know what I mean, then why do raise an issue? We are not discussing my own merits in discourse (or lack thereof), but the truth of Jesus Christ. From all that I said, why ask this question? It seems you would rather not address the issue at hand.

[Anonymous No.13086135]

>>13086036
Yes, but in a geneology, this being used in direct proximity to the subject is dubious. The skipping in listed geneologies in general also very dubious as a geneology's authenticity was related to direct lines.

[R Æ V S S Q A N D V S !KNDYYIIins No.13086152]

>>13086112

1. ACCORDING TO YOU, HOW DOES THIS CONTEXT RENDER THE DISTINCTION «WITHOUT MEANINGFUL EFFECT»?

2. ACCORDING TO YOU, HOW AM I DENYING CHRIST DIVINE ATTRIBUTES BY STATING THE FACT THAT HE WAS GENERATED BY GOD —ID EST: THAT HE IS THE PROGENY, THE SON, OF GOD—?

3. «THE TRINITY» IS A CHIMERIC FABRICATION OF JUDEOCHRISTIANITY.

[Anonymous No.13086154]

>>13086118

Whence their contradiction?

[Anonymous No.13086169]

>>13086135
Are you sure they mean the word dubious, as in the authors were trying to lie or mislead people? I don't know what good that would have done or why you think this is the case. I think I gave a pretty explanation for why some generations would be omitted and why genealogies are inexact here >>13085891

[Anonymous No.13086191]

Not a Catholic, but the Epistle of Clement should have been canonized and put in the Bible like it was supposed to. 1 Clement 42 and 44 would have prevented Protestantism.

[Anonymous No.13086194]

>>13086092
>It wasn't uncommon for brothers to marry their brothers wives in the event that their brother passes away
I think that only applies when the dead brother doesn't have a child with the widow. Also, there is the catch that Joseph was both alive and married to Mary she was impregnated with Jesus.
>The deceased brothers children would then become the living brothers children
Only the 1st one, and only if they were born after the 1st brother's death, and honestly is far more probable that it had to do with the poor understanding of conception and pregnancy by the ancient jews which then remained after they realized that it didn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.13086206]

>>13086194
>Mary she
*Mary when she

[Anonymous No.13086223]

>>13086154
I think you need to be more patient when you read. I didn't say they were contradictory. I said you are conflating them.

[Anonymous No.13086225]

>>13086191
It wouldn't. The protestant reformation was heavily tied to the rampant corruption and decadence of the holy see and the general disenchantment with it because of said corruption and their constant interference in secular issues and general politization. If it wasn't Luther, it would just be someone else, maybe with a somewhat different theology but mostly the same consequences.

[Anonymous No.13086289]

>>13085882
>durr I can't into metaphor
>no seriously this has literal implications
le brainlet wojack with nasal cannula.png

[Anonymous No.13086310]

>>13086223
>My arguments have become so powerful that I can actually make Catholics invoke Dialectic.

I mean, if anything, Theology is more Rational and Logical than Philosophy proper. The former supersedes the Empirical and operates through words alone, whereas the latter sometimes makes concessions to "common sense" and is vaguely afraid of challenging the flesh. But I think Plato and Adi Shankara are Theologians inasmuch as the Philokalia is Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13086395]

>>13086310
>Philosophy Proper
I am quite serious, you need to take your time with these things. In your rushing, you are making serious mistakes. Theology Proper is name given to a category of Theology, namely contemplation about divine attributes. My criticism of what you are doing is that you are taking terms and ideas from one area of thought, and then trying to superimpose them in other areas where you think there is identity in terms, when in reality the terms and meanings are very distinct.

[Anonymous No.13086526]

>>13086395

I'd ask how can one distinguish attributes without word and contemplate them without reason but I fear the answer will be cruelly ironic, given your Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.13086558]

>>13086526
I'm concerned that you don't understand what I said at all. Would you mind giving back to me, in your words, what you think I said?

[Anonymous No.13086615]

>>13085514
>gives birth to Jesus
>not the mother of Jesus

Pardon? What kind of Nestorian faggotry is this?

[Anonymous No.13086625]

>>13085549
Jesus also never refers to any of the books of the New Testament, yet you hold that they are divinely inspired. Your thoughts are not coherent.

[Anonymous No.13086631]

>>13086558

That Theology differs from Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13086638]

>>13086038
Turn off caps lock.

[Anonymous No.13086653]

>>13086152
Does gnosis demand that you do the verbal equivalent of screaming at the top of your lungs?

Anyways, this thread is getting drowned in low level theological discourse. Let us turn to some actual discussion of Catholic literature. What are some of your favorite writings by mystics? I'm currently going through the Dialogue of St. Catherine of Sienna because I hope to be a Dominican one day. It starts off very straightforward, but the treatise on prayer is some truly sublime stuff. I particularly like how clear the influence of her order's powerful intellectual tradition is evident in what she writes

[Anonymous No.13086660]

>>13086191
Luther was willing to go so far as to argue for the removal of the Epistle of James. It wouldn't have stopped him.

[Anonymous No.13086661]

>>13086631
No. That's not what I said at all. What I was saying is that different schools of thought use words differently, and their terms and descriptions have very different meanings. You cannot simply take one concept, with its terms, and apply it in a different school without demonstration of its truthfulness in the new application, with terms that are coherent. You are conflating concepts and terms between different areas of thought.

[Anonymous No.13086691]

>>13086625

I realize the problem but, as a Christian, I maintain that Phenomena are Divinely arranged not only Ontologically, that I might take a step and not fall through the Earth, but Epistemologically as well, that I might see and know the truth in the world immanently, not just by inference. It's ironic that Catholics should think like this most of all, but actually do so least of all.

[Anonymous No.13086727]

>>13086661

This has gotten Augustinian enough. Either elaborate on this >>13086154 or cease the word porridge.

[Anonymous No.13086824]

>>13086727
I already did. It's not a matter of contradiction. It's a matter of conflation. You are considering things as having identity when they do not. Further, Augustine is far from word porridge. Few have ever lived who have written so effectively and beautifully. The parts which you thought were superfluous were more likely the most essential elements.

[Anonymous No.13086891]

>>13086824

Identity is all there is, my God.

[Anonymous No.13086934]

>>13086891
Alright, you're doing it again. I don't think you understand what identity means as a logical term.

[Anonymous No.13086968]

>>13086934

What DOES it mean then?

[Anonymous No.13086995]

any books on smaller or local catholic communities

[Anonymous No.13087030]

>>13085699
>Pound was straight up anti-Christian at the end. Couldn't get past the fact the old testament wasn't tossed right out. Called it straight up evil.
I can definitely agree with this sentiment.
Then again it's like trying to fix a sinking ship by plugging up a couple of holes.

[Anonymous No.13087060]

>>13086225
Schisms over corruption happened anciently (see Novatianism, Donatism). But the theology of Protestantism (barring high church movements in Anglicanism and Lutheranism) undermines the need for episcopal succession of the kind Clement talks about. Look at the way congregational polity works for Baptists for example, in principle they can elect their own ministers without needing to trace ordination back to Jesus. And Luther is to blame for this, he actually drew his ideas that anyone could baptize without need for apostolic priestly authority from Catholic practice (including ex opere operato, thanks Augustine). To this day Catholics recognize baptisms done by Protestants for this reason, they only rebaptize non-Trinitarians.
>>13086660
You are correct, so I imagine it wouldn't have stopped him, but I like to think it would have decreased the likelihood of the schism going the way it did. The ancient schismatics respected the need for apostolic succession in ways Protestants have not. That's where 1 Clement makes a difference.

[Anonymous No.13087084]

>>13086934
>>13086968

What are you even talking about anyway? What does "as a logical term" suppose to mean? Formally? Analytically? Positively? You've been hand-waving and abusing my good faith with nonsense, every bit as shameless as Marian delirium, and have said nothing. All my replies either make a statement or ask a question, all of yours are shit-eating snide remarks about nothing. Moron.

[Anonymous No.13087094]

Imagine if every American had the authority to decide what the US constitution means. Each person could do as he wished, saying that his actions fell under his own interpretation of "freedom of religion" or "freedom of association." What would come of this approach? Anarchy. Fortunately, the founding fathers created an institution called the Supreme Court that was entrusted with interpreting the Constitution. That way, through the court's decisions, a uniform legal code would be created that would treat all citizens equally. Just as a personal interpretation of the constitution would lead to chaos for the rule of law, relying solely on one's personal interpretation of the bible as a guide to Christian doctrine leads to chaos for the rule of faith.

If Americas founding fathers were wise enough to foresee the dangers of individuals engaging in private constitutional interpretation, then wouldn't the church's "founding fathers," or Christ and the apostles, see the danger in relegating Christian authority to private biblical interpretation? e read in Peter 1:20 that "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation," and the author later warns his readers that some passages in the bible are "hard to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16)

[Anonymous No.13087138]

>>13086934
>>13086968

What are you even talking about anyway? What does "as a logical term" supposed to mean? Formally? Analytically? Positively? You've been hand-waving and abusing my good faith with nonsense, every bit as shameless as Marian delirium, and have said nothing. All my replies either make a statement or ask a question, all of yours are shit-eating snide remarks about nothing. Swirling your idiocy in your mouth like fine wine, like all Catholics do. Moron.

[Anonymous No.13087154]

>>13087094
Sure but the Jewish rabbis thought the same, that they had the authority to settle matters of interpretation. And in their case, unlike the Catholic case, there was actual scriptural support for their claim (Moses ordained people, given Jethro's counsel, to settle matters of the law). Still, Jesus came along and told them they understood the scriptures and tradition wrong. Why did God allow that? Why didn't God raise for a messiah one of the high priests or something? Why do you think God worked outside of the very system he created (the Jewish church) to undermine the very people he put in charge of his own system?

[Anonymous No.13087193]

>>13087154
Where in scripture is this "Jewish church" found? I have no doubt that some Jews thought they had the authority to define dogma but they were never created by and protected from teaching error by God.

[Anonymous No.13087219]

>>13087060
>in principle they can elect their own ministers without needing to trace ordination back to Jesus
That it was how it worked until the 800s or so, with the bishops and priests being generally chosen by the locals.

[Anonymous No.13087275]

>>13087193
Okay when I said "church' I was applying modern English terminology, but if you do scour for the term "congregation" in the Old Testament you'll see that they did have a notion of ecclesia, which is what the Greek Septuagint translated it as anyway, and from which the modern idea of "church" derives, especially in Romance languages (Spanish "iglesia" for example). Language aside, there certainly was a community of Jewish believers, there were criteria for membership and expulsion, and there was a hierarchy of jurisprudence, as well as a priesthood, and expected rites (like sacrifices and offerings). That's all I mean by "the Jewish church" and nothing beyond that, which is all Biblically described. As for the idea that Jews were not protected from teaching error by God, I don't doubt that you are right, but I strongly doubt that he protects the Catholics from teaching error as well.

[Anonymous No.13087283]

>>13086934
>>13086968

What are you even talking about anyway? What is "as a logical term" supposed to mean? Formally? Analytically? Positively? You've been hand-waving and abusing my good faith with nonsense, every bit as shameless as Marian delirium, and have said nothing. All my replies either make a statement or ask a question, all of yours are shit-eating snide remarks about nothing. Swirling your idiocy in your mouth like fine wine, like all Catholics do. Moron.

[Anonymous No.13087303]

>>13087219
They had to be ordained by other bishops though. You see this in 1 Clement already, and I think it's in Ignatius also. The Donatist controversy happened largely because this practice was violated by Caecilian, that's why the Primate of Numidia came with 70 bishops to Carthage to appoint an actual bishop according to the proper custom. But Catholics sided with Caecilian for whatever reason. Oh well.

[Anonymous No.13087314]

>>13087094

God is not the tyrant of tyrants, but the inversion of tyranny.

[Anonymous No.13087323]

>>13087275
I don't give a damn about this language of "church." There is a priesthood in the Old Testament but where is the promise to protect it from teaching error? Since you can't find it the comparison between the old and new priesthood doesn't hold. So what was your point?

The power to bind and loose gives Peter and his successors the power to make definitive judgement in matters of faith and morals. Therefore Peter and his successors are protected from teaching error, because God who is truth binds and looses in heaven what Peter binds and looses on earth.

[Anonymous No.13087325]

>>13087314
Do you think I was calling God a tyrant? I don't know what this is.

[Anonymous No.13087336]

>>13086691
So the knowledge of the canon of scripture is immanent?

[Anonymous No.13087352]

>>13087303
>The Donatist controversy happened largely because this practice was violated by Caecilian, that's why the Primate of Numidia came with 70 bishops to Carthage to appoint an actual bishop according to the proper custom.
The controversy had little to do with ordination, since Caecillian was ordained by Felix, but rather because both of them were accused of being traditors.

[Anonymous No.13087362]

>>13087283
As in a term of the study of Logic, which means that relation a thing has only to itself, meaning that if two things share an identity, they are perfectly equivalent to the point of being the same thing.

[Anonymous No.13087380]

>>13087323
First of all you misunderstand my posts, but whatever. Moving on to your new points. There really is no promise in the New Testament either, much less an identification of the church that you claim will be protected from teaching error with the Catholic church as opposed to the Orthodox, Miaphysite, or Assyrian churches, or some extinct branch that God will or already has restored after a 'wilderness', period if you interpret Revelation 12 that way. These options already underdetermine the Catholics' claim that it's them, not someone else, who is prevented from teaching error. But I also don't think that any passage from the New Testament which Catholics peddle to this effect actually says what you think it says. Here's an example. Yes Peter was given power to bind and loose, not disputing that one bit, but so were the other apostles. Matthew 18:18 is plural, not singular. The Bible doesn't say this power was exclusively transmitted to the bishop of Rome. If it was transmitted to bishops at all, it would have been transmitted to them all. See the problem? And historically the Catholics have taught error plenty, but of course ex cathedra doctrine serves to make us think that actually doesn't happen when the pope speaks from the chair. Moreover binding and loosing has absolutely nothing in it telling us it is a matter of interpretation or truth. At face value you would think it's more about such things as the forgiveness of sins. Compare to John 20:23. Peter could declare sins forgiven (for example, by baptizing people for the forgiveness of sins), and they would be genuinely forgiven in Heaven.

[Anonymous No.13087387]

>>13087352
Not true. The accusation of being traditors had plenty to do with why Caecilian was opposed. But the custom for ordination was for the Primate of Numidia to appoint new bishops in Carthage. So you might accept that the ordination was traced back to Jesus via Felix, but saying the dispute had nothing to do with ordination is certainly inaccurate.

[Anonymous No.13087451]

>>13087336

Something like that, certainly not "plot armor" contrary to otherwise lesser Phenomenological processes but congruent with and, in fact, exemplary of Phenomenology itself, as essentially non-contradictory with Man, or God. Catholics affirm the "marriage of Heaven and Earth", claim they love the body, the senses, the world, their fellow man, that's it's all imbued with God; of course, I maintain that they lie in this regard as well, but if they hate something more than the word of God it is this, the fact that it has ordained itself.

[Anonymous No.13087462]

>>13087387
Custom doesn't equal obrigation or law. The very basis of the accusations against both of them was based on that they were traditors and therefore the ordination was invalid.

[Anonymous No.13087466]

>>13085849
jesus really does say hate mother and father, and abandon tribe.

[Anonymous No.13087468]

>>13087380
I don't know why you feel the need to point out that other apostles are protected from teaching error. I literally said as much! There's so much filler in your posts that it's hard to suss our exactly what your point or argument is.

Peter and his apostles could only teach error if God can be false. I basically just repeating the argument that I've already made but I don't think you understood. What Peter binds and looses is bound in heaven, meaning what Peter teaches on earth is taught in heaven. False doctrine can't be taught in heaven therefore false doctrine can't be taught by Peter on earth.

Jesus confirmed Peter alone in an office as the first of the Apostles. He intended it to be a permanent office transmitted to Peter's successors because Jesus' kingdom will last until the end of time. This office of shepherding the Church is passed on through the sacred office of the bishops. Therefore, the church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution take place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such a way's that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.

Peter's succession is already intimated when Jesus connected the promise of the keys he will give to Peter with the prime ministerial office in David's kingdom in Isaiah 22. Jesus affirmed that Peter will be given the dynastic office of chief shepherd in Jesus' kingdom.

Apostolic succession is also clearly evident when Peter determined that a successor must be chosen to fill the place vacated by Judas' betrayal and suicide:

Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share of this ministry ... For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and, 'His office let another take" (Acts 1:16-17, 20).

1/2

[Anonymous No.13087474]

>>13087380
>>13087468
2/2

Apostolic succession is evident in the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. They "appointed elders [bishops and priests] for them in every church, with prayers and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believe" (Acts 14:23).

In his second letter to Timothy St. Paul laid out the generational program for apostolic succession that was practiced by the Apostles and their successors, and is continued to the present time: "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you [Timothy was a second generation of Christians] have heard from me [Paul was of the first generation] before many witnesses entrust to the faithful men [the third generation] who will be able to teach others [the fourth generation] also (2 Tim 2:1-2).

By the end of the second century, apostolic succession was understood as the sure indicator of orthodoxy. St. Irenaeus of Lions, writing against the Gnostics around the year 180, affirmed "the tradition of the Apostles," was safeguarded in the unbroken line of succession of those men who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors. He placed the greatest importance on the successors of St. Peter in Rome.

We can also look at what some fathers of the Church had to say:

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]--of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.”
-St. Optatus, “The Schism of the Donatists,” c. 367 A.D.

“They (the Novatian heretics) have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.'"
-St. Ambrose of Milan, “On Penance,” 388 A.D.

[Anonymous No.13087487]

Every single E. Michael Jones book.

[Anonymous No.13087505]

>>13087466
No, he doesn't. He says "Follow Me, and put everything behind you that might stop you."

[Anonymous No.13087552]

>>13087468
>>13087474
Anon, I made the point about the apostles because (as my post said) it demonstrates that nothing special can be inferred about bishops Peter ordained as opposed to any other bishops ordained by the other apostles. Even if Peter was the important one, remember he ordained bishops in Antioch before he did in Rome. I am still not convinced that anything in the scriptures legitimizes your inference that 1. Peter couldn't make mistakes, and 2. that binding/loosing power has anything to do with interpretation or truth. As for citing authorities after the mid 4th century, I really don't trust them. I don't dispute Irenaeus, but to this day the Orthodox would say Irenaeus doesn't contradict them either. Rome was always considered to have importance but the claims of exclusivist supremacy were actually quite disputed even anciently. Pope Stephen claimed such authority and Cyprian of Carthage had no patience for it.

[Anonymous No.13087571]

>>13085270
pls respond

[Anonymous No.13087594]

>>13087552
You don't have to accept any authorities from the 4th century to accept papal supremacy. I just gave you an argument using scripture and if you have any questions about some of the points I made or want me to elaborate on some of the more obscure things, like what the keys and reference to Isaiah 22 really mean, I'll be happy to do so. Otherwise I understand that not everybody is going to accept truth and there's not much I can do for you.

[Anonymous No.13087614]

>>13087451
So where do you think the canon of scripture arose historically? And why does it sometimes vary by region?

[Anonymous No.13087629]

>>13087594
Fair enough. I don't accept your argument but all the power to you for having thought about it deeply the way you have. I appreciate that we had our discussion for what it's worth.

[Anonymous No.13087653]

>>13087571
Depends on what you want. For a decent summation of the various Church Fathers, Ignatius Press has published a collection of Pope Benedict XVI's talks on the different Fathers, which is a decent guide to who these various men were and why they were important. If you want their actual writings, the following link has a great compilation of them: http://newadvent.org/fathers/

[Anonymous No.13087670]

>>13087653
Forgot to mention, Mike Aquilina also wrote a decent introduction to the Church Fathers.

[Anonymous No.13087708]

>>13087505
incorrect. luke 14:26, matthew 8:22

[Anonymous No.13087742]

>>13085679
>does not have the Ontogenic authority attributed to it
I mean, yes, in the sense that God the Son in his divine nature did not originate from Mary. So that I might better understand you, are you taking a Nestorian stance, arguing that Mary is mother of Christ, but not of God (alternatively this could be phrased as "mother of Jesus in his humanity but not in his divinity")? Or do you go even further and deny her maternity of him in both his humanity and divinity?

[Anonymous No.13087771]

>>13086995
Do you mean works of fiction? If so, Diary of a Country Priest by Bernanos is an excellent book.

[Anonymous No.13087792]

Why is GK Chesterton so based? Is it because of his gigantic wall rosary?

[Anonymous No.13087806]

Silence is one of my top recommendations.

[Anonymous No.13087811]

>>13087806
Is the book better than the movie? The movie suggests some very dangerous thinking.

[Anonymous No.13087819]

>>13087806
I always felt really uneasy about the conclusion of the book. Much of it is beautiful, but what exactly is the author's conclusion? That apostasy is justified, perhaps even virtuous in certain situations?

[Anonymous No.13087822]

>>13087811
I haven't seen the film, but I have no doubt it took plenty of liberties on the narration. The novel itself is incredibly claustrophobic, and you shouldn't go in hoping for it to be sunshine and roses. It's about the very real and difficult struggle of hearing the voice of God in the face of a world that rejects Him.

[Anonymous No.13087833]

>>13087822
That's not quite what I meant. The movie has some profoundly disturbing and moving imagery. What I mean is that it puts forward some very broken theology. I do not know enough to say that it is outright wrong, but I do know the way it puts forward its ideas would suggest things that are very, very wrong to those who are not careful.

[Anonymous No.13087834]

>>13087819
I don't think there's much to indicate that it was justified, necessarily. I think it's more an observation on human reaction to hardship, and a perspective on the ideas of devotion, hope, forgiveness, and possibly redemption.

[Anonymous No.13087856]

>>13087806
the movie is better

>>13087811
>The movie suggests some very dangerous thinking.
>dangerous thinking

shut the fuck up, nigger-faggot.

[Anonymous No.13087873]

>>13087856
If someone would do something that would kill them, we would call it dangerous. If someone would think something that would kill them, we should recognize it as dangerous.

[Anonymous No.13087875]

>>13087856
Charity is the highest of virtues. It would be good for you to conform your responses to it.

[Anonymous No.13087890]

>>13087833
Endo himself does not really speak one way or another on it, but leaves it up to the reader to determine, in the face of theological teaching, which characters and actions are most justified and righteous, perhaps.

[Anonymous No.13087929]

>>13087834
>>13087890
I'm not sure it's as open ended as that. The book has the protagonist coming to the conclusion that God says "You may trample. You may trample. I more than anyone know of the pain in your foot. You may trample. It was to be trampled on by men that I was born into this world. It was to share men's pain that I carried my cross." Obviously the author isn't saying that apostasy is always acceptable, but he seems to be taking a stance that is very theologically precarious.

[Anonymous No.13087945]

>>13087875
you're on 4chan, newfag.
You can't create you're own general and pretend that its acceptable or appropriate for Christians to be part of it.
are youreally this deluded?

[Anonymous No.13087962]

>>13085514
>>13085268
>>13085549
Holy fuck protestant arguments are by far the most retarded thing I've heard in ages, maybe ever, no wonder nobody takes them seriously.
>>13086019
>and had no preconceptions thereof by virtue of not being Catholic, by the way
Holy fuck it gets even worse hahahahahhaha

[Anonymous No.13087982]

>>13087962
>sectarianism

CRIPPLE-FIGHT!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.13088019]

>>13087945
No, I'm not, but I will always encourage others to try to not be lazy in their discourse.

[Anonymous No.13088027]

>>13087653
>>13087670
I was looking for an introduction rather than their writings, thanks.

[Anonymous No.13088067]

Are you certain about the existence of god and why?

[Anonymous No.13088078]

>>13088067
*if so why

[Anonymous No.13088104]

>>13088067
St. Anselm's ontological argument. That said, though I am certain of God's existence, I agree with Aquinas that this is not self evident knowledge. It's also an extremely bare bones statement to say that God exists

[Anonymous No.13088155]

>>13088104
Have you ever had doubts in your faith?

[Anonymous No.13088183]

>>13088155
Yes. My doubts usually aren't connected to the question of God's existence though, but rather whether or not I believe the correct religion or if any religion is correct at all. As I said, affirmation of God's existence is very bare bones. There's a wide variety of beliefs that accommodate theism.

[Anonymous No.13088319]

>>13088183
I'll be honest I went through phases of doubting god but I think I've reconciliated fully now

[Anonymous No.13088350]

christians are so lame lmao

[Anonymous No.13088366]

>>13088319
I'm happy to hear that friend. Welcome home. What brought you back?

[Anonymous No.13088374]

>>13088350
It is a good thing then that Christ can make the lame walk.

[Anonymous No.13088389]

I am able to make a leap of faith that God exists, that Jesus was resurrected and that Mary had a virgin birth.
I just can't feel guilty about any sin I do. I am unable to feel bad about any shitty thing I did unless it directly negatively impacts my earthly self. I have been praying, reading the bible and going to church and still do not feel any guilt or any ability to feel bad. Every time I go to confession I honestly tell all my sins but I don't get any relief from that since I never felt guilt about it in the first place. I'm sinning during confession.

[Anonymous No.13088399]

>>13087929
Endo is also the protagonist of his book.

[Anonymous No.13088406]

Lads I have a question:

To say I am a lapsed Catholic is an understatement. I have been through some strange and awful times the last decade or so, and have found myself in an uncomfortable place spiritually. I believe in God again, firmly, and am sympathetic to Catholicism. I also have picked up some syncretic and mystic-leaning positions over the years that are fundamentally incompatible with some of Church doctrine.

Is it better to be a borderline heretic within the church or a displaced Catholic outside the church? I've been going crazy thinking of just going to confession and receiving communion again, but if I take that step, I want to do it right and know that I'm able to do this all the way. This is not something I take lightly at all.

[Anonymous No.13088413]

>>13088374
yeah, make them do the virgin walk. LOL.
>>13088389
cringe

[Anonymous No.13088417]

>>13088389
Are you sure feeling guilt is necessary? You can aim for perfection without feeling bad when you fail. Recognize when you fail and make an honest effort to be perfect in the future.

[Anonymous No.13088420]

>>13088406
ask your dungeon master

[Anonymous No.13088436]

>>13088366
I was one of those people who thought science completely destroys god and religion until I thought about the bigger picture as a whole and realized how god is all around us in his biology and physics

[Anonymous No.13088448]

>>13088366
I also had a few philosophical arguments with myself such as something coming from nothing is improbable because of laws of matter and around that point I reconciliated

[Anonymous No.13088458]

[Anonymous No.13088470]

>>13088406
Why limit yourself to only those two options? You have a third, which is to accept the fulness of the Catholic faith.

[Anonymous No.13088499]

>>13088470
Thats something I'm actively working towards, but I would feel like a fraud if I participated in the mass knowing deep down that I had not yet resolved certain issues one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.13088507]

>>13088436
So you're stupid essentially?

[Anonymous No.13088509]

>>13088507
No you’re a dilettante :3

[Anonymous No.13088519]

>>13085268
He didn't speak English for a start.

[Anonymous No.13088523]

>>13088507
How so?

[Anonymous No.13088526]

>>13088499
It would be better if you still attended Mass. If you want to actively work towards accepting the fulness of Catholicism, then what better place to do that than Mass? If you're honest about the fact that you aren't fully there, and don't go to communion in a state of sin, then you are doing a good thing.

[Anonymous No.13088528]

>>13088509
Of what topics?

[Anonymous No.13088547]

>>13088526
I do attend sometimes, and I do abstain from communion given the current state of affairs, but it still feels distant, which hurts even more. I hope that things change.

[Anonymous No.13088558]

>>13088547
Knowledge of how we have strayed can hurt, but in this we can be led to repentance. We all have our own cross to carry if we want salvation. I will pray for you friend.

[Anonymous No.13088586]

>>13088558
Thank you, sincerely

[Anonymous No.13088703]

>>13088417
Pretty sure. Every time I confess and mention this the priest is like pray more and maybe you will feel guilt.
The spiritual problem that I face is that I don't see any reason to follow many of the guidelines that are set out in the new testament since I feel that I am able to do more good by following what I personally feel is best.

[Anonymous No.13088723]

>>13086191
The issue here is that the canon of scripture is not determined by what would best prevent heresies, but by what is truly divinely inspired. St. Clement wrote with great wisdom in his epistle, but that doesn't mean he was under the influence of divine inspiration. Really, Protestants need to stop being so willfully ignorant of early Christian history.

[Anonymous No.13088797]

>>13088183
So what made you doubt if your's was right or not?

[Anonymous No.13088910]

>>13088797
One particular moment that stands out in my memory was when I seriously considered the Eastern Orthodox Church. It's very similar to Catholicism, and has some enticing arguments in its favor. Ultimately I found that there was too much of a historical argument for the Papacy for me to switch.

[Anonymous No.13088960]

>>13088703
Maybe it's your conception of good that needs revising. Part of having faith in God and His Church is believing that ultimately He knows best.

[Anonymous No.13089014]

I'm going to start The Cloud Of Unknowing soon, lads. What am I in for? I'm a practicing Catholic and my hope is that I might be able to use its advice practically to deepen my connection to Christ.

[Anonymous No.13089087]

>>13089014
It's a very good book on contemplative prayer. You'll get a great introduction to medieval mysticism and prayer.

[Anonymous No.13089282]

you retards coudent tell what Catholicism is if it came out your ass, the Catholicism all you twats refer to comes from the Vatican II which is the shitty retarded version of the original doctrines compared with the Council of Trent which stays way truer to the church fathers. You all are fascinated with a Catholicism that is most likely the farthest and least familiar with any church fathers aka not Catholicism but some shit Protestants love to praise. As a student studying Traditionalism but more so the church fathers i can't help but cringe everytime I see you discuss "Catholicism" its more so some-shit the heretics took in and adapted to their imagination. You guys some chart and become a Jesuit monk and maybe even understand Catholicism itself? gtfo, readAquinas so you can get rid of your American prejudices

[Anonymous No.13089405]

>>13089282
Jesuits aren't monks. One as intimately familiar with traditional Catholicism such as yourself should know that, especially since the Society of Jesus actually predates the Council of Trent.

[Anonymous No.13089427]

>>13089282
what are some aproved congreations?

also.. more on traditionalism ?

[Anonymous No.13089450]

>>13088436
for instance: The big bang theory and genetics that "science destroying God and religion" was research made by priests and supported by the catholic church.

[Anonymous No.13089886]

>>13087742

That maternity itself is poorly understood, that reproduction is not complementary between man and woman, so no woman is any man's mother in this sense. Jesus alluding to this as per the fully God and fully Man principle, that we ourselves are not fully realizing humanity.

[Anonymous No.13089890]

>>13087962

Compelling. I stand corrected.

[Anonymous No.13090068]

I’m philosophically not Christian. I view Jesus as anti life and likely a false messiah. Yet I attend bible study every week.

The faith and community are contagious.

[Anonymous No.13090471]

>>13089282
Awful bait, you didn't read a single post on the thread. Try harder.

[Anonymous No.13090481]

Can I become Catholic if I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus? Serious question.

[Anonymous No.13090482]

Anyone really like the idea of priesthood as a career, find the whole lifestyle comfy as heck, yet lack totally lack the belief and calling for it? I don't feel called for it. Tell you the truth, I don't even believe in God, so I'm not going to but damn, I would like to be a priest. Ever since I watched the Young Pope and Diary of a Country Priest, I fantasize about it and monasteries. I'd like to purge the church of all the rotten elements.

[Anonymous No.13090529]

>>13090481
Come on, fren. Even being a gnostic is more acceptable than that.

[Anonymous No.13090535]

>>13090481
Why would you want to? Don't you value truth at all?

[Anonymous No.13090751]

>>13090481
No. It's an extremely essential part of our faith.

[Anonymous No.13090957]

>>13090481

I guess? Catholicism accounts for Jesus in general last, and only begrudgingly so. Moreover, they speak of the coincidence of God and Man as a calamity, something congenital, like a cripple or a cretin, a kind of dreadful eulogy for a monster.

[Anonymous No.13090972]

>>13090957
You were here all day yesterday and now you're back

[Anonymous No.13091001]

>>13090482
Literally me.

[Anonymous No.13091004]

>>13090972

Kind of like...

[Anonymous No.13091020]

>>13091004
Like what? You didn't finish the sentence.

[Anonymous No.13091029]

>>13091001
What's this? I really liked that time traveler movie with him.

[Anonymous No.13091116]

>>13091029
First Reformed (2017).
An evangelical pastor dealing with an existential crisis turns eco-terrorist. I highly recommend that you first watch the Ingmar Bergman's Silence of God trilogy, specially Winter Light.

[Anonymous No.13091127]

4chan is basically an evil place. I dont think threads like this should be made, ever, and I think people interested in the church should leave this sad and degrading environment forever.

[Anonymous No.13091662]

I'm an agnostic with an irreligious background. I defaulted to agnosticism because the idea of humanity being just random chance seems silly to me. I've never really felt any faith in God or any other higher power. Until now, maybe. I got interested in the church (as a whole, not necessarily Catholicism) a little while back, and recently I've felt new feelings. I don't know if it's the beginning of faith, exactly, so I thought I'd ask someone, like maybe a priest, but then as I was browsing /lit/ I saw this thread and decided to pop in ask what I should do.
So uh, yeah, what should I do? Am I just autistic, or am I possibly taking the first steps on the road to Christcuckery?

[Anonymous No.13091675]

>>13091662
Why do you need others to tell you what to believe?

[Anonymous No.13091688]

What's your honest opinion of this guy?

[Anonymous No.13091868]

>>13091688
The absolute nadir of the Reformation.

[Anonymous No.13092558]

>>13088723
Wouldn't you agree that when Clement mentions certain facts about inspiration the apostles received from God and instruction they received from Jesus to establish apostolic succession for bishops, Clement was recording divinely inspired events? Clement may not have added any new divinely inspired thing of his own power, but he recorded facts that I think were.

[Anonymous No.13092717]

>>13092558
Yes, but that doesn't mean that his own writing was divinely inspired. One can record truth without God personally guiding the writing of said truth. To elevate something to scripture is to say that God personally had a hand and writing it, moreso than the usual sense in which God has a hand in any sort of writing, which apparently did not apply to St. Clement and his epistles.

[Anonymous No.13092780]

>Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

How do atonement maniacs even live with themselves?

[Anonymous No.13092914]

>>13090957
No we don't. Where do you get this idea?

[Anonymous No.13092919]

>>13089282
>has never been to church and only knows church history from wikipedia articles.

[Anonymous No.13093473]

>>13091688
He was a genius and one of the most important reformers if not the most important alongside Luther. But he focused all his energy on poisoning the faith. Imagine what he could've done for the church. Hedve been another Erasmus or Aquinas

[Anonymous No.13093531]

>>13089282
Not a Catholic but why are you Traditionalists so fucking annoying?

[Anonymous No.13093561]

>>13093531
That's not a traditionalist. Don't legitimize him. As baffling as Vatican II can seem, and as much as it appears to coincide with a dispersal of Faith in the West, his attitudes, position, reasoning, and rhetoric reveal a weak faith, if true faith at all. Even the sedevanctists, as much as they might despise certain elements of the church in the past 50 years, and as much as it riles them, sought legitimacy first. It is not by any virtue or wisdom that someone would belittle people for the weakness of their faith. There is no righteousness without charity and love and mercy.

[Anonymous No.13093572]

>>13085081
Sandnigger here, any scholarly works on the authenticity of the Gospels?

[Anonymous No.13093587]

>>13093531
Capital-T Tradition is meme shit that has nothing to do with Catholicism. They're the types who have recently discovered Guenon and Evola and think perennialism is coherent.

[Anonymous No.13093811]

I'm a Protestant, but I used to be a Catholic (and have nothing but respect for Catholic theology). I did have a question though, which I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on: what does a Catholic make of Galatians, which seems to explicit make Luther's case of sola fide

[Anonymous No.13093820]

>tfw all the younger priests and bishops seem genuinely devoted to Christ and are lovers of the Church and its traditions
>tfw even a few of the younger archbishops are more traditional and seem holier than the old guys
>tfw the Latin Mass is growing and even the NO is being celebrated more reverently than it used to be (much fewer Clown Masses)
>tfw more young Catholics are praying the Rosary and attending Adoration, along with observing other devotions like praying novenas and wearing miraculous medals

The future of the Church looks bright.

[Anonymous No.13093842]

Out of curiosity
Say a man is a non-believer, but is open minded and makes effort to learn of the church etc yet cannot force himself to believe and also lives a good kind life etc
Does he still burn in hell for eternity?

[Anonymous No.13093860]

>>13093811
What specifically are you referring to? I don't remember reading anything which says the word 'alone' right next to the word 'faith.'

[Anonymous No.13093882]

>>13093842
Maybe, though I don't even think it's possible to ultimately reject God if you approach the question in an open and honest way.

[Anonymous No.13093890]

>>13093882
What is meant by "reject god"?
I mean one who is open to God's existence etc and researches into the arguments, but remains unconvinced by no effort of their own (effort as in trying not to believe)

[Anonymous No.13093918]

>>13093890
I not entirely sure where the ambiguity is. You can either accept God and spend eternal life in his presence, which we call heaven or you can reject him and spend eternal life in separation from God. We call that hell. To reject God would be to reject his presence which would also be a rejection of his commandments and revelations. Is that a meaningful answer?

[Anonymous No.13093966]

>>13093811
Given that the only time the phrase "sola fide" appear in the New Testament is in James 2:24, "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" I think that we remain rather unperturbed by whatever it is that you think makes the Epistle to the Galations support Luther.

[Anonymous No.13093972]

>tfw I've accepted that if the Christian God is real then I shall suffer and burn for eternity
And you know what? Fine, if he wants to be that way then so be it

[Anonymous No.13094001]

>>13093972
Are you bragging or something?

[Anonymous No.13094034]

>>13094001
No just accepting there's a slim chance I'll be spending eternity suffering with the majority of a father's children
Thankfully the Church isn't as hegemonic as it was so I can at least live my life in peace until I'm snatched away and cast to hell without worrying about some Spaniard setting me on fire first

[Anonymous No.13094069]

>>13094034
And you're okay with that?
If you accepted that there was a slim chance your entire family would be brutally murdered tomorrow and you could do something to eliminate that chance you would do it, right? So if you accept that there's a slim chance you'll literally suffer forever and that you can reduce that chance right now why would you not do anything?

[Anonymous No.13094099]

>>13093972
I mean...sure? He offers you the chance to be fulfilled in your purpose as a human and live in love with and beholding that which is greatest, Him. You saying that you're OK with the pain that comes being alienated from God is akin to someone saying that they're OK with the pain that comes from not drinking water, which is needed by humans. You can, but you're not nobly making a stand like it seems that you think you are.

[Anonymous No.13094112]

>>13093531
I just changed the guenonfag pasta around. I don't even go to church or anything

[Anonymous No.13094232]

>>13094112
Well memed friend.

[Anonymous No.13094251]

>>13094112
Damn, you got me bro

[Anonymous No.13094635]

>>13085665
Jesus was a legal descendant of Joseph and that's what matters.

[Anonymous No.13095245]

>>13093966
Galatians 2:16 -
"yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law."

[Anonymous No.13095250]

>>13093860
I was referring to passages like Galatians 2:16, and others throughout the entirety of Galatians which explicitly states that one is justified through faith as opposed to works

[Anonymous No.13095269]

>>13095245
What does faith mean? Nobody thought to ask this question deeply. When Paul says we are saved by faith, not by works, they assumed faith had to be belief absent anything else. But in John 6:28-29 Jesus himself calls belief a work. So clearly, one must employ the following logic to avoid a contradiction in Paul: Faith does include works, but he's contrasting faith with justification through works, as opposed to through grace. Faith doesn't justify you directly, grace alone does, but faith includes works. Whereas works-based justification is specifically to be understood in terms of legal (law-abiding) justification, because the works of the law are what is meant anyway. Since faith and works cannot be mutually exclusive (and belief is a work!) you need to read the rest of the Bible to see what other works compose a living, saving faith. Hence why the Epistle of James talks the way it does. Now if you read the Bible, 1 Peter 3:21 quite literally says that baptism saves. So why, now that all things are considered, think faith excludes baptism as a component?

[Anonymous No.13095826]

>>13093811
>>13093860
>>13095250

>https://aeon.co/ideas/the-gospels-of-paul-dont-say-what-you-think-they-say

The whole faith-work dichotomy is Paul's doing, as is most ascriptural nonsense masquerading as Christianity. What Paul means by "work" is simply obedience of Judaic/Mosaic Law. I think his definition of "faith" is also alien to Protestantism, entailing at least complementary "works" of the general kind, if not that said works are vital to his "faith". Most importantly, all of this contradicts Jesus, who barely makes the distinction at all, and says the only "work" required is realizing who and what he is.

[Anonymous No.13095829]

>>13093572

See:

>>13086691
>>13087451

[Anonymous No.13096184]

>>13094069
>So if you accept that there's a slim chance you'll literally suffer forever and that you can reduce that chance right now why would you not do anything?
Can't become a Christian without faith

[Anonymous No.13096721]

Why does every Christian I interact with have such a nasty sense of pride and arrogance?
They seem to care more about feeling superior to others than ever showing the slightest bit of kindness

[Anonymous No.13096757]

>>13095269
Salvation is a state of the soul, you do it by growing spiritually, and can't do by moving your hands alone.

[Anonymous No.13096831]

>>13096721
If everyone around you is acting like an asshole, you're probably the problem. If every Christian you interact with is treating you with contempt, you're probably acting like a cunt.

[Anonymous No.13096849]

>>13096831
I don't speak of their treatment of myself. Just those I know of and have seen are generally arseholes.
They'd rather call people degenerate bugmen and toss themselves off than utter a single kind word.

[Anonymous No.13096894]

>>13096849
I don't think everyone deserves a kind word. Some behavior is contemptible and should be treated as such and a lot of people think as I do. Maybe you're confusing criticism with hatred? I think telling the truth is the most loving act there is. If you love somebody and see them going wrong, you should try to help them.

[Anonymous No.13096916]

>>13096894
Criticism should have some level of restraint and not devolve into wrothful ranting and disparagement. For the most part it seems to only fuel the ego of the critic and turn the criticised away from faith.

[Anonymous No.13096921]

>>13096849
"Degenerate bugmen" does not sound like something a lot of people say in real life. It seems to me like most of these "Christians" you "know" happen to frequent Uzbek goat herding forums.

[Anonymous No.13096959]

>>13096916
Well we went from acting "assholish" which could be anything from general contempt to acting critically which can be distinguished from the Christians who wrathfully rant and disparage people which I agree is not a good way to act. What exactly is the sort of behavior we're talking about?

Some people do criticize others as a way to inflate their ego, so what? I'm sure you don't think that every single Christian is doing that, even if they incidentally come off as an asshole in your eyes. Telling the truth is good and some people are better at it than others.

[Anonymous No.13096979]

>>13096959
I'm just tired of all the nasty /pol/ "christians" I've encountered over my time. Especially the "traditional" ones. I'm being hyperbolic of course sorry, I was exaggerating out of frustration.

[Anonymous No.13097351]

>>13095245
He's also yelling at the Galatians for specifically following practices of the law of Moses. It's pretty clear he's referring to that, and not Sola Fide.

[Anonymous No.13097368]

>>13096979
Your frustration is understandable. Even in Christ's time the Apostles could fail. There will always be bad Christians, or simply bad people who happen to take on the title of Christian without desiring to have any change of heart.

[Anonymous No.13097379]

>>13096979
Not that other guy but I don't like that group as well, since they care more about following the based white mans religion than they care about Christ.
I'm tired of the le deus vult crusader memes and people encouraging others to become Christian just to find qt trad waifus or for the "community values." That's not becoming Christian, it's pretending to be so that you can reap the social benefits. It's dishonest. The same people will call something degenerate but are unwilling to give up casual sex, marijuana use, pornography addiction, or some other such habit because they don't really want to convert anyway.

[Anonymous No.13098057]

>>13096979
I know the sort of people you mean but I would say even those people have their hearts in the rights places, even though they can be terribly misguided. They recognize that there are some serious problems with society and its philosophy and they're trying to figure it out. It's like when you know something is wrong but can't put why it is into words. They lash out, they reach the wrong conclusions, or they might even reach the right conclusions for the wrong reasons. The latter is what I think they're doing when they recognize Christianity as a solution and they go on to roleplay.

[Anonymous No.13098379]

>>13097368
>>13097379
>>13098057
Thanks for the replies. I'm interested in Christianity, but I feel turned off by the aforementioned type.

[Anonymous No.13098432]

I love Jesus and the Church but I've read so much Evola, Guenon and various books on world religions that it is difficult for me to want to restrict myself to just what the western Church offers. Honestly, I think Eastern Orthodoxy has a much more developed spirituality and the west is quite lacking as well. Not really sure what to do as I value the church and its practical function, but I simply see the Traditional Church as one of many paths. I still go to Latin Mass every Sunday though as I don't think there is anything false with it, just perhaps it is not as spiritually developed as it could be.

I am looking for an an order of Freemasonry that is not anti-clerical/deist to join as I think that would be a good option for a spirituality that is a bit more developed. Joseph de Maistre, and a ton of other traditional Catholics were all Freemasons when it was solely focused on esoterism and before the orders became anti-clerical, so it seems like it would be a good intermediary option. I've only heard about Scottish Rite Masonry but if anyone knows more let me know.

[Anonymous No.13098498]

>tfw Pope Francis blew the fuck out of everyone who wanted women deacons in the Church

Sometimes he can be pretty based.

Also, everyone needs to read Laudato Si.

[Anonymous No.13098600]

>>13098432
read Valentin Tomberg

[Anonymous No.13098705]

>>13098600
Already read him. I think he is smart but I am skeptical of some of his anti-traditional theosophist/Steiner style thinking.

[Anonymous No.13098831]

>>13098379
I think you might find it productive to focus not how certain Christians fail (though I'm by no means saying that this is an issue that should be ignored), but rather on what exactly the ideal is that Christians strive for, namely to be reconciled and united with God through the redemption obtained for us by Jesus Christ. This is what is to be pursued when you are a Christian, and no matter how many others are failing at it (though we can hardly be judgement, since we too all fail at times) that goal remains the most perfect and beautiful thing that is achievable.

[Anonymous No.13098858]

So how does this confession thing work?
Do I just walk up to a catholic church and find the booth?

[Anonymous No.13098877]

>>13098858
Most Churches have designated confession times. You go in during those times and there is usually a designated room in the back of the Church where you go in. Traditional Churches will have a screen and you will not be face to face. Avoid the liberal Churches that if you are uncomfortable with face to face confession. During confession, you list off your mortal sins, say an act of contrition, and the priest gives you spiritual guidance and penance to help you.
If you are unsure on how it all works, if you email someone from the Church I'm sure they would help you as well.

[Anonymous No.13098884]

>>13098432
How much have you read the writings of Catholic mystics such as St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Catherine of Sienna, and whoever wrote The Cloud of Unknowing? I think you'll find that the western tradition does have a very rich and deep spirituality, but that we sometimes lose sight of it because it doesn't feel foreign, so it doesn't have the added mystique of being exotic.

As for restricting yourself to just what the western Church offers, I would counter that accepting multiple contrary faiths is not really any sort of freedom. A self-contradiction lacks substance, and is really nothing at all. You will in fact restrict yourself further under the illusion that you are gaining greater freedom. As for the eastern Church, have you looked at Eastern Catholicism? They are in full communion with Rome, and possess much the same theology as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Remember, the East was once in communion with the West, and so they are in fact part of the same faith, though the East has (mostly) chosen to break communion.

As for Freemasonry, there are no viable options for Catholics. Joining them is an automatic excommunication from the Church. There are organizations that provide what you might be looking for. I know you said that you're intent on the spiritual aspect, but if you also want fraternity and a lot of charitable works (without which Catholic spirituality is empty and dead) then the Knights of Columbus are good. For something that's more about devout living, Opus Dei might be what you're looking for, though that can become an all-encompassing thing, so it is not to be taken lightly. Furthermore there are third orders, which are the branches of religious orders that allow the laity such as you and I to participate in the life and charism of that particular order. I think the Carmelite third order might appeal to you, given that you seem particularly interested in a more contemplative life, though I think you should also look at the likes of the Dominicans and Franciscans. As with all things, pray on it.

[Anonymous No.13098895]

>>13098858
Churches will have a scheduled time. I'm not sure how it is where you live, but around where I live most offer it on Saturdays. This is a useful crash course in confession: http://www.ncregister.com/info/confession_guide_for_adults.. If you go down past the examination of conscience you'll find the exact way in which the sacrament is administered.

[Anonymous No.13098901]

>>13098858
You have to a baptized member of the Church.

[Anonymous No.13098934]

I asked this in another thread but where in Edward Feser does he justify adhering to Aristotle's/scholastic philosophy metaphilosophically?

Meaning, does he ever explain WHAT exactly he thinks Aristotle's concepts are? Are they real cognitive categories, useful but still contingent linguistic constructs, or are they real a priori metaphysical categories of the world itself mirrored by our minds?

[Anonymous No.13098944]

>>13098884
Yes I've read all of the writers you've listed. I have found them rather underwhelming given the fact they are solely concerned with the theological plane and not the esoteric, and in general are far too obsessed with morality even when they could be concentrating on higher spiritual goals with God. It makes me rather depressed to even read half the lives of the Saints nowadays since there seems to be such an obsession on Sin and no attempt to go beyond the ego. I was at the most miserable in my life when I was the most orthodox Catholic. I am still Catholic but the protestant-style reductions of spirituality to merely ethics is frankly disgusting. It only makes me more frustrated to see the state of the Church; it is mind boggling to me that people find the Novus Ordo sect to be spiritually edifying.

I have gone to a Byzantine rite Church for a few liturgies but it is far away and very small. There is no community and it is probably going to close soon. Frankly, you are incorrect that the theology is pretty much the same. The Eastern Catholics practically just practice western spirituality. They say the Rosary and have Adoration at this Byzantine rite parish I go to. That's fine, but it's not what I'm looking for. I want Hesychasm and such a practice based on its Palamist theology cannot exist in the western Church in its current dogma. If I could find a Catholic Church with Hesychast spirituality I would be eternally happy, but such a thing is not possible where I live. I unironically thought about learning Ukrainian and going there for a while to join a Eastern Catholic monastery. Too bad the war has destabilized the region. I would've already converted to Russian Orthodoxy and joined the monastery in Jordanville if I could commit to big decisions better. I am entirely convinced that the Filioque was simply added at the behest of secular authority; even if it wasn't it wasn't added in an ecumenical council making it invalid. Tell me if I'm mistaken though.

[Anonymous No.13098961]

>>13098705
yeah, he disavowed all his earlier writings when he converted

[Anonymous No.13099489]

>>13098944
Christianity is not meant to be about esotericism. Those writers concern themselves with the theological exactly because it is what is in fact highest. To be honest, I'm not sure I understand your reading of Catholic mystic authors. Yes, morality is a concern in that we express our love for God in our day to day actions, but that is hardly the main focus of Catholic mysticism. Take for example, the Dialogue of St. Catherine of Sienna. She occasionally makes reference to sin and virtue, as it is important, but the entire book is about the soul's relationship to God, and how we draw close to the Father through the Son. I can't recall a moment where she ever writes in a way that could be described as a reduction of spirituality to merely ethics. Same goes for say, St. John of the Cross and the Dark Night of the Soul, which is about experiencing spiritual desolation. Additionally, the Novus Ordo is not a sect. It is a revision of the Roman Rite.

As for your experience with Eastern Catholics, I'm sad that you only got to experience a severely Latinized parish. Where I live the Eastern parishes make a genuine effort to avoid that sort of thing.

Regarding the Filioque, can you provide an example of it being added at the behest of secular authority? I'm not familiar with this claim. It was indeed not added in any of the seven ecumenical councils that occurred pre-schism. This does not necessarily make it invalid, as those seven ecumenical councils are not the entire deposit of faith. However, the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son can be found in the Latin Fathers such as St. Hilary and St. Ambrose, who are also held as saints in the East. You can also find it in the Quicumque Vult (also known as the Athanasian Creed, though it was not actually authored by St. Athanasius), which is from the 6th century. Furthermore, the East was willing to agree to the West's use of the Filioque on two occasions, the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence, but they backtracked both times.

Forgive me if what I'm about to say is an incorrect assessment; we're communicating through writing which is a flawed and incomplete way to have a conversation, and I sincerely do not wish to sin against you with an erroneous description of your beliefs. It seems to me that you have an inaccurate view of western spirituality, and that you place undue value in things appearing esoteric or mystical. I think you would find it edifying to take a look again at what the Western tradition has to offer (since unfortunately you are deprived of Eastern Catholics who genuinely practice Byzantine tradition), and realize that there is a very deep spirituality there that you have perhaps not appreciated before.

[Anonymous No.13099504]

So I just read pic related, and I think I'm too much of a brainlet to get the ending. The conclusion is that...the leader of the anarchists is...literally Sunday? Or he represents some part of the faith? Can someone make my puny mind understand?

[Anonymous No.13099564]

What is /catholic/'s take on pic related and the moral dilemma it represents?
>"You may trample. You may trample. I more than anyone know of the pain in your foot. You may trample. It was to be trampled on by men that I was born into this world. It was to share men's pain that I carried my cross."

[Anonymous No.13099572]

>>13099489
I suppose the crux of the issue is whether you see metaphysics as being manifested from theology, or whether theology is merely a manifestation of metaphysics. I see the latter as being correct and thus, I see a more metaphysically oriented spirituality of esoterism as being superior to a more theologically oriented spirituality of mysticism. Since the vast majority of Christian spirituality falls in the category of mysticism I simply cannot see it as being the highest possible option for man. For this reason, a good number of Catholics have historically been involved in various esoteric organizations so much so that for example, Hermes is in the mosaics of Siena Cathedral etc. and people like the austere traditionalist, Joseph de Maistre, supplemented his spirituality with Free Masonry. I simply don't buy into the idea of modern Catholics who want to de-mystify the faith by attempting to remove any elements of esoterism, even if they were historically valid. I am influenced by Guenon in such sentiments and I will link an article by Dugin who explains Guenon and the Orthodox Church if you are interested
http://www.4pt.su/en/content/russian-orthodoxy-and-initiation


With regards to the Filioque, I will quote the Orthodox Wiki. I am no expert though
After generations of social upheaval, strong leadership appeared in the person of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, and his son, Charlemagne, crowned as emperor in 800. Charlemagne intended to restore the Roman Empire in the West, with himself in charge, to the chagrin of the leaders of the Eastern Roman Empire, whom he referred to as "Greeks" (and thus not Romans), despite the Roman capital being in the East and the continued use by Easterners of Roman to describe themselves. Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope Leo III forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.
Historians have suggested that the Franks in the 9th century pressured the Pope to adopt the filioque in order to drive a wedge between the Roman Church and the other patriarchates.

[Anonymous No.13099870]

>>13085665
Jesus has the same sort of relationship the princes of Britain had with their wives being queens. They were both mother and wife but also queen and about the husband thus only a prince and the son was born as king. Obviously not exactly the same though.

[Anonymous No.13099887]

>>13087962
Go figure that the best Protestants are Anglicans.
The most catholic of the Protestant denominations.

[Anonymous No.13100059]

>>13096979
Probably 80% of /pol/ Christians are larpers.
>DEUS VULT, fuck muslims amirite? orthodox church is the white man's religion, btw check out this epic steven anderson video
It's a real shame, though Orthodoxy seems to get more of it

[Anonymous No.13100206]

>>13100059
Yeah but Anderson is p based

[Anonymous No.13100420]

I'm EO but I'm glad we can team up to booty blast Proddies together like good siblings should.

>>13100059
Don't browse /pol/ and I'm not LARPing as I commune a few times a month and am a steward in my parish, but Orthodoxy did unfortunately get a lot butthurt ex-prots who call Francis cucked, hate muslims by default, and think Orthodoxy is super based because it is traditional even though the people are just fucked up and liberal as in every other church.

[Anonymous No.13101468]

>claim to be the guardians of morality
>systematically cover up sexual abuse
Really makes you think

[Anonymous No.13101492]

>>13101468
I don't know what a guardian of morality is who is pretending to be one but I have never seen anyone pretend the clergy is made up of paragons. I've seen quite the opposite, actually.

“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
St. Athanasius, Council of Nicaea, AD 325 attributed.

[Anonymous No.13101829]

>>13099564
>What is /catholic/'s take on pic related and the moral dilemma it represents?
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/10/empathy-is-not-charity

[Anonymous No.13101849]

>>13085156
It sounds like the usual /pol/ misguided propaganda. I dont think ignoring the Song of Songs, the Psalms and the Eclesiastes is in any way shape or form the way to go.

[Anonymous No.13101872]

>>13085549
>25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Dear woman, here is your son,' 27 and to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." (John 19:25-27)

Traditional form of adoption request right here. Makes sense only If Jesus is Mary's Son and asks her to adopt his disciple in His moment of death.
Also sola fide sola schriptura: it clearly says 'near the cross stole His Mother'.
Protties Don't even know wtf They believe in.

[Anonymous No.13101913]

>>13101829
Thanks for the read, I really enjoyed it.

[Anonymous No.13101969]

>>13099564
This book pisses me off because I know too much about the Jesuits. Ignatius Loyola, from the inception of the order, defined fear of trampling on a cross as a scruple. In Catholic theology, scruples are misguided moralising which are sent by the devil, and made it a point to trample on naturally occurring crosses to flaunt the devil. Endo's clear that he's writing fiction, since historians also have problems with the work and not just theologians, but if he had made the priests any other order at all it would be more credible and, since he had no intention of making it historically accurate, he could have easily done so.
>>13096979
>Especially the "traditional" ones.
I was raised traditionalist and they piss me off too. They have this weird idea that Latin mass is the whole of the traditional church and they know very little about the Church's practices or dogma or doctrines compared to people I know who were raised with V2 in mind. They don't even usually know that Latin mass is rarely conducted in the traditional style anymore and see nothing amiss in the priest facing the congregation. Out of all the LARPers, they seem to put in the least research except for their pet politicised issues. I sense they're not really Catholic but as >>13096894 points out, Catholics use criticism as a means for charity. I normally still feel obligated to tell them that they may think lying about their faith and misrepresenting the Church are all jolly japes, but dishonesty is a character flaw compounded not disguised by passing it off as a joke regardless of whether you're Catholic or not. Many of them also seek to proselytise which is a sin equivalent to believing in adult baptism or consubstantiation, so I wind up telling them that too risks their eternal soul and they should be known by their works, just in case they really are members of the Church who have been really badly educated. Lots of sins like that don't weigh against people outside the Church, but as a member it risks your chance at sainthood and leads others astray. I know most of them won't really treat it as srsbsns but just in case they are confirmed members I wind up telling them basic precepts they need to adhere to because a lot of the "traditionalists" should have excommunicated themselves if they hold the kind of antithetical beliefs most 4chan traditionalists boast about.
>>13096721
Remind them pride goes before destruction and that without charity they are becoming as sounding brass. You'll be doing them a solid. A reminder that judgement is reserved for God alone would not go amiss either.
>>13093842
We can't tell. However some indications: (1/2, see next post)

[Anonymous No.13101971]

>>13093842
(2/2) The more you learn about the Church, the more you are judged for whether you make a moral rejection of dogma or not. You'll need well thought out reasons to reject the dogma, but putting in moral effort is rewarded not penalised regardless of if you reach the Church's conclusion. If you are a member though, rejection of the dogma is penalised not rewarded as it shows you entered into the contract lightly.
Most Catholics will be judged more harshly by God than nonCatholics because of this. Those who aren't Catholic are judged by them following (or not) their innate moral sense which God grants all humans. Catholics are judged by that and their upholding of the Church's dogma and doctrine. Because we lack ignorance after confirmation, you cannot use it as a mitigating defence because not knowing is interpreted as laziness rather than ignorance. Ignorance is fine outside the Church, but a failing within it.

[Anonymous No.13101984]

>>13093811
Corinthians contrasts faith with charity ("love" in protestant versions) and finds in favour of charity. James also contrasted the two. It would be harder to make a case for faith above works with the Catholic translations of agape as something which must be practised rather than paid lipservice to, but for Protestants, since they translate it as love not charity, it would be slightly easier to view Paul as espousing an intellectual rather than physical endeavour to make life better, where feeling loving towards your neighbour is enough but doing things like giving him soup or saying hello is not included in loving.

[Anonymous No.13102013]

>>13090481
If you want to lie during all the sacraments? I'm not sure why you would though.

[Anonymous No.13102094]

>>13088406
Only confess what you regret and don't take communion if you are not in communion with the Church. If you don't regret heresies, then don't confess them and excommunicate. It's not real communion if you are at odds with the Church and it's just another sin to lie about your position, which will distance you from both God and yourself.
However, bear in mind a lot of weird cults are accepted by the Church, so you might be struggling over something the Church doesn't find issues with but you desire Her to have issues with. Don't drive yourself crazy but take comfort in being honest about your position and the practices you can honestly engage with. God will understand you're doing your best so long as you honestly are doing your best.

[Anonymous No.13102117]

>>13088389
>. I am unable to feel bad about any shitty thing I did unless it directly negatively impacts my earthly self.
Guilt is about responsibility for your actions and their consequences. Are you thinking about the consequences for others, or just about yourself? All other people are God's creatures too, and you might want to think on the idea of That which you do unto the least of My brothers, you do unto Me. Stop adding to your own sins by confessing thing you don't feel culpability for the consequences of because it's just a way of punishing yourself which benefits nobody and harms at least one of God's creatures (You)

[Anonymous No.13102519]

Is it sinful to enjoy Mozart?

[Anonymous No.13102533]

>>13102094
>you might be struggling over something the Church doesn't find issues with but you desire Her to have issues with
If only this were the case. Things would become much simpler.

Thank you for your response though, so you would recommend going to confession anyway, even if I can't in good conscience make a full confession to the point where I can receive communion again (which seems to be the case)?

[Anonymous No.13102589]

>>13100420
A happy Sabbath to you my Byzantine friend.

[Anonymous No.13102600]

>>13099572
Guenonfag?

[Anonymous No.13102623]

>>13102519
yes

[Anonymous No.13102631]

>>13101829
Thanks for linking that. It far more articulately and intelligently stated my own objections to Silence. A shame, because it's a rather good book until the end happens.

[Anonymous No.13102649]

>>13102519
No. Don Giovanni is great, and anyone who doesn't like it should feel bad.

[Anonymous No.13103293]

Do you all know what your temperament is? This site gives a pretty good description and prescription for each of the four types: https://www.fisheaters.com/quiz1.html
Who here /melancholic/?

[Anonymous No.13103295]

I started reading the Cloud of Unknowing recently and was pleasantly surprised by its straightforward language and thinking. I guess I expected a work commonly held to be essential to Christian mysticism to be denser or more obscure.

[Anonymous No.13103737]

>>13103293
You know it

[Anonymous No.13103759]

How do you pray the liturgy of the hours?

[Anonymous No.13103827]

>>13103293
>>13103737
Joining the club.

[Anonymous No.13104088]

Does anyone have a Catholic significant other? If so, how'd you meet?

[Anonymous No.13104201]

>>13103759
Privately, in silence. If I had any sort of singing voice, I'd chant it.

[Anonymous No.13104303]

>>13103759
Do you mean how do I personally pray it, or are you looking to get started?

[Anonymous No.13104335]

>>13104303
The whole shebang. I don't really know anything about it. I've been trying to find some books on libgen and other places.

[Anonymous No.13104492]

>>13104335
There are several options you have for starting out. The easiest is getting the Liturgy of an Hours in an app on your phone. iBreviary is a solid free one. Just install it, and start praying the appropriate hours. Alternatively, if you'd like something in paper, the publishers who print the LotH in the US have an abridged version called Christian Prayer, which is just morning prayer, evening prayer, and night prayer. Here's a good introduction to that version: http://www.philipkosloski.com/a-beginners-guide-to-praying-the-liturgy-of-the-hours/

You could also buy the whole four volume book set, but I suggest holding off on that until you become more familiar with how it all works. That said, if you actually want the Church's in depth explanation of what the Hours are and the theology behind it, I recommend reading this: https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwgilh.htm#Ch%20I

[Anonymous No.13104630]

>>13104335
>>13104492
I'll add my own brief summary of the Liturgy of the Hours, to provide you an easier starting point. The Hours are a very ancient way of consecrating the whole day to God by praying in unison with the Church. It's based on the ancient Jewish practice of praying to God at certain set times of the day, and so it is based around the psalms. The psalter currently used follows a four week cycle, so that if you pray all the Hours you will recite almost every single psalm over the course of four weeks. The psalms, as you may know, cover a whole range of emotions. You pray them not only for yourself, but for all the Church. So if you ever encounter a psalm that you feel doesn't really apply to your current situation (say, a sorrowful psalm when you're feeling very happy) then you pray it for those throughout the Church to whom it applies. The Hours help keep you focused on God throughout the day, returning repeatedly to worship him in the common prayer of the Church. Being part of the liturgy, the Hours include also various feast days, and at time reflect the daily scripture readings at Mass. In this way, the Hours allow a deeper participation in the yearly liturgical cycle of the Church. Next, the hours are as follows:

Office of Readings
This can be prayed at any time during the day, though in traditional monastic practice it is prayed in the middle of the night. It includes the Invitatory Psalm, a prayer that starts the Liturgy of the Hours for the day, which is done with the first hour prayed during the day, either the office of Readings or Morning Prayer. This hour has the standard three Psalms (sometimes it is a longer Psalm split into two or three parts), followed by a reading from scripture and then a second reading from some important saint or Church document.

Morning Prayer:
This one can also start with the Invitatory, if you decide to pray it first. It has the usual three psalms, followed by a brief reading from scripture. After this you recite the Canticle of Zechariah (the song of praise Zechariah sang when St. John the Baptist was born), and conclude with a prayer.

Daytime Prayer:
This can be prayed up to three times during the day (traditionally it was done at 9 AM, noon, and 3 PM), but only is required to be done once. It has the usual three psalms, a brief scripture reading, and a closing prayer. There is the complementary psalmody if you choose to pray this more than just once a day, which will provide you with additional psalms.

Evening Prayer
This follows much the same structure as Morning Prayer. The largest difference is that you pray the Canticle of Mary, rather than that of Zechariah.

Night Prayer
Just one or two psalms are prayed here. Then there is a short scripture reading, followed by the Canticle of Simeon. After the closing prayer a Marian hymn is recited.

[Anonymous No.13104655]

>>13104335

>>13104492
>>13104630
The psalms tend to stick to the four week cycle, unless a solemnity is being celebrated. Usually what will change most day to day is the various antiphons (prayers recited before and after psalms and canticles), scriptural readings, and other prayers. These things can be initially hard to keep track of, but you can catch on pretty quick. The convenience of using an app is that all the work is already done for you, and presented in a convenient manner so that you can just start reading and pray.

Personally, I suggest starting with Morning, Evening, and Night Prayer. Morning and Evening are meant to be the main two Hours upon which the rest of this hinges. Night Prayer is short and easy to pray, and is good to recite right before going to bed. If you find you can consistently stick to this, then move on to adding the Office of Readings (my personal favorite) and Daytime Prayer. Only priests and religious are bound by vows to recite the Liturgy of the Hours every day, so it is no sin if you don't stick to it, but it never hurts to try!

[Anonymous No.13104778]

Do Christians pray for non-believers?

[Anonymous No.13104879]

>>13104778
Yes, Catholics do at least. I can't speak for other denominations but I would imagine they do as well.

[Anonymous No.13104908]

>>13099572
(1/2)

I hold a rather Thomistic view of theology and metaphysics. Namely, theology is the study of that which is revealed. Though some human reason can be applied to it, the premises and ideas that it introduces for reflection cannot be achieved by human reason, but have to be revealed to us by God. Metaphysics is simply the rules that govern being, such as what it is that makes a thing a particular thing and not any other thing, and whether or not it is a member of a whole category of things. This being so, I have to reject your dichotomy. Metaphysics isn't manifest from theology, as it is a question largely of philosophy. Nor is theology manifested from metaphysics, as metaphysics is accessible by human reason alone, again because it is an area of philosophical study.

I also don't think that the fact that some Catholics have been involved in esoteric organizations justifies esotericism. Catholics have done many things throughout history, much of which can be criticized.

As for Guenon, Russia, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and the numerous other things brought up in the article you linked, I have numerous objections (mainly to how both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are characterized) which I can write about in greater detail that you'd like. The brief version of it is that this all seems to miss the point of the Gospel and of Christianity, which is that of salvation. Ideas like initiation and knowledge are not supposed to be the actual central tenets around which all else is focused. In fact, Christianity has long explicitly rejected the idea of secret knowledge for an initiated elite. That's why it has stood in opposition to gnosticism, and you'd find both Catholic and Orthodox theologians in agreement on this subject. There is indeed incredibly deep spirituality to be found in Christianity, and it should be pursued. After all, it draws us closer to God! But what this article describes cheapens the faith as much as attempts to reduce it down to just a set of ethical principles do.

[Anonymous No.13104916]

Can I be trans and catholic?

[Anonymous No.13104917]

>>13099572
>>13104908
(2/2)

As for the filioque, my response is as follows. The matter of the filioque was one before the reign of Charlemagne. For example, Patriarch Paul II of Constantinople (who died almost a full century before Charlemagne was even born) argued against the West's inclusion of the filioque. Paul II would eventually be excommunicated for monothelitism (a heresy condemned by the third council of Constantinople), and St. Maximus the Confessor would voice his opinion on the matter that the Romans were not wrong to use the filioque, and is willing to at least partly attribute the controversy to differences in language (the Latin word "procedere" is used to translate several different Greek verbs that variably discuss the different ways in which the Holy Spirit relates to the Father and Son). As far as the Franks are concerned, their role in the controversy seems to be one caused by an erroneous view of history. Namely, the Franks thought that the filioque was originally included in the creed, and that the Greeks had removed it. Add in tensions between Byzantium and the Franks over who really was a successor to the Roman Empire, and you have an added element of conflict to the argument over the filioque. However, to attribute it to secular authority is to ignore what was centuries of theology expressed by men that the Orthodox themselves regard as saints, including men from the east such as St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Cyril of Alexandria.

My own private (and admittedly rather polemical) take on this is that the Orthodox Church is still in many ways enamored with the Byzantine Empire, since they were always far more allied to worldly governments than the Western Church ever was, and so they're still holding onto a needlessly petty outlook that was partly birthed by a desire to de-legitimize anyone who could be perceived as equally or more Roman than Constantinople. But that is just my own personal and very amateur historical analysis, so take it as you will.

[Anonymous No.13104969]

>>13104492
>>13104630
>>13104655
I appreciate the replies. I think I'm going to try it out for a bit.

[Anonymous No.13104991]

>>13104917
>>13104908
1/2
Thanks for your reply. I do agree with you, that Christianity is centered solely on salvation and not Gnosis. However, to go into a bit of further detail, I think it's important to understand what salvation versus deliverance means in a Guenonian sense. Salvation to Guenon means an indefinite prolongation of the individual metaphysical condition. To be saved could also mean one has to remain categorized among the manifest and thus, not attained the highest level of spirituality. Deliverance to Guenon and his followers, is the process by which the person goes beyond the individuality and no longer is bound by any manifest categories. I do see examples of the latter in certain aspects of Eastern Orthodox spirituality and maybe a bit in St John of the Cross, but I must admit, I don't see a supra-personal exposition of spirituality very often in western Catholic mysticism.

I will concede, that simply in addition to what I previously stated, I also am enamored a bit by the exotic and that certainly influences some of my spiritual dispositions. Some of this largely results from being an American and having so few "spiritual centers," to use the Guenonian term.

I don't know entirely enough about the Filioque to argue well, but I know that the Orthodox say that Maximos the Confessor argued for a more nuanced version of it that is not the same argument as is posed in the west. Again, I don't really know enough to get into more detail.

[Anonymous No.13104993]

>>13104969
You're welcome friend. God be with you!

[Anonymous No.13105003]

>>13104991
I was gonna post a 2/2 but I decided not to

[Anonymous No.13105146]

>>13103293
At first I thought this was going to be some dumb meme shit (medieval temperaments? This is ancient Greek), and to some extent it was, but the actual breakdown of what are the upsides and downsides to being a melancholic individual was very insightful and good. I found this to be particularly poignant:

>The melancholic who gives way to sad moods, falls into many faults against charity and becomes a real burden to his fellow men.

He easily loses confidence in his fellow men, (especially Superiors, Confessors), because of slight defects which he discovers in them, or on account of corrections in small matters.

He is vehemently exasperated and provoked by disorder or injustice. The cause of his exasperation is often justifiable, but rarely to the degree felt.

[Anonymous No.13105177]

>>13105146
>tfw a real burden to your fellow man

[Anonymous No.13105212]

agnosticfag passing through

[Anonymous No.13105280]

My daddy left us when he became a catholic. They said he had to leave us and not speak to us cause our religion was bad according to them. The catholic church ripped my family apart. Now ma dont even leave the house.

[Anonymous No.13105322]

what are the metaphysics of catholicism and why does any of this matter?

[Anonymous No.13105326]

>>13105322
wt is ur pic?

[Anonymous No.13105467]

>>13105322
What exactly do you mean by metaphysics? As in the study of the rules of being, such as what exactly is the way in which categories exist? Or do you mean it in a less strictly philosophical sense?

[Anonymous No.13105631]

I think an issue with your Guenonian approach is that it's not really compatible with Orthodox or Catholic soteriology. I suppose you could convert to Orthodoxy, but I think you'd find that in the long run there'd be a clash between your views and that of the Orthodox Church. There is some overlap, but from the perspective of Orthodox Christians Guenon can at best be approached in the same way any other great thinker from outside the Church can be approached, which is to take some ideas of value inasmuch as they can be reconciled to the faith, and leave the rest behind. St. Thomas Aquinas rather artfully compares this to the Hebrews taking gold out of Egypt, out of which they would eventually make things like the ark of the covenant, but still leaving Egypt itself behind. I just don't think you can really hold both a Guenonian and Orthodox view at the same time. A monastery will be even more strict on this sort of thing, as monks are expected to not hold heterodox views. I wish I was more familiar with Guenon's thinking, because then I'd try to perhaps make a critique, but that will require some more research from me.

The Orthodox are correct in saying that St. Maximus accepted a nuanced concept of the filioque, but they are not correct in ascribing an un-nuanced view to the West. St. Maximus himself says so in his letter to Marinus:

“With regard to the first matter, they have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence...One should keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.”

I think many Orthodox Christians are simply unaware of some of the historical circumstances surrounding the filioque, or they are so opposed to union that they allow it to cloud their judgement. I'm not anything more than an armchair theologian, but it seems to me that the filioque has been blown grossly out of proportion. At the very worst the West is guilty of an extremely imprudent decision in adding the filioque to the recitation of the creed, but then the East could be accused of grossly overstepping their own authority in demanding that the West repudiate the faith of the Latin (and a couple Eastern) Fathers, whom the East accepts as orthodox and saints. I wish we'd redirect East-West dialogue to what I think is the true matter of contention that stops unification, which is what the role of Rome is in the Church.

[Anonymous No.13105644]

>>13104991
Like I dumbass I forgot to mark that this >>13105631 is responding to your post.

[Anonymous No.13105672]

>>13105631
Come to think of it, I have one more thing to add to this post >>13105631 . I'd just like to specify that despite what I say about you following Guenon's views and its compatibility with Christianity, I would never encourage you to distance yourself from the Gospel. Rather, my point is that you have two desires that are contrary, and that I think you should consider what the consequences of their incompatibility are. I will read more about Guenon to see if I can make a worthwhile response to him that makes an argument in favor of Christianity. I do sympathize with your desire for the exotic, since I'm also an American (from Massachusetts, more specifically), and just someone who generally is drawn towards good aesthetics. Ultimately, I think you can find satisfaction in the Church. Whatever the conclusion of our discussion is, pray for me. I will pray for you.

[Anonymous No.13105680]

>>13104991
>>13105672
Truly I've lost my mind. I responded to my own post, right after pointing out how I failed to respond to the right post.

[Anonymous No.13105693]

>>13105631
Guenon's essential thesis was that religion can be divided into the esoteric and exoteric plane. Each tradition has both elements to varying degrees. In the exoteric, there can be little concordance due to the fact that each exoteric practice is greatly steeped in cultural specificity, religious doctrine, etc. However, he claims that in the esoteric there can be no such divide and that due to the fact that metaphysics are by their very nature, objective, all esoteric traditions have to be aiming for the same objective. He is careful to specify that not all spiritualities are the same, nor are they all equal. Also not all spirituality can be classified as "traditional" for to qualify as such, there are certain framework that Guenon believes it must fall under.

Thus, I don't think that Guenon is particularly contradictory to the faith. One can still hold that the Church is correct in the exoteric plane, but due to the fact that esoterism is concerned solely with metaphysics, one can learn from other traditions. However, this presupposes the belief that theology and exoterism is merely a derivative of esoterism (which most Catholics do not believe). Regardless, if you go to a SSPX seminary, they used to (and I think still do) teach Guenon. This was of course due to the influence of Rama Coomaraswamy (a Catholic priest and son of the famed traditionalist Ananda Coomaraswamy), but if you wish to delve into it there are many people who hold a Guenonian viewpoint within the Church. Thomas Merton himself was very familiar with the Traditionalist school, albeit I don't know how much he truly understood of the doctrinal implications. I will say though, I perhaps am a victim to reading too much and practicing too little. I am so obsessed with finding a perfectly spirituality that I honestly hardly even pray. It's bizarre in a way. At the very least, regardless of the debate, I do wholeheartedly believe that the Church offers spiritual efficacy up to a very high point, one which I may never even achieve in my life; in some ways I wonder why I am even worrying about such matters in the first place and not practicing them more.

[Anonymous No.13105713]

>>13105672
Funnily enough I am from Massachusetts as well, although a rather rural part of it. There is a nice Monastery in Spencer I've been meaning to visit.
With regards to Guenon, he certainly does not say that Christianity is bad. He says in his book that is most critical to Christianity (Studies in Christian Esoterism) that Catholicism is perfectly good for the salvation of the soul. He simply says that Catholicism is not enough for the highest of spiritual realizations, akin to what would be called Moksha in the Hindu tradition. However, he does say that Eastern Christianity and especially Alexandrian Christianity still have this efficacy. So, I don't think there is incompatibility, but rather it is moreso a difference in perspective once the highest metaphysical conceptions become into play, an area that frankly affects very few people in this life.

[Anonymous No.13105792]

>>13098432
John 18:20
There is absolutely no need for esotericism. Christ taught everything openly. You are acting like Simon Magus in Acts 8:19, when he tries to buy 'occult power' from St. Peter. I've read Guenon myself and he is entirely wrong on the sacraments being originally esoteric in nature.

All this you want is what the orthodox call 'prelest'. You seek initiation without realizing you are already initiated through the sacraments. You ARE part of the true tradition. What else could you want? And don't think you'll be able to mix orthodoxy and traditionalism. The orthodox preach firmly that the only way to a mystical life is through ascetism and humility.

>>13105693
Rama's traditionalism is what got him expelled from Lefebvre's seminar.

Rites are important I know, but to depart from the Catholic Church to freemasonry or another (counter)initiatic order is plain delusion that will only condemn your soul.

According to Guénon salvation will come from the west, anyway. To be frank you are acting like a new age boomer that looks for oriental practices instead of focusing on christianity.

[Anonymous No.13105830]

>>13099572
>I will link an article by Dugin who explains Guenon and the Orthodox Church if you are interested

Dugin is NOT a christian nor a traditionalist. He is an agent of chaos/satanist who lies about being christian or old believer, but if you dig deeper you'll discover he is involved with occult magic. Dugin explicitly wants to accelerate and bring the 'twilight of the world'.

Charles Upton, who is a traditionalist, wrote about Dugin's satanism.

[Anonymous No.13105841]

>>13105792
I was unaware Rama was expelled. Thank you for informing me.

Surely Jesus taught openly, but to claim that all of his teachings are able to be understood at such a simple surface level is borderline blasphemy. Additionally, there is a reason there is both sacred tradition, and sacred scripture. To try and reduce Jesus down to some democratic teacher is quite absurd. I'm interested to hear why you think Guenon is wrong on the sacraments though since, to me, the sacraments seem to have lost much of their efficacy. The Eucharist is handled like a cracker and the clergy do not protest, Confirmation is reduced to a coming of age ceremony, etc. I find it hard to find intense spirituality power in certain sacraments, especially the aforementioned Confirmation. The Eucharist I think is moreso dependent upon the mind of the believer.
Next, I also never claimed that esoterism is obtained without asceticism and exoteric spirituality. You are misinterpreting Guenon if you think that he excludes the standard common piety as being an important step in spiritual realization. Neither did I claim I am at the stage in my life where I am worthy to receive such spiritual graces. Rather, I simply want to be a member of a tradition wherein I can find them later in my life as I progress further.

Finally, Masonry is not counter initiatic according to Guenon. It has valid initiation considering it goes back to the 1400s if not earlier, although I'm sure you will deny this, for reasons I do not necessarily contest, but solely talking about the Guenonian term, it is not counter initiatic. Guenon liked Masonry so much he started his own lodge later in life after being initiated into Sufism. It never took off much though.

[Anonymous No.13105864]

>>13105830
I did not claim he was either. Rather, I thought the article was a profound insight into the relationship between Orthodoxy and Guenonian thought, which I still stand by. Also, magic is nothing but one of the many hermetic sciences and so, I do not see anything wrong with it from a Catholic perspective.

[Anonymous No.13105883]

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

>>13105841
>I simply want to be a member of a tradition
you, as catholic, already are

>>13105864
magic is not the same as what Guénon calls sacred science, and there was not a single one endorsing the practice of magic in traditionalism. You are too tainted with Evola, it seems. And he wasn't a real traditionalist either.

[Anonymous No.13105909]

>>13105883
Guenon is completely neutral on magic. He simply sees it as the spiritual science most likely to be misinterpreted. I will admit that there is really no reason to practice it though regardless of what you believe on the matter. With regards to Evola, I've only read one or two of his books. I've certainly not fully bought into his views.

I will watch that video of yours since I'm surprised Upton has a channel.

[Anonymous No.13106077]

>>13105693
>>13105713

1/2

So you're also a Masshole! Cool. I live far away now, but I grew up slightly west of Boston. It's always nice to run into someone from Bay State. I've never personally been to Spencer Abbey, though I've had some of their jam. I hear good things about the Trappists though.

I did not know that there was any connection between Guenon and the SPPX, nor am I familiar with Rama Coomaraswamy I actually had to search him in my other native language because wikipedia had no English article on him. He is a curious figure. If Polish wiki is to be believed, he was a sedevacantist, and was ordained a priest even though he was married? That said, any connection to the SPPX does raise concerns from me. I am far more on the traditional side of things as far as the Church is concerned, but to put it in simplistic terms, I sympathize far more with FSSP than SSPX. He seems interesting, and I wish I had heard more of him when I studied philosophy at a Dominican college.

I find it odd that Guenon is willing to distinguish various spiritualities as being different, and even unequal, yet he's still willing to argue that all esoteric traditions are aiming at the same objective. Assuming I'm not misunderstanding him, I have two main objections.

1) I don't think all esoteric traditions have the same objective. Let us put aside the consideration of Catholicism for a second, and consider Orthodoxy and Hinduism. If wiki isn't lying to me, Guenon had strong connections to Advaita Vedanta. The end goal of that school of Hinduism is the realization that Atman is Brahman. Orthodox Christians would outright reject such an idea. Though union with God is the end goal, indeed an extremely close union that goes beyond our understanding, a clear distinction between Creator and Creature remains. Their spiritual objectives have some similarities (the pursuit of the divine), but they are ultimately incompatible.

2) Though the truth of metaphysics is an objective one, I don't think this necessitates that all esoteric/spiritual traditions aim for the same objective. Humanity need not necessarily all have correct knowledge of metaphysics, as we are flawed and do not have access to the totality of the truth. It's kind of like how in the past there were many explanations for earthquakes due to insufficiently advanced science. The truth of what actually causes earthquakes is completely objective, but that didn't mean that we had to have access to that truth. Given that, as I argued in my previous objection, we have widely diverging spiritualities that Guenon would argue are esoteric, this is also the case with metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.13106085]

>>13105693
>>13105713
2/2

I do think you need to pray more. How can you truly speak of mysticism, spirituality, esotericism, etc. if you do not truly participate in it yourself? Otherwise, you end up being like a man trying to judge different cuisines without having tasted much food. I might be misquoting him, but I think it was St. Francis de Sales who said that we must pray at least half an hour a day. An hour if we are busy. Talk to God. Your soul thirsts for him, and he loves you more than you can ever comprehend. If you struggle with prayer and dislike it, tell him that. He already knows, and by admitting our faults we allow grace to begin to heal them.

>>13105864

Catholic teaching is unambiguously against magic. From the Catechism:

2115 God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. Improvidence, however, can constitute a lack of responsibility.

2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.

[Anonymous No.13106265]

>>13102533
Yeah that's what a lot of deviants I know do. They believe in everything except they don't believe being a faggot is a sin or they believe in the Church but don't want their kids to be confirmed at 12, or they believe the Church herself is currently apostate, etc. So they go to Mass but not communion, or only confess what they feel guilty enough about to stop doing if they also go to confession. Excommunication over such things is an honest choice, though a lot of people now ignore that (and it is rare now for priests to refuse you communion when he knows the receiver is still sinning in the eyes of the Church, so most get away with it. Some parishes the priest will refuse you if you go to the rail and he knows you're unshriven, but they are few and far between)