/clg/ - Catholic Literature General

>I still struggle to understand how perfectly good Christians are not saved if they are not Catholic. For example, it troubles me to think a writer like Charles Dickens could be in hell just because he did not receive valid sacraments from a Catholic perspective. Or, heaven forbid, I imagine a scenario where Earth is destroyed and all that's left of Christendom is a colony of Southern Baptists on Mars; will they and their descendants go to hell for not having a valid line of apostolic succession?

"for those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit; it has a relationship with the Church, which, according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Does anyone have a concise comparison between the 1962 liturgical calendar/missal and our current one?

I go to an FSSP parish and I would like to see the difference between what we do with what other parishes do.

FSSP uses the 1962 missal IIRC.

Nvm. Misread your question. Best way to compare would be to pick up a copy of both.

if im proud to be a catholic....then am i commiting one of the 7 deadly sins?

Depends on what sense you're using "proud" in.

Me 2 what state if you dont mind?

>For example, I may confess to a Russian Orthodox priest or receive communion at a Greek Orthodox church. I'm not sure, however, if they may receive sacraments at Roman Catholic masses.
You cannot do that.

A tornado hit my neighborhood before I could respond to this. I apologize for being late. These should be good basics for you but the final step will rocket up in difficulty, I'm sorry to say, as it relies on prior knowledge heavily.

>Worldview:
Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser

>Historic Claims for Specifically Jesus:
Was Jesus Who He Said He Was? by Michael Green

>Merging Worldview with Historical Claims
Engaging the Doctrine of Revelation by Matthew Levering
The Principles of Christian Apologetics by Walshe

I hope this will become of help to you. Start with the first section and work your way down in order.

>I still struggle to understand how perfectly good Christians are not saved if they are not Catholic. For example, it troubles me to think a writer like Charles Dickens could be in hell just because he did not receive valid sacraments from a Catholic perspective.
"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. "
Last I checked they don't eat and drink body and blood of the lord because they broke away from those that make it possible in the first place, the apostles ordained as successors to the 12.
>It's stuff like that which makes me skeptical about the Church's doctrine with regard to other Christians. I like receiving the sacraments and praying as I was taught to pray. I like the faith and my parish, but I'm not as condemning as the Vatican is of other Christians.
This is actually heresy, this doesn't even fall under regular magisterium, which is even if non infallible to be obeyed, but rather actual dogma.
" It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. "

...

>For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

What's the difference between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church in regards to monastic life and rites?

I am an avid reader and I have not yet considered whether either tradition is "mine". I have ended up reading Augustine, Aquinas, the early Roman Fathers, but also the Philokalia, and recently became interested in Mt. Athos and its history. I have also started to read the sayings of the Desert Fathers. I have liked everything that I have read so far, but I am now wondering about the divisions between the two. I have found full versions of the Orthodox Liturgy in English, and like those, although the manner of singing and delivery is slightly different from the Catholic delivery. I also like the Rule of St. Benedictine but find it more difficult to find English versions of the rites recited in a satisfactory way. Can someone give me some help?

To be more specific, I am looking for something to listen to regularly such as this: youtube.com/watch?v=H8MUi27Ff2s

He can, but only in an emergency situation. If you're in Siberia on a Sunday in the middle of a horrible snowstorm, and there's only an Orthodox church in town.

The Orthodox won't let him. Their rules don't permit it.

Anyone else here read pic related? I picked it up after hearing that the last two Pope's recommended it. In some ways it is remarkably prophetic, though I do think that Robert Hugh Benson underestimated just how strong a hold on society powerful corporations have. Still, the way in which the world turns from God in this book is excellent, and this might be the best depiction of the Antichrist we'll ever get.

Don't these two statements conflict? Dickens and Dostoevsky, neither being Papists, were flawed men, but certainly believed in Christ and lived good, Christian lives and brought people closer to the faith in their novels. They were even members of churches that believed in apostolic succession and took the sacraments even if the Church has mean words such as "schismatic" and "heretical" to describe their dissenting churches.

That is why I imagine that they are at least in purgatory if not heaven, though it is not on any account of having baptism papers commissioned by the wrong church. Both certainly had their flaws, but I can't imagine Christ our Savior sending them to hell with Stalin or Tamerlane. Last I heard, Christ was praised for his mercy, not cruelty.

>all Anglicans and Lutherans must be baptized again in order to join the Catholic church

No. As long as the baptism is in Trinitarian form, with water flowing on the head, and the person doing the baptizing intending to do what the Church does in baptism, the baptism is valid. An atheist, for example, can validly baptize.

I was baptized Pentecostal and did not require rebaptism when I became Catholic.

I bet there's a post about this on the New Liturgical Movement blog.

Strange, because my Anglican father had to be baptized and confirmed again to become Catholic.

Either the person responsible for bringing him into the Church was doing something wrong, or there was some issue with how your father was baptized.

I don't doubt what you say is true; I'm just baffled because I seem to learn something new every day about my religion as a cradle Catholic.

I'll check it out after I finish Gulliver's Travels.

Our faith is a deep one. I love that there is always more to know.

They aren't in conflict because one is talking about those who were not joined to the Catholic Church without invincible ignorance and the other is for those who did not join for reasons which could not be crossed. So, an Orthodox layman may be saved because he shares no guilt in the matter. The second statement is to be interpreted in the context of the first as well as Unam Samctam and previous mandates. V2 is very problematic when it is its own source, but in the larger context there's no conflict.
And if Christ had no mercy no single person would be saved at all, we are all unworthy of his perfection, it is the mercy which allows salvation to anyone in the first place. As to who is exactly in Hell, we can't say, except for Luther and Calvin according to numerous visions of various saints like Faustina, but we do know that all non Catholics are in grave danger, or rather graver danger.

Being a cradle Catholic is the worst option because the Church has systematically crushed religious education for both the clergy and laymen. Only converts must engage with the primary sources and learn the faith without any malformed ideas of what Catholicism is, these ideas coming from the inside as opposed to various myths, which are something else. Converts in a way have an advantage.

When you mentioned NLM, it reminded me of a conversation I had with my father on why I'm a so called traditionalist. The answer is that for the hardest questions and all the resources of the faith and immediate, but strong answers, only those people care to educate us on the faith. The mainstream clergy is completely incapable of offering answers to complicated questions and has in any case blurred the line between the sacred and the profane to such a degree that my brother started calling youth programs imbecile programs, where "worship" concerts are supposed to be the main attraction and where Christ is referred to, not as Lord, but as the evangelical buddy who saved you from a car crash.

>Being a cradle Catholic is the worst option
Oh, really?

>because the Church has systematically crushed religious education for both the clergy and laymen.
I suppose those illiterate saints did miss out on some of the more erudite commentaries on scripture.

>Only converts must engage with the primary sources and learn the faith without any malformed ideas of what Catholicism is
Yes, because there has never been a disingenuous convert to the Catholic Church.

>The mainstream clergy is completely incapable of offering answers to complicated questions
That's exactly why I go to /clg/ to get my daily trad pill.

>"worship" concerts
Christians have always had a funny idea that music is a great way to praise Christ.

>where Christ is referred to, not as Lord, but as the evangelical buddy who saved you from a car crash.
It is indeed amazing when Christ intervenes for our sake as a trusted friend would.

Some /pol/acks were saying that Hinduism is superior because Christianity doesn't have metaphysics. Is this true?

Education doesn't mean reading commentaries, it means understanding the sacraments, how salvation works, what mortal sin is and what it means and, what is the authority of the Church and that it should be obeyed even when we don't like it, who can receive the Eucharist and so on. Not based in literacy of anyone.
When speaking of converts in contemporary time I see no reason why disingenuous people are mentioned here, people usually go through phases which include researching the faith.
Worship was placed under quotations because I was alluding to the protestant euphoria based concerts of bad rock music that mention Jesus. Music is indeed great, but when we are giving him our best, not our most banal. I don't think you can in good faith compare chant or Bach with this type of music. And I was clearly referring to the divine personalism in the final segment. I don't see why you insist in reading something which I don't say.

There are plenty of Catholic beliefs in places and things that are "beyond physical reality." Heaven. Hell and the Trinity come to mind.

Polacs are known as philistines for a reason. How can a religion which has had its first philosopher write his works within a century of Christ's death and then continue doing metaphysics to the point where its dogma cannot be properly understood outside of aristotelian and platonic language (grace as efficient cause of salvation or God as absolute oneness) not have metaphysics?

That's not metaphysics my friend, that's by that point already theology. Metaphysics is the study of the fundamental principles of reality and as such not a subject of revelation, while Trinity, Haven, Hell and so on are matters of God's self revelation and not reachable by the light of natural reason. They will often intertwine, but not in this context.

Orientalism.

Natural religion can also refer to natural revelation not merely through the light of reason but through mystical intuitions from spiritual exercises. Or so I have always assumed.

For example, Catholics posit spiritual entities and afterlifes which have visited and been visited by many spiritual seekers of the Catholic tradition. These same spiritual realities have been seemingly attested to by other faiths although their theology may differ. But the metaphysics is rather similar.

>Christianity doesn't have metaphysics
>somehow missed the entire scholastic tradition

>understanding the sacraments, how salvation works, what mortal sin is and what it means and, what is the authority of the Church and that it should be obeyed even when we don't like it, who can receive the Eucharist and so on.

Yet you think this can't be learned in little Catechism classes in Sunday school. Strange. We certainly had plenty of this in my parochial elementary school alongside mandatory Mass every Wednesday and Mass that most of us observed on Sunday; the less fortunate schoolchildren who attended public schools nonetheless gained a fine enough education in their Catechism at Sunday school.

But, you know, what do I know. Perhaps you could learn a bit from the cradle Catholic Sainte Bernadette de Lourdes.

>One of the things that convinced the parish priest of Lourdes early on that Bernadette Soubirous’ visions were authentic was when she, an uneducated and illiterate girl with only a basic knowledge of the catechism, told the skeptical priest that the beautiful young Lady in white said that she was The Immaculate Conception. That dogma had been defined only four years prior to the apparition and the expression of the truth in these exact words would not have been familiar to the simple mind of Bernadette.

Might be the wrong thread for this, but which translation of the Bible would you all recommend?

The Restored New Testament is interesting if you are interested in Hebraic roots if Christianity. Translator is Willis Barnstone, he was a gnostic and a favorite poet of Borges, also wrote a translation of selected gnostic and apocryphal/pseudepigraphical works called The Other Bible. If you are interested in gnosticism, I would suggest getting the Nag Hammadi Library in its entirety, however. But back to Bibles. In English, the KJV is considered a stylistic masterpiece. Protestant tho. The NRSV is an update of it. Slightly more modern and liberal. I think for Catholics, the recommendation would be the NAB (modern) or the Douay Rheims (early modern) or Vulgate (if you speak Latin).

The Knox Bible manages to strike an excellent balance between beautiful language, readability, and accuracy.

NABRE.
Highly recommend the Ignatius Study Bible.

>tfw my country has tons of protestant denominations

When will it end?

Hopefully when the Vatican 2 generation finally dies off. Cardinal Marx in particular needs to fucking croak already.

They often fall apart on their own accord e.g. the Anglican Church and Lutheran Churches of Germany and Scandinavia. Nonetheless, let us pray for their conversion.

I admonish you that wishing such grave harm on someone might be a mortal sin. Pray for our clergy.

>my country has rational people
Why is this a bad thing?

There is nothing rational about taking such a fast shortcut to hell. I wouldn't bet on it.

His idea, to which you refer, is not one which is valid, or has value. Everyone has bad ideas.

See this thing? This is the true, useful idea that he had.

Protestant scum here. ESV is good, or if you want a study version the NET translation.

I remember that thing in math. Anyway, his wager is a fine metaphor for faith and why we should bet on it. It is not, however, good for discerning which faith we ought to place our bets on.

If you're going to recommend a proddy Bible, at least recommend the KJV which has the merit of being the most beautiful translation. As a Catholic, I wish we had that translation read in Mass instead of the "bumpy box car" ride of the New American Bible. I doubt your proddy Bibles are any better in this regard.

>just turn your brain off
Great tradition you have there

I never implied that. However, it is an amusing thought that an institution could last 2,000 years without reason. It would be miraculous, even.

How do I strengthen my faith?

Pray the Rosary daily. I started doing it and I've found an increase in my devotion.

Go to skidrow

You are lucky, we didn't have any of it. Our education included this in theory, but is nation wide on such a pathetic level most couldn't tell the difference between venial and mortal sin. We have religion class in public schools that's even worse. 12 years of it and it's inoffensive and ecumenical to the point of pointlessness.

Why do other "Christians" seem to dog pile on Catholicism? Saw on normie book this SDA/B posting about the Sabbath and such.

I would also like to ask your opinion on the Divine Mercy devotion and the luminous mysteries in regards to the Holy Rosary.

>Divine Mercy devotion
I like st. Faustina a lot, even did a read group of her diary with some other litposters
>luminous mysteries
Don't like them at all, too long and unfocused in what they evoke contemplation wise

Finding myself being drawn to a type of agnostic perennialism, even though I think I'd be much happier if I had genuine faith.

Don't have a problem with the Luminous Mysteries, honestly. It seems to me that with them in place the mysteries are kind of balanced now, between Glory and Obedience. The Joyful and Sorrowful Mysteries are about Obedience to God's will: in the Joyful, Mary's obedience, and in the Sorrowful, Christ's obedience. The Luminous and the Glorious, by contrast, are about the glorification of God and the celebration of his might and goodness: in the Glorious for Mary with her Assumption and Coronation, and in the Luminous for Christ with his signs and wonders.

The four mysteries speak to the duties of a Christian: we must both obey God and glorify him.

As a cradle Catholic who went to a Catholic school, I find myself agreeing somewhat. I feel I'm learning for the first time in some ways. In addition, I actually somewhat regret my Confirmation name due to my youth and just picking a name that sounded cool at the time. Though, the Saint I picked isn't that bad, but then what Saint is?

Here we don't have Catholic schools, but all public schools offer a Catholic religious class. It actively works against the faith because it makes it all seem so weak and trivial while being taught by women who can't enforce authority or teach the faith for what it is because of the curricular barries.

youtu.be/jCUV8OuOi5M
On the luminous mysteries

Divine mercy is good stuff

lift

I recently finished reading Silence and I loved it for it's simplistic style yet in-depth subtext. Can you guys recommend any books or authors like Silence/Endo?

Hello friends, what are some good sources or books to learn of Christian history? Good writing is a big plus

I'm a fan of Rodney Stark.

Primary sources are great, find a series of selected work volumes of the Church Fathers. Dawson is also recommend.

Flannery O'Connor and Graham Greene come to mind.

Start a crusade and slay all the heretics

Conversions>crusades

A
C A N T I C L E
F O R
L E I B O W I T Z

Wolfe>Miller