/clg/ - Catholic Literature General

One of my professors is currently writing a book like this. A history of the soul from the pre-socratics to contemporary Christianity.

Should probably add New Jerusalem Bible to that list

And specify RSV-(2)CE

thank you for not having "an exorcist tells his story" on your list. Its always on those meme charts and its so dishonest that I can't take seriously anyone who would advocate for it to be read

Someone should make a pictoral versions of this for maximum aesthetics

We'd need someone with mad ms paint skills.

How hard is Summa Theologiae? I've been raised catholic, but I've never actually gotten into any serious theology. I assume it'll be above my head, so I'm thinking of starting on something like City of God and building my way up

Well shit. I didn't know you posted on Veeky Forums too.
How are you, brother? I haven't seen you on 4pol in ages.

Neither the city of God not the Summa are good as starting places. To do theology first start with the Greeks and spice them up with some mystical stuff like Kempen, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and so on, going chronologically with the Church Fathers, could also be a rewarding experience. Read Augustine once you've read at least the most important Plato dialogues and some Church Fathers. As for Aquinas, that's a whole other story and you'd need to read tons of Aristotle and reading secondary lit like Copleston and Feser.

If you can read On Being and Essence and understand it you're ready to move on to the Summa. If you fail that litmus test it's probably best to focus on Aristotle, particularly Physics and Metaphysics. Keep in mind that Aquinas wrote more than the Summa. His biblical commentaries sermons are unfortunately neglected by a lot of people. They can be difficult to read but they don't require a lot of the prior knowledge that his metaphysics does.

>How hard is Summa Theologiae?

It is a reference manual, so not meant for casual reading. But in terms of reading it generally, you need a knowledge of Greek thought to make sense of it or many terms would be totally lost to you. For instance, "motion" is different from modern thought and Greek thought.

If you want an introduction to serious theology, I would recommend Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser. It intorduces major concepts and contends contemporary criticisms.

is generally correct, but On Being and Essence is a difficult test as-is. Do not start there.

But hey, man. Yeah, I post everywhere. I'm originally a /v/ tripfag. I'm... busy, though. Doing personal work at home between work for businesses. /pol/ got a large swathe of Redditors and posters from other boards during the election and it's made Catholic Generals not a big thing at all. Moreover, it's become a trend to think that the Christian/Catholic identity on that board CAME from the migration in during the election. It's ridiculous.

This sounds awesome, give me his name so I can bookmark it and check for update- tell him to keep going. It's like he's a genius and knew what was literally missing for most people library.

Christian music list. The first list is modern music, the second is hymnals and more traditional music.

>Marvin Gaye's "God is Love"
youtube.com/watch?v=nA7C815I104
>Woven Hand's "My Russia"
youtube.com/watch?v=vbUXbMn2zfc
>Woven Hand's "Consecration"
youtube.com/watch?v=xcwCK8pFZ0M
>Om's Pilgrimage Album
youtube.com/watch?v=IK6wJUNirbs
>Sufjan Steven's "No Shade in the Shadow of the Cross"
youtube.com/watch?v=qx1s_3CF07k
>mewithoutyou - Sun and Moon
youtube.com/watch?v=9Mor7syiTSE
>Young Oceans - ONLY YOU
youtube.com/watch?v=imEvd1ck4fs
>Bobby McFerrin's Joshua
youtube.com/watch?v=7DRketdk07o
>Psalter's Lord's Prayer
youtube.com/watch?v=L3rT8YVJERk
>Janelle Monae's Victory
youtube.com/watch?v=mJ6wkOO_MEA
>Johnny Cash's God's Gonna Cut You Down
youtube.com/watch?v=ht7mxF9XZiA
>Nick Drake - Pink Moon
youtube.com/watch?v=CPbWMvQwroo
>Mary Lou Williams - Anima Christi
youtube.com/watch?v=4fv14RFfRLA
>Dr. C.J. Johnson's "You Better Run"
youtube.com/watch?v=bchmhIdZgys
>Judee Sill's Heart Food
youtube.com/watch?v=KI7sOZQaSkI
>Dave Bixby's "Free Indeed"
youtube.com/watch?v=JhHBGRr2XDE
>The Revolutionary Army of the Infant Jesus' "Beauty After the Fall"
youtube.com/watch?v=mcbJFvje29A
>Podnieś Mnie Jezu
youtube.com/watch?v=JbhIHF3SHm0
>Baba Yetu
youtube.com/watch?v=IJiHDmyhE1A
>Audrey Assad's "Restless"
youtube.com/watch?v=UuhYZrn4flo

Traditional Music

>Veni Veni Emmanuel
youtube.com/watch?v=xRi1GDoaQu4
>Agni Parthene
youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8XE3j_c0U
>Je Nai Nan
youtube.com/watch?v=vL1lxH7s3Cw
>Come Now Font of Every Blessing
youtube.com/watch?v=b1bSlS6OWTs
>A nice collection of South Pacific Island hymns from the movie The Thin Red Line
youtube.com/watch?v=7A1Z5CEXDM4
>Hail Mary in Latin, done in song.
youtube.com/watch?v=ihNVhFA_X3I
>Hallelujah Chorus done suddenly in the public
youtube.com/watch?v=wp_RHnQ-jgU
>Heyr himna smiður
youtube.com/watch?v=e4dT8FJ2GE0
>Jezu Chryste Panie Miły
youtube.com/watch?v=dymL1-ckMwg
>Ludu mój ludu
youtube.com/watch?v=orZo6JesM_E
>Cидить Mикoлaй y кoнeць cтoлa
youtube.com/watch?v=FbGwaO0ZVzM
>Fiez-vous en lui
youtube.com/watch?v=vJCl6ylgwCU
>Mass in D major, Op.123 "Missa solemnis"
youtube.com/watch?v=WFor50sjEaw
>Krzyżu Święty
youtube.com/watch?v=DlIG5gNa-Oo
>Taize Alleluia
youtube.com/watch?v=e-jOgH0PP2I
>O Dniu Radosny
youtube.com/watch?v=MROPDOKkKd0
>Dies Irae
youtube.com/watch?v=Dlr90NLDp-0
>Deum Verum
youtube.com/watch?v=kK5AohCMX0U
>NON NOBIS DOMINE, SED NOMINI TUO DA GLORIAM
youtube.com/watch?v=bb9ro4IQqi8

I'm going to read the bible as I'm sick and tired of not getting biblical references, I also want to understand all the beautiful artwork inspired by it.

Is it OK to start reading the New Revised Standard Edition (Anglicised)?

Just read Luke-Acts, and the epistles which scholars approve are actually written by Paul.
They're the only books with a nice style of writing and which are not boring and you might even learn something that will last.

I recommend not picking up the Bible by itself and begin reading it beginning to end as the Bible is a collection of books of different genres, structures, and authorships so without understanding what the texts are and some references thoughout it could do more harm than good.

Your version is fine except that it leaves out the books from the Old Testament that Protestants removed. If you want a very good Bible I'd recommend the Ignatius Study Bible.

If you want the basics and the more important stuff, I will expand on and say to read:

>the Gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke, and John. All four being eyewitness testimonies of the life of Jesus tied with histories that were known of him.)
>Acts (Acts of the Apostles. The followers of Jesus after his death.)
>The Epistles. (Everything else in the New Testament besides Revelations. These are letters written by the church fathers, primarily a new figure named Paul. The authorship is questioned by some scholars on some of these books but they are all attributed to their authors by the church.)

These are the most accessible, though having the study bible would have additional aid there.

I'm having a fun time reading the book of Job. After this I'll read Luke.

Yeah, I've decided against that, I've also switched to the Catholic version of the NRSV.
After I finish the book of Job I'll read the gospels.

>Om
Might as well recommend Batushka

Did anyone who directly knew Jesus write anything?
Seems like every single book in new testament is written by people one generation after Jesus died, and most people that were contemporary with Jesus were already middle age or old...

Is new testament 100% a creation of later men? Have any of the 12 Apostles actually existed?

The earliest books were written likely written within 20 years of Jesus' death. One of the reasons why it even took that long is because there was no urgency among the apostles because they thought was ending soon. Now even if it wasn't the case that the earliest books were written within 20 years it still doesn't really matter. Christianity is not a religion of the book, meaning the bible is not the sole rule of faith. Its part of a greater tradition that is passed down from Jesus to his apostles.

With that said Peter did have direct contact with Jesus, the apostles actually existed, and of course the New Testament is a creation of later men. I've never heard of any historian or scholar claim otherwise.

Yes, 2 of the evangelists knew Jesus personally if I remember my exegesis correctly while the other two were writing under the apostles.
I'll have to look it up to be sure.

Look and provide me your sources..

I've checked for over a year all the scholar sources and my argument above resumes all I've learned.

The earliest gospel if WE'RE generous is 70 ad - more than a generation late after Jesus death.

And it's not written by an Apostle, actually most books in new testament are under anonymous author, except James and just some of Paul letters particularly, but they invented Christianity so to speak, it's expected for the to actually exist...

It is pretty clear for me and a stone has been lifted from my soul forever, I no longer have to bother with any element of Christianity - it does not reflect the supernatural truth of our reality - we have to dig deeper.

So it doesn't reflect any truth because you don't know who wrote it? That is some really strange reasoning.

It already did not reflect any truth to me and in its structure was absurd anyway.

I only at stage one believed out of fear and tradition of my nation.
At stage two only because I've assumed Jesus could be God in human form and that's all matters.. if Jesus indeed rose from the dead - nothing else matters... but there are countless element that link to Jesus and so on.

Anyway my dear friend, I don't care anymore - It was a great cause of pain and wasting time for me... and now I'm 100% free, I will never again flip a single page of Christian theology, apologetics and so on...

I have to finnish Saint's Augustine tho because it's not necessarily good, it's puerile actually - and very basic ideas are presented there - but it covers the totality of Christian soul that book so it's worth to read, memorize and inventory- because Christianity, its truth aside is a valuable part of our History and the direct predecessor of our modernism.

And after ancient greek civilization apogee and end culturally speaking with Marcus Aurelius - meditations, only inside Christian literature we could find a soul such as detailed and comprehensive that touched philosophical matters, and that soul is carefully summarized by Augustine in his confessions.

Thing is my journey with Christianity as a theology, as faith has ended forever - I'm happy to no longer feel my mind locked down.

I didn't say the earliest gospel was written 20 years after Jesus, I said the earliest books. The earliest dating for James is A.D. 38 which is less than 20 years after the death. Galatians is A.D 48, 1 and 2 Thessalonians is A.D. 50, and so on. These are all within one generation of the death of Jesus.

Most of the books of the New Testament were not written by anonymous authors, or at least they weren't dictated by anonymous authors. If you're going to keep asserting things like this you need to provide reasons to believe they're true. I'm well aware of the alternative and secular theories of these books dating and authorship and I'm trying to goad you into providing them because I a lot of them are poorly reasoned or come off as wishful thinking. The traditional authorship and dating of these books are extremely defensible from a scholarly perspective.

What's the point of posting here at all then? If you are forever done with any engagement with Christianity? If you will never again read anything Christian and if it's puerile?

> Catholicism says spirits have free will
> Catholicism says spirits have to decide for or against the gospel before they become good or bad
> Catholicism says don't interact with spirits at all
> mfw all the spirits have nobody to preach the gospel to them
> mfw catholics don't seem to ever believe in neutral spirits

Nobody will respond to this because nobody believes in spirits even though they're real according to canon.

The apostles existed, the gospels have their attributed authors as their primary authors. The epistles of John are known to be legitimate, and it's heavily likely Acts was written by one of the apostles.

>> mfw all the spirits have nobody to preach the gospel to them
Angels

The secularists on this board are so disappointing. They come in here asking questions and pretending they want to learn or understand but they're really just looking for a reason to rant about whatever stupid shit they believe in.

What do you mean by spirits? Angels?

Feser was on Klavan's show today

youtube.com/watch?v=-lttBSO3zLA

I'm most excited about the killer sex robots in this show.
Also the audio sucks.

You seem sort of mistaken here. Knowledge of the gospels isn't what is spoken about here, your disposition to God and His will is. God's Law is innate to us though so it is never an issue of not being informed.

And "neutral spirits" makes no sense conceptually.

>nobody believes in spirits

Well I'm not learned on the subject but I know better than to understand it in substance dualism terms.

"It would be so fun to deport those people"
I bet it would, the show is real funny.

> And "neutral spirits" makes no sense conceptually.

Why? There are neutral humans.

No, no there weren't. There were those who died in the grace of God or outside of it.

There aren't*

Yeah I like him. He can be pretty Veeky Forums too, like when he narrated Al Gore meeting Ivanka Trump like a Gothic novel.

youtube.com/watch?v=raAzmDczRAo

Ok well I must be reading the Catechism wrong and also I can't take that position seriously. I guess I'll just go back to being a magician.

We can sort it out for you if you wish to present your disagreements. I'm at work but will get back to you.

I actually don't even know how. You've undermined the trust I had in my ability to read and understand the catechism. I should probably just throw it away now.

Honestly, where did you even read anything like the neutral spirits?

I didn't. I just inferred it because it's logically necessary for them to exist if they have to become either good or evil following a decision. The very act of becoming implies a sequence of events in time, therefore neutral spirits. Do you fault my logic? It's very basic

The idea that sequences in time imply neutral spirits is a non sequitur. A spirit would have to be immaterial for starters.

I don't follow. Spirits aren't subject to time? Even subjectively?

It's not important for the question, a spirit must be already good or evil, as a human or an angel, the "neutral" existence is the one we have now. Angels focus themselves on God (or don't) in the moment of all creation so they can't be neutral a priori and men either die in the grace of God or outside it, meaning their souls descent to Hell or go to Haven or Purgatory in the moment they die.

Alright, I can understand that wrt angels but I still can't reconcile myself to that doctrine about what happens to mortal beings who die or died.

Also from experience it seems like most spirits are neutral or at worst kind of assholes but not evil.

You cite where you thought you read that in the catechism, of course. What in the world, man.

>likely read something wrong or assumed something based on a text you read
>"better give up think I can read it altogether"

You're being ridiculous!

How are there neutral humans? You seem to be implying a worldview that you presuppose when speaking about doctrine. I want to know what that is so we understand each other.

If we sort this out then I can effectively answer your question.

Good morning lads, cheers for the responses

Awesome, I'm already in the process of getting GREEK'd.
Thanks for giving me a groundwork of where to start.
I'd love to read and understand Aquinas one day, but I see now that I've got plenty of homework to lead up until I can understand him.
Good to speak to you again. I hope everything is all good on your end.
Would you say that Scholastic Metaphysics covers topics in a chronological order from which the ideas and philosophies occurred, or in a format designed to genuinely teach the concepts in a logical way? (not sure if my question makes sense. Can't quite express it clearly).

Catholics say prayers for the neutral spirits all the time. You pray for your ancestors and your descendants pray for you. I imagine purgatory is kinda like being trapped on Earth with unfinished business. Do we still believe in Limbo tho? I always thought that was a silly term but a useful concept.

Doing excellent. Despite the work I finally caught up with all of Twin Peaks and its been a great time.

Scholastic Metaphysics doesn't do any philosophical history but rather introduces the philosophical tradition from its basic elements to its more fundamental major concepts and defends their validity against modern criticisms. Primary in this is a definite for natural purposes in nature. It is formatted to teach these concepts in a logical way.

There really should be a definition by for "neutral spirits".

I'm not sure how you got such an odd view of purgatory. Limbo has never been doctrine but a popular theoretical concept to explain those without mortal sin while defending the importance of baptism.

How do Catholics scripturally argue against Paul's soteriology in Romans? Primarily the Protestant favorite "faith, not by works" and "dead to the law" verses?

Peter Kreeft's Summa of the Summa is meant to replace a college class on the subject, between edited readings and footnotes

>I'm not sure how you got such an odd view of purgatory.
Idk. I believe in ghosts n stuff. Don't you? Demons and angels too... I pray for all lost souls. I do not presume to know who is in heaven and who is not. I think Origien's theory that even the devil might be saved is not as heretical as people claim.
>Limbo has never been doctrine but a popular theoretical concept to explain those without mortal sin while defending the importance of baptism.
It's rich mythology.

Begum ORDODOX you cucks

>Wisdom from Mt. Athos: The Writings of Staretz Silouan
>Ascetical Homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian
>Writings of St. Maximus the Confessor
>Writings of St. Gregory Palamas
>Wounded by Love by Elder Porphyrios
>Nihilism by Seraphim Rose
>Unseen Warfare
>The Arena by St. Ignatius Brianchaninov

What is the Protestant position on salvation? It helps to be as clear and specific as possible because I don't know where you're coming from and there's a lot of confusion that needs to be cleared up before a conversation like this can take place. A lot of Protestants are erroneously taught that Catholics believe we can be saved by works alone, or that we can "earn" or "merit" our way into heaven by our own efforts apart from grace and faith in Jesus.

Typically it's claimed that faith alone is a key teaching in St. Paul's letters, Yet Paul used the word faith and similar words over 200 times in his letters, but never once with a qualifier alone or only. Clearly, St. Paul did not make sola fide a central part of his teaching on justification, because neither he nore anyone else ever heard of the idea until Luther invented it in the 16th century. Paul does reject "works of law," (Rom 3:28) which refers to the Mosaic Law and circumcision.

In contrast to the idea of faith alone, St. Paul teaches that faith without love amounts to nothing (1 Cor 13:2) but "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6) is vital. The faith that St. Paul preached is no mere intellectual assent, but the obedience of faith (Rom 15; 16:26), which includes the total response of the believer to Jesus in love.

There is only one sentence in the entire bible that has the words "faith" and "alone" in the context of justification. It is explicitly rejected (Jas 2:24): Let's consider the whole passage:

"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? ... So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even demons believe - and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by [good] works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see faith that was active along with works, and faith was completed by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled which says 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas 2:14, 17-24).

The words of Jesus are decisive on this subject. A young man came to Jesus and asked "What good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" (Mt 19:16). Jesus didn't say , "You don't do anything. The only thing necessary to gain eternal life is to accept me as your Lord and savior." Jesus' reply was specific and right to the point: "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17).

What is some great Catholic fiction written in the 20th Century? I mostly know the English Catholics, like Chesterton, Evelyn Waugh, and Graham Greene. Also Tolkien, but he's very different than those guys. Who else is good?

Read this if you haven't already

So what did you think of this, /clg/?

...

>How do Catholics scripturally argue against Paul's soteriology in Romans?

Catholics would find Paul's soteriology in line with their own and would find Protestants just misinterpreting it. has an excellent post on the matter of soteriology.

The Catholic position is justification comes from faith perfected by works. Simpler said, salvation is by faith and works.

>Don't you?
Not at all in the same sense. I see no reason or effective argument for spirits wandering around in this world. This would imply substance dualism, which I'd reject.

>pic related

How would spirits imply substance dualism? There is no spiritual substance being postulated, just the transfiguration of matter to convey the appearance of spirits. How do you explain apparitions of the virgin?

How about Flannery O'Connor?

>How would spirits imply substance dualism?
Spirits inherently don't. However, "spirits" isn't the
subject of the question. "Ghosts" are. The concept of ghosts, much like how states purgatory, is the idea of wandering entities in this reality. My comment you're responding to is specifically against this view, which I thought you were speaking of.

What did he exclude from the short version?

Who else doing the 54 Day Novena?

With Valentin Tomberg's works (Meditations on the Tarot, Lazarus Come Forth), Michael Martin's (The Submerged Reality), and Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, are we witness to a new Catholic school of mysticism?

Holy shit user. Never heard of these guys before. Reading reviews now and practically creaming my jeans. Practically covers all my interests. Tell me more. Recommend me more.

>Tarot
>Catholic

Have you guys read any good books related to Christian asceticism? Fictional, non-fictional. Doesn't really bother me.

"mysticism" is always unorthodox bullshit behind a mask of orthodoxy. Christian mysticism is like saying "dry water".
Remember, best way to hide a lie is between 2 truths

What about saints, like Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Hildegard von Bingen, Faustina Kowalska, John of the Cross and so on?

what about them? they aren't god or inspired apostles

You're wasting your time. Don't bother.

Yeah I guess.

Laurus

great argument
good job at leading the blind

I'll never understand people who claim to be Christian but deny the mystical aspects of it, and the miraculous aspects as well. It's not some ethical system like Confucianism, it's a religion. It involves the divine and the otherworldly. It would be suspicious if there wasn't a mystical element to it.

I didn't deny that, I denied EXTRA-biblical mysticism
please do not put words in my mouth again

If you say so, friend. Good looking.

He's a Protestant. What do you expect?

>I believe it because I want to, not because it makes sense

>Getting into it:
Introduction to the Devout Life

>Well into it:
Dark Night of the Soul

>Deep into it:
Ladder of Divine Ascent

Catholic arguing 101

>"hes just a protestant"
>passive aggression
>Misrepresenting your beliefs, usually making embellishments like "you don't pray to mary... you consider her a whore or something!?" "you don't believe in asking saints for intercession.. so you think its wrong asking friends and family to pray for you?!" and "you believe in salvation by faith alone... So you think someone could rape and murder all they want but then just say 'I believe in Jesus' and boom they're saved?!"
>quotes from everyone and everything except the bible... except of course the one single verse Catholics are capable of using, James 2:24

>meme arrows

I know it's hard to believe, but arguing with Protestants online who are ruled by meme phrases like extra biblical isn't exactly the most rewarding experience worth anyone's time.

well you'll notice I was being nice and inquisitive up until
and then YOUR brothers provided me those shitpost examples out of nowhere. so it wasn't the Protties fault THIS time, my dear friend.
Idk, I guess they got frustrated cause they didn't know how to answer or something

>>passive aggression

No, I was being sincere. It is an actual waste of time.

well you're on Veeky Forums so I'm going to assume you've got plenty of it to waste