what are you all reading?
>>24113642Dungeon Meshi.
>>24113642reading some of Thomas Merton's poems, which aren't very good. wish I was an incurable graphomaniac who lived in a hermitage in the woods :(
>>24113732some anon recommended The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton
>>24113642"Essential chicklit", it's good and moves quickly but it has yet to get interesting (Anne just marry the rich guy already to move the story forward)Probably won't bother with any theology till Lent rolls around in a month and a half or so
>>24113642Pic related is my current Bible. I got it because it's based on the Vulgate as well as the Septuagint. Can recommend it to all French-speaking Catholics in this thread.
I'm reading about the Modernist heresy.People tend to blame Vatican II for a lot of things, but the people who made backroom politics to change the direction of the council and who argued for Spirit of Vatican II stuff were not born in the 1964. They were born way before that.I'm still confused on how people who took someone like Loisy seriously became powerful in the Church.How did we move to have high clergy like Cardinal Merry del Val to have high clergy who says a moral teaching of the Church has a "sociological-scientific foundation that is no longer correct"?Is he ignorant that the moral teaching of the Church is based on revelation? Also, what kind of uneducated person thinks morality is based on a sociological or scientific foundation? Did he study under Sam Harris or something to talk about a scientific foundation for morality?Rants aside I'm still having problems understanding how this decline happened.
>>24113802I meant>How did we move from having high clergy like Cardinal Merry del Val to have high clergyCardinal Merry del Val was a great Cardinal.
gay erotica
>>24113802>what kind of uneducated person thinks morality is based on a sociological or scientific foundation?Can you prove it isn't? That's the problem with you types. You throw around wild claims like this and just point to religious writings as if those are sufficient. Just an absolute disrespect of intellectual rigor.
recommend books that seek to explain, with a scientific tone, why christianity is true
>>24113822This >>24113806
>>24113826no
>>24113822Introduction to Christianity by Ratzinger is my favorite work like this. No he won’t convince you that Jesus resurrected, and he doesn’t try to do that. But it will at least help a skeptic appreciate how any intelligent person would hold these apparently bizarre dogmas. It’s a serious work, not entry-level at all; it’s more informed by Heidegger than Aquinas, so it’s nothing like the shilling you see here.
>>24113908>late 20th century modernist slop that has nothing to do with historical Christianity
>>24113821Science is a descriptive in nature, morality is prescriptive. Science can describe how things work, but it can't say how we ought to behave. Science can say that if I slap someone in the face, that person will feel anger and pain. Science can't say if I should or should not slap that person.
How do Catholics feel about Kirkegaard
>>24113921Extra ecclesiam nulla salus: pseudo-religious "Lutheran" is assuredly damned
>>24113802Perhaps fallible people who inhabit an institution can cause said institution to be infallible as they.
>>24113915Nta but Ratzinger was a legitimate big brain.
>>24113925Post baptismal certificate
>>24113930From either a secular or religious standpoint Ratzinger was a total fraud.
In my country, Ratzinger/Benedit XVI was forbidden to be read in some seminaries because they considered him too conservative.
>>24113925Bit of an extreme take, don't you think? Even the Catechism is less hardline than that.
>>24113954The Wojtyła "catechism" is a Protestant document.
>>24113969Oh, it's a sede. What are you doing in the Catholic general?
>>24113981I'm the only Catholic in this thread.
>>24113949lol that’s nuts to me, he was part of nouvelle theologie, he’s a thoughtful reflective dude not a fire breathing right winger. But for some people it’s always condom, sex, condom, sex. Sex! Didn’t you hear me? Condom. Gays. Sex. Buttsex. AIDS. Sex. CONDOM!Friggin’ one track minds I swear.
>>24113908yeah I don't need someone explaining the miracles but simply why Christianity is supposedly the real one and why aren't any of the 100s of religions, which have come and gone, truer than Christianity?
>>24114004you forgot me
>>24114015To be honest, I prefer the fire breathing right wingers to Nouvelle Theologie. Bring back the Neothomist manuals. Nouvelle Theologie was a mistake.But it is not even solely on sexuality the issue they had with him. The issue is that he had "antiquated" views such as that we should make God the center of our lives, rather than make the socialist revolution our objective (of course they used different wording, but they were mad over this).
>>24114027He doesn’t argue that because he’s smart enough to know that it’s impossible, more than that it’d miss the point entirely. He says “anyone who pretends to lay it all on the table” (what you’re asking for) “has laid something false on the table.” And that’s what the book is about -“ Then why? Why believe? What IS belief?” Etc. Anyone who tries to sell you on a “proof” of Christianity is full of it, anyone who says “well just believe :)” is kinda naive and foolish. This very tension is part of what the whole book is about. In principle, the highest truths of reality would NOT be susceptible to the proof you understandably want to hear, is part of the point of the book. “So what he just believes because he likes the Christ myth more than Zen?” Again the book is an attempt at an answer to that very question. If you want a proof - there is none.
>>24114034Ah I see, I kinda felt like you might be from that part of the world I just couldn’t resist a dig at sex obsessed westerners. “You’re Catholic? Holy shit no condoms??? That’s crazy bro wtf!” That’s most of what Catholicism is to most here.
>>24114004You are a reactionary with schismatic tendencies who likely hasn't read a single work by a pope outside of convenient quotations, let alone any books written by the popes you personally deny. Have you read pic-rel? How about Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity as this anon suggested >>24113908? How about, as it deals with something quite important and flagrantly ignored by you types, JPII's Love and Responsibility? No, you just eat up the most surface of surface-level satanic messaging you've been fed by divisive facebook groups. What's worse is that you're more than likely a /pol/ migrant who is, in reality, just LARPing, and I'm wasting my time on you.
>>24114051I'm a practicing Catholic but still have trouble reconciling my faith with everything else in the world. I mean Buddhism can be the true religion (Buddha's existence has more historical evidence and Buddhism is much older) and then we'd all go to their version of hell. There are millions of people placing their hopes in this religion, praying, attending mass; what if they're worshipping the wrong God or maybe there is no God and religion is just a by product of our evolved brains?
>>24114062Of course most of them are also not orthodox on sexual issues, but they were mostly mad with the Liberation Theology crackdown.
>>24114074>The so-called Second Vatican Council convened from 1962 until 1965. It was called by the false pope John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli) and promulgated and concluded by his no less false successor, Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini).Vatican II, as it is typically called for short, marks the definitive beginning of what we call the Novus Ordo religion and provides its doctrinal foundation. It is the be-all and end-all of the Modernist institution that has been occupying the Catholic structures since John XXIII usurped the Holy See at the 1958 conclave. Everything in the Counterfeit Church revolves around this accursed synod.In fact, the council marks such a clear turning point in Catholic belief, worship, and practice that virtually everyone — except for a few conservative pipe-dreamers at Catholic Answers, EWTN, Franciscan University of Steubenville and similar places — readily admits that the “Catholicism” since the council is substantially different from the Catholicism prior to it. The so-called “hermeneutic continuity and reform” that is so often invoked, is a chimera, and pretty much everyone knows it.The Novus Ordo theologian Fr. Francis Sullivan, for example, openly admits that …on several important issues the council clearly departed from previous papal teaching. One has only to compare the Decree on Ecumenism with such an encyclical as Mortalium animos of Pope Pius XI, or the Declaration on Religious Freedom with the teaching of Leo XIII and other popes on the obligation binding on the Catholic rulers of Catholic nations to suppress Protestant evangelism, to see with what freedom the Second Vatican Council reformed papal teaching. (Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church [Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press, 1983], p. 157)“Fr.” Thomas Guarino concedes this as well: Surely the council represents a significant volte-face [about-face] on ecumenism. Mortalium animos casts doubt on the entire ecumenical enterprise, forbids Catholics from engaging in the movement, and comes close [sic] to calling Protestantism “a false Christianity, quite foreign to the one Church of Christ”… The Decree on Ecumenism [Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican II], in contrast, warmly welcomes ecumenism, encouraging intelligent and active participation in it (UR §4). The discontinuity between the two documents is the source of consternation for some [sic] Catholics. (Thomas G. Guarino, The Disputed Teachings of Vatican II: Continuity and Reversal in Catholic Doctrine [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2018], pp. 108-109)Guarino then proceeds to attempt to smooth over and justify this reversal, but that is beside the point now. The point is that there clearly is discontinuity, there is rupture, there is contradiction, between Vatican II and the preceding Magisterium.
>>24114096A mere two weeks after the council opened, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani’s American theological advisor, Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton, wrote in his personal diary: “This is going to mark the end of the Catholic religion as we have known it” (entry dated Oct. 31, 1962). How right he was!This is the same Mgr. Fenton who had battled “the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray over the latter’s unorthodox interpretation of church teaching on church-state relations”, Joseph M. White writes in his book The Diocesan Seminary in the United States: A History from the 1780s to the Present (p. 333; underlining added). And he continues: “Murray’s dissenting position was adopted in the Declaration of Religious Freedom at Vatican Council II in 1964, and Fenton’s positions have been eclipsed” (see scan here). In other words, Vatican II adopted the unorthodox position, whereas the Catholic position, defended by Fenton, was abandoned. What does that tell us?!While he apparently tries to resolve contradictions in doctrine by waving the magic wand of “doctrinal development”, even the former “Fr.” Barry Hudock he agrees that Fr. Murray’s position on religious liberty “looked a lot to some people in 1954 (when Murray was silenced) and 1964 (when the council fathers debated his ideas) like a contradiction of doctrine.” Interestingly enough, what Hudock disputes in this controversy is not that there is a contradiction but that the prior teaching was doctrine: “Murray did depart from what had been commonly regarded as Catholic doctrine, and he knew it; but he insisted that it wasn’t the doctrine he was questioning but rather the historically conditioned expression of it” (Struggle, Condemnation, Vindication: John Courtney Murray’s Journey Toward Vatican II, pp. 171-172; all italics in original). This typical Modernist copout was condemned by Pope Pius XII, who called it “contempt of doctrine commonly taught, and of the terms in which it is expressed…” (Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 16).
>>24114103In a newly-published academic work, Prof. Shaun Blanchard shows that Bp. Scipione de’ Ricci’s robber synod of Pistoia, Italy, which was strongly condemned by Pope Pius VI in the 1794 Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, in many ways anticipated the changes of Vatican II and the post-conciliar church. Blanchard acknowledges “striking similarities between some Vatican II reforms and the censured decrees of the [Pistoian] Synod” and elaborates: The Pistoians had a rare sensitivity I call “proto-ecumenical” — Ricci and some in his circle preferred to speak of Protestants as “separated brethren”, not heretics. The Synod exalted the office of the bishop, and it proclaimed the pope to be a servant of unity, not a monarch. It saw infallibility as a charism given to the entire believing community. The Synod proclaimed that Bible reading was for all literate people, and the illiterate should have scripture read to them in their native language by priests. They discouraged, even banned, devotions that were not centered on Christ or biblically based. The Synod de-emphasized and reinterpreted indulgences, taught the priesthood of all believers, and declared active participation of lay people at Mass a right and duty. They clearly wished that public worship would predominantly be in the vernacular, not Latin. The Synod also praised Grand Duke Peter Leopold’s recent decree abolishing the Inquisition in Tuscany, and they implied religious liberty, or at least toleration, arguing that “the heart is not reformed with prison and fire.” (Shaun Blanchard, The Synod of Pistoia and Vatican II: Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform [New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020], p. x)Similarly, Dr. Jürgen Mettepenningen notes that the New Theology that was utilized to provide the theological underpinnings of the Second Vatican Council was the “inheritor of Modernism” and the “precursor of Vatican II”, as the subtitle of his book Nouvelle Théologie – New Theology says. Being a Modernist himself, Mettepenningen happily points out that “it took a council to give the movement a positive connotation after three decades of magisterial rejection” (p. xiii; italics added). Isn’t that the truth!In 1946, Pope Pius XII had hit the nail on the head about this strange new theology that would thoroughly revolutionize what the world understands to be Catholicism: “Much has been said, but not enough after due consideration, about the ‘Nouvelle Théologie’, which, because of its characteristic of moving along with everything in a state of perpetual motion, will always be on the road to somewhere but will never arrive anywhere” (Allocution Quamvis Inquieti).
>>24114080Yeah; I know what you mean, that’s all I can say. “How can I know I’m right??” “Just pray bro your good” “no I mean seriously, why not go to the Buddha temple with my uncle?” “Jesus loves you bro” The questions are insoluble. I do think ppl are saved without being explicitly Catholic because I’m not a heretic. But Ratzinger is trying to take the reader beyond the frame we’re talking in and show that it’s basically insufficient. We’re not talking about, “is there someone at the door?”, it’s a different order of questioning. But if I was to “justify” my Catholicism - my family’s been Catholic for a long time, that’s about it. If I had been born Jewish, no doubt I would have been a super Jewy Jew. “Oh so you admit the religions are indifferent?” NEVER!!! Again that’s what it’s about. (Or part of it anyway). There’s no way to reduce this story to “everyone’s *kinda* right”, nor “I’m definitely right and know it”. I’m not trying to be obscurantist, but you can’t know everything ie everything isn’t on the plane of knowing/fact, and it couldn’t be, that would be a fantasy - likely a fantasy of human domination of nature, which is what we’re living with now.
>>24114096A woman at my parish I observed that the most obnoxious right wing Catholics are mostly converts. They import a Protestant attitude into the Church. Normal Catholic lay people aren’t hyper opinionated about theology or ecclesiastical politics, we just do what we’re told frankly. “We’re followers not leaders” is how she put it, I agree. Theology is none of my business and thank God for that, I can just focus on living a halfway decent life and let the bishops worry about all that. It’s not my vocation, nor yours. (Respectfully and all that I truly don’t think you’re a dick just maybe overheated, I’ve had times like that too).
>>24114128I wonder if entrance into heaven requires people to undergo a group interview with all the Gods of this world. Like imagine a massive rooms with Gods such as Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Zeus, all the infinite Hindu Gods, etc etc, patiently waiting to interview and rate people on how good or bad they were in their earthly life. That would be hilarious.
>>24114165lol yeah it would. Tough room, too. I’d maybe be doing OK and then here comes Pythagoras “ever eat any *beans*, son? How many? Soft or dry? Go on now tell the truth to your uncle Pythagoras now. You can’t fool me. I myself ate a bean or two as a young man. I smell em on your breath boy… BEANS”
>>24114152The laity have an obligation to not believe heretical doctrines.
>>24113969Doesn't that contradict the whole concept of Magesterial infallibility?
>>24114224No, because Wojtyła was never Pope and hence could not promulgate authentic magisterial documents.
>>24114190Yeah but heresy = what is non-Catholic. If you have questions about communion for the remarried - well divorce was accepted for much of the dark ages and still is for Orthodox, what do I know? Or again the gays - well the medieval church had a lot of homosexuality, what do I know about how to manage it? I realize it’s rocky right now but this is nothing compared to the Arian crisis of the 4th century, truly a walk in the park compared to that. I have enough to worry about to worry about “the state of the church”. Pray, do good works, and forget about it, as cynical as it sounds, I do feel it’s our role as a lay people. “So what is there no point that you’d say enough is enough?” “The gates of hell…”Anyway the only people still going to mass in the current year are conservative. I feel the same uneasiness you do but I think it will all die out by natural causes. I don’t feel the need to be hyper suspicious, like the Church is full of Masons. That hasn’t been my experience of lay people nor priests/seminarians, where I am anyway.
>>24114228What do you mean he was never pope?
>>24114237He’s a heretic/schismatic. They have good intentions but are SO wrong. Many such cases! Sad! Come into the Church anon it’s a good Church… the best!
>>24114237I mean he was possessing a valid election but could not assume the papacy due to a defect of intention (modernist heresy precluding a proper understanding of what the office is).
>>24114277Well I'm a neutral party here. I'm happily non denominational. I come in here because I've found value in certain catholic literature and philosophy. That's actually why I asked about Kirkegaard. I like his take on faith and was wondering how Catholics engage with his philosophy. But now I'm really confused about this whole Vatican II thing.
Chesterton is all I need
>>24114285Don’t you see how this is a bottomless rabbit hole? This isn’t your fight, or rather your role in the fight is to be a good lay person and go to mass like anyone else. But you’re definitely not in a position to say the see is vacant, that’s a pure Prottie attitude. I live in a place with a lot of Irish protties and they all have upturned pig noses, it’s a lol. Catholic Irish have tater noses, or nondescript blobs.
>>24114301When the Novus Ordo Mass is a non-Catholic, non-sacrificial blasphemous meal, there is an obligation NOT to attend it. If you live in 16th century England and your bishop in now an Anglican, do you continue to obey him? NO!
>>24114293I can’t speak for other Catholics but imo Kierkegaard is an essential counterpart to the more Aristotelian side of things. That sounds vague or pseud but it’s all I have to say. This is part of the nouvelle theologie that the schismaticanon is upset about, viz. engaging with modern philosophy and modern life in general, as opposed to shutting the door with Aquinas and pretending he answered everything (he didn’t, his own contemporaries and successors knew he hadn’t)
>>24114328If you read what I posted, you would see that such bad theology was criticized by Pius XII.
>>24114312Yeah because he wouldn’t have been Catholic lol. I go to Novus ordo mass, people are reverent, people are praying. I feel like you have this image of this wicked degenerate vernacular mass with rock music and girls in leggings. it’s just not at all what I’ve seen. Also I’ve gone to Latin mass and while I get the attachment, I also get why they changed it. It really can feel like the priest is standing there saying a hocus pocus. He’s facing away from you and he’s speed-mumbling through the Latin.
>>24114347You're not a Catholic. It's that simple. You do not believe in the Roman Catholic religion that existed prior to 1958.
>>24114295Chesterton is all he needs.
>>24114338Even the purest of pure Neo-Thomists have engaged with Kierkegaard. Of course he couldn’t be canon, he’s not even Catholic. If the mere idea of reading non-Catholic philosophy is a problem for you, you are the problem. How do you think the Church got so pro-Plato, pro-Aristotle, thinkers who are not even Christian? It didn’t happen overnight and it was opposed by reactionaries just like you at every turn. Did you know Aquinas was condemned in Paris in 1277 for being too modern? What seems time honored to you, viz. Aristotelianism, was avant garde in the 13th century.
>>24114355I believe in the Church that will exist forever. You’re just another variety of Protestant. Oink oink
>>24114385Yes, the Church exists and you are outside of it.
>>24114328That makes sense actually. There's certainly a place for the use of natural reason and natural theology in handling issues, but you're hardly experiencing childlike faith if the entire substance of your belief is built on complex intellectual theorizing. There's definitely something very subjective and experiential when in giving faith to God you receive back peace and grace.
>>24113684you might like GUNNM
>>24114401Yeah and I think it’s something Aquinas is fairly weak on (as if faith means accepting some propositions about God you couldn’t have thought of yourself) and is Kierkegaard’s main focus. Not like there aren’t natives saying similar things but you’d have to be pretty dang close minded to fail to appreciate Kierkegaard just because he was a Lutheran. Are you kidding me? Socrates and Plato were gay pagans.
>>24113642Currently reading Notes from a Dead House by Dostoevsky but I hope to read Saint Alphonsus de Liguori's Preparation for death soon.
>>24114074To me the Jesus Of Nazareth books are very good but I think they represent a kind of rejection of Ratzinger's old self by his newer self. They treat deadly seriously with the idea that Jesus WAS real, that He IS God, and that He DID rise from the dead. This feels like a departure from nouvelle theologie, a big one, and it feels like a reaction to Ratzinger/Benedict gradually growing disappointed with the Council and its aftereffects."Late" Ratzinger, Benedict, almost seems to completely repudiate at least some parts of the Council and the "Spirit of Vatican 2." Think of Summorum Pontificum. Ratzinger by the end of his life clearly belived that the Church had gone wrong somewhere between 1965 and the 21st Century. I think history will have proved him right.
>>24114596>They treat deadly seriously with the idea that Jesus WAS real, that He IS God, and that He DID rise from the dead. This feels like a departure from nouvelle theologieThese are new terms for me. Is modernism a kind of theological liberalism? Does it deny things like miracles? I've seen the term modernism used in a Protestant Fundamentalist way which suggested that modernists believed Jesus was merely a martyr and not the Son of God and not the propitation for sins. Is that the same thing.
>>24113642I've stopped going to church and have become a metaphysics denier that believes in nothing. How the fuck I come back?
>>24114763Pray the Rosary every day.
>>241147631. go to confession2. starting attending mass3. pray for the world
>>24114763You don't.
I'm reading KJ parkers The Company. He's a catholic author
>>24113642Understanding MediaMcLuhan was very much Catholic and had a strong devotion to Mary.
>>24114420My grandfather is a big fan of Gunnm. Not sure why. He was stationed in Japan before, but I don't think he was aware of any of the media.
Just finished reading A Light in the Heavens: Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII.Reading this bext.
>>24114655Here is a concise review on the Modernist Heresyhttps://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/modernismThey basically believe that:>(1) God cannot be known and proved to exist by natural reason; (2) external signs of revelation, such as miracles and prophecies, do not prove the divine origin of the Christian religion and are not suited to the intellect of modern man; (3) Christ did not found a Church; (4) and the essential structure of the Church can change; (5) the Church’s dogmas continually evolve over time so that they can change from meaning one thing to meaning another; (6) faith is a blind religious feeling that wells up from the subconscious under the impulse of a heart and a will trained to morality, not a real assent of the intellect to divine truth learned by hearing it from an external source.
i'm reading paradise lost on my laptop. since last October ,i am keen towards christian literature/poetry and so i finished reading divine comedy ,faust and about to dive into paradise lost+regained. (picrel)i got allured by these two editions that almost cost the same in price .without a doubt i or (between these two editions) any reader will absolutely go for clothbound edition over paperback but i found out that the penguin collection holds 300+ more pages than everyman's ,so it left me wondering that penguin version provides more milton's content than everyman .can anyone here help me decide which one of these shall i buy?,why does penguin edition is more thicker than everyman , and does everyman's library edition also contain paradise lost+regained from milton?thanks.
>>24113642Just started another Lord of the Rings reading. I’m doing a book club with my family. Should be fun
>>24115504Paradise Lost is haram, isn't it?
>>24115610idk. I'm not a Mudslim
>>24115380>(1) God cannot be known and proved to exist by natural reason [is a heresy]Then what is faith, anon? If everyone supposedly knows God exists because of the cosmological argument, what is faith? Believing a set of dogmas added on to what can be known by natural reason? Read the Bible bro.
>>24115380>(1) God cannot be known and proved to exist by natural reasonThis is self-evidently true. If belief in God was as simple as following a proof there would be virtually no atheists. Even if those proofs were stronger than you think they are, you could say "well I don't think our reason could reach to ultimate causes", or take some other skeptical stance. >(2) external signs of revelation, such as miracles and prophecies, do not prove the divine origin of the Christian religion and are not suited to the intellect of modern man;I hate to be "that guy" but every religion has miracles and prophecies, and the Christian interpretation of the OT is not at all self-evident. You can't prove Christianity by miracles, even if Aquinas thought you could.>(3) Christ did not found a Church;Here I agree, Christ did found a Church and it's the Catholic Church.>(4) and the essential structure of the Church can change;Agree, it can't change in the essentials. > (5) the Church’s dogmas continually evolve over time so that they can change from meaning one thing to meaning another;Vague. The Church definitely has changed over time, though we would say it hasn't changed in the esssentials. Shutting the door on all change is ahistorical.>(6) faith is a blind religious feeling that wells up from the subconscious under the impulse of a heart and a will trained to morality, not a real assent of the intellect to divine truth learned by hearing it from an external source.But that's true. Unless you're a Thomistic autist, religious faith necessarily involves feeling and is necessarily NOT a mere "real assent of the intellect".
>>24115691This is Dogma and believing otherwise is literally heresy.>If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.> If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him : let him be anathema.>If anyone says that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded by God: let him be anathema.>If anyone says that divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because of the authority of God who reveals it: let him be anathema.>If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men and women ought to be moved to faith only by each one’s internal experience or private inspiration: let him be anathema.
This finally came in the mail today.
>>24115704Superseded/reinterpreted by Vatican II, an ecumenical council.
>>24115713No, it wasn't.Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was supervised by then Cardinal Ratzinger who would become Benedict XVI. He was involved in Vatican II, by the way.>III. The Knowledge of God According to the Church>36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God"
And Jesus said, "Thank you Heavenly Father that by a set of syllogisms I can arrive a posteriori at a certainty as to Your Existence"
>>24115726You think being known with certainty means "I can prove it and anyone who withholds assent is willfully blind". As I said this is impossible, it is self-evident that this is not true. So you make the Church say something absurd. You're not qualified to interpret these documents, you're not a theologian or a bishop, just another heretic.
>>24115713Here is "Dei Verbum" from Vatican II, by the way>6. Through divine revelation, God chose to show forth and communicate Himself and the eternal decisions of His will regarding the salvation of men. That is to say, He chose to share with them those divine treasures which totally transcend the understanding of the human mind. (6)>As a sacred synod has affirmed, God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason (see Rom. 1:20); but teaches that it is through His revelation that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race. (7)
>>24114596>This feels like a departure from nouvelle theologieThen you know next to nothing of nouvelle theologie, stop consuming tradslop.
>>24115734You still don't understand the point I'm making. I'm saying that you're willfully interpreting these documents in a way that is nonsensical and also heretical. Benedict XVI himself wrote about the torment of doubt. But for you, knowing God by natural reason = "we got a knock-down proof here boys, no one can possibly not believe unless he chooses to."
>>24115731I didn't interpret anyone.I posted an article by Jimmy Akin (who as far as I know is a respected and knowledgeable man), a declaration of Vatican I, an excerpt of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and an excerpt of a document from Vatican II.
>>24115744You think I'm denying something that I'm not denying, and I've explained myself but you still don't understand me, so I guess we're at an impasse.
>>24115756I literally just posted Church documents which stated that "God can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason". One of which said >If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.You even tried to argue Vatican II changed this, when it didn't.
As can be seen here, there is a huge difference between the documents of Vatican II and what some modernists think Vatican II said.
boop
How true is this chart?
>>24118276Pretty good. Just the basics, but that's all you need to start with.Whatever you do DON'T start with Aquinas. I love Aquinas but he's kind of like reading a math textbook, that's sort of how Scholastic Theology works. I don't think he's good for beginning Catholics.I think beginning Catholics should read Augustine or Francis de Sales. Either the Confessions or the Introduction To The Devout Life. Both are great works of everyday spirituality and devotion to Christ.By the way, Francis de Sales' feast day is coming up. He's actually the patron saint of writers, so I feel like he has a special place on this board.
Reminder that Augustine was African adulterous nigga who had no understanding of Hebrew and produced BS theology
>>24118867>produced BS theologyexplain
>>24118870NTA, but if someone's writings are so commonly used against the Church by heretics, then it's probably a good idea to reevaluate the esteem you hold them in.
>>24118876I disagree.Heretics and Satan quoted the Bible to promote heresy. Would you say that the Bible is bad because heretics misinterpreted it?
I for one, adhere to ALL the anathemas of the Second Vatican Council.>>24118276Ignatius recently released their Old and New Testament Study Bible, I don't have it yet, but the New Testament one is great.
>>24113642Any biographies of Henry VIII/books on the English Reformation written by a Catholic?
>>24118867St. Augustine was a berber. African =/= negroid.
>>24114152I don't think that's a Protestant attitude. It's just that someone actively changing from one religion to another is clearly at least someone interested in theology, whereas someone born into a religion never has to think about it. I'd be surprised if this phenomena isn't the same in every other religion.
Christcucks are nothing but spineless dogs, groveling at the feet of an imaginary master they’ve invented to justify their pathetic existence. They live on their knees, drooling for approval and begging for scraps of salvation from a god that doesn’t hear them because it doesn’t exist. Their obedience isn’t faith—it’s servility, the mark of creatures too weak, too broken, to face reality without the crutch of their delusions. They’re not just slaves; they’re willing slaves, pathetic animals licking the boot of an illusion.Every prayer, every act of worship, is a whimper from these mindless mutts, desperate to please a master that isn’t there. They fear punishment like beaten dogs and dream of rewards they’ll never see, chasing their tails in circles of guilt and self-abasement. They are not men—they are cowards in chains, too gutless to break free, too stupid to realize they hold the leash. Their ‘god’ doesn’t rule them; their weakness does. Christcucks are the lowest form of life, crawling in the dirt they were born for, obedient to nothing but their own failure.
>>24118276Why does this say to only purchase the Haydock Bible from refuge of sinners publishing? From what I’ve gathered the Loreto publishing edition is of the 1859 version and contains all the original commentary and notes, while the refuge of sinners edition is of the 1883 version and has had some of the commentary and notes removed.
>>24119446>massive wall of text for low quality baitgrim
>>24119624>claims intellectual superiority by bragging about not reading>"I win by keeping eyes closed!">literally proud of willful ignorance>"can't prove me wrong if I refuse to read!">peak christcuck programmingMost intellectually honest christian on /lit/ - so absolutely btfo he thinks refusing to read makes him smart. Imagine being so deep in narcissistic cope you brag about blocking out criticism.Pure NPC behavior:>gets exposed>switches to "not reading" mode>declares victory>continues seething>thinks this makes him look goodImagine telling on yourself this hard. "I maintain my delusions by refusing to read anything that challenges them!" Absolutely devastating self-own from most self-aware christcuck.
>>24119625>least self aware humanit's sad that you're spending your precious time typing out a massive wall of text
>>24119631>typing LMAO
>>24119632well, im sorry that i still prefer typing over speech to text. somehow never got a hang of it.
