Who is the most based and /lit/ Saint?

[Anonymous No.21833096]

I have to pick my Saint for RCIA and I’m panicked and afraid of having buyer’s remorse.

I just want a Saint that has amazing /lit/ writings that I can sit back and read for the rest of my life.

[Anonymous No.21833118]

Do you fucks ever search through the archive? Use google? /lit/ is not your private tutor fucking idiot, open a book and look at the saints yourself, you have the entire internet at your disposal.

[Anonymous No.21833124]

Saint Francis de Sales. Patron saint of writers and journalists.

He's my own Confirmation saint, and he has been my help for many years. You'll love him.

[Anonymous No.21833132]

>>21833118
>/lit/ is only for the discussion of things that have never been discussed before!

>>21833124
Amazing. Never heard of him, but going to start on Intro to the Devout Life now. Any other work that you think should be read in addition/instead?

[Anonymous No.21833140]

>>21833132
His treatise on the Sign of the Cross is extremely good. You have to remember that he's a saint of the Counter-Reformation, so he had to directly battle Protestants challenging longstanding Catholic practices. The Calvinists, his primary enemies, challenged the making of the Sign of the Cross, so Francis wrote a treatise defending the practice. It's really great and relies on both Sacred Scripture and historical accounts, and the writings of the Church Fathers.

[Anonymous No.21833151]

>>21833124
Imagine picking a Saint for something as vain as writing or journalism. A Saint of the world? This is a joke. OP do NOT listen to this guy. Instead, you should pick one that has dealt with the vice or passion that you struggle the most with.

[Anonymous No.21833171]

>>21833096
Aquinas or Augustine.

[Anonymous No.21833176]

>>21833096
you gotta go with shithead ghetto Mexican Saint, Santa Muerte

[Anonymous No.21833200]

>>21833096
Congratulations on RCIA God bless you anon. Now remember to reject the novus ordo and Vatican II heresy and only go to Traditional Mass, become a Traditional Catholic the one true faith.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJxM7Lo2URw
And watch this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX97Qg4DIJU
>>21833151
I double this man's wisdom
>>21833171
This would also suit your needs
>>21833176
Narcos worship demons, santa muerte is not a Saint. It is narco demon worship

[Anonymous No.21833213]

>>21833151
I don’t think anon was saying that they picked St Frances de Sales *because* he’s the patron saint of writing and journalism … he was merely giving it as a piece of evidence that St Francis is lit.

Further, anon said that St. Francis has been his “help” for many years … I have to imagine that this is not help in writing but rather help in being more virtuous.

I appreciate your recommendation though. My biggest struggle is doubt, so I think if I go that route I would pick St. Thomas the Apostle. However, my only hesitation in picking St. Thomas is that I would like to be able to read the works of my confirmation Saint and commune with him in that way, and St. Thomas hasn’t left us any writings.

[Anonymous No.21833258]

>>21833200
wait hey now, you're telling me this Saint isn't totally Christian? George Bush said latinos make natural conservatives. Was he lying?

[Anonymous No.21833286]

>>21833176
>>21833258
>Americans genuinely do not know who the Virgin Mary was
Ok but I will point out that means you skimmed a lot of the middle bit of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.21833315]

>>21833286
I'm bashing Mexicans and Catholics. Thats all. I made no mention of the Virgin Mary.

>Ok but I will point out that means you skimmed a lot of the middle bit of the Bible
this statement makes no fucking sense

[Anonymous No.21833348]

>>21833096
Bede

[Anonymous No.21833353]

>>21833096
I am.

[Anonymous No.21833359]

>>21833096
Shame Bede isn't a saint, that guy was awesome, the only English doctor of the Church.

[Anonymous No.21833451]

I’m in the exact same position having the exact same trouble anon. I want to pick the Blessed Mother but people have been kind of scoffing at me when I tell them that.

Maybe OT Adam, or Lazarus.

[Anonymous No.21833483]

I picked Cardinal John Henry Newman

[Anonymous No.21833595]

>>21833451
What do they say in response to you wanting to pick Mary?

Adam and Lazarus. Wow you have some non-standard picks.

>>21833483
My Protestant convert friend chose Newman. Perhaps you are he.

[Anonymous No.21833634]

>>21833595
They don’t really say anything usually it’s just silence and an awkward smile but I can see in their eyes they think a male picking a female Saint is weird.

I don’t care though I might go for it. Also my priest told me I could pick two, like Mary-Adam etc

[Anonymous No.21833640]

>>21833595
I converted from atheism (though I was raised Pentecostal) but now I’m pretty much a Sedevacantist so it’s weird since he was canonised by Francis. I still love his writings though.

[Anonymous No.21833652]

>>21833359
He is a saint isn’t he

[Anonymous No.21834365]

>>21833096
since youre on 4cringe, st. paul of thebes is the patron st. of hermits

[Anonymous No.21834695]

>>21833200
Sorry sweatie novus ordo is the true liturgy. Rejecting doctrinal development is a prot thing so submit to Rome before you are anathematized.

[Anonymous No.21834726]

>>21833315
That only makes no sense because you actually have not read the OT scriptures that reference Mary. The great thing about Protestantism though is that you can just ignore Bible verses you don't like

[Anonymous No.21834740]

>>21834695
Based chair of peter enthusiast

[Anonymous No.21834876]

>>21834695
Doctrinal development only means expressing in clearer and more relevant ways what was already handed down to us by the Apostles.
For example the condemnation of pornography. In ancient times pornography did not exist so we can say the condemnation of pornography is a doctrinal development. However it is a development only in the sense of applying timeless Christian principles to modern situations.
Similarly, the Popes up to Vatican II condemned liberalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religious liberty, revolution, socialism, egalitarianism, modernism, and so on. This was an application of timeless Christian principles to modernity.
Vatican II on the other hand completely contradicted the Popes and EMBRACED all of these things. Thus Vatican II was a heretical false council.
It is very likely therefore (though I do not claim to be certain), that the Conciliar Popes (John XXIII to Francis) are antipopes.
If you accept Francis as a Pope at least, then you have to venerate JPII, John XXIII, and Paul VI as saints, even though these men, especially JPII, were apostates, heretics, and literal idol-worshippers. Here is JPII kissing the Qu’ran, whereas countless martyrs have spilled their blood at the hand of Muslims. Such a man cannot be a Saint.

[Anonymous No.21834897]

>>21834726
The Virgin Mary was Jesus's Mother... you weren't supposed to worship her if that's what you are implying. Btw I highly doubt you know what you are explaining because you're being cryptic rather than explaining. Just explain yourself if you have a point to make.

[Anonymous No.21834901]

>>21834726
>And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

[Anonymous No.21834933]

>>21834897
The Blessed Virgin is the Ark of the Covenant, the Mother-of-God, the Lord’s dwelling-place. She was the holiest human being apart from Christ. Christ took his human nature from her.
In the Old Testament, the Kings of Israel would enthrone their mothers and give them the title “Gebirah”, meaning Queen or Mistress/Lady. Similarly Christ the king, being the successor of David’s throne, likewise enthrones his mother and she becomes Our Lady the Queen of Heaven.

[Anonymous No.21834975]

>>21834901
This is exactly why the Church withheld the scriptures from the laity. You have no understanding. Christ’s method of teaching was hyperbolic — he spoke in extreme ways often to emphasise a point. Cut your eye out if it causes you to sin is a prime example. Obviously, self-mutilation is contrary to the good of the person, but the moral to be gleaned from the saying is to cut away all temptations from one’s life. Protestants themselves believe this, for you erroneously teach that when Christ says “whoever does not eat my flesh and drink my blood shall not see life” or “this is my body” (referring to bread), he is being metaphorical. The fact that such confusion exists itself demonstrates the necessity of an authoritative and infallible teaching office of the faith — ie the Church.

[Anonymous No.21835031]

>>21834933
Yeah that's the Old Testament. I'm not a Jew. I worship Jesus and the Father.

I don't worship women because I'm not a Jew, Mexican or Catholic. Female worship is not Christian; it's something that primitive cultures do.

Saint worship is a pagan reskin of the Greek/Roman gods. It's good for the Roman Empire; It's good for a system of governance. But it's not true Christianity.

Keep in the mind that the Old Testament is filled with Jews losing their faith in God, worshiping Moloch and Baal. Surely, you don't consider Moloch and Baal Catholic just because they are worshiped by people in the Old Testament? Those were Jews who were constantly falling off the path. Jesus came along to clarify the wrongs of the Jewish religion. I believe what Jesus says. The Old Testament is an interesting history of folly, but it's not meant to be modeled after.

[Anonymous No.21835056]

>>21834975
No no no. Catholics discourage reading of the Bible because their organization is so far from the path of Jesus, that merely reading what Jesus said is enough to expose them as charlatans.

[Anonymous No.21835237]

>>21834975
Can you send me the infallible ex cathedra commentary on the gospel please? There is one right? The infallible teaching office could get that straightened out over a few millennia at least?

[Anonymous No.21835260]

>>21834933
This is a good post. The Davidic Kingdom is a model for much of how the Church views Christ's Kingdom of God.

Another figure in Israel's monarchy who wielded great power was the king's steward, who was in charge of the household and the kingdom's affairs and acted on the king's behalf when the king was away. This role is the role Christ passes to Saint Peter in the Gospels, and it has been assumed by all of Peter's successors in the Papacy. The Popes are Christ's stewards, shepherding His kingdom (the Church) until He comes again.

[Anonymous No.21835273]

What theologian best lead you to Christ and the Apostolic Church? If you want to be /lit/ (why you would want to "be" a 4chan board for such a holy choose is beyond me), choose that one

[Anonymous No.21835320]

>>21835056
Wrong. It's because the Bible is too complex for the idiotic masses to understand. They need to be shepherded.
>>21835237
The dogmas of the Church concerning the Gospel are infallible.
>>21835260
Benedict XVI was a manifest heretic and therefore unlikely to be a true Pope.

[Anonymous No.21835330]

>>21833096
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_the_Holy_Fool

[Anonymous No.21835337]

>>21835031
Catholics don't worship the Virgin Mary we venerate her as the Queen of Heaven.
>that's the Old Testament. I'm not a Jew.
Christ is the successor of King David.

[Anonymous No.21835344]

>>21833096
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Guinefort

[Anonymous No.21835362]

>>21835031
Jesus without the OT is like eating crepes without anything

[Anonymous No.21835413]

>>21835362
Yeah read the Old Testament. But you don't follow them. You follow Jesus. This is very simple. I'm a Christian, not a Jew.

[Anonymous No.21835419]

>>21835344
The only saint worth repping

[Anonymous No.21835438]

>>21835337
>the Virgin Mary we venerate her as the Queen of Heaven
Sounds like worship.

[Anonymous No.21835442]

>>21833483
>>21833640
Be care with newman. He is a liberal
https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_028br_Newman.htm
being canonized by francis should be enough of a warning sign
>>21834695
Unbased and cringe. Post nose
>>21834876
>>21834975
Based God bless you anons
>>21834901
>And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.
- Matthew 23:9
>No one should be called teacher or father except God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the Father, because all things are from him. He alone is the teacher, because through him are made all things and through him all things are reconciled to God. But one might ask, “Is it against this precept when the apostle calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles? Or when, as in colloquial speech widely found in the monasteries of Egypt and Palestine, they call each other Father?” Remember this distinction. It is one thing to be a father or a teacher by nature, another to be so by generosity. For when we call a man father and reserve the honor of his age, we may thereby be failing to honor the Author of our own lives. One is rightly called a teacher only from his association with the true Teacher. I repeat: The fact that we have one God and one Son of God through nature does not prevent others from being understood as sons of God by adoption. Similarly this does not make the terms father and teacher useless or prevent others from being called father. .
- Jerome
>Call none your father . Neither be ye called masters The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master is to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Corinthians iv. 15,) and for our masters and teachers. (Challoner)
This name was a title of dignity: the presidents of the assembly of twenty-three judges where so called; the second judge of the sanhedrim (Bible de Vence)
Nothing is here forbidden but the contentious divisions, and self-assumed authority, of such as make themselves leaders and favourers of schisms and sects; as Donatus, Arius, Luther, Calvin, and innumerable others of very modern date. But by no means the title of father, attributed by the faith, piety, and confidence of good people, to their directors; for, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, that he is their only spiritual Father: If you have 10,000 instructors in Christ, yet not many Fathers. (1 Corinthians iv. 15.)
- George Leo Haydock
>>21835031
We dont worship saints
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K9yGNPaIcA
>>21835056
Pr*testants are not Christian they interpret the Bible and worship themselves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjTnX_63XOo
Become Traditional Catholics the one true faith brothers and sisters. God bless you all

[Anonymous No.21835444]

>>21835337
>Christ is the successor of King David.
If I was a Jew I would consider King David my leader; I'm not a Jew so I don't.

[Anonymous No.21835456]

>>21835320
>the Bible is too complex for the idiotic masses to understand
It's not. The book of Matthew is EXTREMELY easy to understand. That's why Catholics discourage reading it, because merely hearing the actual words of Jesus it exposes their hypocrisy.

For example:
Jesus said not to call anyone on earth father.
Jesus said: any two people who meet in my name is a church.

Those two statements alone remove the need to bend the knee to the Pope.

[Anonymous No.21835457]

>>21835438
What is your definition of "worship"? Do I worship a King if I kneel before him and swear fealty to him? Do I worship a judge if I call him "Your Honour"? If we kneel before, respect, and venerate the Saints, do we therefore worship them?

[Anonymous No.21835462]

>>21835442
I'm not protestant. I'm Christian. I follow the words of Christ and discuss it with my friends and family. I'm not part of a Church.

[Anonymous No.21835465]

>>21835456
>Jesus said not to call anyone on earth father.
What do you call your biological father then?

[Anonymous No.21835474]

>>21835456
>Jesus said not to call anyone on earth father.
This is exactly what I mean. You do not understand the words of Christ, so you should never have been allowed to read the Bible because doing so has led you astray.
Christ said don't call anyone father; does that mean you never say "dad" to your father? He said don't call anyone teacher; does that mean you don't submit to any teacher? Obviously not.
The point Christ was making is that God is the ultimate Father, God is the ultimate Teacher. Christ pedagogic style was hyperbolic, this is obvious from many of his statements.
If you want to take everything by-the-word, you should chop your body parts off which cause you to sin, like Russian Protestants did.

[Anonymous No.21835492]

>>21835273
Not him but
>What theologian best lead you to Christ and the Apostolic Church?
I would suggest Saint Paul, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas and then look into Saint Simon of Trent
>If you want to be /lit/ (why you would want to "be" a 4chan board for such a holy choose is beyond me), choose that one
He means the personification of /lit/ which upholds the western canon (not mememing) nowhere else on the internet nor the world is there a collected group of men that value literature and wish to not only protect but raise the western canon of literature. If you look at the mainstream they are on a mission of destroying our culture whixh includes literature. /lit/ protects literature unironically.
>>21835344
Best boy but not Catholic
>The cult of this dog saint persisted for several centuries, despite the repeated prohibitions of the Catholic Church
>>21835456
I already refuted you here >>21835442 with commentary from two Church fathers Saint Jerome and George Leo Haydock. We don't interpret the Holy Bible by ourselves we follow church doctrine.
>>21835462
You are protesting the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church. You are a protestant.
>I follow the words of Christ
And who journaled these words? And who arranged the Holy Bible? The Catholic Church did friend.

[Anonymous No.21835497]

>>21835492
>And who journaled these words?
so are we to follow Journalists just because they report on things. Don't be silly my friend

[Anonymous No.21835573]

>>21835457
Well then it must be the first time that someone has worshiped a King or Queen

[Anonymous No.21835742]

>>21833096
Justin Popovic. He had the Russian uni equivalent of a PhD in theology. There are also stories of him getting into arguments on theology, where he would speak with such a thunderous voice that the windows would shudder and vibrate.

[Anonymous No.21835755]

>>21833652
Nope

[Anonymous No.21835770]

>>21833096
Augustine is pretty good.
t. Augustine

[Anonymous No.21835835]

>>21834897
What you criticize as “worship,” “saint-worship,” and the like, is in fact the natural and fitting reaction of a spiritually aspiring human being to another human being divinely blessed and gifted by God.

[Anonymous No.21835888]

>>21835031
This attitude is so absurd, that you might as well excise everything and everyone out of the New Testament, reducing it simply to the aphorisms of Christ’s. Throw out the Twelve Apostles, St. Paul, and St. John of Patmos. Throw out any theologian or saint who lived after the time of Christ, in fact. In fact, why even need a Protestant clergy or churches?

>>21835462
Aha, so you already DID do that! Scratch my post then — I actually have a greater amount of respect for this, paradoxical as that sounds. It’s far from the “lukewarmness” so heavily censured in the Book of Revelation. Doctrinal differences aside, may God have mercy on us all and lead us to the right path.

[Anonymous No.21835947]

>>21835888
>may God have mercy on us all and lead us to the right path
Traditional Catholicism the one true faith brother. Reject the Vatican II novus ordo missae heresy and return to the faith of our ancestors Traditional Catholicism.
>Why Catholicism is the one true faith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNhD5GhnC0o
> Proof Catholicism is the one true faith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9tAweHIoh4
>Traditional Catholicism vs Novus Ordo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJxM7Lo2URw

[Anonymous No.21835957]

>>21833096
Augustine and Aquinos

[Anonymous No.21836251]

>>21833096
saints bernadino of siena, anthony the great, and simeon stylites all resonate with 4channel users

[Anonymous No.21836306]

>>21833096
Saint Sebastian

[Anonymous No.21836436]

Boethius.
A man who needs no introduction.

[Anonymous No.21836640]

>>21836306
Based gayboy

[Anonymous No.21836743]

Every time we have Catholic threads on this board they always devolve into a mess like this. Sedes, Protestants, atheists, it's all such a mess.

OP, I will pray for you. Choose a saint who you feel very close to, who has had an impact on your journey to the Church. Then when you are Catholic, don't let the weird threads on here steer you in weird directions. Go to Mass every Sunday, and during the week if you feel moved. Go to Confession whenever you believe yourself to be in mortal sin. Pray the Rosary every day. Pray for the intentions of the Pope, even if Francis is not the best of Popes. Pray for the intercession of the saints. Give alms to the poor and comfort to the afflicted. Love Christ with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength.

And don't let anyone on /lit/ make your faith any more complicated than that.

[Anonymous No.21836791]

The most /lit/ saint is the one that most inspires you personally.

[Anonymous No.21836831]

>>21835273
OP here. The Saints that best led me to belief that the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus founded are Saints Clement and Ignatius of Antioch. That said, I don’t feel a special affinity to their writing, and I’m looking for a saint whose writing I do have an affinity to.

[Anonymous No.21836861]

>>21835413
>>21835444
What do you think it means when Luke said that God gave to Jesus the Davidic throne, a throne that Jesus will hold and rule from eternally (Luke 1:31-33).

>>21835438
Nta, but how would you define worship? I think we can make progress on whether it is worship or not if you are clear on what you mean.

[Anonymous No.21836874]

>>21835888
>Throw out any theologian or saint who lived after the time of Christ, in fact. In fact, why even need a Protestant clergy or churches?

Yes!!! That's basically how I live my life. All I need is the word of Christ. The Book of Matthew specifically. I enjoy reading Augustine among others, but the teachings of Christ is simply my faith. Everything else is a bonus or noise. I preach the word myself in so much as it pertains to the struggles of my friends and family.

>>21835888
>Aha, so you already DID do that!
:)

Pax Vobiscum brother.

[Anonymous No.21836879]

>>21835456
> The book of Matthew is EXTREMELY easy to understand.
Ok then what are the powers to bind and to loose and what are the keys of the kingdom that Jesus gave to Peter in Matthew 16? While we’re at it, what did Jesus mean when he said: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

[Anonymous No.21836884]

>>21833200
Shut up Trad Fag. Let the boy choose a good Saint.

Anyways OP, all of the ones included in this thread are good (except the demon, Santa Muerte). I always recommend something that no one else will do: An apologist like Lactantius or Justin Martyr, a forgotten Bishop like St. Ulrich, or an antipope like St. Hippolytus would be prime candidates. Choose a Saint you are closest to though (mine was St. Benedict of Nursia).

Good luck anon!

[Anonymous No.21836886]

>>21834975
>This is exactly why the Church withheld the scriptures from the laity.
So you must be a priest well-versed in at least Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, right? No? Get on my level, bitch.

No, I'm not a priest, but I do know those languages and more and have been asked multiple times to consider priesthood; I wonder if they think me a pedo.

[Anonymous No.21836891]

>>21836743
OP here. Thanks based Catholic anon—it means a lot. Mind my asking who your Saint is?

[Anonymous No.21836901]

>>21833096
Either St. James or Judas Iscariot. St. Thomas and Gregoire of Nysse also apply

[Anonymous No.21836946]

>>21836879
>Matthew 16
Jesus is entrusting Peter to continue preaching his word.

[Anonymous No.21836956]

>>21836891
Santa Muerte. Ong I've come around and think she's pretty badass

[Anonymous No.21837036]

>>21836891
NTA but St. Jerome is my confirmation saint and I am very moved by his grasp of language and devotion to writing. I think he would be a wonderful confirmation saint for you. God bless and keep you. Keep your eyes on Christ and walk always in his light!

[Anonymous No.21837163]

>>21836891
I've actually already posted in this thread I'm >>21833124 , so Saint Francis de Sales is my confirmation saint.

I chose him years ago, when I was 16 and going through Confirmation classes. Even back then, I was devoted to writing, and I knew my destiny was to be a writer of some kind. So I chose the saint who looks after writers.

It was a bit of a superficial choice, looking back, but I was only a teenager at the time. As I have grown and matured, however, I have come to value Francis immensely, and to do so more than just because he is the patron saint of my chosen profession.

In particular I admire his kindness and gentleness. He is known as "the gentleman saint" because he was very kind and gentle and meek, always patient and gentle with people. This is something I keep before me as a model to follow, because I am by nature hot-blooded and I easily lose my temper. I look to Francis as a model of how I might tame my anger and learn to be meek and gentle, like he was, and like Christ was, too.

I have also found a lot of inspiration from many of the treatises he wrote. He really was a very good spiritual advisor and director, and even centuries after his death, his writings are a good guide.

[Anonymous No.21837205]

>>21836946
> I will give you the keys of the kingdom = you may now preach God’s word
> whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven = you may now preach God’s word

Please enlighten me, what are the indicators that it is about preaching God’s word? Also, do both binding and loosing AND the keys of the kingdom mean preaching God’s word? If so, why does Jesus give Peter both instead of just one?

[Anonymous No.21837218]

>>21836884
Thanks for the recommendations and encouragement.

>>21837163
I appreciate the additional context. I started reading one of his books this morning and have very much enjoyed it. I come from a Calvinist Protestant background, so St. Francis de Sale’s mission work countering Calvinism is appealing to me personally. I also have trouble keeping focus on the fact that it all comes back to love. Loving God because He first loved us, and loving others because He first loved us. Seems like St. Francis was very keyed in on this and it’s something I’d like to learn from him.

[Anonymous No.21837223]

>>21833096
You need to read St John of Damascus and The Fount of Knowledge as well as the philosophical chapters. There's a book on Amazon that has all four.

[Anonymous No.21837248]

>>21837218
Some other saints I have formed a personal connection with over the years, that you might be interested in:

St. Augustine
St. Jude the Apostle
St. John the Apostle
St. Joseph
St. Teresa of Avila
St. John Henry Newman
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Athanasius the Great

One thing that you must never lose sight of is that the Communion of the Saints is a living communion. The Church Triumphant is not separated from us by the veil of death; rather, they have already defeated death, and sit in eternal life with Christ in Heaven. This means the saints are alive, and very real, and have their own will and their own impulses, though always ever directed upwards to the worship of God. But in practice, this means that you will forge connections with this or that saint, and the connections you forge will be different than the connections someone else will forge. Because the saints are real people, and in Heaven have not lost their originality. So you'll have saints you connect with more than others. And sometimes, THEY will be the ones reaching out to YOU. The veil between this life and the next is not impenetrable.

[Anonymous No.21837256]

>>21837205
it's like kingdom hearts. what Jesus meant is for Peter to wield his preaching like a Keyblade, just like Sora in Kingdom Hearts. The Heartless are the Pharisees and Catholics. Sora (Peter) then uses his Keyblade (Jesus's teachings) to swish you away like the little annoying buzzing flies that you are

[Anonymous No.21837262]

>>21837256
Great. This Kingdom Hearts analogy would be clear to any reader. And now explain the binding and loosing?

[Anonymous No.21837265]

>>21837262
those are also parts of the Keyblade

[Anonymous No.21837283]

>>21837265
How do you know? What is the evidence in the text, or otherwise, that binding and loosing has anything to do with keys?

[Anonymous No.21837319]

>>21837283
The Keyblade stuff is a joke bot because I already answered you

[Anonymous No.21837322]

>>21837319
the binding/loosing just means that Peters actions are going to be important. The way that he preaches/carries on Jesus' word is dictate who will make it into Heaven. You also have to take everything Matthew Mark Luke and John and Paul with a grain of salt because they are not Jesus.

[Anonymous No.21837524]

>>21836743
Francis:
>On the doctrine of justification Luther was correct.
This is outright heresy. How can Francis be the Pope?
Vatican II teaches religious liberty, ecumenism, and religious indifferentism. How can any Pope who affirms it be the true Pope?
Sedes are not like Protestants or atheists. We simply don’t understand how manifest heretics can be Popes.
https://youtu.be/1c_JL8_Wa-k

[Anonymous No.21837571]

>>21837524
How can the Church fail?

The Church has endured heretics, antipopes, schisms, and wicked men on Peter's throne. How can the Church fail, if it has survived all of that?

Look at how the broader Church resists Francis and is eager to repel him. Look at how Francis is forced to obey orthodoxy with the German bishops.

Sedevacantists would have us forsake the Church itself. That I will not do. The Church has survived and it will survive. God has not abandoned Rome. Certainly not to whatever antipope or false pope you would set up.

Put your faith in the One True Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, and I promise you that within your lifetime it will be rewarded. A change for the better is coming.

[Anonymous No.21837637]

>>21837571
If you believe Francis is Pope, that means you believe John Paul II was a saint, which means you venerate an idol worshipper and Muslim.

[Anonymous No.21837929]

>>21835056
>Catholics discourage reading of the Bible
They encourage you to read it. I am in a Catholic Bible study.

[Anonymous No.21837936]

>>21833096
I'm doing St. Thomas Aquinas because he interceded for me. If Origen were a saint then maybe him but St. Thomas and I seem to have a connection. Agreed with Saints Augustine, Newman, and would at John of the Cross, Therese of Liseux, and Bonaventure (Platonic Aquinas).

[Anonymous No.21837940]

>>21837637
>which means you venerate an idol worshipper and Muslim.
Doing acts of universal respect is neither of these things. Sedevaticanus is literally just Puritans of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.21837941]

Saint Christopher is cool.

[Anonymous No.21838174]

>>21837940
Inter-religious gatherings and prayer-meetings were absolutely condemned by the Popes leading up to Vatican II. They said it was tantamount to apostasy.

I quote Pope Pius XI here but you can find many, many other statements:
>conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is ALTOGETHER ABANDONING THE DIVINELY REVEALED RELIGION.

According to Pope Pius XI, your “saint” John Paul II, who kissed Qu’rans, held interfaith gatherings, prayed to John the Baptist for the success of Islam, etc., is an Apostate who has abandoned the Catholic faith. How can such a man be a saint?
When will you retards wake up and realise that Vatican II is a new religion. It’s literally not Catholicism, it has no continuity with the past. If you want to be part of the Vatican II sect because you agree with it, that’s another matter, but it’s not Catholic.

[Anonymous No.21838194]

>>21838174
>According to Pope Pius XI, your “saint” John Paul II, who kissed Qu’rans, held interfaith gatherings, prayed to John the Baptist for the success of Islam, etc., is an Apostate who has abandoned the Catholic faith
Saints are not perfect and also St. John Paul II (pray for us) is not Vatican II. You are conflating the statements of Vatican II with the overly liberal actions of certain Popes that will not continue. St. Francis of Assisi also loved Muslims. It is a flaw, certainly, to not pray for their conversion and to bless the Qu'ran but it is also not what Vatican II says to so - V2, which neither of us have read, just enshrines religious liberty.

[Anonymous No.21838197]

>>21833096
Saint Mary of Egypt
DesertMommy on Onlyfans

Post-Wall blown out born again foids love her. You should to.

ST. MARY PRAY FOR US!

[Anonymous No.21838201]

>>21833096
Saint Joseph of Cupertino

[Anonymous No.21838206]

>>21838194
Religious liberty was specifically condemned by the Popes as well.
Pope Pius IX:
> The civil liberty of every mode of worship, and full power given to all of openly and publicly manifesting their opinions and their ideas conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people... The Roman Pontiff cannot and ought not to reconcile himself or agree with, progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

>Saints aren’t perfect
Dude, according to Pius XI John Paul II WASNT EVEN CATHOLIC

[Anonymous No.21838212]

>>21838206
Pope's statements are ordinary magesterium and ecumenical councils are de fide extraordinary magesterium. These are two different planes of infallability.

[Anonymous No.21838245]

>>21838212
Just read Quanta Cura by Pope Pius IX. He specifically condemns the ideas of liberalism and religious liberty as being utterly erroneous and opposed to Catholic tradition. Vatican II taught the exact opposite. This is just one of many contradictions between the Vatican II sect and the traditional Catholic Church.

If you want to be part of the Vatican II sect because you agree with their ideas of global one-world religion or whatever, then that’s your choice. But stop calling yourself Catholic and pretending to represent Catholic tradition. You are not a Catholic, you are a member of a cult/sect that was invented in 1962.

[Anonymous No.21838246]

Hildegard is pretty cool

[Anonymous No.21838297]

>>21838245
>He specifically condemns the ideas of liberalism and religious liberty as being utterly erroneous and opposed to Catholic tradition. Vatican II taught the exact opposite.
Aaaand the circle is back. Vatican II's authority dwarfes Pope encyclicals.

[Anonymous No.21838411]

>>21838297
Vatican II is heretical it has no authority whatsoever. A council cannot overturn tradition.

[Anonymous No.21838623]

>>21838411
>>21838297
Neither of you are competent to be debating this subject in a public forum. Neither of you are sufficiently educated in the subject matter. This is contention (a sin against charity), and scandal (also a sin against charity).

[Anonymous No.21838644]

>>21833096
>afraid of buyer's remorse.
>want a saint that has amazing /lit/ writings.
Anon, the saints are the friends of God, already dwelling in his glorious presence. What could you possible fear? This is not a good thing, and you ought to seek a firmer faith. Further, you ought to desire a heavenly patron who you think will best help you reach heaven; look for saint that inspires you to live a holier life. You could not go wrong with any of the saints provided here; the only mistake you could make would be to choose for superficial reasons. With that said, you might be interested to read the works of St. Ephraim of Syria. Here is a link to The Pear, a very beautiful work of his:https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3705.htm

[Anonymous No.21838730]

If we ignore /lit/ it's probably Saint Boniface.

[Anonymous No.21838751]

>>21838623
You have offered no refutation. Vatican II blatantly contradicts what the Popes taught about religious liberty and interfaith relations. Vatican II is a new religion, not the Catholic Church. You are a member of a sect.

[Anonymous No.21838845]

I fell for the Catholicism meme and I regret it. Spent so much energy labouring over all of these issues and in the end it was fruitless.

Basically, since Vatican II there are only 4 choices if you want to be a Catholic, and all of them are horrible:

1. You can be a modernist and get on board with all of the liberalism and idolatry and LGBT craziness in the Church. You’d be contradicting the past but you wouldn’t care.

2. You can be a “conservative” and defend the Vatican II establishment by dishonestly twisting yourself into knots. An example is Michael Lofton on YouTube, who argues that Pachamama (a pagan goddess Francis worshipped) was actually Mary.

3. You can take the position of the SSPX and resist Vatican II and modernism but still honour the blatantly modernist Catholic hierarchy. Also unsatisfactory since Catholicism is about obedience to authority.

4. You can be a Sedevacantist and reject the hierarchy entirely but then you’re left in this weird position where there’s no Pope and no prospect of getting one.

In the end I just decided to take the 5th option, namely to just get the fuck out.
Honestly I’ve lost all faith in organised religion now. If you go into it you’ll waste so much of your time grappling with frankly meaningless issues. If you go far enough down the rabbit hole you’ll get to debates like the Filioque —- a totally irrelevant theological technicality which boils down to a semantic dispute which people spend their lives researching and arguing over.

I’ve lost so much time with all this shit, and it didn’t bring me closer to Virtue or the Truth.

[Anonymous No.21838972]

>>21838845
This is how the catholic church vindicates Orthodoxy

[Anonymous No.21839116]

>>21838972
Nah, it’s the same shit in Orthodoxy. Any institutional religion is inherently untrustworthy. That’s my conclusion after converting to Catholicism and now losing faith

[Anonymous No.21839122]

Is this some sort of game or what? Is OP going to fight other Saint trainers?

[Anonymous No.21839126]

>>21833096
im pretty much a cradle catholic but never got to choose a confirmation saint? is this an american/anglo thing?

[Anonymous No.21839143]

>>21836306
He was so camp

[Anonymous No.21839164]

>>21836743
>Pray the Rosary every day
>Pray for the intentions of the Pope
the absolute state of catholics

[Anonymous No.21839171]

>>21833096
Like some of the other anons here, Augustine is always a good choice.

[Anonymous No.21839307]

>>21837322
>the binding/loosing just means that Peters actions are going to be important
See, you are quite literally just making stuff up. You are not offering any rationale for this interpretation.

Do you find it at all interesting that "binding and loosing" was a commonly used and understood idiomatic phrase in Judaism that would have had an agreed-upon and unequivocal meaning to first-century Jews? Given this fact, what makes you so sure that your chosen interpretation is accurate and that the Jewish idiom "binding and loosing" has no relevance?

Does this exercise at all make you question your bold claim that Matthew is easy to understand.

[Anonymous No.21839336]

>>21839307
>Does this exercise at all make you question your bold claim that Matthew is easy to understand.

Not really. The book of Matthew is easy to understand. That's why it appeals to so many people around the world. You Catholics want to over complicate simple language in an attempt to justify your own role. If people can simply read the bible themselves, you don't have a job.

[Anonymous No.21839343]

>>21839116
No, Orthodoxy has no issues that refute itself like Catholicism does

[Anonymous No.21839347]

>>21839307
you can just google "binding and loosing" and there is an explanation.

"Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers."

[Anonymous No.21839350]

>>21839307
you Catholics act just like the Pharisees that Jesus railed against. That's why I like the Gospels because it warns against people like you. Also the book of Job

[Anonymous No.21839352]

>>21838751
Your ignorance of theology is an absolute refutation. According to the traditional practice of the Church, you would be prohibited from discussing such matters in public, since you lack any legitimate license from the Church. Your discourse would be subject to the inquisition. There may be many strange, confusing, and perhaps concerning things in Vatican II, but you personally lack the knowledge to properly discuss it. In holding so firmly to your position without sufficient study, it would appear you have fallen into heresya and ultimately engage in a kind of blasphemy, for the Church is inerrant, incorruptible, and is guaranteed victory over the powers of evil. The sacrament of order is an essential and integral part of the Church. There is no such thing as a non-hierarchical church. Such an error is the error of the protestants. By protesting against the hierarchy of the Catholic Church for the perceived errors of Vatican II, you make yourself a protestant. You don't have to like the things that are said and done in these days, but you do have to recognize that the bishops are the lawful successors of Peter and the Apostles.

[Anonymous No.21839359]

>>21838845
Have confidence in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious.

[Anonymous No.21839367]

>>21839350
St. Peter, writing on scripture and the epistles of Paul:
>in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

[Anonymous No.21839374]

>>21839343
Are not the Greeks and Russians in schism with each other now because there has yet to be an agreed upon council since the East West schism? Whenever Constantinople doesn't get what it wants, they excommunicate. Their patriarch likes the preeminence of the Pope, but not the responsibility. The Russians hold that a Catholic baptism is valid, but the Greeks hold that it is not. If there is only one baptism, how could this be?

[Anonymous No.21839396]

>>21839374
>Greeks and Russians in schism with each other now because there has yet to be an agreed upon council since the East West schism
yeah you think the Greek Russian issue is a schism on the level of the East West schism you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
If you think that the only "schisms" have been the East West schism and the modern Russia Greek issue you don't know church history,
no wonder you got filtered by Catholicism.

anyways the answer is no.
>The Russians hold that a Catholic baptism is valid, but the Greeks hold that it is not. If there is only one baptism, how could this be?
guess what there has never been one agreed upon form of baptism in the first 1000 years of the Church but its not even an issue for the Orthodox.

You'd know that if you bothered to look into church history

[Anonymous No.21839405]

>>21839367
Even if scripture was hard to understand (which it isn't) how does that justify complete hegemony of the Catholic Church? Surely there are intelligent people throughout the world who are able to decode "binding and loosing". There is nothing wrong with people deciding to follow Jesus' word outside your power structure. You are just a man. The Pope is just a man. We are all under God.

[Anonymous No.21839414]

>>21839405
who said scripture justifies complete hegemony of the Catholic Church?

[Anonymous No.21839445]

>>21839405
We are all men. Some serve God. Some do not. How do you know who serves God and who does not except that God reveals it? And if God reveals it, who shall contradict, except the evil one and his kind? So, how do we know who teaches the scriptures--that is, the revelation of God--truly, and who makes of it a lie? How do we know which writings belong to God, and which do not? In the beginning, Man spoke with God, and so it was known who served God, and who did not. At a later time, God became Man and walked among us. God spoke to men at that time, and those men knew God. But God does not walk with us today. All we have then is the testimony of those men--the Apostles--which have been passed down by other men. How then do we know which tradition is true, and which is false? You trust in yourself, and say that all men should trust in themselves. Surely, though, we should trust in God. And to trust in God is to trust his word. It is to trust those whom he has sent. God sent the Apostles, and the Apostles sent their successors. Do you follow the successors of the Apostles, or do you follow men who raised themselves up?

[Anonymous No.21839446]

>>21839352
>According to the traditional practice of the Church, you would be prohibited from discussing such matters in public,
Stop gaslighting me. The Vatican II sect -- of which you are a member -- officially teaches religious liberty and separation of Church and State, against the traditional doctrine of the Church. I would not be prevented from saying anything because YOUR RELIGION of Vatican II officially teaches freedom of religion. How ironic.
>the Church is inerrant, incorruptible, and is guaranteed victory over the powers of evil
Yes, the Church, not the Vatican II sect.
>Such an error is the error of the protestants
Dude, your own "Pope" officially teaches that "Martin Luther was correct on the doctrine of justification", and you want to call ME a Protestant? Your Pope literally has a statue of Luther in the Vatican, and in pic related he was wearing yellow and blue to mark the "unity of Lutherans and Catholics". The gaslighting and hypocrisy is outstanding.
>you do have to recognize that the bishops are the lawful successors of Peter and the Apostles
Pope Paul IV said in his papal bull that if someone is elected to the chair of Peter and it is later discovered that he was a heretic his election is invalid even if all of the Bishops and Cardinals submit to him and he has no authority whatsoever to govern. You can debate whether that law is still binding on the Church but that itself proves that my position is not alien to the thought of the Church.

[Anonymous No.21839448]

>>21839446
so you're arbitrarily picking the last pope you like and running with it?

[Anonymous No.21839454]

>>21839374
>there has yet to be an agreed upon council since the East West schism
False, Blachernae and the Palamite synods were received universally. Also, ecumenical councils aren't actually a good thing nor are they a necessary mark of the Church as it functioned for the first 300 years without one.
>The Russians hold that a Catholic baptism is valid, but the Greeks hold that it is not. If there is only one baptism, how could this be?
Orthodoxy has a different sacramentology than Rome. Technically, baptisms aren't performed outside of the Church but by means of economia they can be received as valid in certain cases. Grace is assumed to make up for whatever is lacking. The Orthodox just aren't sacramental rigorists as they are often accused of being.

[Anonymous No.21839468]

>>21839396
God is good. If anything is necessary to Man for his salvation, God will provide the knowledge and the means of it. It is necessary to be baptized. Is baptism by any means, or by particular means? If it is by any means, how can we know that we have been baptized truly, or only in appearance? God provided the sacraments for our need, not his. There is one baptism as there is one faith as there is only one God. God taught the Apostles the essential form and matter of baptism, and every review of Church history shows the same, unchanging understanding. Every church which claims Apostolic succession teaches the same matter and form. Rather, Russia and Constantinople disagree on essential matters concerning baptism and other things, and yet there has been no ecumenical council since Constantinople left Rome. Constantinople agrees with no one. But it is they who claim an ecumenical Church. They claim that the Holy Ghost guides the true church through councils, not a visible head. However, since they put forward this claim, they have had no council with the same authority as Nicaea. Have there been no matters to deliberate since then? Obviously not. Constantinople contradicts itself.

[Anonymous No.21839498]

>>21839468
>God will provide the knowledge and the means of it
how do you know this?
>Is baptism by any means, or by particular means?
you can look at how baptism is conducted by the Orthodox Church for that answer.
>If it is by any means, how can we know that we have been baptized truly, or only in appearance?
by having it be done by the One True Holy and Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church
>There is one baptism as there is one faith as there is only one God. God taught the Apostles the essential form and matter of baptism, and every review of Church history shows the same
ok prove it.
>Every church which claims Apostolic succession teaches the same matter and form
generally speaking it does.
>Rather, Russia and Constantinople disagree on essential matters concerning baptism and other things, and yet there has been no ecumenical council since Constantinople left Rome
yes and?
>Constantinople agrees with no one. But it is they who claim an ecumenical Church.
ok but this isn't a problem like you seem to think it is.
>They claim that the Holy Ghost guides the true church through councils, not a visible head. However, since they put forward this claim, they have had no council with the same authority as Nicaea
absolutely incorrect the Orthodox church continues to have councils and synods, just because they don't conform to your weird view of a council doesn't change this.

>Have there been no matters to deliberate since then? Obviously not. Constantinople contradicts itself.
again none of this is as much of a problem as you seem to think it is.

[Anonymous No.21839508]

>>21839446
The Church does not officially teach it. It never has. You are not sufficiently studied in basic theology. The documents of Vatican II offer no definitions or anathemas. Further, the document you claim teaches religious liberty and separation of Church and state does not quite say what many think it says. It is, in fact, very difficult to say what it is the document says. In many ways it seems to contradict itself. Moreover, you ought to hold yourself to your own standards, not those of your supposed enemies. Traditionally, one ought to be a licensed theologian to engage in public controversy, especially on dogmatic theology. Several times now you have made claims that implicitly contradict scripture and make false the promises of Christ. Such claims would certainly be investigated by the Roman inquisition.

[Anonymous No.21839522]

>>21839448
People say John XXIII was the first antipope in our times, I don't know about that because although he started Vatican II but he died before its completion. Paul VI was definitely a heretic however because he affirmed everything in Vatican II. It's not certain that he lost his office but it is probable.

After him, John Paul II was definitely not the Pope because he was a heretic even before assuming the Papal throne. By the Church's law females, heretics, insane people, and unbaptised people cannot become Pope. Since John Paul II affirmed Vatican II before his enthronement it is 100% certain he was not the Pope, same with Benedict XVI and same with Francis.

[Anonymous No.21839533]

>>21839522
doesn't the Holy Sea have the authority to make all the changes of Vatican 2?

[Anonymous No.21839534]

>>21839454
Some hold those councils to have the authority of an ecumenical council, and yet some do not. The very disagreement over what councils are and are not sufficiently authoritative demonstrates the very absurdity of the conciliar position. All your statements demonstrate the very problem--there is no authority, and therefore there is no certainty in East. There is a vast cloud of confusion, and it is only the presumption of Grace which remains.

[Anonymous No.21839545]

>>21839534
Oh please, Catholics are still debating the status of Vatican II to this day. Is Francis a heretic or not? Catholicism sounds good in theory but in practice there's nothing but uncertainty and a myriad of confusions.

[Anonymous No.21839551]

>>21839498
God is just. Perfectly just. If God required some act, and yet kept you knowing this, would that be justice? No, it would be deceit. It is painfully horrific even to hypothesize for the sake of argument. God desires the salvation of Man. Our life is not a pop quiz. God is not trying to catch us unaware. It is impossible to consider that God would make man ignorant of what is required of him.

[Anonymous No.21839555]

>>21839551
ok so instead of addressing what was said you resorted to vague platitudes
your concession is accepted

[Anonymous No.21839557]

>>21839336
>The book of Matthew is easy to understand.
If it is easy to understand, then I suppose that if we had 100 people read Matthew 16 we would find that substantially all of them would arrive at your same interpretation of "binding and loosing" and "keys of the kingdom"? Is that your claim? Despite the fact that this interpretation contradicts the first-century Jewish consensus on the meaning of these terms? Importantly, Matthew, Jesus, and Peter were all first-century Jews ... so the fact that these are both idiomatic phrases that were widely-known by first-century Jews must have some significance, right?

>>21839347
> you can just google "binding and loosing" and there is an explanation
This is an interpretation. But it is not a consensus interpretation by any means. This is the contention that is being discussed right now. Is Matthew easy to understand or not? If Matthew were easy to understand, then how come people don't agree on the meaning of Matthew 16 and when you Googled an interpretation you found an exegesis that speaks with authority, yet is ignorant of what "binding and loosing" and "keys of the kingdom" meant to first-century Jews (as I said above, Matthew, Jesus, and Peter were all first-century Jews).

>>21839307
My interpretation of Matthew 16 is not Catholic per se, though Catholics do hold to this interpretation. It is also the standard interpretation of Matthew 16 agreed upon by the early church and it is the interpretation held to by ... Martin Luther. Yet you 4channel Protestants contradict this interpretation while simultaneously claiming that Matthew is easy to understand ... please, be more honest with yourselves.

[Anonymous No.21839562]

>>21839545
There has always been debate in the Church. But debate alone is not a sufficient cause to break communion. We cannot expect to have certainty in all things, but we can expect certainty in all that is necessary. There can be no orthodoxy where there is no dogma, and there can be no dogma where there is no certain authority.

[Anonymous No.21839581]

>>21839562
Which Roman Catholic communion? The Uniate, Nestorian, Novus Ordo, FSSP, SSPX, Sede? Maybe even the Lutherans soon. The unity that Rome provides is not a unity of faith but rather a moral or political unity. Believe whatever you want but just submit to the Pope.

[Anonymous No.21839583]

>>21839555
For an act to be willful, it must be done with knowledge. If God requires some act, that is to say that God will damn man for failing in that act. If man is ignorant of what God requires, then man cannot be held guilty for failing in it. If God damns a man who is not guilty, then God is not just. If god deprives man of the knowledge of what God requires, and does not damn man for failing in what God requires, then how can it be said that God requires it? It is necessarily true that if God requires something of man, man will have the sufficient means and knowledge to do what God requires.

[Anonymous No.21839588]

>>21839583
so again with the vague platitudes in place of addressing the counter arguments?

[Anonymous No.21839595]

>>21839508
>The documents of Vatican II offer no definitions or anathemas... It is, in fact, very difficult to say what it is the document says.
It's clear if you have a brain.

>This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits... This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right....

>Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.

This is not "unclear". It's teaching that the state has no right to prevent heretics, Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc. from setting up places of worship, from publicly celebrating their holidays, going into government, or doing anything contrary to their conscience.

If you want to believe this, it is your choice, but stop calling yourself Catholic because religious liberty was condemned before Vatican II.

[Anonymous No.21839601]

>>21839581
The first two are heretical. Sedevacantists remove themselves. The rest are all in communion with each other. There is only one Roman Catholic communion. You have set yourself up to try and deny a tautology. To be in communion with Rome is to be in communion with Rome. Whoever is not in communion with Rome is not in communion with Rome. The Greeks acknowledge they are not in communion with Rome. The sedevantists openly avow they are not in communion with Rome. They all insist they are in the one true Church because they say the one true Church is not found in the communion of Rome. The only problem is that Rome offers the only clear definition and demonstration of what the One True Church is along with the signs of that Church. The rest might claim to belong to the One True Church, and yet they cannot point to the One True Church. All they can say is that they do not belong to Rome.

[Anonymous No.21839606]

>>21839533
Imagine if that were the case. The religion would be reduced to Pope-worship. We would have one Pope coming out saying X, and we would all believe it, and then another Pope coming out saying not X and we would all believe that too. Then a third Pope would come along contradicting them both and we would likewise change our beliefs. That is not how the Church conceives of its teaching power and if it did it would be a farce.

[Anonymous No.21839609]

>>21839557
>the first-century Jewish consensus on the meaning of these terms
what is the Jewish consensus of these terms?

[Anonymous No.21839610]

>>21839606
But instead you're doing at with Lefebvre?

[Anonymous No.21839616]

>>21839588
Perhaps, then I am ignorant; could you provide for me an example of logical argumentation that I might do likewise?

[Anonymous No.21839626]

>>21839616
well at least you admit it.
argument for what? the best argument is your poor display of defending whatever weird belief you're holding

[Anonymous No.21839627]

>>21839601
>The first two are heretical.
You're an interesting Papist since your Magesterium thinks otherwise

[Anonymous No.21839635]

>>21839581
There are ~2 billion Roman Catholics and like 10k Sedes. Don't let the ratio of Sedes to Roman Catholics on 4channel--the cesspool of edge, egotism, non-conformity, and tendentiousness--serve as your baseline for the ratio of Sedes to Roman Catholics in reality. Taking the whole world into account, Sedes are less relevant than Christian Scientists, by an order of magnitude.

Why are there so few Sedes? Because it takes a very particular breed of sperg to become a Sede instead of just becoming an Orthodox Christian and moving on with your life.

[Anonymous No.21839642]

>>21839635
muh big = true fallacy

[Anonymous No.21839643]

>>21838623
>Neither of you are competent to be debating this subject in a public forum.
There isn't really a bar for SPX competency and disagreeing with it when it only exists if you pretend the Church stopped operating like the Church when it disagrees with itself.

[Anonymous No.21839651]

>>21839557
When you read Matthew 16 you can tell from the context of the story that he is giving Peter authority when he speaks of "binding and loosing" and "keys to the kingdom".

If it has some extremely different meaning, then just say what it means. Instead of acting like Holier-than-thou Pharisee. Because the goal should be to spread Jesus' word instead of convincing people that it's too hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.21839655]

>>21839610
Lefebvre was wrong about a lot of things -- including Sedevacantism. Secretly he held great reservations about whether the Popes were real Popes but his official position was that we should recognise them anyway. But he was 100% right about his diagnosis of Vatican II and modernism.

[Anonymous No.21839656]

>>21839642
big = true

is a separate claim from

small = irrelevant

which is the point I was making

[Anonymous No.21839657]

>>21839656
weird cope

[Anonymous No.21839659]

>>21839655
But Vatican 1 states that the Holy Sea is challenged by no one

[Anonymous No.21839666]

>>21839595
NTA but yeah the
>you don't know theology
>V2 disagrees with itself
>it says nothing
Is just totally wrong. All things considered, you're a schismatic whose sense of legitimacy stems from nondefinition and not definition.

[Anonymous No.21839668]

>>21839557
You Catholics act like you want to own Jesus' word. It's not yours. It's Jesus'. And it meant to be shared to as many people possible.

[Anonymous No.21839675]

>>21839651
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_and_loosing

And making the point that scripture is not mutually exclusive to spreading Jesus' word. Peter made the point that scripture is confusing in 2 Peter 3:16. Peter didn't do this to be a "Holier-than-thou Pharisee" or because he was deprioritizing the spreading of Jesus' word. On the contrary, spreading Jesus' word is necessarily bound up in also spreading the correct interpretation of Jesus' word. Otherwise Jesus word could be twisted to people's destruction, as Peter warns in that verse.

[Anonymous No.21839687]

>>21839675
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_and_loosing
"to forbid by an indisputable authority and to permit by an indisputable authority"

You can tell this meaning from the context of the story. Or you can just wiki it! Like you did :) See, you do not need the Catholic Church to understand Jesus' word.

[Anonymous No.21839689]

>>21839675
It is more perfect to have a Catholic interpretation but spreading the Gospel, when it is sola scriptura and not a baggage of heresies, is definitely not a bad.

[Anonymous No.21839691]

>>21839675
The Catholic Church has incorrect views on Jesus' word anyway. Your Pope literally endorses homosexuality. Catholicism is a fucking joke man.

[Anonymous No.21839694]

>>21839635
>There are ~2 billion Roman Catholics and like 10k Sedes
Among your "2 billion Catholics", 80% of them in the US don't believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, 70% of them think homosexuality should be legal and accepted, over half support abortion. This is your "Catholic Church", headed by a notorious heretic and populated by notorious faggots and heretics? >muh army of 2 billion onions boys, contraceptive users, faggots, degenerates, feminists, Mexican drug dealers, and divorced women beats your 10k!

[Anonymous No.21839697]

>>21839595
1. How does one define religion? If one uses the definition of St. Thomas, it is the rendering to God what is due to him. Certainly, every man is free to do this. He has not only a right to it, but a duty. If some other thing is meant by it, much of the document becomes contradictory, because elsewhere it maintains the traditional teachings of the Church regarding the truth of Divine Revelation.

2. The conscience has been placed in man by God. God is the author of it. A man might claim that his conscience tells him to kill, but it would be a law. In fact, it is a traditional teaching of the Church that when God gave the 10 commandments to Moses, he did not institute any new law, but rather solemnified and reiterated the laws which are written onto the hearts of all men. That is to say, the conscience. Further, it is part of the traditional teaching of the Church that while our understanding deals first with principles, we then through prudence to apply these principles to particular acts; therefore, while the fundamental principles of the laws of God are on the hearts of all men, it is possible through error and without malice for men of good will to disagree at times with the proper course of action. Therefore, when man faces some uncertainty, he is bound to follow the dictates of his conscience; however, he must follow his conscience truly, and not follow his lower members by calling them his conscience.

3. As the document offers no definitions, and is minor document of the council, it ought to be looked upon as something of an exhortation. Therefore, whatever is confusing or unclear ought to be ignored. While many might read the above explanations with skepticism, for the plain language of the document seems to be aiming at alternative conclusions, as Catholics, we are bound to interpret these documents as favorably as we can. Since a traditional reading can be provided for them, we ought to take it as such, and leave it to the proper authorities (that is the inquisition) to determine anything further. And, as these documents require nothing, define nothing, and anathematize nothing, there is nothing particular that must be done. If the document is of little use, then it will become a dead letter, as many other documents of great solemnity have also been.

4. While there are without doubt vile enemies of the Church stationed in high places, we have the guarantee of Christ that the Church will not fail. If at times the Bride of Christ seems to stumble, should we not think of Christ falling on His way to Calvary? And so, in Faith and Hope, we out to be undisturbed by the apparent and superficial disfigurements, and adore Our God in His humility, recognizing the hidden glory. But if we should falter and flee from the victory of the cross, we could offer no greater aid to the enemies of Christ than by discord and contention, working to scatter the flock and overturn the sheepfold. Abandon your error.

[Anonymous No.21839706]

>>21839659
It's an inconsistency on the part of the Lefebvrites. The Sedes get around this by inventing a new distinction, the Holy See and the occupant of the Holy See, such that the Holy See is understood as some ethereal abstract idea. Hence why the See can be vacant for decades upon decades.

[Anonymous No.21839710]

>>21839666
>All things considered, you're a schismatic whose sense of legitimacy stems from nondefinition and not definition.
???
Make an argument.

[Anonymous No.21839711]

>>21839626
I mean, can you show me what a real argument looks like so that I can provide you one?

[Anonymous No.21839716]

>>21839711
If you're coming here with a shitty argument and can't defend i, I pointed that out and rekt you. I'm not going to teach you how to form an argument if you're really a true retard :^)

[Anonymous No.21839732]

>>21839627
I apologize. Catholics don't call the Ruthenian Church Uniate. Nor do we call the Chaldeans Nestorian. And by this latter term, I thought you meant churches which held to heresy of nestorianism. Because of this term, I assumed by Uniate you must have meant some other heresy. The Eastern Catholic Churches are all in communion with Rome. They accept, avow, and teach all the same dogmas as Rome. It's confusing as to why you would try to offer these as some alternative communion to Rome, when these Churches all embrace the same communion with Rome. None are separated from each other.

[Anonymous No.21839736]

>>21839710
>Make an argument.
I did and you pretended that you countered an Ecumenical Council with an Encyclical. The Pope's letters are never more binding than an Ecumenical Council. You literally do not understand how the Church works and I am not saying that out of malice but purely to say you are relying on a false measuring stick which is your gut feeling about which doctrine is correct and not the Magisterium.

[Anonymous No.21839739]

>>21839694
>Among your "2 billion Catholics", 80% of them in the US don't believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, 70% of them think homosexuality should be legal and accepted, over half support abortion. This is your "Catholic Church", headed by a notorious heretic and populated by notorious faggots and heretics? >muh army of 2 billion onions boys, contraceptive users, faggots, degenerates, feminists, Mexican drug dealers, and divorced women beats your 10k!
These are fair criticisms. We need to start excommunicating the laity again.

[Anonymous No.21839740]

>>21839716
It seems to me you don't know what a logical argument actually looks like.

[Anonymous No.21839744]

>>21839739
Catholics are fucking idiots

[Anonymous No.21839747]

>>21839744
>Catholics are fucking idiots
I don't disagree. It doesn't invalidate the Church, though.

[Anonymous No.21839749]

>>21839740
I'm here debating your shitty views not what it means to make a logical argument
cope

[Anonymous No.21839760]

>>21839747
Yeah it does. Of course it does. The Church preaches things contradictory to Jesus. They are not a force for good in this world. In fact they actively discourage reading the words of Jesus, claiming it's too hard to understand. They are morons and have too many demons.

[Anonymous No.21839769]

>>21839747
There is a reason Mennonites call the Catholic Church "the Abomination"

[Anonymous No.21839772]

>>21839736
The problem here is that while he doesn't understand how the Church works, neither do you. The Pope could make a de fide definition in an encyclical. The Church can hold councils without them being ecumenical. An ecumenical council can gather, and offer no definitions. The person you're arguing with does not understand dogmatic theology or ecclesiology, but you don't really understand these subjects either. However, the teachings he's making reference to are highly authoritative and almost certainly true; of course, in his ignorance, he doesn't understand the theological basis for them, so cannot provide a proper argument. Meanwhile the interpretation of Vatican II provided by many, and certainly the way many have practiced the faith since then, are almost certainly in contradiction to the historical teachings of the Church. However, exactly how contradictory, and whether it is heresy, imprudence, ignorance, or some other complicated mix of things is itself a deep and nuanced debate. His errors, however, are larger than you think. So, ultimately, in your contention, you fail to move him, and offer a poor demonstration of Catholic teaching to others.

[Anonymous No.21839780]

>>21839749
You said I offered no counter-argument. I asked for an example so that I could provide you a counter-argument. You continue to mock me. It would seem you are not interested in being provided a counter-argument.

[Anonymous No.21839782]

>>21839780
you addressed nothing that was said and opted for vague platitudes

[Anonymous No.21839783]

>>21839697
Your argument is that the text is unclear because we don't know what they meant by the word "religion". This is a sophistry. Clearly they meant religion in the sense that everybody else means it; the context is clear on this and I don't need to justify it further because you are obviously deluding yourself if you believe otherwise.

Vatican II taught that the state has no right to prevent heretics, schismatics, Jews, Muslims from practising and preaching their religion publicly or privately. They make this abundantly clear.

It also doesn't matter if it "wasn't infallible"; all of your "Popes" profess and believe this, and the documents of Vatican II are the source of all of their practices.

[Anonymous No.21839792]

>>21839760
>Yeah it does. Of course it does.
Nope.
>The Church preaches things contradictory to Jesus
The Church is Jesus.
>They are not a force for good in this world.
Look up Catholic Healthcare systems.
>In fact they actively discourage reading the words of Jesus, claiming it's too hard to understand.
A lot of idiots here do that. Catholics made an English bible (Dhouay Rheims precedes the KJV) and also they encourage Scripture reading. It's plenary indulgence to read it for 30 minutes.
>They are morons and have too many demons.
Yes and probably yes. The Church still stands despite that. I wonder why.

[Anonymous No.21839793]

>>21839772
>could
That would be ex cathedra and lol doesn't happen

[Anonymous No.21839796]

>>21839691
>Your Pope literally endorses homosexuality.
Wrong.
>Catholicism is a fucking joke man.
There is no close second. It Catholicism is a joke the Sedevacantism and Protestantism, by comparison, are the drunk babblings of an insane person.

[Anonymous No.21839808]

>>21839772
>However, exactly how contradictory, and whether it is heresy, imprudence, ignorance, or some other complicated mix
Please explain how the ecumenical council is, or could be construed as, any of these three

[Anonymous No.21839814]

>>21839783
The context is not clear. The context is ambiguous. In some places they seem to use these terms in novel ways. And in other places they use the terms according to the traditional definitions of the Church. For example, in the portion you quoted it read:
>The exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God.

This is true. This is an affirmation of what the Church has taught for all time. And of course, there is only one God, the same God which established the Catholic Church and protects it until the end of time. So, if this is what the text itself seems to put forward as the definition, should we not use that understanding when we read the prior section? If religion consists of those internal acts whereby man sets the course of his life toward God, and there is only one God, then certainly every human person has a right to freedom in setting his life toward God. Is it easy to read the text this way? Often not. And yet, it would seem, on the surface of things at least, that this is the way the text itself offers itself to be read.

[Anonymous No.21839833]

>>21839694
Right, the 2 billion is an approximation and who knows how many are soaked in truth. So let's say that 80% of Roman Catholics don't believe in the real presence (on overstatement of a misleading statistic). Let's just say you're right and that those that support abortion are also contained in this group. The 20% of Roman Catholics that aren't this way is still 400m people. This in comparison to your 10k.

So still 40,000 times as many people. Not 4 times. Not 40 times. Not 400 times. Not 4,000 times. 40,000 times. And this is all assuming that everyone in your 10k lives up to your rigorous definition of what qualifies as a true Christian, and I'm certain that they do not. Just acknowledge and get over the fact that your cult is irrelevant. The 20% of Roman Catholics is more than the number of people in the USA. If the Sedes all congregated into one city in the USA they would form one irrelevant, unheardof flyover town in the middle of nowhere that no one has heard of and no one would care about if they heard about it.

[Anonymous No.21839835]

>>21839792
Fair points. I will concede I don't know much about the Catholic Church. You seem rational. What do you recommend I read to understand the Church? I want to read Eusebius to start. But what book gives a breakdown of the structures you speak of that look at the Church from a mechanical perspective? I dont want to read some propaganda fluff piece.

[Anonymous No.21839849]

>>21839793
But it could. Therefore, debating the truth of some teaching by the species of document cannot work, since it is not by the species of document essentially that authority is established. The person you are arguing with cites one encyclical, but the same teaching is found held strongly in many documents and was the practice of the Church until Vatican II. It is almost impossible to establish any precedent in the Church for an understanding of religious freedom that might be comparable, for example, to American jurisprudence. Where one finds it in practice, it is usually explained with many corollaries and argued on the grounds of prudence for some temporary circumstance, with others arguing strongly against the course for doctrinal reasons.

[Anonymous No.21839855]

>>21839814
Then why does it say:
>no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others
Are you going to say "beliefs" only refers to the Catholic faith as well?

Also I just went to Dignitatis Humanae and CTRL+F "religions", here is what it says:
>The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family. All nations are coming into even closer unity. Men of different cultures and RELIGIONS are being brought together in closer relationships.
So it is obvious it is not only referring to the Catholic religion. The document isn't unclear; you want it to be because it's so surprising.

[Anonymous No.21839857]

>>21839835
I appreciate that. St. John Henry Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine sealed it for me. Pretty much everything that is a Catholic to Christian gap existed from the earliest years of the Church (we're talking 100-300 AD) in a fully formed way (deacons, priests, celibacy as encouraged, bishops etc.), but where St. Newman shines is mimetics. Newman will show you how a founder becomes an organization and how a human collective is a human being by analogy and not a static idea like Dawkins says. It's a profound work and probably the best ever written on how ideas develop.

[Anonymous No.21839874]

>>21839849
>some teaching by the species of document cannot work, since it is not by the species of document essentially that authority is established
Hair splitting and painful as ecynclicals have included that twice and also then the essence of the authority is in the ex cathedral not its encyclic nature.
>et. al
Sacred traidition is informative but not authoritative relative to the extraordinary magisterium. I understand you are seeking a more nuanced view than I am but I am trying to make it clear that we can identify, to an exact degree, a documents authority and thus where all the beauty lies in its highest forms. Letting the faithful fall because of a highly influential yet not infallible encyclical or a beautiful tradition opposed to the magisterium is folly. It is this very definition that allows for us to pray for the salvation of all over just guessing 99% of us are in Hell. It is this that leads to the Rennaissance. It is this that leads to the life, death, and resurrection of our Church. I think we need to be robust, and simple, in defending its degrees of authority. De Fide is De Fide and Tradition must submit to its wisdom.

[Anonymous No.21839887]

>>21839857
I will check that out. Pax Vobiscum my nigga

[Anonymous No.21839899]

>>21839887
et cum spirituo tuo

[Anonymous No.21839901]

>>21839857
thanks

[Anonymous No.21839909]

>>21833096
Congrats, anon!
Not /lit/ but pic rel is my favorite

[Anonymous No.21839911]

>>21839857
Based Newman enjoyer. I'm so glad he's a saint now. Newman is very special to me, I feel a profound connection to him.

I've actually been meaning to read the Dream of Gerontius for a while now. Supposedly it's quite good.

James Joyce actually considered Newman to have the finest prose in the history of the English language.

[Anonymous No.21839916]

>>21839808
Let's take the one, merely for example, that would be the least likely--heresy. Certainly, Vatican II is recognized as an ecumenical council. It would be impossible to consider that it formally teaches any error. However, there are no formal definitions, no solemn proclamations, no anathemas. Its aim is pastoral. Certainly, it belongs to a high order of the ordinary magisterium. This is all to say, it would be impossible to find any formal error in it. And yet, the protection God gives to the Church does not mean that everything written by our pastors will always be well written. And it does not mean they will always write with good intent. It is not a guarantee of style or clarity or motive. As your opponent notes, the way many in the Church now act in relationship to other religions would appear violently in contradiction to the traditional practice of the Church. If the teaching is the same as it has always been, how does it produce such a radically different practice? So, even though there can be no explicit error found in the texts, they may still be written in a way that is confusing or strange or difficult to understand without proper theological preparation. Could it be that some of these passages were written this way deliberately? And if they were deliberately written this way, could the intent have been to deceive? It would seem possible. After all, when Judas complained of Mary Magdalen washing the feet of Jesus with oil, he said something true--that it could have been sold for alms. And his complaint caused disagreement among the Apostles. He certainly said it with great malice. So, perhaps some who were heretics and who intended to teach heresy were able to adjust the text so that, remaining true, it would be easy to misinterpret in the way they desired. Perhaps you don't agree it is possible. But the settling of whether it is possible or not possible would take a level of theological understanding that is beyond either of us. And this gets to the root issue--certainly, the doctrines of the Church are unchanging. So, if I read and accept what is taught by the Council of Trent, it must also be the case that I accept what Vatican II teaches. If I accept the universal teaching of the Church Fathers, I accept what the Church teaches now. So, if I practice the faith as it was practiced then, it would be impossible for my practice to be contrary to the Church. Therefore, what is written today is only necessary in so far as it is useful. If I find it confusing, what danger is there in simply turning my attention to writings that are clear to me, so long as I submit to the authority of the Church?

[Anonymous No.21839922]

>>21839855
You have shared a section where the document defines the word one way. And then a section where it would very clearly seem to use it another way. How could we describe this usage as anything but unclear?

[Anonymous No.21839923]

>>21839916
Will read later after rcia

[Anonymous No.21839942]

>>21839916
>well written
I'm getting the sense you are someone a bit above my paygrade here, but can you cite me this understanding from a theologian or Church document? I understood that the extraordinary does not permit this accidentals subtley you are giving to it.

[Anonymous No.21839951]

>>21839874
That would be heresy. But I assume you make a mistake in your terms. Sacred Tradition, along with Sacred Scripture, is the source of Divine Revelation. It is the deposit of the faith. But, in what you continue to write, you disagree with the long tradition of theologians. There are more levels of magisterium than simply de fide and not, than ordinary and extraordinary and so on. Dogmatic Theology is incredibly nuanced, and the authority of any particular teaching is often debated to great lengths. Tradition, if it means sacred tradition, submits to nothing, but all things submit to it. Even the identification of Sacred Scripture, in a certain sense, belongs to Sacred Tradition. All else we call tradition, it is true, submits to proper authority, but even the identification of proper authority is often complicated. It is these very complications, and the great heat to which these debates can arise, that have led the Church for most of time to discourage the faithful from involving themselves in it, for frankly these discussions have little immediate bearing on the salvation of most souls. That is not to say they are of no importance--rather they are of the highest importance; however, the knowledge of a great many truths has little influence over the works of charity of a mother or father towards their children. The Church debated the exact nature of papal infallibility for centuries--this has little relevance to an individual man's struggle with impurity. While even a small error in any of these matters would be an intolerable offense against in and of itself, and could possibly be used to pervert the faith of a great many, the greatest harm in most of them is more usually a loss of fraternal charity in the debate.

[Anonymous No.21839972]

>>21839922
Alright friend I appreciate you talking to me. To me it is very clear what the document means by religious liberty so for you to deny it and offer these counter-interpretations seems "copey" or desperate. But I don't want to accuse you of anything because you're clearly a sincere man. To be honest, though I've taken an aggressive Sedevacantist stance with you here in our conversation (and I do genuinely believe Sedevacantism is the most consistent position to take today), in fact the whole fiasco in the Church is extremely troublesome for me, and my faith has been hugely challenged by it. So I certainly understand where you're coming from and don't claim to know anything with certainty on these matters. I need to focus more on my spiritual life.

[Anonymous No.21839975]

>>21833096
Not a saint but Isidore is pretty cool as well

[Anonymous No.21840005]

>>21839942
There is a difference between substance and style. There is what the Church says and how it says it. You then additionally have issues of translation. I can't read latin, so I don't know to what extent this does or does not come in to play regarding the documents of Vatican II. But perhaps a good example would be to compare the writings of St. Therese to the writings of Lorenzo Scupoli. To great extent the Little Way is not really any different than the Spiritual Combat. And all the saints are in agreement that the heigh of perfection consists in perfectly subjecting our will to the will of God. But at different times and in different places for different souls, the writings of some saints are more helpful or more clear. This is not a particularly close demonstration. One of the best examples is the debate that has been happening in this thread over religious freedom. Now, a number of Popes have greatly extolled the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. To a great extent, much of the teaching of the Church can only be read through a Thomistic understanding, for at least the reason that the teaching of the Church was, for many centuries, written through that perspective. If one takes the definition of religion and freedom from St. Thomas, most of Dignitaries Humanae reads rather clearly and says the same things that have always been said. However, at times, for example when it says "Men of different cultures and religions are being brought together in closer relationships," it seems to adopt the definition of religion as commonly accepted at the time of Vatican II. If we take certain passages in isolation, they can seem to suggest a certain equivalence between Catholicism and other false teachings, which would of course be error. Further, it would seem to argue that there is an intrinsic separation between church and state and that the powers of the Church do not supersede the powers of states--and this again would appear to be error, contradicting what has been always taught. However, because the sense of some words seems to be used in alternating ways, it is hard to be certain--by the text itself--when one sense is meant and when another. Of course, since it is an ecumenical council, we, as Catholics, are bound to receive as such, and so we must read everything in keeping with tradition, even when difficult. There is then difficulty at times because it is not easy to tell when the document is speaking of some universal principle, or some guide for prudence in our times. Much of this belongs to the manner in which it is written. The order of certain sections and paragraphs at times appear as though things have been reorganized from an earlier draft. Certain passages seem to have one style and approach, while other passages have another. Few documents of this importance are ever written solely by one person, so this seems more than possible. We don't have a guarantee that every document is going to be pretty or poetic or so forth.

[Anonymous No.21840012]

>>21839972
If you need to focus more on your spiritual life, I encourage you not to write things as though you hold things firmly which you do not. This habit might lead you to very bad places. If something is unclear to you, speak and write as though it is unclear. If it troubles you, speak and write as though it troubles you. Only speak with certainty when you have certainty.

[Anonymous No.21840133]

>>21839911
>James Joyce actually considered Newman to have the finest prose in the history of the English language
Is this true, or is it just a reference to the protagonist saying so in Portrait of the Artist?

[Anonymous No.21840425]

>>21839975
What do you like about him?

[Anonymous No.21840460]

>>21840425
Book

[Anonymous No.21840510]

>>21833359
>>21833652
>>21835755
A doctor of the church is a type of saint. Being a saint is a requirement which is why there was a hubbub when Hildegard's expected doctorate was announced before she was fully canonised. Bede's a saint and a doctor.

[Anonymous No.21840539]

>>21840460
Nice

[Anonymous No.21840544]

>>21840510
Your attempt at inductive reasoning has failed you. Bede is not a saint.

[Anonymous No.21840595]

>>21838245
But it's still pretty good. 62...shmiksty2
Say your prayers, attend mass, confession,
Get to Heaven in the name of Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.21840597]

>>21840544
He is. Pre-congregation saints have a really low bar, especially because half of them didn't actually exist but are too popular to not be sainted.

[Anonymous No.21841003]

>>21839951
Your post just says it's complex without answering my question nor debating my point.
>>21840005
>Few documents of this importance are ever written solely by one person, so this seems more than possible. We don't have a guarantee that every document is going to be pretty or poetic or so forth.
They're still infallible and saying the words have small errors because of inadequate wording is reading nuance that is just not there. I get the sense you overcomplexifying something that is simple to stop laity from debating or speaking about it which is antiproductive to Catholic apologetics.