Catholic General

Is Genesis literal?

just our cucky pope m8, most catholics are conservative traditionalists

He's right, Catholics are rallying behind Trump in contrast with the Pope, which is surprising considering the portion of them who are Mexican.

catholic.org/news/politics/story.php?id=68163

Muslim here.

Do Catholics have any obligation to follow the stuff in Pope Francis' encyclical?

And how do you do have the time to read the whole thing? Or is it just your priest that's required to?

The issue here is semantics.

Do you understand that semantics doesnt mean meaningless or trivial?

Aquinas is making some very serious claims and claims that are a big sticking issue for the Schism.

youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

It would be if it weren't for the fact that the Seventh Ecumenical Council happened hundreds of years before Aquinas and gave dogmatic definition to these various terms, so as to clear up once and for all the iconoclast crisis, since the iconoclasts accused Christians of paying latria to icons. If Aquinas wrote in the 4th Century or something like that, then you could argue that it's just semantics, but he didn't, and he was an extremely learned man who was meticulously legalistic and was surely familiar with this council's rulings.

Bump

When were the works of the Church Fathers written how big is the gap between this and the manuscript evidence?

Church Fathers generally means anyone after the first generation of Christians, so basically 2nd Century onward. Roman Catholics have a cut off point, but the title of Church Fathers is still applied in the Orthodox Church continually, but it's generally takes hundreds of years to get the recognition.

Although technically Church Fathers includes the first generation as well, I just mean how the phrase tends to be applied.

How old are their manscripts/works?

>but the title of Church Fathers is still applied in the Orthodox Church continually,

What is the latest church father chronologically?

How old depends on which Church Father you're talking about. Saint Irenaeus is probably the most famous Church Father of the 100's, and his writings make is abundantly clear that Orthodox and Catholics are very much in line with the Church from long before Constantine legalized it.

Theophan the Recluse is the latest theologian often referred to as a Church Father, I think.

>The Orthodox Church

This is something that's always got me. Isn't the Orthodox Church fairly decentralized with a bunch of regional variations?

hello NSA

Yes, as His Eminence Hilarion puts it, the Orthodox Church, in contrast with the RCC< is a confederation of churches, as opposed to a centralized organization

He is a great theologian and an awesome composer: youtube.com/watch?v=4kC13O-GdMw

Then, how do they come to decisions like how to decide who is a church father?

A Church Father must be a canonized saint, must be well versed in theology, and must teach uncompromising truth. If all those standards are met, that's pretty much a wrap, it's just a question of enough time passing to make him venerable.

devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/

Here is a nice article on it by a former member

Could someone answer my question?

So I hate to ask this question since I know it's used as the butt end of a bunch of stupid jokes, but I'm genuinely curious. There are literally thousands of cases in just the past few decades alone of Catholic priests buggering little boys. How the hell does this reverberate in the Catholic community? Is this talked about at all? Is this viewed as a huge problem that needs fixing? I really enjoy the aesthetics of the church, the culture behind the church, and I've thought about joining, but that part is honestly a huge turn off.

>here is a nice article by an apostate

>How old depends on which Church Father you're talking about. Saint Irenaeus is probably the most famous Church Father of the 100's, and his writings make is abundantly clear that Orthodox and Catholics are very much in line with the Church from long before Constantine legalized it.

Is there a list of these along with the age of the earliest examples of their work like there is with the bible?

>Theophan the Recluse is the latest theologian often referred to as a Church Father, I think.

Dam that pretty recent and seems to really lower the bar for Church father status

>Im going to come to a Catholic thread and whine when people post works written by Catholics

>Pope who tried to stop it since before he was Pope ends up getting the shaft
>Pope who helped hide it gets made a saint

Pretty sad, desu

I've heard that they have a lower rate of sexual abuse than the general population

Now could someone answer my question

>Is there a list of these along with the age of the earliest examples of their work like there is with the bible?
I don't think there is any comprehensive list. The earliest I can think of is Ignatius of Antioch, who was born around the time Christ was Crucified, and was the direct disciple of John. Although he is often groups as an Apostolic Father, which means first generation Fathers, but I say Church Father because his work is not in Scripture.

Because the work is designed specifically to attack the Orthodox Church, it's not just some article on how to pray the Rosary.

>Dam that pretty recent and seems to really lower the bar for Church father status
Church Fathers all witness the same truth, that's what defines them. They don't innovate or add, and if they do, then they aren't Church Fathers

>and was the direct disciple of John

Citation needed

Could you answer my question

His letters

>Muslim here

>I don't think there is any comprehensive list. The earliest I can think of is Ignatius of Antioch, who was born around the time Christ was Crucified, and was the direct disciple of John. Although he is often groups as an Apostolic Father, which means first generation Fathers, but I say Church Father because his work is not in Scripture.

That seems to be a pretty serious problem given the central role they play in the faith

Show me where he says this

If you mean the Catholic Church as a whole this may be true but if you're just talking about the priesthood I honestly doubt it.

>Because the work is designed specifically to attack the Orthodox Church, it's not just some article on how to pray the Rosary.

He just explains his experience with the Church and why he left it just because he disagrees doesnt make it an "attack" anymore than your posts are attacks

Bumping for an answer on this post

>that part is honestly a huge turn off
Evil is literally everywhere. Also:

>Sue Widemark A Penn State historian, Philip Jenkins, has done in-depth research of pedophilia and sexual abuse among the clergy and has come up with some rather eye opening facts (Pedophiles and Priests, Anatomy of a Crisis, Oxford University Press, 1996, Paperback edition, 2001). It seems that while .2 to 1.7 percent of Catholic clergy have been guilty of pedophilia (or sexual abuse particularly of boys, p. 80-82), a whopping 10 percent of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of sexual misconduct with a 2 or 3 percent pedophilia rate (p. 50-52).

>This is all the more interesting, notes Jenkins, since there has been NO media term "Pastor Pedophilia" coined at all! Jenkins theorizes that the media, proving the 'point' of the 'necessity' of sexual promiscuity, overemphasizes any instance of pedophilia found among the Catholic clergy since it can use this to criticize the entire idea of celibacy. But it is interesting that the NON Celibate Protestant ministers have a MUCH GREATER problem with it than the celibate Catholic priests!

>Jenkins' research was based on several highly respected studies and statistics. He points out that whereas sexual misconduct has always been a problem, among Catholic and non-Catholic clergy as well as among the general populace, what is new now is that the 'problem' of priest sexual abuse, constructed by the media as a result of a 'moral panic' occurring in the mid-1980's.

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/SexInProtestantChurches.pdf

Constantine's posts are attacks

I can't give you a direct reference to the name, but he says that he wishes to be found to the company of the Christians of Ephesus, who were always of one mind with the Apostles, which gives him a direct link.

you are missing the point, the issue was that the Church hid these people when they knew it was happening and did not cooperate with the authorities until very recently.

It was the institutional aspect of it that was most horrific

It's an attack full of heresy, suggesting that Christ is not a living authority, but only the Pope is.

Hypothesis: No contemporary source links Ignatius to John, but only church tradition written down latter, which cannot be verified or falsified

To me I think the biggest problem isn't that the rate of molestation is necessarily greater in the church, it's that the church hierarchy itself has gone through great lengths to keep these events quiet. When they find out one of their priests has been diddling kids they don't call the authorities, they don't even bar them from the priesthood, they just move them to another diocese and hope they don't do it again. This doesn't happen in those other institutions mentioned such as school districts and the boy scouts. School districts will not defend child molesters. The boy scouts, an organization mostly run by parents, will not defend child molesters. Even protestant ministries do not have an entire infrastructure to rely upon like the Catholic Church does.

He's linked to the Apostles, tradition says John in particular. The simplest explanation is that tradition is correct, as opposed to saying, "Maybe it was another Apostle." Well, we know it was at least one Apostle, and tradition says John, so the Apostle is presumed to be John by default, as there is no particularly strong reason to presume another.

>He's linked to the Apostles,
Again, how do we know this.

>The simplest explanation is that tradition is correct

It is not logical to assume Church tradition is correct without collaboration by a source close to the event, archeology, etc. No one trained in the historical method would do this.

not condemning =/= condoning

>tfw haven't gone to confession in 5 years due to anxiety with talking with the priest
>My church doesn't have a confessional

I sort of want to go to a a traditional catholic church, but there's not that many around, and I wouldn't know the difference in etiquette between it and post-Vatican II etiquette, other than I've noticed that some people tend to dress more casually than how it used to be.

Is that honestly all you have to say on that issue

rosary, adoration, incense and low mass after a confession is maximum comfy.
heretics and heathens will never know those feels.

>It's an attack full of heresy, suggesting that Christ is not a living authority, but only the Pope is.

Catholics here would say similar thing about the comments and claims you make towards the Pope and the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

In respect to how far after the life of Christ would words/works attributed to the Church Fathers have to be before becoming suspect?

He's still Orthodox, just that he ecumenical

>church knows about the issue
>doesn't condemn and even turns a blind eye when it continues to happen

Look man they fucked up. It's obvious they wanted to maintain their public image. They were unwittingly condoning the behavior by not simply defrocking those priests when it occurred. They knowingly harbored and possibly still do harbor child molesters.

It's so simple. the Son of God came down from heaven. his direct disciples started the church based on His life and word. It is still here today.

Why anyone would listen to arrogant Germans with their own fanfaction, creating a massive abomination, is beyond stupid.

youtube.com/watch?v=kd66KXIbAjc
youtube.com/watch?v=xL2Hyve-kwg

>worshiping a dead kike on a stick

some women wear veils to mass at my parish and the lines for confession go out the door.
there are serious and pious churches still out there. finding one is key.

See

worse than atilla the hun.
Luther's lineage is responsible for all the megachurch "gospel of wealth" poison killing Christianity.

One day you will realize the depth of God's love and cry because of His infinite grace.
One day it will all "click".
He loves you no matter what. You can even thank him in person through prayer.
It's free, and all you get in return is eternal life.

you forgot the eternal torture possibility. oh yes God's love is a grand thing

FUCKING CATHOLICS GET OUT REEEEEEEEE

Nah jk

Question:
Why should there be a Pope and cardinals?

Hell is the absence of God.
If you choose to separate from Him, he respects your wishes. He wants us to live the best lives possible and even gives us the study guide. The rest is up to you.
You are constantly immersed in the presence of God whether you realize it or not.
When all of the love and grace is removed...well...you're left with what is described as Hell.
But hey, that apple of luciferian enlightenment was tasty, right?

>Hell is the absence of God.
Why does the RCC think this? You cannot even exist for an instance without God's love permeating and sustaining every fiber of your being. Hell is to be conscious of this, but to hate it.

honestly, infrastructure.
if everyone isn't accountable and "on message" then we end up like the goofy protestants, handling snakes and every "reverend" starting their own petty power-trip McChurch.

less fire and brimstone (active punishment), more of a sacred shunning (disappointed parents). i'd like to know more how hate factors in, though.

>And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-19

youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE

this

If you hate God, then you hate his energies. For those who love him, these energies are light, for those who hate him (or are deeply ashamed), they are fire (Hebrew 12:29). Heaven and hell are the same in Orthodox theology, but your experience of it depends on your relationship with God

So what are heaven and hell like?

youtube.com/watch?v=0e5lbnBMP2U

>Protestants

Heaven/hell just means the spiritual dimension. It fully intersects with the physical dimension, but sin veils our ability to detect it. Pray, fasting, humility, and so on, clear up your spiritual senses, which are purifies with Christ's blood. It is bliss if you love God, you can feel his love on every atom of your body and see it everywhere. Those who do not love God eventually become acutely aware of it with the Final Judgement, though, anyway, but it is deeply disagreeable to them, and they wish for the veil back to numb it.

Can I get ans answer to ?

Reconsilation is really hard to get to. All the parishes in my area offer such strange times like 7-9 AM on Tuesdays and Thursdays and noon on Saturdays. Kinda difficult to get a meeting with a priest and I have mortal sin on my soul. Gotta figure it out.

The core works are those collected in Scripture. The works not in Scripture are the generation after them. What makes a work suspect is whether or not it is in line with a contincious tradition, not how long after it is written. If there were some gap of a hundred years, it would be one thing, but there's not. There's plenty of writings in the first century, the second, the third, and so on, and the writings are deemed suspect based on whether or not they are in line with the thread of unchanging tradition which can be traced.

I think the great tragedy of our times is that this is no longer the case as atheism is not a willing rejection of God but a total ignorance. Its in the same vein of people saying you are just rejecting cosmic consciousness of the Jains or Allah. Islam and Jainism aren't even a factor in your thinking, at best they are a worry for material reasons or a quaint source of jokes,

We are literally living in the greatest age of apostasy the church has ever known and whats worse is that its not the church being attacked but faith simply rotting passively

>There's plenty of writings in the first century
completely false. we have no christian documents that date to the first century. The gospels are likely to have been written no earlier than the end of the first century. the first references we have to the gospels is mid 2nd century

...

Feel free to dismiss the following assertions outright.
There have been two descriptions from individuals brought back from clinical death through modern medical intervention who have described being sent to hell before revival.
Terrifying stuff.
Both secular, one man one woman, both describing being devoured alive by demons before revival.
Again, anecdotal at best, but for believers it can serve as a warning.
In fact, the man was so moved he dedicated his life to God (he was previously an art professor) and is now clergy.

Dear Big Brother Catholosism,

I'm sorry we left on such bad terms, and on such a spur of the moment. Surely now that we've both cooled our heads we can find common ground. I ended up being more like you than I realized, far more than the crowd I fell in with. What do you say?

Little brother Anglicanism

> If there were some gap of a hundred years, it would be one thing, but there's not.

But you've just said in earlier posts you don't actually know about their historicity source wise.

If they do come later on then it could easily be an example of the early church or its members being tricked or fabricating arguments to justify their views. [not that im saying this must be the case]

>Again, anecdotal at best, but for believers it can serve as a warning.

What about when this doesnt happen like in the case of NDE or when it happens to Muslims?

Does their faith suddenly get proof?

Yep, people have replaced Christianity with a vague construct of "I F#CKING LOVE SCIENCE". They think that because we can now read the blueprints we can dismiss everything else.

near death experiences =/= death. it doesn't even make sense in christian theology. how can you be brought back from hell? in order to be in hell you have to be dead. so if every person who has had a near death experience and was "brought back to life" then modern science has created a miracle on par with Jesus

The problem with "brought back from clinical death" is that what we think of as death that someone can be brought back from isn't exactly. Death isn't exactly an on/off process, but instead a transitional thing, and there is quite a wide margin in the process in which many classic signs of life wont be detectable, but a human can still be brought back.

Further, even secular people can't escape the fact the Christian notions of eternal paradise and torment are pretty fundamental in our society; there are depictions of them everywhere, and plenty of people that believe in them. So even if you actively reject the notion, it's still there in your mind, which will wander, as minds do.

My point is simply that I wouldn't put too much stock in it. If they were truly dead, they couldn't have been brought back, and even if they were secular they still have ideas of hell and such in their mind.

That's a terrific question. I remember hearing of a team at UVA studying it.

Its not just science its also vague mysticism. Even for the bulk of religious on census forms God is just someone who moderates luck and lets you see your dead friends and family when you die. Religion is literally evaporating into cultural superstition like black cats and the evil eye

I once talked to a priest who told me that people like Buddhists in Asia can go to purgatory if they do not have mortal sin on their soul at death. What do you guys think about that? Im sure they dont have too much of an opportunity to fully hear the good word.

So when do you date Paul's Epistles?