Best catholic books according to redditors
We found 4,272 Reddit comments discussing the best catholic books. We ranked the 1,434 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 4,272 Reddit comments discussing the best catholic books. We ranked the 1,434 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
First, the Gospels are not independent. Mark came first and Mark created most of the narrative template. Matthew and Luke both copy large parts of Mark word for word in Greek. Matthew copies over 90% of Mark's Gospel verbatim, Luke copies just over half. John does not copy verbatim, but seems to show knowledge of Mark and Luke and looks to be a free redaction of the basic Synoptic outline (although some scholars do still try to argue that John is completely independent of the Synoptics, but I believe this view is falling away, It's a least problematic).
More significantly,none of the Gospels were written by witnesses or anyone who knew witnesses. They did not even begin to be written until at least 40 years after the crucifixion and the last Gospel, John, was not finished until 100-110 CE. The Gospels are all formally anonymous. Their traditional authorship ascriptions ("Matthew, Mark, Luke and John") were attributed to originally anonymous writings in the late 2nd Century and all four of those traditions are now regarded as spurious by critical scholars. For a number of reasons, both internal and external to those books, scholars do not believe they could have been witnesses, and it should be stressed, they don't claim to be. None of the authors identify themselves, none claim to have seen anything themselves or speak in the first person at all except for Luke in his very brief "Theophilus" preamble. None of them even claim to have known any witnesses.
The Gospels also contain a number of factual errors, historical, geographical and legal, they contain demonstrably fictive narrative constructs and literary inventions and they contradict each other like crazy and in significant ways.
There is no evidence that the authors "risked persecution," nor is there any actual evidence that any of the disciples were persecuted or martyred for their beliefs. Those legends are 2nd and 3rd Century apocrypha with no demonstrable historical basis.
A good book on this is The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom by Candida Moss, who is a Professor of New Testament at Notre Dame.
The TLDR:
The Gospels are anonymous books written 40-70 years after the life of Jesus by non-witnesses living in a different country. When they are not copying each other, they are contradicting each other. All four Gospels contain errors of fact, and all contain demonstrable fiction. They are not reliable accounts, nor are they independent accounts and they are certainly not eyewitness accounts.
They literally worship a martyr. They figure that if they're not being persecuted, they're not doing something right, so they just imagine it for themselves.
There's a great book called The Myth of Persecution that looks into the history of this weird drive of theirs. It was present since the very beginning of the Christian church.
You may want to read God and the Gay Christian.
Hi there! Also a former raised-Catholic-but-not-really-former-atheist/agnostic revert here.
There are numerous - almost endless - amount of resources out there, regarding the Church. (Considering the age of the Catholic Church, it's not surprising.) If you had more specific topics you were looking for, I'm sure people here would be more than willing to point you in the right direction.
For more general sources by platform:
 
BOOKS
 
YOUTUBE
 
PODCASTS
 
MISC
 
This subreddit is generally good at giving solid answers and advice, if you had specific questions/doubts/inquiries. It was actually probably quite an instrumental player in my reversion to the Church. And like you said, head to confession ASAP! Welcome back home, friend.
Except some of the greatest advancements in biology, astronomy, and physics were done by Catholic Priests. The creator of the big bang theory was a catholic priest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
The "middle ages were dark ages where chants were used to cure diseases and everybody was miserable" idea is a Protestant myth created during the anti Catholic hysteria of the 19th Century. It has been debunked by actual historians like Rodney Stark and Thomas Woods.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Victory-Reason-Christianity-Capitalism/dp/0812972333
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375813215&sr=1-2&keywords=thomas+woods
You would really enjoy reading Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism by Scott Hahn.
Boy, have I got a book for you.
Catholicism has a long tradition of philosophers and theologians interpreting the beginning chapters of Genesis as true in the sense that great works of literature are true. St. Augustine, widely recognized as one of the greatest theologians, argued that the first day could not coherently be understood as literal since "day" and "night" require the existence of the sun, which according to Genesis was created days later.
Catholic doctrine, as currently developed, would allow from someone to believe that species originate from evolution. It would, however, make the exception that the human soul was directly created by God and cannot be reducible to material causes.
If you're interested in learning more about a Catholic perspective, you could turn to these sources:
Austriaco, Thomistic Evolution https://www.amazon.com/Thomistic-Evolution-Catholic-Approach-Understanding-ebook/dp/B0744LRNNP/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=evolution+catholic&qid=1557974519&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Ratzinger [Pope Benedict], In the Beginning https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Catholic-Understanding-Ressourcement-Retrieval/dp/0802841066/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=ratzinger+creation&qid=1557974569&s=gateway&sr=8-1
well for one, christian persecution at the beginning is something of a myth - there were some persecutions, but they were isolated events.
there's this idea that the romans just hungrily wanted all the christians dead because they were christians. however, christians at the time WANTED to be martyred - it was preached by bishops as a noble thing, it was played up in christian literature, and whenever christians were arrested they did everything they could to not co-operate so they'd be executed. (for more info, read Candida Moss' "The Myth Of Persecution", and Catherine Nixey's "The Darkening Age")
if the romans were so giddy to execute, and the christians happy to be nixed, there would be no christianity today. there woulda been no christianity by the time of constantine, to be sure.
if you want to talk about a religion that's been persecuted and survived, try judaism. compared to that culture, christianity is a wimpy crybaby.
You're in luck! Catholicism For Dummies, and it's really good.
Also, call your local church and ask to speak to someone in RCIY (Rites of Christian Initiation for Youth).
> I have no idea if this post contains anything insulting/against the rules/breaking some secret taboo. I just want to become closer to the family of the man I love.
This last sentence just made me smile so big today. We're a pretty thick skinned bunch, and hearing that you want to come into this with an open heart and mind, prompted by a man and family whom you love, is an occasion for joy. Welcome! We're happy to have you here. Please stick around and ask as many questions as you wish!
I want to make this offer at the beginning of this post, so it doesn't get buried. As you embark upon this journey, please feel free to keep my username handy and DM with any specific questions that trip you up or pique your curiosity. I mean that, I'm happy to be a resource in addition to all the wonderful folks who help this subreddit tick.
I'm a cradle Catholic, 28 years old, and I, too, feel like there's an eternity's worth of stuff to discover about the faith. It's always overwhelming.
I'm going to first echo /u/Trubea's sentiments, Catholicism For Dummies is an excellent resource book and worth picking up.
Given that your SO has been sharing lots of biblical stories with you it would also make sense to buy a Bible. I'd recommend the following for a very readable Bible with awesome footnotes, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a teaching companion to reference against. It may take time to dig really deeply into those, but eventually you'll want them.
Two YouTube channels (finally I'm recommending something free, right?) where you'll find great short videos on what the Church teaches, pop culture, and everything in between are found here:
Also, I've noticed you seem to be drawn to the "beauty" of the faith. The aforementioned Bishop Barron has some great media that I think you'd really enjoy.
Before I recommend too many more options that break the bank, I'll leave you with that. :) There are lots of free resources to learn about the Catholic Church online, as well. The teachings, the stories, the lives of the saints, the miracles, you name it! Just let us know what is piquing your interest the most, and we'll do our best to direct you to something awesome on it.
In the present, will say a prayer for your journey. Peace to you!
Scott Hahn’s book Hail, Holy Queen should address all your reservations about Mary. He also has several lectures on YouTube that could get you started. Here’s a good one. He’s a converted Protestant minister who wrestled with the concept of Our Lady for two or three years. He’s plumbed the depths. Any answers you need, he’s got them.
Also, I’d recommend praying the Rosary. That helped me work through my concerns. It’s truly a holy experience.
Turns out nothing has changed.
Almost all Christian martyrdom stories from early Christianity are false. Read all about it in this book book by Candida Moss.
There was a question asked about this very movie over at r/AcademicBiblical. u/brojangles gave an excellent point by point rebuttal of some of the claims made:
>500 eyewitnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 dates within 3 years of jesus' death according to Gerd Ludemann and a few months after the cross according to Gary Habermas
We have no dating for when Paul thinks this happened. 1 Corinthians 15 was written at least 17 years after Pal's conversion by Paul's own reckoning. This alleged "creed" is usually claimed to pre-date Paul, but that's conjecture based on style. Paul himself denied that he learned anything about Jesus from other people. There is also reason to believe that the Corinthians creed was tampered with or added to later, but assuming Paul is reciting a pre-Pauline creed (and this is not actually proved, even though it is generally accepted even by critical scholars), all it says is that Jesus was "seen" by people after his death. Nothing is said about exactly what they saw or where or when or what is meant by "seen." That could include a number of things, including dreams. Paul names none of these 500 people or says where to find them. It's also not an incident that appears to be known by the Gospels. so either it wasn't very important or (as I suspect) the 500 is a later interpolation. It doesn't mean much. A Fatima type even is possible or what is meant by "seen" could mean manifestations of the spirit or something. Paul gives some reason to think this when he says things like "God revealed his son in me" or says in Galatians 3:1 that Jesus was "portrayed as crucified before your eyes."
Paul also never says how he knows what these people saw or how he verified it, so this is an absolutely valueless claim. It certainly does not prove a dead body came back to life or even that anybody had thought a dead body came back to life. It's (at best) a second hand and completely uncorroborated claim that some people "saw" Jesus after his death, but doesn't say what that means, and it could men a lot of things. There is reason to believe that people first thought they had seen Jesus in Heaven, so a bunch of people staring at the sun until they thought they saw something would not be extraordinary. How did they even know it was Jesus?
>- 9 sources for post-mortem appearances (1 was a jewish persecutor called paul of tarsus with a very early report)
There is only one source. Paul (and he never actually says he was from Tarsus. That's only in Acts).
>- All we have to show for the resurrection is that Jesus died and was seen afterwards.
No. People see Elvis. People still see Jesus now. They have to prove that a dead body came back to life.
>The apostles were in a position to know whether or not their religion was made-up false hood or truth so they would not willingly die for a lie. Moreover, the disciples had no motivation to lie
There is no evidence that they died for their beliefs. This is 2nd and 3rd century Christian folklore. See Candida Moss' The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom.
We also don't actually know what the disciples claimed. There is no actual evidence that they ever claimed Jesus' dead body had come back to life and walked out of a tomb.
>- 5843 Greek manuscripts for the new testament which is in better shape than most historical documents that we would be lucky to find 5 manuscripts for.
Irrelevant. For hundreds of years, Christians were in charge of of what books got copied and preserved. The fact that Christians mostly copied Christian writings does not prove a dead body came back to life. A book having lots of copies also does not make it true. There are millions of perfect copies of Harry Potter novels. So what?
>P52 dates to 125 based on paleography so it is within 30 years of the autographs
The dating of P52 is contentious and it could be as late as 175. Even if the 125 date is accurate (which is really just an optimistic low end) it doesn't prove anything except that there was already a Gospel of John in the 2nd Century. It doesn't prove that a dead body came back to life.
>- No evidence that the Romans threw crucified bodies to the dogs.
Who says they were? The Romans either left bodies on the cross for scavengers (including dogs) or put them in shallow common pits, where they could also be gotten to by scavengers. Nobody says they were "thrown to dogs."
>The Romans did allow proper burial for some crucifixion victims
Asserted without evidence.
>- The 4 gospels and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ar all early sources that attest that jesus had a proper burial.
1 Corinthians does not say that. It says Jesus was "buried," not that he was given an honorable burial, which is the issue. Even Jewish law required that executed criminals be buried without honor, at night and without an audience. Jesus could well have been buried in a criminals' pit, but the odds are none of he disciples even knew what had happened to his body. If they fled when he was arrested, he would have been disposed of in an unmarked grave with other criminals, at night, without an audience and no one would have known where.
The Gospels are not independent. The empty tomb story originates with Mark and the other gospels got it from Mark. Mark himself says that nobody was ever told about it.
>The empty tomb eyewitnesses were all women and the testimony of women was deemed unreliable by jewish custom so why would the gospel writers make this up? Why would they make up unreliable eyewitnesses as the chief eyewitnesses to the resurrection?
First, it's not true that women could not be called as witnesses, they could in some circumstances, but it's not even necessary to talk about that because the women are not presented as witnesses. In Mark, they run away without telling anybody. This is Mark's explanation for why nobody knew about the tomb. Those stupid women were too afraid to tell anybody. The other Gospels all have the women running to the disciples and then the disciples go to the tomb, so the audience is not expected to take the women's word for anything. The legal restraints on women's testimony also does not mean that nobody ever believed anything a woman said in day to day life. That is a very stupid and tendentious inference to draw.
> Internal inconsistencies in the secondary details among the 4 gospels actually makes the accounts credible because it shows a lack of collusion and supports the notion of independent testimony.
No, because they are all fairly consistent when they have Mark as a guideline, then they fly off in totally different directions where Mark leaves off. Once they lose Mark, their appearance stories are all completely contradictory with no overlap. It's not different versions of the same story, it's three different stories, all of which contradict their original source text, Mark, which says that the women never old anybody about the tomb. The Gospels are not personal testimonies. None of them were written by witnesses or anybody who knew witnesses. The Gospels also all contradict the Corinthians creed, by the way.
>Shroud of turin may be authentic
Ridiculous
>Roberta waters, president of the american association of psychoanalysists who is an agnostic professor at indiana university states that A mass hallucination of 500 people is completely impossible
Fatima.
There is no actual reason to even discuss the 500 until we now exactly what it is they claimed to have seen, what the circumstances were, etc.
>- Even if the disciples and the 500 had a psychological hallucination, why was the tomb found empty?
There is no good evidence that there ever was a tomb at all, but a missing body proves nothing more than a missing body. There are some perfectly plausible explanations for how a body could go missing from a tomb besides magical reanimation. King Herod's tomb was found a few years ago. The body was missing from the sarcophagus. According to Habermas, this means that Herod was resurrected from the dead and Herod is lord?
>The swoon theory is "rubbish" according to Alexander Metherell
This is not even a real theory. This is an apologist strawman. I have never heard any critical scholar even suggest this. Everybody agrees that Jesus was dead. He just stayed dead, that's all.
Just for the record, though. Josephus said he saw a guy survive a crucifixion after being taken down.
>The crucifixion is one of the best attested events in the ancient world.
No it isn't. There isn't a single eyewitness report or bit of contemporary documentation. Why are they so comfortable just making shit up like this? Having said that, yes, we all agree that Jesus was crucified. So were thousands of other people. They are really proud of how easily they can knock down this non-existent "swoon theory" aren't they?
>- It takes a leap of faith to deny the resurrection as equal as the leap of faith required to accept it.
Does this even require a response. This is nothing but a a statement of personal faith.
Quick answers: No, you are not a hypocrite, and no, you're not horrible for letting the question of your career bother you.
As for what to do, I'm a lifelong Catholic, so I don't have a lot of experience that will help. However, I do know of other people who have been in similar situations. You may have heard of Dr. Scott Hahn...he's a prominent Catholic writer/speaker/professor of theology. He was a Presbyterian minister. I've never read his conversion story ("Rome Sweet Home"), so I'm not sure exactly how much he focuses on the difficulties of the situation, but this will probably help.
http://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sweet-Home-Journey-Catholicism/dp/0898704782/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343621786&sr=8-1&keywords=rome+sweet+home
There's also Jeff Cavins. He left the Catholic faith and became a Methodist minister, but eventually returned. http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Rock-Returns-Catholic/dp/0965922839/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343621960&sr=8-1&keywords=life+on+the+rock+jeff+cavins
Sorry I can't offer any direct assistance, but hopefully these will be of some help.
I suggest the following books by former anti-Catholic Presbyterian Minister Catholic Convert Scott Hahn. Read them yourself then give them to your boyfriend and discuss them with him.
Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism by Scott Hahn
And
Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God
If you want a book debunking the anti-Catholic myths about history of the Church. Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History is one for you. It's written by an agnostic who hates bad history. And also How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, although he is Catholic, it's still informative. And there's The New Concise History of the Crusades (Critical Issues in World and International History) by Thomas Madden, again an agnostic who refutes the baseless claim against the Crusade.
Two books that, as a Protestant, gave me genuine pause were On the Roman Pontiff by St. Robert Bellarmine (written in 1581... Bellarmine knocked nearly every anti-papal argument I inherited from the Reformed tradition out of the ballpark, he did it over 430 years ago, and somehow I had never heard of him in all my reading on Catholicism from the Reformed perspective), and The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortesque.
I had been introduced to Orthodoxy through Hank Hannegraaff and Jay Dyer, both of whom were heavily anti-Catholic. I didn't view the Catholic Tradition as having much of anything to offer, I was just trying to understand the EOC. In the process of researching sola Scriptura, I came across Called to Communion and found myself faced with formidable arguments for Catholicism I had never been introduced to! Since then, it's been a process of studying all sides.
You may find this book helpful: Eve Tushnet's Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding Community, Living My Faith
>Is there anything else I have to do?
Pray! Fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending Mass every Sunday! Make special note of any feast days or Holy Days of Obligation on your calendar! Spend time in contemplation before Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament!
This is a very exciting time for you. You get to discover all of the things that we cradle-catholics often take for granted. Learn about the Church's devotions, Her saints, Her disciplines. Explore different liturgies at different parishes. If you can find a Church with a beautiful choir that sings the Latin propers for Mass, give that a shot, just to experience it! Later on, you may even want to explore the Extraordinary Form of the Mass as well.
And read! Get your hands on a Catechism! Check out "Theology for Beginners" by F.J. Sheed.
Also look at purchasing "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic" by David Currie and "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott & Kimberly Hahn. You won't be disappointed.
This thread has been around for a few hours so I'm afraid this comment might get buried, but since nobody who has commented so far on this thread is actually Catholic, I'll bite.
There are a few fundamentals that need to be cleared up before I can progress to considering the four questions you posed.
Firstly, I am not sure as to whether or not Catholics are actually required to believe in the existence of a literal Adam and Eve. Though in Humani Generis Pius XII wrote that the faithful were to affirm the historicity of "a sin truly committed by one Adam," John Paul II made no mention of a historical Adam and Eve in his "Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution" (typically when a pontiff disagree with previous pontiffs, they do not call them out directly, but rather omit that with which they disagree from their own teaching).
The story of Adam and Eve is meant to implicate all humanity: before the fall they do not even have proper names but are rather referred to in the Biblical text simply as "man" and "woman" (seriously, go take a look). It is, then, entirely correct to affirm that these two literary characters, this primordial couple who disobeyed the will of God represents all humanity. Whether or not we can therefore claim that the story is completely allegorical and that Adam and Eve as such did not exist is beyond my competence, but for my part I do not think that the belief that they exist is technically required.
Secondly, original sin is a descriptive term for the fact that human beings are born with something deficient in their wills. This fact is obvious: human nature includes a desire to seize, possess, to advance the interests of the self over the interests of others, to elevate the ego (as Augustine observes in his Confessions). This, I think, is indisputable, and this deficiency, this willingness to prioritize the self over other people and over the good, is precisely what the term "original sin" means. The word "sin" in the term "original sin" does not mean that people are born with personal sin, that people enter the world already guilty of wrongdoing; rather, the word "sin" refers to a condition in which not everything is as it should be, in which something is lacking.
Perhaps the greatest revelation that Christianity brought into the world, the greatest "religious innovation," so to speak, is this notion that God is love. God wishes us to be united with him in love and does not wish to punish. Yet love to be real must be freely chosen; a love that is forced is by its very nature not love. If God allows us to participate in his being by loving, he is required to give us the choice of not loving.
Thus I think the "sin" component of "Original Sin" is entirely coherent. The difficulty lies instead with the "original" aspect—how exactly is it that previous sin entails that the rest of us also enter this world in a state in which something is lacking in our wills? I am not entirely sure (and the Catechism itself says that "the transmission of original sin is a mystery"), but my personal theory is that any sin, by its very nature as a turning-away from God, effects a separation between the physical and the divine realms such that when sin entered into the physical world, the physical world became imperfect. If this realm of existence has become tainted, we who come after the tainting enter a world of imperfection, of lackingness and thus are conceived in lackingness. Something—some element of salvific grace proper to the divine realm—is missing.
Perhaps the point at which human beings became capable of obeying or disobeying God was the point at which one of our ancestors was capable of giving him- or herself fully away, of surrendering himself not for his own good (and not for the survival of his genes either; as Dawkins brilliantly observed before he dabbled into fields beyond his competence, it is the gene that is truly selfish and thus we can observe seemingly "altruistic" behavior in animals like bees, who sacrifice themselves to protect their kin and thus perpetuate their genes even though they die) but rather for the good. The point at which a human being was able to surrender him- or herself for a good cause simply and exclusively because it was the right thing to do seems to be the point at which true love becomes possible, and thus relationship with God as well.
Says Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI:
> The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of "God". The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man ... herein ... lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.
-Ratzinger, In the Beginning...
Firstly, God is timeless. Therefore the span of time between the creation of the universe and the appearance of the first rational/moral agent is of no consequence.
Secondly, it appears that this universe is unusually conducive to life. Now, I'm a theologian, not a physicist, and so I may be talking out of my ass here, but as Martin Rees writes in Just Six Numbers there are six fundamental constants that "constitute the 'recipe' for a universe," such that if any one of them were even slightly different, this universe would be utterly incapable of producing the advanced forms of life capable of rational inquiry and moral reflection that are relevant to our discussion. For example, the value of the fundamental constant ε is 0.007, and "if ε were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist." Thus I don't think we can say that this is the case of a "laissez-faire" creator; rather, it would seem that this creator ensured that rational beings would eventually come to exist in the universe that he created and that we were thus intended.
Thirdly, God does not disappear from the scene at the point at which beings are capable of acknowledging him. He makes his presence known and is active in history (and with the incarnation he even enters history).
>Mary is showing me her Son more fully through this practice.
>
>I feel it makes me calmer and more at peace and close to the will of Jesus. It makes me a kinder person especially to my wife. It makes me kinder to my children.
YES! If only more non-Catholic christians understood this!
​
>I am ashamed for not wanting to be be close to Mary for so long.
If you're willing to take the next step, try "33 Days to Morning Glory" by Michael Gaitley. If you love Mary, then you won't regret it :D
I think he surrounding himself with all these homophobic information sources is just going to make it worse. Have you tried giving him a good book on being gay (or other information sources)?
I don't really have any to recommend unfortunately but you can probably find some good recommendations on one of the LGBT subs on reddit.
I think it would be good for him to have to other side properly explained to him.
EDIT: I've been trying to look up some good books. This one (God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines) seems pretty good so far. Building a Bridge by James Martin, Gay and Catholic by Eve Tushnet and Sexual Authenticity by Melinda Selmys also seem to be highly recommended pro-gay books on the catholic books part of amazon.
The sub r/GayChristians may also help
Like this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/GayChristians/comments/8sp5lu/im_a_christian_boy_in_high_school_and_im_gay/
Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn: A biographical account of how Dr. Scott Hahn, former Presbyterian minister, and his wife found their way into the Catholic Church, and why.
Behold Your Mother by Tim Staples: An apologetic defense of the Marian doctrine using Biblical and historical references.
Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn: Another defense of the Marian doctrine from Dr. Scott Hahn.
The Case for Catholicism by Trent Horn: A litany of apologetic responses to typical Protestant objections to and misunderstandings of Catholic teachings.
Catholic Answers Podcast: A weekday radio broadcast with various Catholic apologists and advocates for various Catholic issues.
Called to Communion radio podcast (with Dr. David Anders, available on EWTN's channel): A radio broadcast specifically oriented towards answering objections launched by Protestants. The host Dr. Anders is also a former Presbyterian seminarian.
> hard from an intellectual point of view
I'm sorry, I had to snicker when I read this. There is no other organization that has more intellectual underpinnings than the Catholic Church.
If you are having problems reconciling Scripture (exegetically or hermeneutically), you need to start reading academic books, such as those by Brown, Meier, Gonzalez, and Martos, just to name a few.
Helpful for me was Thomism and modern Thomists such as Feser.
That too is myth.
Source: I heard it on NPR from Candida Moss, author of The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (amazon link).
I suppose it will surprise you to know that the largest church in the world accepts evolution.
A quick comment before I start lobbing people for you to read. Most people stop learning about the faith at around 6 or 7 years old and so it's no wonder that once you read someone who can form a coherent argument against what you barely understand, your opinion is easily swayed.
So I'm going to give you some suggestions of people to read. Take them or leave them, but the Catholic intellectual tradition is amazing, so please at least consider some of these authors.
Chesterton, Chesterton, Chesterton. GK Chesterton's Heretics, Orthodoxy, and The Everlasting Man are all great reads and they're all online in text and audio for free. Chesterton debated all the greats of his age: HG Wells, Kipling, Bernard Shaw, and did so with courtesy and a great love of paradox.
CS Lewis' Mere Christianity is also a classic and keep in mind that Lewis was strongly influenced by his friend, you guessed it... GK Chesterton.
There's always Aquinas, who was so brilliant that he was even recognized by Monty Python (the philosopher's soccer match sketch). Seriously though, New Advent has his Summa (along with about a million other Catholic documents and texts) available for free. Aquinas gets pretty deep, and the Summa is really long, so you may want to start with a primer.
Moving into our own times, there's Peter Kreeft, who is one of my favorite philosophers.
Jennifer Fulweiler is an atheist convert, who writes a blog and does a lot of radio appearances.
If you love the science, check out The Catholic Laboratory; it's a podcast about the intersection of faith and science and how the two are really complimentary. After all, God created the laws of physics and rules the universe through them. Fr. Robert Spitzer is a priest and scientist, who has done some significant research on new proofs of God's existence using things like quantum physics.
Anyway, there's some stuff to get you started if you're interested in reading a bit to counter Hitchens and Dawkins. FWIW, I am a fan of Hitchens' writing, even if I disagree with him; Dawkins on the other hand I consider a no-talent hack, who should stick to science and leave philosophy and theology to other people. Reading Dawkins' take on Aquinas is like reading a young earth creationist writing about evolution. But I digress.
As far as the Church sex scandal, it's a tragic affair. However, you should really read the John Jay report on the scandal; this is an independently written report from the John Jay College that really nails down the causes of the sex abuse scandal (spoiler alert: celibacy had nothing to do with it). Also, if you read the statistics of abuse between Catholic clergy and other institutions (public schools, Boy Scouts, other religious institutions), you'll see that only 4% of priests between 1950 and 2002 were ever even accused and that the average abuse rate in other populations is around 10%. As for the cover up, at the time, the Church was doing what modern psychology said to do because the recidivism rate wasn't really understood (remember that the vast majority of these cases happened between 1950 and 1970). This website has some statistics on all of this and while it is published by the Church, all of the statements are cross referenced to non-church sources.
Anyway, I'll stop with the wall of text and even if you don't read anything I've suggested, I'm glad that your opinion of Catholics has improved. :)
You should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Catholicism by McBrien, it will be incredibly hard to unpack Catholic tradition and theology from just the Bible itself.
It's important to understand the Mass, and Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth is an excellent way to learn more about it.
>Basically, I need some Catholicism for Dummies
Catholicism for Dummies
Welcome!
As for required reading, the Bible is a good start. On its own, though, it's tough to crack. Fortunately, the same body that put it together is still around to help you through it. For an easier read, I recommend Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn. It's an excellent primer on what makes Catholicism unique and why it has a strong claim on being the true Church started by Jesus Christ nearly 2,000 years ago.
My best advice for you, in the meantime, is to go to Mass. Find the nearest Catholic Church and pop in for Mass on Sunday. Nearly every Catholic Church has a program called RCIA. It stands for Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. While the name sounds like you'll be committing to converting, the program is designed to answer your questions -- all of them -- before you get to that. Protestants believe in a "Come to Jesus" moment, a particular time when you just decide to become a Christian. Catholics hold that this isn't a moment, but a gradual process that requires full buy-in from both heart and mind. To that end, RCIA exists to answer questions and explore the many nuances, rhythms, lingo, gestures, postures, rubrics, and tenets of the faith. Only after your questions have been answered and you've come to understand what the Church teaches and why will you start thinking about the conversion process. We don't want people to come in and experience buyer's remorse. We believe that folks should know up-front what is involved with as much clarity as we can muster. Also, there is no set timeline. Some people stay in RCIA for years, inquiring and exploring the faith. Others may finish it in a single year's time. And in some cases, it can go faster than that still.
When Mass is over, hang around and speak to the priest. He'll be shaking hands with folks after Mass, most likely, so you can chat him up a bit when he's done. They don't get tired of hearing from folks like you! He might not have time to speak in-depth just then, but he can help you figure out how to start your journey, or set a time to meet later in the week.
We don't have different branches, per se. There are a few different rites, but on the whole, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church encompasses about a billion people worldwide, give or take. The Mass you'll hear is the same Mass you'd hear at most any other Catholic Church you could go to. The same readings, the same prayers, and so on. Sometimes it's in the vernacular, sometimes it's in Latin, but the Mass is the Mass. That's, to me, one of the coolest things about Catholicism. It really is a universal Church.
One last note would be, when you go to Mass, to refrain from receiving Communion. You can just stay in your seat. You won't be the only one by any stretch. And don't worry about saying the right responses or trying to follow along in the books in the back of the pews. Just listen and watch, and kneel, sit, or stand when other folks do.
Welcome again!
This is just a peasant from a small town in Colombia, who "inherited his powers from his father", and it's not in any way affiliated with any particular church.
On that matter, and if there's someone really interested in exorcisms or demonology from the Catholic perspective, there's a book by Gabriele Amorth, the Catholic Diocese of Rome's exorcist, who actually has dedicated much of his life to this duties.
According to the Wikipedia article, he has said many times that he would never practice an exorcism to a person that claims himself to be possessed, and has not seek psychiatric or medical advices before.
You'll shit bricks, even if you don't believe in those things.
EDIT: Spelling.
Hello! Perhaps this could be a good resource for you (for children)?
For you, I've seen on this sub (though please correct me if I'm wrong, friends) that Catholicism for dummies has been a good resource for many.
I wonder if people realize that the world unanimously world over had never considered two individuals of the same sex as a permanent union to be equivalent to male and female relationship, and certainly not as a "mother" and "father." These are just the facts. Even in societies through history where anal sex was practiced between men, it wasn't the way we imagine a gay relationship today. See this comment in /r/history. It's only been a very recent phenomenon relative to human history (and only in "The West") for this to be accepted as equivalent to a as a monogamous married couple, and certainly as equivalent to a mother and father in child-rearing ability, both in biological impossibility to procure offspring and practical ability to be "mother" and "father," which by definition requires individuals of opposite sex.
There are even some African tribes where homosexuality and masturbation do not exist.
It should definitely not be surprising to anyone that Malik is opposed to this. It's highly likely that nearly all people surveyed in recent history would have been, especially those not living in "The West." Christianity itself, which built Western civilization, is opposed to homosexual sex and unions.
Side note. There is a good book called An Exorcist Tells His Story. Its written by a priest that realized he was one of the few trained exorcists in Europe. So he wrote this book as a primer for priests of his experiences.
To save you the trouble, exorcisms come down to humility and communion with Christ. He says the best way to keep yourself safe from the demonic is prayer, communion with Christ, and repentance.
So pretty basic stuff. Nothing too Hollywood about it.
Edit: I feel like I should mention I read this book as a non-denominational charismatic christian and still found the information inside very accessible to a non-catholic.
I have the book perfect for you. It's a book by Dr. Brand Pitre called [The Case for Jesus] (https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483). It's written by a biblical scholar for the common man about the historical evidence for Christ and the reliability of the Gospels.
I'd recommend checking these out:
Plantinga, Alvin. God and Other Minds. Cornell University Press, 1990.
Feser, Edward. The Last Superstition: a Refutation of the New Atheism. St. Augustine's Press, 2011.
Plantinga, Alvin. Knowledge and Christian Belief. Eerdmans, 2015.
Pitre, Brant. The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ. Image, 2016.
Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Ignatius Press, 2017.
If he wants something easier to read, I'd recommend The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Brant Pitre. There's also audio recording for this subject matter from him and I believe it brings up C.S. Lewis's Trilemma (Lord, Liar, Lunatic). Afterwards, I'd suggest Brant Pitre's other books because he has a number of books that show how the Jewish Roots and Old Testament writings find its fulfillment in the New. If he wants to get deeper into it there's also a textbook sized Catholic Intro to Old Testament book from Brant Pitre and John Bergsma
​
Dr. Brant Pitre answers the following in the book:
• Were the four Gospels really anonymous?
• Are the Gospels folklore? Or are they biographies?
• Were the four Gospels written too late to be reliable?
• What about the so-called “Lost Gospels,” such as “Q” and the Gospel of Thomas?
• Did Jesus claim to be God?
• Is Jesus divine in all four Gospels? Or only in John?
• Did Jesus fulfill the Jewish prophecies of the Messiah?
• Why was Jesus crucified?
• What is the evidence for the Resurrection?
​
“This book will prove to be a most effective weapon… against the debunking and skeptical attitudes toward the Gospels that are so prevalent, not only in academe, but also on the street, among young people who, sadly, are leaving the Churches in droves.” – Robert Barron, author of Catholicism
Jay Dyer is a Protestant turned Catholic turned Orthodox turned SSPX turned Orthodox... I've seen him on Twitter being called out on certain points by serious Catholics and he just blocks them, that is when he's not shitposting... not arguing in good faith.
Listen, you're going to need to read...
https://www.amazon.com/Early-Papacy-Synod-Chalcedon-451/dp/1586171763
https://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=057Q3P8G8BYR2CDNDPNV
https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Early-Papacy-John-Chapman/dp/1475044909
Check out Erick Ybarra's stuff too, he even has some long form interviews on Youtube Jay Dyer prefers to debate people he knows he can beat in live interviews...
https://erickybarra.org/2018/02/11/does-the-filioque-subordinate-the-holy-spirit-to-creation/
Never was into BDSM, but I'm a guy, so take it for what it's worth.
Get into praying the rosary, and perhaps considering making a consecration to Mary (St Louis de Monfort talks this, as well as the book 33 Days to Morning Glory.
Mary is the absolute best defense against the attacks of the devil when it comes to lust. Take my word for it.
HAVE THEM READ THE BOOK GOD AND THE GAY CHRISTIAN. IT'S A GREAT WAY TO GET THEM TO REALIZE HOMOSEXUALITY ISN'T AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY, PARTICULARLY THE NEW TESTAMENT/COVENANT, AS PEOPLE THINK. IF THEY'RE WILLING TO PUT IN THE TIME TO VOICE THEIR OPINION TO YOU, THEY MAY BE WILLING TO PUT IN A LITTLE MORE TIME TO REALLY CHECK OUT THE SUBJECT.
God and the Gay Christian is a good place to start. If I get some downtime, I can try to sketch it out here.
Gay here, definitely didn't choose. In fact, tried really hard to will myself away from it. It didn't work.
The bible really doesn't say too much about it at all. There are a few verses about it in the context of lust and sex alone but that is about it. I am of the opinion that you can't really take these verses and apply them to a modern understanding of homosexuality, one that includes marriage, family and committed relationships. I think when the bible was written homosexuality was thought of as being a purely sexual construct and therefore was thought to always be sinful. Just like heterosexual relationships are if they are only experienced in a sexual aspect alone. Now that we know that gay people can accomplish all the things in relationships that straight people can accomplish, I think we need to re-evaluate the concept along with our new understanding.
There are a lot of LGBT affirming churches if you think that may be of help. You may also find /r/OpenChristian to be of help. If you are interested in learning more about the bible and homosexuality from a more affirming perspective, you may find this video helpful. Matthew Vines, the guy in the video, also has a book out.
Here are some posts that have been shared on r/Catholicism before:
While Catechism and official Church documents are the most comprehensive and clear way to answer virtually all your questions, they are dense, long and more like reference materials. I recommend The Faith Explained for a start.
Many people I know, including myself found Scott Hahn's "The Lamb's Supper" to be eye opening about the nature of the Church and the Mass, also life changing.
My faithfully Catholic sister recently married a fundamentalist southern baptist. If you wanna talk with a Catholic who has some 3rd-person experience in this situation, message me.
Personally, I think there's a lot of garbage, namby-pamby advice in this thread.
As Venerable Fulton Sheen said, "There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing."
If you believe the Catholic Faith is true, then presumably your end goal is their conversion. If it's not, it should be.
Perhaps the initial explanation won't go well. That's fine. Whatever happens, don't burn any bridges. Unfortunately, since it's today there's not much more prep you can do.
The best advice I can give is to come armed with what they think they know. Beyond the initial, emotional reaction, they will have arguments. Maybe not today, but they'll come. They already know what they're going to say. They already have their "Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon Talking Points" on a 3x5 index card (even if it's just a mental index card.) So what do you do? Surprise them. Steal their lines. Ask questions that they aren't expecting. Since you already know all of the anti-Catholic talking points, you are (hopefully) well prepared to counter them with clarity and charity, using Holy Scripture as your guide.
Also, remember you're not alone in this. LOTS of fantastic people have made this conversion. Here are a few book recs that are relevant.
Catholicism and Fundamentalism
Rome Sweet Home
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic
Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church
I haven't read this one yet, but it also looks awesome. Dr. Brant Pitre also writes on this topic:
The Fourth Cup: Unveiling the Mystery of the Last Supper and the Cross
If you are in college, seek out your Catholic Campus Ministries program, if you have one, and speak to the representative about RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults).
If the college has no CCM (or its equal), then seek out the local parish in your area and speak directly to the pastor about converting to the faith.
Before all of this, though, pray.
If the pastor you go to makes you feel like you have to run the gauntlet to join the Roman Church - this is a good thing. We have too many lukewarm Catholics who do not practice what the Church teaches. If you're going to join, we want you to be all-in.
Next, study. Do your own research with the Scriptures, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Canon Law to be your guide.
If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them here (or with your local pastor).
Edit Recommended Reading
I also recommend watching some episodes of Catholicism by Fr. Robert Barron.
Oh boy...
Interestingly, the professor's daughter is a celibate lesbian Catholic. Eve Tushnet, author of Gay and Catholic
The quote has been attributed to him. It can be found in The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection by Benedicta Ward found here.
Two caveats:
That said, I have read speculation that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Joseph Cupertino both may have been autistic.
Whether or not he may have been on the Autism Spectrum, St. Thomas is fruitful reading. I would encourage starting with the biography, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox by G.K. Chesterton. This is widely regarded as the best biography of the man himself. The Summa Theologica is beautiful, logical, and comprehensive. Peter Kreeft's A Summa of the Summa is a great place to start reading the work of Thomas himself.
One of the best summaries of our Church's contribution to all of Western civilization is How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization
I'm a member of the Society of Catholic Scientists, and hopefully soon we'll publish the results of annual conferences.
Reading through your responses to comments so far, and the strength with which you argue back, it kinda sounds like you were asking this just so that you could refute it.
In case I'm wrong, and I really hope I am, I would suggest the book God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines. It lays out the arguments well, in a far better context than Reddit can, with a lot of footnotes and references, and does so from a conservative Evangelical perspective.
You don't need to agree with it, but it will give you the answer to the question you are asking here.
There are two (or more) aspects to "proving God exists" - you could prove His existence intellectually and still not feel Him, if you know what I mean.
Books that deal mainly with the intellectual arguments abound, from the Summa contra Gentiles to The Last Superstition or Answering Atheism.
But that doesn't directly address the emotional side; for that I'd recommend things like going to Adoration and just sitting there, and reading books such as The Confessions (this is a good introduction).
Read Answering Atheism by Trent Horn or the Q&A section of WLC's website.
Addressing your last question first: It is always good to hear someone out, no matter who they are or what they believe.
---
Some reading recommendations:
Start with the bible sections I've listed below, then move on to whichever of the books I have listed sounds most appealing to you. I don't want to bog you down if you don't have the time. (I personally would start with Feser)
Matthew 16:17-19 would be a good place to start. Then Isaiah 22 would be a place to see where that fulfillment in Matthew is met. As well as John chapter 6. These won't necessarily give you inclinations to believe in God, but they will give you the sense that if you believed in Christianity, then Catholicism make the best case over all other christian religions. To give you more context you should google Catholic sources for commentary on those readings.
Beyond the bible:
Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Ed Feser
The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Brant Pitre
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre
Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed
Here you go
You need the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Don't neglect the references!
No. True Christians ^^TM stick to the Catechism
Sure. Well, let me make a couple suggestions:
The Catholic Church copied and preserved books, taught literacy, built schools, hospitals, libraries, observatories and universities.
Galileo was taught the 3 R's by Catholic Priests. He attended and worked at a university built by a pope. He did some of his most important work while under house arrest (basically a paid vacation).
Without the Catholic Church there would have been no Galileo.
A good book is Thomas Woods' How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Granted Woods may have some preconceived notions. But then so do the New Atheists who have been dropping so many steaming piles of bad history.
Speaking of Tyson... His cautionary tales against religion are based on invented history. Examples:
Tyson claims the Islamic Golden Age came to a halt when cleric Hamid al Ghazali wrote that math was the work of the devil. Except that Ghazali never wrote that. Nor did Islamic innovation end with Ghazali. For example the father of symbolic algebra was born 300 years after Ghazali's death. More here
Another cautionary tale based on fiction: Tyson claims Newton could have easily done Laplace's perturbation theory in an afternoon but he was paralyzed by his belief in the God of the Gaps. After all it was Newton who invented calculus on a dare. In two months! Before he turned 26!
Well the "dare" Tyson speaks of is Edmund Halley's famous query. Halley asked his question in 1684 when Newton was 41. Just about everything Tyson says about Newton is addled bull shit. See Thony Christie disembowel Tyson's bad history. I also write about Tyson's addled history on Newton here
Rome Sweet Rome by Scott Hahn
You might look into other books that won't tempt a person into getting over his head.
Assuming you don’t want your son to leave the Church you might want to start looking for LGBT Catholic resources.
USCCB has resources here. Including Courage , a Roman Catholic Apostolate and EnCourage I support program for families.
There are also books.
Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity
Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding Community, Living My Faith
Why I Don't Call Myself Gay How I Reclaimed My Sexual Reality and Found Peace
If you're looking for any reading on this question, I might recommend:
Side A: Changing Our Mind (David Gushee)
Side B: Gay And Catholic (Eve Tushnet), or Washed and Waiting (Wesley Hill).
Side X: I dont' really have anything for this. This is a super minority position.
I pray for the best in your questioning. The vast majority of Christians do not believe you are committing an offence by having gay preferences, so the vast majority would have no reason to reject you for that.
Let me focus on your claim about the martyrdom of the saints, and whether that really serves as evidence for the claims of Christianity. Sorry for the essay, hopefully my points are clear.
If you are really interested in a deep dive I'd encourage you to listed to a 3-episode series of the (Atheist) podcast Reasonable Doubts:
The guest in episode 113 is Candida Moss, who just released a new book "The Myth of Christian Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom". Candida Moss is not an atheist, she is a Christian, and a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame.
I haven't read the book, but I've listed to the podcasts several times, and I think I can summarize the arguments and discussion:
The first and most significant problem with the "Argument from Martyrs" is that it accepts the narrative of the book of Acts and the epistles in the New Testament at face value. This is circular reasoning: the truth of the New Testament is what is in dispute. We (atheists) don't accept the accuracy or reliability of the Bible, so you can't use even the mundane parts of the New Testament narrative (the journeys of the apostles) to argue for the truth of the miraculous ones (Jesus' resurrection).
Secondly, extra-biblical stories about the martyrdom of the apostles from early church tradition are highly suspect. They seem to have appeared 2-3 centuries later, and bear characteristics of mythology, not history. This is one of the main points of Moss' book, so I'd encourage you to listen to the first podcast or pick up her book for full details and documentation.
Third, the "Argument from Martyrs" is sometimes summarized as "why would they die for a lie?", but when you really flesh out the argument, it has a very high bar to pass. Just any believer being killed isn't enough; after all, we don't count modern Muslim martyrs as evidence for the truth of the Koran, right? For this argument to really work, the believer has to have the following characteristics:
There are no disciples who's death meets all these criteria. Paul and Stephen are ruled out, they were not eyewitnesses. Other deaths in the book of Acts, if you read the narratives carefully, either read as executions of political/social troublemakers, or provide no opportunity for them to recant.
And finally, even the core claim "nobody would die for a lie" is provably false. There are probably a hundred reasons someone might die for something they knew was false. Here are an easy half dozen off the top of my head:
Take a modern example: the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith. In his early life he was convicted of fraud for a variety of scams involving "seer-stones" he read while gazing into his hat. Later he claims to have been given the Book of Mormon by the Angel Moroni, which he translated from "reformed Egyptian" (a made-up language) while reading magic golden plates (that nobody else saw and later disappeared) in his hat. Sound familiar?
To anyone (except a devout Mormon), it is clear that Joseph Smith was a fraudster, and knew that he was inventing a religion out of the air. He knew that it was a lie, and yet he held firm to his teachings until his death in 1844 at the hands of an angry mob.
Do we take that death as evidence of the truth of his religion? No, we don't.
Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions.
His league is pretty much normal academic Biblical scholarship. He just condenses the issues for layman audience.
Check out r/AcademicBiblical
u/brojangles always has good responses.
Elaine Pagels has good books on Gnosticism and early Christianity.
The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom, Candida Moss is a good one.
And they will continue to believe that christians have been persecuted since Roman times even though that is not true. Even a Notre Dame historian had to admit the historical christian persecution is just another sales tactic to get money from the dimwits.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527
I'd recommend learning more before you consider converting- you've got time. Some books I'd recommend are:
Different parishes have different styles- you should potentially ask your future husband about "parish shopping" once you're married and settled down somewhere, so you can find a parish where you both feel at home.
Scott Hahn has an interesting book in which he looks at Revelation as an allegorical representation of the Mass.
> I would just love some advice from you guys, where to go first, maybe some recommendations on reading.
Welcome home, brother!
Here is a listing of parishes that are close to North Dallas (75230 zip code). Hopefully one of those locations are close to where you will live. Once you find a parish, go to Confession and start going to Mass again. If you need help with following the Mass, pick up a missal.
As for what to read, grab yourself a Catholic Study Bible and a Catechism. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask us here at /r/Catholicism.
If you like math classes like geometry where there are "proofs" (i.e. starting from a very small set of assumptions, what theorems follow logically from that) then you would enjoy reading Summa of the Summa
https://www.amazon.com/Summa-Thomas-Aquinas/dp/089870300X
The most compelling argument for "miracles happen" is that, if you deny the existence of miracles, then Christianity (fragmented and flawed though it is) took over the entire world (and permanently warped everyone's thinking, even atheists, about how we should behave toward one another) without any miracles, which itself appears to be such an unnatural occurrence as to be called a miracle.
I'm gonna put in a shameless self-promotion for Catholic Word of the Day to get you up-to-speed on some of our vocabulary (along with some trivia).
But also check out Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers for some basic stuff. Bishop Robert Barron also produces good content, as does Fr. Roderick Vonhogen.
Also, check out Rome Sweet Home by Dr. Hahn and Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie.
But also, ask us around here your specific questions! We love answering questions from Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
Very different.
Instead of pulling things using words I am not good with, I will throw these one in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJCbCs-y1_k
Also, from the point of view of Catholicism, other faith is incomplete at best and erogenous at worse. Church is more than just structure, or how things is run -- Presbyterian as a whole also have their own issues, though the local church, of course, is fine -- just like how a local catholic church is fine.
For what it's worth, by all means tell your mom you do not find any difference between Prebysterian and catholic. when people ignore the doctrine as passed down by apostles and make up what they think Catholicism is, or how it should change, of course there is no differences. Hopefully this will deepen the faith of your mother.
I will also recommend the Rome Sweet Rome Book
I third Rome Sweet Home. Totally worth the $10, or you can see if you local library can get it for you (that's how I read it).
As evidence against the heretics that the true Apostolic faith was preserved in the legitimate succession of the Catholic (Orthodox) bishops, Irenaeus gives as an instance the succession of the bishops of Rome down to his own day. And he adds, "it is a matter of necessity that every Church should [agree] with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority". (The proper translation of the bracketed word, "agree", is disputed by some.)
I don't know that any among the Orthodox deny that, or question whether, the Bishop or Rome is Peter's legitimate successor. And it was to Peter (and Peter alone among the Apostolic college) that the keys of the kingdom were given. Peter alone was tasked by our Lord with strengthening his brethren, with feeding his sheep, and tending his lambs.
Ambrose writes, "Where Peter is, there is the Church".
It isn't a matter of primacy so much as agreement in doctrine and, through that agreement (or because of it), communion at one altar, sharing one loaf, one body of Christ.
One objection from the Orthodox to Irenaeus's words is that Rome was preeminent with respect to being located at the seat of Imperial authority. But I don't know of any good theological reason why a Patriarchate should be considered greater or lesser (more or less preeminent) on account of its proximity to the Emperor. Nor why Irenaeus should say Rome was preeminent for that reason.
Much of what I would have to say on the subject of Roman preeminence comes from the writings of Adrian Fortescue:
The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451
The Orthodox Eastern Church
The Lesser Eastern Churches
Trigger warning -- I think (from my perspective) that Fr. Fortescue is fair and, as far as I can tell, is faithful to the facts. But he is Catholic, and his motivation is to show how the Orthodox arguments against papal authority (i.e. jurisdiction) are false, etc. He isn't politically correct.
I would be very interested, if someone else (Orthodox) read these books, if they found anything factually in error, if they could relate those errors to me.
For anyone taking the "If Pope, then Catholicism" route, check out:
Chapman, John. Studies on the Early Papacy
Fortescue, Adrian. The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451
Rivington, Luke. Roman Primacy, A.D. 430-451
Scott, S. Herbert. The Eastern Churches and the Papacy
I don't think I'll be able to get my hands on it for a while, but I'll be sure to read that as soon as possible.
Just in case you would also like to do some research, this book is very popular in gay Catholic circles: https://www.amazon.ca/Gay-Catholic-Accepting-Sexuality-Community/dp/1594715424
Well, An Exorcist Tells His Story, Hostage to the Devil, The Demonologist, parts of the Bible (KJV and NIV for comparison). It's difficult to find much good information on the Internet that isn't awash in silly spiritism or confrontational Christianity.
In the Catholic Church and most non-evangelical denominations, the person who is believed to be possessed is examined thoroughly by medical and psychiatric professionals. Sometimes these professionals are religious, sometimes they're not. When this person is cleared by the pros but the problems persist, the local bishop will authorize an exorcism.
People who are possessed (or oppressed or obsessed) range the full spectrum from complete atheism to devout faith. Their behavior can change violently if a holy item is brought near to them, even if they can't see it and have no reason to expect its presence.
The only way to explain all of this "rationally" is to decide that all of these books are complete fiction, that all the authors are liars, and that none of it ever happened, or didn't happen the way that they depicted it. You have to toss out everything.
In fact, you have to accept a conspiracy of lies, because these stories are everywhere and crop up constantly. You have to assume that all of the people who have come forward on these TV specials are crazy, horribly mistaken, or desperate for notoriety. All of them. That is not a statistically likely outcome at this point, given the sheer amount of data.
And neither is it an obscure process of nature which is just poorly misunderstood. Obscure processes of nature don't lift a 400 pound refrigerator and fling it across the kitchen.
I know I'm probably going to get counter-arguments on this. I really urge those people to read one of these books before they do so. Because what you understand of this phenomenon through popular culture is about 90% wrong.
Four hours in and no one has mentioned Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger yet?
Apparently this woman has a book coming out next month:
Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding Community, Living My Faith (Amazon link)
Not directly answering your questions, but could suggest you have a look at "Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding Community, Living My Faith" by Eve Tushnet.
Rather obviously from the title this is written from a Catholic standpoint, but I believe it examines some of the issues that you raise in your post and perhaps answers some of your question - and in doing so does not conflict with Church Teaching.
(In saying this I am not necessarily endorsing what Eve writes, but I think it is something that might be worth you thinking about as I think she specifically addresses your questions):
From the blurb:
"In this first book from an openly lesbian and celibate Catholic, widely published writer and blogger Eve Tushnet recounts her spiritual and intellectual journey from liberal atheism to faithful Catholicism and shows how gay Catholics can love and be loved while adhering to Church teaching.
Eve Tushnet was among the unlikeliest of converts. The only child of two atheist academics, Tushnet was a typical Yale undergraduate until the day she went out to poke fun at a gathering of philosophical debaters, who happened also to be Catholic. Instead of enjoying mocking what she termed the "zoo animals," she found herself engaged in intellectual conversation with them and, in a move that surprised even her, she soon converted to Catholicism. Already self-identifying as a lesbian, Tushnet searched for a third way in the seeming two-option system available to gay Catholics: reject Church teaching on homosexuality or reject the truth of your sexuality. Gay and Catholic is the fruit of Tushnet's searching: what she learned in studying Christian history and theology and her articulation of how gay Catholics can pour their love and need for connection into friendships, community, service, and artistic creation."
There's a really good book by Thomas E. Woods called How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. I believe his chapter on International Law briefly discusses Columbus. Once I get home this evening I'll check and see.
Edit: It turns out that Dr. Woods only uses Columbus as a way of introducing the topic of international law, and does not talk about Columbus himself.
So as a consolation prize, here's an article and video by Michael Knowles, with Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, arguing that Christopher Columbus was a good guy.
And there's scholarship to suggest that lots of the martyrdom stories are later romantic inventions of the church fathers who were obsessed with the ideal of a "good death". This coming from Christian scholars even.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527
You don't have to toss your KJV. As a convert from Protestantism, I still have mine as well. For studying, I would suggest the Ignatius Bible (RSV-CE) and you will probably be given another Bible in RCIA. You should definitely pick up The Catechism of the Catholic Church if you don't have one already. You will be given one of these in RCIA as well. It would answer a ton of your questions (and of course, this subreddit as well, heh)
Next, there is Catholic Answers, one of the best online resources to find what you need.
about the music, yeah, if you feel some negativity like anger from your music you might want to tone it down. it will be hard if it's your favorite but do what you think is best.
> And we open our Bibles to three different passages on Sunday Mass to make one coherent message.
Actually, four! The first reading, the psalm, the second reading, and the Gospel.
And we actually open the Bible in other places too: the Lord's Prayer, "Behold the Lamb of God," Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts), "Lord I am not worthy ..." and so much more. Scott Hahn in the Lamb's Supper speaks about his first experience at Mass and how he thought he had wandered into the Book of Revelation.
Talk about a Bible Church. ;)
Before beginning, the Church doesn't have any stance on premill vs amill, so both are perfectly allowable. That being said, a very large number of the Church Fathers were amill, so it's definitely a good idea to become well-acquainted with it, at the very least.
I tend to lean more amill, so I'll try to give an overview of why I think so. Primarily, I am just generally weary of taking a strong stance on prophecy in the Book of Revelation. It's all highly symbolic, yet somehow grounded and real. I tend to believe most of it is describing actual historical events as well as future events at the same time, with the past events being types of the future events. For example, I generally think Babylon and its destruction correspond to Jerusalem, Rome, and a future event(s) all at once. The difficulty for me is distinguishing which details refer to which event. Certainly, the destruction of Babylon seems to match different details of the destruction of Rome and Jerusalem at the same time. Applied to the Millennium specifically, I generally think the thousand years is referring to the reign of the Church on Earth as the Body of Christ, as well as possibly to a future event of some sort. I'm quite weary of believing that it will be a literal 1000 year reign given how often 1000 years is used in less-than-literal comparisons in the rest of Scripture. Perhaps the Millennium is entirely the reign of the Church described from a spiritual perspective, which is why it appears so different from present reality. Like most things in the Book of Revelation, I honestly don't know and wouldn't bet money on anyone's guess.
Beyond historical vs. future events there is a further issue. The Church emphasizes a strong connection between the Book of Revelation and the Mass; for more details, The Lamb's Supper is a nice summary. With that additional perspective, events in Revelation may be describing things in the liturgy, things presently and perpetually going on. This particularly lends credence to amill for me.
To connect this back with your objection: The difference lies not simply in amill vs premill, but rather in whether one can discern a universal ordering/timeline in the Book of Revelation, or whether events being described are definitely in the past, present, or future. Once I began to believe that it could be all three all at once, I started to think that being premill or amill or even postmill to the exclusion of the other(s) was too strong of a position to take. For this reason, I am generally weary of arguing any point from the Book of Revelation that is not a bald statement of fact or has multiple likely interpretations.
Hope this helps! Let me know if there's anything I can clarify, or if you have any more questions.
Thank you for this! As a former protestant, I really hope there will come a day you are welcomed in the Catholic Church and receive Holy Communion! It'll be so worth your time to see how Catholics support their beliefs in the Real Presence and what the Mass is with Scripture and Early Christian writings.
> But where in scripture does it say that?
Your question may be better answered if you learned about the Mass itself and the origins in scripture and Tradition. Scott Hahn has a good book discussing this topic. Called The Lamb's Supper. See if your library has it. Give it a read.
I'm not a non-practicing Catholic, but rather a poorly catechized Catholic for whom, up until about two years ago, Mass felt arbitrary, pointless, and especially, boring. I kept going because my whole family did, and my family structure is such that the problems I'd face by not going would have canceled out any perks of sleeping in on Sundays.
Either way, the questions remained: Why am I doing this? What does this all mean? Is it really so hard for a parish to make a mass that's at least mildly fulfilling and entertaining?
I also felt pretty bad because there was a part of me that knew that the ideal was to want to go to Mass every Sunday, and although I considered myself a spiritual and good person, I just didn't.
The answer? I was simply ignorant of what the Mass truly was. And on a deeper level, I was unaware of the tremendous love God has for me. I think Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper is super insightful on both fronts. I implore you to check it out.
Here's where it gets less nice: you have put your soul in grave danger by missing Mass for no good reason. Please don't wait til judgement day to discover the consequences of it. While it's unexpected to overturn years of apathy in a few days, you might not have forever to figure it out.
Make a sincere confession (general and specific) and begin attending Mass on Sundays. Be honest with God when you're there. Tell Him you honestly don't enjoy being there and can he do anything about it? The God that died for us would definitely throw a little something our way to remind us He's there and He wants us.
Hope this helps, I'll pray for ya.
A helpful popular level book is Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper.
First of all, welcome back, brother. I am especially touched that your fiancée would even suggest to find a Catholic Church. (As an aside, you're not a convert; you're a revert since you're already baptized into the Church. I thought maybe you'd appreciate that factoid.)
​
>I am looking for information about your Church, whatever you think is important to know.
There is a lot to know and many here would recommend a million and one things to study, especially since it sounds like you enjoy a good intellectual pursuit. I'm not going to discount others' recommendations, but I do want to highlight one thing: learn more about Jesus first. Find out what He taught, who He is, what His disciples and closest friends said about Him, what the Old Testament said about Him, etc. To that end...
​
>I am looking for recommendations for a Catholic-approved version of the Bible, geared towards someone who appreciates philosophy and prefers something close to the original translations, or the most accepted by the Church.
First thing to note, all Catholic Bibles have 72 books. Protestants have 66. If you can't get a hold of a Catholic Bible, a Protestant one will do for now until you do get around to buying a Catholic one. Now, as for Catholic Bibles, if you speak/read Latin you can't go wrong with the Vulgate Bible. It's a Bible that was translated by St. Jerome who was fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; he had the original manuscripts -- some of which are lost to us today -- so his translations are widely accepted as authentic and faithful.
There's also the English version of the Vulgate Bible known as the Douay-Rheims. It's an almost word-for-word translation of the Latin so the English will sound archaic to our modern ears. It's not as frustrating as, say, reading Shakespeare but it's pretty close. I personally prefer (and currently use) a Douay-Rheims Bible that has the Clementina Vulgata beside it. It's essentially Latin and English side by side. You can find one here.
If want one with plain English, the New American Bible Revised Edition would suffice. (If you use this website, let me know. I have a discount code from my last purchase.)
​
>I know nothing of the culture or norms of the Church, or what to expect as a new member.
One major rule to remember is that you can't receive Holy Communion until after you've gone to Confession. Given your situation, I would recommend setting up an appointment with a parish priest so he can give his full attention to you and your needs.
​
>I do not know how to introduce myself to the congregation
There's usually no need to introduce yourself to the congregation since parishes tend to be big. If you would like to formally introduce yourself, however, give the parish priest a call and set up a meeting with him. It would also be a great chance to speak with him about your situation and get some pastoral guidance.
​
>or tell a good Catholic church from a lesser one
Many here would recommend a more traditional parish. If that's not available, I'd say any Catholic church would do. If you're unsure about a particular church's standing, just give us the details on this sub. I'm sure someone here would be able to double check for you.
​
>I know nothing of the Saints or the miracles, or what has been confirmed by the Church and what hasn't.
These are things you can learn later on. Focus on Jesus first. Rebuild your relationship with Him. Start with the basics; if you don't, you might burn yourself out. There is A LOT to learn about the Faith. Some say it's a lifelong endeavour. :P
​
>I am also looking for a reading list to explore Catholic philosophy beyond those you typically encounter in standard philosophical reading, such as Aquinas or Pascal.
Hmmm... this depends on what sorts of things interest you. A good one that lightly touches on philosophy is Socrates Meets Jesus by Peter Kreeft (anything by this guy is pretty good, by the way).
A book that may be more pressing to your current situation is Why Be Catholic? by Patrick Madrid and Abraham Skorka, Why We're Catholic by Trent Horn, as well as Why I am a Catholic by Brandon Vogt. (They might need to work on a more original title, though :P) Since you have an Evangelical background, Crossing the Tiber by Steve Ray might be helpful (although it can be a bit dry; also, it mostly deals with the Church's teaching on Baptism and the Eucharist) as well as Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.
You can never go wrong with classics such as a collection of C. S. Lewis' works, The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, The Seven Story Mountain by Thomas Merton, and Confessions by St. Augustine.
If you want a historical examination of Jesus and the Early Church, a good place to start is The Case for Christ by Brant Pitre, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine by St. Eusebius, and The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. I'd like to thrown in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David J. Hess. This last one pertains to the Catholic claim regarding the papacy (and which I think is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Catholic Church being the original one that the Lord founded).
Finally, there are YouTube channels you can follow/binge watch such as Bishop Robert Barron and Ascension Presents. Also, an amazing video about the Catholic Faith is a series made by Bishop Barron when he was "just" a priest called Catholicism.
I'm sorry if that's overwhelming but you raised some good questions. :P Anyway, I imagine it may be a lot right now so take it slowly, don't dive in through all of it at once. Find a local Catholic church, call up the priest, set up a meeting, then take it from there. And remember, you can always pray; God's always willing to talk with you.
Yep.
Non-fiction:
Fiction
From simpler to harder:
A Well-Built Faith: A Catholic’s Guide to Knowing and Sharing What We Believe
Short, simple introduction to Catholicism
Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith, by Bishop Barron
A very readable overview.
YOUCAT
A book that tries to explain the Catechism to Teens and Young Adults. More thorough than the above books.
United States Catholic Catechism
for Adults
Similar to the above, but targeted to adults
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Really a reference, but included here for completeness
I can relate to your story in some ways, as I was raised Catholic, then became agnostic during high school and university. I came back to the Catholic Church after the positive witness of my family and friends, and having an encounter with Christ in my second year of college.
After that personal experience in prayer I knew that Jesus was real, but I still had a lot of unanswered questions about Catholicism, as well as no intellectual foundation to undergird my newfound faith in Christ. So I devoured a couple of good Catechisms, and over time, studied philosophical, Christian and Catholic apologetics to get solid answers to the questions and doubts that anyone with critical thinking skills will have. I am now a Catholic priest.
Here are some resources I would suggest:
The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection
(Probably elsewhere, as well.)
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
Do some historical studying bud.
Christianity is the founding of all of western civilization. All of our morals come from it. I'm an atheist and I regard it as one of the most important things about our value structure.
Read: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500415987&sr=8-1&keywords=How+the+Catholic+Church+Built+Western+Civilization
Very important book.
Yes.. but if you look at countries such as Africa, India and china their immigration numbers doubled after the 1965 immigration act. Beginning to cause a shift in the demographics of America. Numbers from Europe have about halved while numbers from Africa have increased by 50 times what they were before 1965.
> You need to show that the catholic god belief is actually somehow proven by history .
I was an extreme skeptic, so it took me over 10 years to sort out the history. That included reading dozens of books, and listening to hundreds of hours of debates and podcasts. If you are truly interested and are half as skeptical as me, I would recommend starting with the following :
This is a good overview: Why we're catholic by Trent Horn: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1683570243
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization: https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280 .
That said, there are a million reasons why people choose not to believe, even with all the evidence in the world in front of their face. God made each person with free will, so no one can "give" you a conclusion. You have to weigh the evidence for yourself. As a convert, I would also point out that knowing God is also as much of a matter of the heart. If you have vice in your heart (self-entitlement, lust, envy, gluttony, etc), you won't be able to connect with God. Also, if you are more interested in the trappings of the world ( luxuries, entertainment, hedonism), that will bias you away from recognizing God.
> the gospels for example are rife with markers of myth as opposed to actual history.
The reason why some myths match the Christian story is because all of humanity comes from the same place (the Ark). Those myths actually help confirm that Christianity is true. If everyone really evolved in different areas, then they would have wildly different stories and ways of being. Instead, people from around the world have the very same sense of where we came from and where things are going.
> And I absolutely reject Kalam, the Ontological Argument and whatever else is probably on that list of arguments as they all require assertions to which you haven’t sufficient evidence to make.
I used to reject them too. No offense, but you have to look at them a lot more carefully. That took me years. They all add up and compliment each other. At the very bottom of reality is an eternal infinite mind. By definition, this also makes existence rational because there is a rational mind. Atheism/materialism/naturalism is literally non-sense by it's own definition.
Without God (an eternal all-knowing mind), there can be no such thing as objective truth, facts, or ethics. Otherwise, all knowledge is temporary and subjective.
You might be interested in reading Rome Sweet Home by Protestant converts to Catholicism, Scott and Kimberly Hahn.
Here's an audio recording
of him talking about his conversion experience on YouTube, if you're interested.
I'm a convert from an atheist/agnostic background, so my struggles were different than yours, but a few of the (many)things that persuaded me of Catholicism as opposed to Protestant Christianity are:
He let them go. That seems like a powerful statement to me.
Catholicism has remained one solid, constant, historical Church over the millennia, while Protestantism has
been continually splintering and fragmenting into an ever more mind-boggling plethora of denominations, ever since the Reformation.
Don't know if any of that will be at all helpful to you, but more than anything, I encourage you to keep asking your questions, to search and research boldly. I mean, dig deep, read a lot, and don't give up.
Search for answers until you get them. The real Faith can stand up to scrutiny. It is reaffirmed, rather than threatened by it. And, of course, it is promised in Scripture that the one who searches will find.
Will say a prayer for you.
God bless.
I read Rome Sweet Home by Scott & Kimberly Hahn and I thought it was a very good tale of conversion. There's a bit of light apologetics throughout and it was compelling enough for me to finish it in a day. (I hardly read.)
Next up on my list are The Lamb's Supper by Hahn, The Love Chapter: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 13 by St. John Chrysostom, and An Exorcist Tells His Story by Fr. Gabrielle Amorth, exorcist of the Vatican.
If you know any young people, the YOUCAT is an invaluable resource if they don't want to sit through the entire Catechism. Of course you want to eventually point them to it but I find, at 22, it's more suited to me poor attention span.
Canticle for Leibowitz is my favourite Catholic fiction but that doesn't mean much because I haven't read anything else. If you're looking for a good Catholic writer, I hear Flannery O'Connor is one. Of course Tolkien is a giant as is Chesterton (literally).
It's handy to have some basic apologetics resources available, and be familiar with the Scriptural and Traditional origins of basic Catholic teachings and practices.
What you'll run up against depends on who's doing the talking.
Note that it's very rarely easy, because objections to Catholicism are often very deep-set and visceral. You can talk till you're blue in the face about Matthew 16:18-19 being the basis for our teachings on the papacy, but for someone who may have grown up hearing about how the pope is the Antichrist, a wicked and corrupt man who's worshipped like a god, it's hard to get our message across. Sometimes even mountains of Scripture and Church Fathers and apologetics cannot wear down a fortress built of misinformation, misinterpretation, and age-old prejudice.
Often, the hostility to Catholicism is reinforced by bad personal experiences people have had with Catholics. For too many, the uncaring priest, the mean nun, the gossipy and unwelcoming parish, and scandals of sin and unconscionable abuse have done as much damage to the Church's image as centuries of anti-Catholic polemics and lies.
I definitely second the recommendation of reading the New Testament! The Catechism is also a great resource for the details of the faith.
But if, u/powrightinthe_kissa, you find the Catechism a bit overwhelming, I would also like to recommend some other books by some popular authors on the faith, to give a broader overview. Any one of these books would be great so feel free to pick out one or two of what I recommended for your consideration.
Our previous pope, Pope Benedict, was an amazing theologian! He wrote some excellent books. I would recommend Jesus of Nazareth and Introduction to Christianity.
Mere Christianity is a great explanation of general Christian theology and the Christian narrative of the world. The apologetics of Mere Christianity are a bit watered down so I wouldn't read it for its apologetics (for that I would go to other authors, like Fesser or Craig) but Mere Christianity is great for basic theology.
Fr. Barron is also a great explainer of the faith, I hear Word on Fire would provide a good introduction.
Currently in the middle of reading Fr. Adrian Fortescue's The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451. It has been a good read so far on understanding the papacy in general.
I also got His Broken Body. I heard it gives a good understanding of the schism between East and West, albeit from an Orthodox perspective. Not exactly what you may be looking for, but may contribute as well.
Read this.
Hihi!
I really liked the book 33 Days to Morning Glory a friend recommended it and it was super easy to follow, not overwhelming, and had so many excellent reflections.
I'm glad to have done the consecration, it helped me a lot on my faith journey.
Perhaps this could interfere with another consecration or make it seem burdensome to do multiple ones, but at the end of the day, this all leads to Christ. To Jesus through Mary. :)
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! The consecration is not until the end of the book/journey, so you can always opt out and just use it as an educational tool.
People usually follow a specific course of prayers in preparation. Most follow the formula of St. Louis Marie de Montfort or a modified version, such as 33 Days to Morning Glory.
What a great desire! I heartily fifth the recommendation to pray the rosary daily! Here is a video (I think I saw it posted here somewhat recently, but in case you didn't see it...) on the rosary by Fr. Don Calloway, MIC. It's a good video.
I recently finished total consecration to Jesus through Mary and I cannot recommend it enough. This is a link to St. Louis de Montfort's method for consecration. It also includes links to parts of True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary written by that saint which can be read for free on that site. (If you like physical books, you can also find it cheaply on Amazon)
I used 33 Days to Morning Glory for my consecration preparation. Use whichever you want.
You can also consider reading the Life of Mary as Seen by the Mystics. A short compilation of several Catholic mystics relaying Mary's life as told by Mary when those mystics had visions of Mary. I was quite skeptical about this book, but my mom lent it to me and I decided to give it a try. It brought me closer to Jesus, Mary and St. Joseph. I have found this book helped me tremendously with meditating on the mysteries while praying the rosary.
Nice story. You might consider consecrating yourself to Jesus through Mary. My wife and I did so this past year.
Since you have been away from Church for a while and if you have the resources this DVD series by Bishop Robert Barron is an excellent (re)introduction to Catholicism.
As far as apostles dying for a lie, I don't think critical historians really agree with this apologetic/traditional claim. Possibly a few apostles died, but I think most of these claims are later legends.
I haven't read it yet, but Professor Moss of Notre Dame has a book on the subject you might be interested in http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373556152&sr=8-1&keywords=the+myth+of+persecution
The mass is truly the most beautiful thing on earth. I’ve also really enjoyed this book, it might cover some of the same things but is really good, maybe consider picking this up also
https://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591
Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God, by Scott Hahn
I read Rome Sweet Home last week and absolutely loved it. Dr. Hahn does a great job of showing how the Old Testament points to Mary in the New Testament.
Books (both from former protestants):
Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385501692/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_forRDbHKC4JST
Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines https://www.amazon.com/dp/1938983912/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_3orRDb4NBP4WJ
Videos:
Mary the Ark of the New Covenant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmNWqLSJcJI&feature=share
Hail Holy Queen, Scripture and the Mystery of Mary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn1tWuIoZsg&feature=share
If you're a book guy, Scott Hahn has a good book about it. It's what got me back into Mass. You never look at it the same way again. It's not just a bunch of people in a room talking about God for 45 minutes.
If you can't/don't want to drop the 13 bucks on the book, don't worry, there're a few articles on the Catholic Answers website. Here're a few:
The Mass is Profoundly Biblical
The Sacrifice of the Mass
The Institution of the Mass
The big question: Why Go to Mass??
The Mass is a wonderful thing once you know what it is. As a kid, I hated it with a burning passion. Now, I'm discerning the priesthood and have taken a liking to the pre-Vatican II mass, which is in Latin (pretty old school, I know, but it's beautiful. Doesn't appeal to everyone.)
Anyway, welcome home!! If you have any questions at all about Catholicism, feel free to ask here. We've got some pretty smart theologians on this sub
Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0385501692/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_n_awdm_L68DxbVP2QT4Q via @amazon
Sorry on mobile and linking is terrible.
Disclosure: Have not read but comes highly recommended. Personally I like True Devotion to Mary and Secrets of the Rosary
I have a four-way tie for best mariology.
In no particular order:
Marian Mystery by Denis Farkasfalvy
Queen Mother by Ted Sri
Daughter Zion by Joseph Ratzinger
Mariology by Matthias Joseph Scheeben
If you're looking for books directed at a more popular audience (i.e. if you're not a theologian), then the following are very good:
Behold your Mother by Tim Staples
Hail Holy Queen by Scott Hahn
EDIT: Here's a great bibliography my professor made for a mariology course.
EDIT: Just as a caveat, my interest in mariology is mostly biblical. Apparitions aren't a huge interest of mine. So the above reflects that. Though there's plenty on dogmatic/systematic mariology there too.
You can consecrate yourself to Christ through Mary on any day of the year - God would not restrict such a beautiful gift to certain days.
However, it is tradition, and somewhat more meaningful, to consecrate yourself on a Marian feast day. Typically you try to time it so the traditional 33 days of study/prayer finish on the day before the consecration, and you do your consecration on the 34th day, which would be a Marian feast day. I finished mine recently, on the Our Lady of the Rosary fest day.
I would highly recommend St. Louis de Montford's guide, but when I did my consecration, I used not only that book but also the more modern 33 Days to Morning Glory. The 33 Days book is a little more modern in its text and easier to understand, but the original guide by St. Louis de Montford had many more prayers and a more in-depth introduction to Mary that I greatly appreciated. So for my 33 day study, I used both, which I highly recommend, since I felt like I learned a lot from both.
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization is a book that seems to be right up your alley.
As for philosophy and theology in that case, there is one book that comes to mind. However, I would suggest that before one go delving into that, you might wish to establish yourself firmly in Catholic philosophy and theology before going ahead. That said, the book is New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Fr. Rober Spitzer seems to be exactly what you're talking about.
You have to read this book!
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
I would suggest that you read the book Answering Atheism by Trent Horn.
You mention that you'll always look to reason and logic, and believe in science. The sense I got is that you feel that there's a conflict between faith and reason, between religion and science.
This only true in certain evangelical and fundamental sects. In reality, there is 0 conflict between them, and mainstream Christianity has always thought this. In fact, speaking on the subject of science, Pope John Paul II famously stated, "Truth cannot contradict truth.". It was a Catholic priest that first proposed the theory that would become known as the Big Bang, and a Catholic priest who first developed what we would eventually call the scientific method.
Keep looking, and congratulations on your willingness to listen to God and continuing on your journey. Please feel free to reach out to me in a message if you want any suggestions for reading materials or websites, or if there's any topics that you're interested in or are feeling is an obstacle to accepting or believing in Christ.
God bless.
Edit: added a link.
If you are coming from an atheist background I think you should start with some more foundational material before checking out the Bible. The Catholic Church is the sole keeper of the complete truth that has been revealed by God to humanity.
However, like other truths, new conclusions can build upon previous knowledge. Just like modern mathematics has built upon Gauss and Newton and Pythagoras etc. If you did not understand geometry it would be difficult to understand calculus. If you just started reading about calculus but had no concept of finding the area of a rectangle you might not understand calculus or assume you are being expected to just accept calculus as true using "blind faith". In the same way, God has revealed to us that we should not murder people (10 commandments), and the Church was able to build upon that foundation the conclusion that abortion is a sin since it is ultimately the killing of an innocent human (murder). If however, you just read somewhere that the Church opposes abortion but had no knowledge of the 10 commandments you might not understand why that conclusion was made and instead assume it is just some arbitrary religious teaching.
The foundation you need to first establish is that God exists, and this can be known (in the same way you can know 1+1=2) through reason. Even Aristotle was able to know this. The most famous proofs of this are St Thomas Aquinas' "5 ways". There are many resources including books and good YouTube videos exploring this topic, I would recommend Answering Atheism as a good start, or if you want to try a college level, more rigorous book, check out Aquinas for Beginners. Check out this quick 17 minute video for a great start.
So that is where I think you should start, and after you convince yourself that atheism is false you should come back here to learn why the Catholic church is God's true church.
To address a few other things. First, the Bible is not a book in the commonly used sense of that word today. The Bible is actually a collection of books written across a wide time range in different genres. So a more accurate question would be: "do I have to take the library 100% literally? The answer is of course no. That does not mean the Bible is not 100% true, it just means that the truth is not 100% conveyed directly via literal interpretation. Some evidence would be this quote from Jesus "If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother...he cannot be My disciple" which seems to be in direct contradiction with the 4th Commandment "Honor thy father and mother". So if the Bible is 100% true, and things that are true cannot lead to contradictions, then at least one of the quotes must have some other meaning than the literal text. So how do we know what is the case here? That is what we have the Catholic Church for, so again when after you convince yourself God exists you should come back here to understand why you should trust the Catholic Church to interpret these questions and more.
If you are specifically concerned that becoming Catholic means you have to literally believe the universe was created in 6 days I can assure you the short answer is no, you do not need to believe this.
1 more thing Ill add it about the word "faith". A common atheist position is that religions are based on blind faith with no evidence. This is not the Catholic definition of the word. Faith is not about making true/false claims. Evidence is REQUIRED for True/False claims. Now not ALL evidence is in the form of scientific experimentation, but that does not mean the Church requires you to just hold certain things as true on "faith alone" with no evidence. Instead, think of the word confidence. The latin roots are "con" "fide" which means "with faith". So faith has more to do with confidence or trust than true/false certainty. An example might be that we use reason and logic as evidence to know God exists, or historical testimony as evidence Jesus rose from the dead. Then, knowing these things as true, we have faith that the teaching God has revealed are true and in our best interest in things we should do. There is no way to proof scientifically whether or not we should steal something, and if we are even in a situation where we are tempted into doing that we may think that we should do it because we really want to or don't think we will get caught or whatever. Faith means trusting in God's recommendation to not steal things even if we think it would be a good idea or seemingly justify it to ourselves.
Are you sure you went to a Catholic school? I went through Catholic school and was taught the Big Bang theory in Theology as what most likely happened.
Was also taught natural selection and evolution in Biology.
>According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#337), the book of Genesis "symbolically" presents God's work of creation. In other words, the Biblical story of creation is like a parable in that the plot does not have to be literally true in order for the story to convey profound religious truths, such as the sequential and increasingly complex nature of God's creative activity. Interestingly, the idea of evolution seems to be supported by Genesis 1:24, which states, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures." Genesis does not say that God directly created plants and animals in their final form, only that they came forth from "the earth."
-Source
I would throw in more stuff but I am lazy and at work.
Five Proofs for the Existence of God is really good for the philosophical arguments in favor of God.
The Case for Jesus does an excellent job of proving the historical accuracy of the attributions of the Gospels and what they claim about Jesus Christ
Check this out at Amazon.com
In the Beginning...': A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Pope Benedict XVI
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802841066/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_i_mC7HDbE4NYXZ7
Joseph Ratzinger, In the Beginning.... It says it's a 'Catholic' understanding of creation and the fall, but really it's just good theology for everybody. Super accessible too.
Very acceptable?
Haven't read it yet sorry! But I have heard people talk about Summa of the Summa. Maybe that could help?
shit, tough crowd you got. Mine did not react, or hasn't reacted so far. I came out exactly a year ago today, after 2 years of soul searching (I did not find it). Anyways, I wrote a lengthily email to my parents, explaining unrelated shit about my life and concluded with: "btw I'm an Atheist. Don't push religion on me or you'll have an earful."
I saw them two months later. No resistance what so ever. Later in the summer, I debated twice, then decided to shut up because I was missing some rebuttals material. In the middle of the summer, my mother attempted to push me to church for 9 days strait. I said I'd go for a few but not all. When I refused for the first time, she insisted, and as promised she got an earful. Her attempts have reduced dramatically since.
I have mocked religion on both twitter and facebook on occasion. I got into a friendly debate with my sister, and she stopped responding. She said she wouldn't debate me anymore because I refuse to see the light. I think it's because I got better material than she does.
My uncle did attempt to debate me after a twit. I told him he could threaten me with hell all he wants, I consider the devil equal to the boogieman. I got this ebook later. I've read some of it, it's basically the God of the gaps argument from the beginning. He's trying to convince me of the existence of the devil with a logical fallacy.
That ends my family's response to my coming out.
There actually is a Catholicism for Dummies. Calling a local parish also works. Get in touch with a priest, he'll usually be happy to tell you more.
I always read a lot of books at the same time. Right now it's:
Priests for the Third Millennium - Cardinal Dolan
Introduction to Christianity - Cardinal Ratzinger
The Devotion to the Sacred Heart - John Croiset
An infinity of little hours - Nancy Klein Maguire
You plan on being Catholic too? That's great, what were you before your decision to be in RCIA?
Btw Mary will really help you "feel" the religion a lot more and the spirituality behind it. Many Catholics read this book
https://www.amazon.com/Days-Morning-Glory-Do-Yourself/dp/1596142448
and it helps them out a lot...I can understand if you have objections to it so don't worry <3 Its just something that helps a lot though and helps you become one with God a lot more.
Welcome! I am a convert myself. Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton is a wonderful amazing book that will be good to read for that and also just good for any Christian to read. It is about $5 on amazon and also probably in your local library or bookstore. Chesterton was CS Lewis's and J R R Tolkien's mentor. The American Chesterton Society is a really really great resource, and if you ever get a chance to hear Dale Alquist speak, so it, he is amazing to hear. He came to my University and about 20 people showed up; by the end there were like 200 from everyone texting their friends to come because the guy slings truth and eloquence like Tupac slung rhymes. Chesterton made Lewis look like a baby writer or something, according to Lewis himself. Chesterton is like a cross between a saint and the wit of Oscar Wilde. He could write something on paper and dictate something else at the same time, and they would both be awesome. His quotes are amazing. That is a short list of them. "Rome sweet home" by Scott Hahn is good. $3 on Amazon. It is well worth reading and is a great crash course in Catholicism for someone in just your situation. He came from a very similar background I think.
Edit: I love this one on that facebook meme page. It pretty much sums up what spirred me to look at Catholicism. When the priest literally called down the Holy Spirit on me when I got confirmed, it was awesome. If you can get to an Easter vigil mass (saturday night before Easter), it is my favorite. I wish they could all be that way. If you can find a church that has a lot of converts that year, it will be even better.
They're being serious. Recommend: http://www.amazon.com/An-Exorcist-Tells-His-Story/dp/0898707102.
Important
I will start with the important point first: BE VERY CAREFUL; preferably even avoid this whole area to begin with. You are driving into areas that at the least are a big fruitless distraction and at worst can be pretty dangerous.
Are you a practicing Catholic Christian? Honestly I am not sure what your beliefs are from what you mentioned previously. If you are trying to live a strong life with God, my advice is don't waste your time with all of this. I give you this advice, since it was given to me when I started my walk with the Lord. When I started, I was very distracted with the spiritual world and demonology. My mentor at the time made it clear to me that this is a distraction. Honestly after that point I realized that that topic should not be taking any serious part of my time. I realized that there is so much to LEARN AND EXPERIENCE about God and the trinity. It is really much more fruitful, practical, applicable and helpful to my life than anything else. It is only after years of being with God have I once in a while read some books by exorcists.
Responses
> I personally think they should ask for Lay Ministers of some sort to practice guided Chaotiks
I think this is at the least a waste of time (no offense) and at worst a risk to these ministers. The concept that Chaos Magic talks about according to the Wikipedia page is problematic in my view according to Catholic teachings. Even superficially, it focuses the person's faith on their abilities instead of on God and our need for Him. Christianity focuses on us letting go of our old man and filling ourselves with God; letting God create and mold us into a new man. God is the center. All magic sets the person at the center. That is a fundamental issue right off the bat for me. This is not even talking about the fact of using magic or spiritual interactions.
> The whole belief is a tool was mad convincing to me and I am guilty of considering reading the book that explains it all
If it will get it out of your system, read the book for information and don't spend too much time on it. But be very clear, this is not just a tool. A system/faith the relies on belief to control the environment around you is at best a fantasy and at worst dealing with spiritual entities that are best avoided. They can be very dangerous and invite demonic attacks on the user.
> I don't consider the spiritual repercussions of going to their temple because I don't want to be alone. I asked my best friend if he want to go and he simply said no.
Follow your friend's advice. Do not consort with people who deal with spirits or magic. It seems like a distraction that is stunting your spiritual growth with God.
> Also there is a universal law of 3's in Wiccan Practice and I wonder how that relates to the Holy Trinity and the whole Passion of the Christ. And if that could be manipulated in some way.
There is no relation. God is Holy and a Trinity. Numbers are very common across many religions/philosophies. Three is a very common number that shows up in many places. Do not try to find a relationship where none exists.
> Ah yes my dreams are way to vague for my liking. I wish I didn't drop out of college or at least choose a non-secular college.
Honestly this is still confusing. Are you having lucid dreams? Are you having nightmares? Also not sure how college relates here.
> I am afraid I am gonna have to ask for a source
For a good understanding on the Catholic Church's teachings on the matter, I would recommend books by Father Gabriel Amorth. Fr. Amorth is the exorcist of the Diocese of Rome. he has two books:
The books give a clear explanation on what types of demonic influence there are including possession, oppression and obsession and curse (that was surprising to me).
> If curses are real, than could not the Holy Father help the Vatican profit off of who we consider Pagans or those that consider themselves Atheists. If it is in sanctified space with proper protections in order then should we not let our Human Brothers practice the Darker Arts (for science and greater wisdom) under the watchful eye of the Lord?
There are way too many wrong things in these statements. First off, the Church only deals with removing evil influence from people's lives to help save people's souls and NEVER FOR A PROFIT. Also dealing with this area is not for testing or scientific purposes. THERE IS NO GOOD MAGIC.
> Just a theory in my Pseudo_Dreamworld. But I hold the belief that all elements have multidimensional properties that have yet to be discovered. Just like there are more than one measurable dimension. I have a Professor friend at UTA that is working on finding the 5th dimension and that is what gave me the whole idea.
There are theories in physics that speak of multiple dimensions. These are pretty well accepted by the physics community. This does not mean that spirits are involved or witches or Wicca. This is purely science. Do not try and mix them in ways that really have no foundation here.
Are you familiar with Catholic Answers? They're a good source for learning more about the faith.
If you want to start reading the Bible (which is a good thing to do), I'd suggest starting with one of synoptic gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, or Luke) and possibly using a Catholic study Bible (which will help with interpretation). I'd recommend either the Catholic Study Bible put out by Ignatius press - you can get the books individually (Here's Matthew, for example), or they have a version that's the entire New Testament. Another possibility might be the Didache Bible, which has commentary based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
If you want a very general overview, Catholicism for Dummies isn't a bad starting point. If you're in the United States, the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults would also be a good option.
http://www.amazon.com/Catholicism-Dummies-Rev-John-Trigilio/dp/1118077784
Best intro ever.
Sorry you've had a bad experience. The internet and forums are often a mixed bag unfortunately.
If you are interested in better understanding Catholicism, a good start is this book http://www.amazon.com/Catholicism-Dummies-Rev-John-Trigilio/dp/1118077784. Its a pretty simple read and represents a good foundation to start from. It doesn't answer every question you might have, but I think it might give you some better insight. Hope it helps. God bless.
Love your post, especially the Konami code thing :)
You might like the book Catholicism for Dummies by Fathers Trigilio and Brighenti.
Catholic.com is a great resource; you might also like the Catholic Answers podcast.
And, of course, there's always this subreddit!
The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church
The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity
The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451
Studies on the Early Papacy
The Rise of the Papacy
>No... It isn't.
>Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
>Pope in Italian Translation means "Father". Additionally, it is usual custom to address the priest as "father".
Please.
>Transubstantiation: Pagan practice of cannibalism disguised through Communion. There is no literal meaning or physical transformation of the bread and wine/juice. It is supposed to be figurative.
Your accusation of cannibalism is the same that Pliny the Younger made of the early Christians in the earliest known surviving pagan reference to Christianity. Whenever I hear this, I am reminded of the continuity of the Church's teachings and the misconceptions of her opponents.
>Papacy: Peter was never considered a Pope or even remotely close to anything like the Papal Senate. He was merely a figurehead during the early church. Decisions were made in consensus to Scripture. Not Papal vote.
Are you aware that "scripture" was not fully formed? There was no New Testament to refer to. What they had in addition to scripture was the sacred traditions of the Apostles and the authority of the Church. Try reading this book if you want to know what the historic papacy was like.
>Salvation: (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9) Reading these segments, you would realize that rituals and practices does not guarantee salvation, but faith and faith alone. Works are the fruits of said salvation, but not a means to that salvation. Else the concept of Christ's death on Cross is moot. Catholicism is clinging to legalism... Not faith.
>Many of its practices, including idolizing Saints throughout history, just reminds me of Pagan Rome, when they worshiped and prayed to demi-gods and gods. It was a political gambit simply because of the fact that Christianity, the ORIGINAL Christianity, could not be stamped out by force. Thus, they adopted the practices of the original Christians, and then, because by then many of the Apostles were gone (because it was by now, A.D. 500) and therefore no one except a few isolated groups to oppose them... And thus they reigned as the supreme "Christian" entity. But then again, there was also Orthodox who also lay claim to original "Christianity" (when in reality its just a copy of Catholicism) and then the Coptic Christians of Egypt also lay claim to that same argument (though they ALSO are a copy of Catholicism).
Catholics do not idolize the Saints nor think that it is rituals that guarantee salvation. You seem to have severe misunderstandings of the Church. Try educating yourself before making such accusations.
I definitely recommend Fortescue’s The Early Papacy for a great overview of the Catholic position on the Papacy and its support from the Fathers, etc.
Eve Tushnet's Gay and Catholic is excellent! She also has a blog and great social media presence.
Hi! I'm a gay Catholic, and there is certainly room for you in the church! I think everyone else here has done a pretty thorough job of repeating the Church's teachings on same-sex attractions, so I won't bother getting in to them, but I will say that it is totally possible to live faithfully and happily as a Catholic while being LGBTQ+. (Also note that using those terms tends to incite some heated discussion simply over terminology for some reason, which I don't feel like getting in to right now.)
If you want some reading on the intersections of (Catholic) faith and sexuality, I highly recommend looking at:
Also, feel free to pm me or respond here any time if you have more questions or want to talk about it.
Good luck on your journey in faith, and I'll keep you in my prayers!
Hi. *big, tight virtual hug* . I'm bi. This was an important point for me too, it is totally very hard to go into something that requires you to give you such a powerful part of yourself. I imagine it is harder for you because you're gay so you don't really have another option. All I can do at this point is tell you my story as it relates to homosexuality and how I came into the Church despite being attracted to girls. I wish I could focus the spotlight more on you, but only you can do that since a back-and-forth convo is hard and time consuming on Reddit.
When I converted the only time I had been in love was with a girl. And I kind of wanted that again. Even writing about this makes me feel strange. I yelled at God (literally) for some hours about it, then I wrote what I was thinking down. It was more than the homosexuality but that was a part of it. At the end of it, somehow, I don't know how, I can't tell you how, I just accepted that if I'll do 'this' I'll have to give up things, many things. I don't know how I came to terms with it, how I found peace in that. I'm not saying the same thing will/should happen to you. I can tell you it defo happens. It may sound a bit authoritarian but it was like 'Either I'm gonna accept the claims of Jesus and the authority of His Church or not. I'm either in this 100% or I'm in this 0%.' and somehow '100%' seemed like the better option.
One thing that helped was that I did not feel condemned. This is an Eastern European country I'm talking about. People outside of church that I know often say things like 'Yeah I'm ok with gay people. I don't like the hate they get from the Church (they mean Orthodox in this case but you get the idea)' but from experience, when you come out to them, they treat you different and they do treat you worse. I believe they are well intentioned but to them it's a bit like being vegan, they're fine as long as you don't rub it in their face, and rubbing it in their face includes telling them about it. When I tell people I know from church it's a bit like 'Meh, so what? It's like you told me you are attracted to another man that isn't your husband. No biggie.'
Then I saw a person who was.... well... amazing. And she was gay. And she was... she was something by any standard. Believer or not. I mean I obvs knew other people who are gay and good people but she was something that is rare, in the general population, not just in those who are gay or straight or whatever. A saint you might say. That's how she seemed at least. To be honest I don't know much about her, maybe it was my attraction to her, I'm not trying to idealise this girl to create a story. The point is that she got me thinking about how different she is to how I was back when I was a 'practising' bisexual so to say.
And I felt like crying. What could I possibly tell this girl? How could I possibly help her? I firmly and vehemently know what sort of joy Jesus brings and how He guides people. This girl, if she were Catholic, would get canonised, it seemed to me at least. I believe that hierarchy in Heaven goes like this.
So I randomly wrote stuff down, something I do when I have intense emotions, and then I translated it. It isn't art, but it is how I respond to 'that sentiment' as you put it:
i had to translate this because i knew
That someday it might come in useful.
This is not poetry, just some poor musings
On a page. i have been, i am You, i hope
You understand what i’m implying. i know
What i’m asking is hard because on some level
i have felt what You are feeling. Sometimes
i still do. But there’s a difference, i assumed
You were the same, trapped in the same
Dark prison but clearly Your heart is not
Black like mine. Such is my nature, i have
Been born this way, such that tears run
Through my veins, my ventricles are made
Out of arrogance, selfishness, anger and hate
My lungs breathe lies. But You, You are not
The same. Though You don’t know it
Or might not admit it You have acceptedThe gifts of the Good Spirit much more
Than i. Oh jewel of creation, i honestly
See the beauty shine. Beautiful big heart
Please, grant my request, love Your
Strange pairing more. Love more! Yes
More! Because man has been made to love
Like you love and more! Yet know that
In loving more you will love differently.
You won’t get or see this yet
But bear a minute. Can’t You hear
A melody in the background? Is it
Not the most glorious symphony?
It is the song of Your soul. It was written
On You, not on society’s tablets.
And tell me sometimes though
When you listen can’t You
Hear the silence?
The song of Your conscience says
‘This is not love, it’s a parody of it.’
i have been You. i have heard it
At that spot too. i am sure it is harder
For You than it was for i. Yet, this music
Is Yours and You deserve to go
To the Wedding so much more than i.
Why did You rip the invitation in half?
Please ask the Groom for another one.
My Darling, my Love, i wish i knew You
So that i could give You whatever You
Would need, the comaradery , the joy
The consolation, the help, the dear
Friendship.
My Beloved, tell me, how can i talk
With this Person when i don’t know
A thing? i know nothing, sometimes it
Scares me. Oh the pain each one
Is feeling! i don’t know, i am clueless
What i know is dust and nought at all
But wait, i do know something
Oh veritas gaudium!
Oh lumen fidei!
&#x200B;
Lala, overly idealistic and chessy but the idea is that yeah... it is freakin hard! I still don't know what to say**. 'I'm sorry. It sounds like having a family is deeply important to you, which is understandable. This is not an easy thing and you are admirable for contemplating doing it.'** It is the truth, I mean it, but what does it do? :(
&#x200B;
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gay-Catholic-Accepting-Sexuality-Community/dp/1594715424 (a recommendation, but books don't really solve things)
&#x200B;
Regardless of what you do or choose, lots of honest love from me and, as cliche as it may sound, from Jesus and His Bride (to death, and beyond, quite literally)
33 days to Morning Glory is an excellent book that takes a look at Marian consecration from the view of 4 great Saints. This author has also written a few other amazing books. The journaling you do with this program is life-changing. The website is pretty great too, the last I checked (a few years ago).
And then of course there is the Montefort classic True Devotion to Mary which is what many many people from laypersons to popes have used to consecrate themselves.
Give either book a read through and talk with your local priest. Also lots of prayer. Like, LOTS of prayer. Also I've been slowly feeling a call back to Catholicism and back to my Consecration, so thank you for your post.
It condemns sexual immorality, yes. Which includes all sorts of sex. Why is it people always say this, thus proving their own obsession with sex, while trying to condemn the institution for being “obsessed with sex”?
The Church (if we’re talking Catholic) has no problem with evolution.
You know the father of modern genetics was a monk, right? And a priest came up with the Big Bang? And the entire scientific revolution happened because of patronage from the Church early on (like, Galileo was being paid by the Church, for instance).
Think of the artistic achievements, too (paid for by the Church).
The whole idea of a “dark age” or “anti-science” Church was pretty much invented by Protestants, to discredit the Catholics, or anti-theists, again to discredit rather than advance truth.
Read How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization for a good look at history in one place. Start there, then branch out beyond Hitchens or Dawkins or whoever else you idolize. Try Feser, if you can.
Edit: grammar and spelling
I think you would enjoy this book greatly: http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
Most complaints from non-militant atheists (love these guys, they love deep philosophical conversation) I see are do to the so called dark ages brought about by the Church or religion in general. While members of the Catholic Church have never been perfect, the Church is responsible for some of the most progressive ideas ever to be born of man. The university system, science, it's all really fascinating to read about.
I've never been an atheist but I haven't always looked favorably on the Catholic church either (I wasn't born a Catholic and am still learning about it before making decisions). This book really helped me see what a tremendously positive force the Church has been throughout the ages. From making the western world a joy to live in to systematic helping of unfortunates.
Best of luck in any other books recommended here that you decide to read. In my experience, there's some warm and loving about the Church that I can't move away from now and I hope you find something similar or the same or at the very least feel good about continuing to learn more about a topic that interests you.
It's How the Scots Invented the Modern World. Similar titles include How the Irish Saved Civilization, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, and Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. None of them are by the same author, but they're all interesting historical books with similar titles (How some great culture did great things that built what we have now), none the less.
I would love to find similar titles about other countries, cultures, and civilizations. They're always so interesting!
For your own edification and sheer joy, read Triumph! by H W Crocker. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Tom Woods is excellent too.
Here is a good one on the influence of the Catholic Church in Medieval Europe. https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
> It just that Corinthians 6:9 says that Practicing Homosexuals go to Hell
Actually the verse doesn't say that. It literally says:
οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, ⸀οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ ⸆ κληρονομήσουσιν.
There is great debate about what ἀρσενοκοῖται (which has been translated as "homosexual") actually meant. 1st century Greeks didn't have committed, monogamous same-sex relationships in their mindset like we have today, and the word was certainly referring to something that was in their mindset. Once we figure that out, we can then go on to applying it to today's culture and language. Matthew Vines' God and the Gay Christian has an in depth look at that verse.
As to the title of your post [with priests and clergy spreading lies], please know that they all don't. You have to find the good ones. I've visited churches, gone up after the service, and asked the pastors point blank what their stance is on same sex relationships. Don't be fooled by the "oh we love gay people" line. Ask specifically, "would you marry a same-sex couple?" That'll bring their true colors out. Or if you don't want to go down in person, you can just email the church or message them on facebook and ask if they marry same-sex couples.
If you haven't yet, please look into the Gay Christian Network. I think many Christians today have lost sight of Jesus' message, and I think the GCN is a great organization that is trying to recapture it, especially in regards to LGBT people.
Hey bro, I'm so sorry to hear that this happened. Don't know where you are now (school and away, living at home while working, etc?) Regardless, it's probably really tough. But know that there's a ton of support out there! In terms of popular literature you could give your parents, there's Torn by Justin Lee and God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines. I wish you the absolute best of luck on traversing this next step in your coming out journey. It won't be easy, but you've made it this far. Here if you need an ear. Sending you positive vibes and a giant brohug :)
I strongly recommend you read God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships by Matthew Vines.
I just started reading the Myth of Christian Persecution. Can't wait to get to the meat of it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527
> Pagan Romans persecuted the Christian Romans while the Christian Romans fled or became martyrs.
This is largely BS. Persecution complex is a strategy for building a fortress mentality among Monotheists. FFS, even today, American Christians (the most powerful and wealthiest religious group in history) believe that they are being persecuted. They believe that Christianity is the most persecuted religion, not just around the world, but even in the USA itself.
The whole "Romans Fed the Christians to the Lions" stories are propaganda material.
Read: The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom by Professor Candida Moss
> In The Myth of Persecution, Candida Moss, a leading expert on early Christianity, reveals how the early church exaggerated, invented, and forged stories of Christian martyrs and how the dangerous legacy of a martyrdom complex is employed today to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of culture warriors.
> According to cherished church tradition and popular belief, before the Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal in the fourth century, early Christians were systematically persecuted by a brutal Roman Empire intent on their destruction. As the story goes, vast numbers of believers were thrown to the lions, tortured, or burned alive because they refused to renounce Christ. These saints, Christianity's inspirational heroes, are still venerated today.
> Moss, however, exposes that the "Age of Martyrs" is a fiction—there was no sustained 300-year-long effort by the Romans to persecute Christians. Instead, these stories were pious exaggerations; highly stylized rewritings of Jewish, Greek, and Roman noble death traditions; and even forgeries designed to marginalize heretics, inspire the faithful, and fund churches.
> The traditional story of persecution is still taught in Sunday school classes, celebrated in sermons, and employed by church leaders, politicians, and media pundits who insist that Christians were—and always will be—persecuted by a hostile, secular world. While violence against Christians does occur in select parts of the world today, the rhetoric of persecution is both misleading and rooted in an inaccurate history of the early church. Moss urges modern Christians to abandon the conspiratorial assumption that the world is out to get Christians and, rather, embrace the consolation, moral instruction, and spiritual guidance that these martyrdom stories provide.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2901880
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0062104527
Check out the book above, and the article related to it. It's been very well received recently. Although the idea that the accounts of martyrdom were exaggerated has been around for a while.
Christians persecution at the hands of Nero was probably more to do with them going against the empire, not paying taxes etc, than their actual religious beliefs. Romans were actually very religiously tolerant as long as you paid your taxes.
>The earliest written records of Jesus were written within 40 years of Jesus's life, which are some of the earliest records when compared with other historical figures.
The dating of Mark to around 70 is contentious; it could easily be an early-2nd-century document. It's also not true that more contemporaneous records are not common; many figures from history we know from things they or their contemporaries wrote. And the stories about Jesus aren't histories, so comparing them with things that are histories, like Arrian's work about Alexander, is disingenuous.
>They are also very consistent, which would seem unlikely if Jesus's life had been exaggerated.
No, they're not. And in almost all the places where the Gospels agree, they're identifiably using an earlier Gospel as a source, often Mark. That doesn't mean that source is any more reliable.
>Somehow, Christianity survived for 300 years while being actively punished and rejected by the Roman Empire.
Not really.
>Since then, Christianity has taken a huge part in western civilization.
This is in no way an indicator that its historical claims are true.
I think Jesus began as a preexistent celestial being, an archangel granted special power by God, crucified in the heavens by Satan and his demons, just as Paul presents him. The stories placing him on Earth were a later invention, probably originally meant as allegories, or to use a familiar Christian term, parables. Taking them literally proved to make them convincing, which proved to be politically advantageous.
Sure thing! Her name is Candida Moss. Here's a link to her book on Amazon. The Myth of Persecution
Comparison more apt than you think. Christians were never fed to lions and their persecution by Romans was [vastly exaggerated.] (https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Persecution-Christians-Invented-Martyrdom/dp/0062104551 )
It can be a bit daunting due to its length, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a text describing the beliefs which the Church officially considers doctrinal. There's the regular Catechism text, but also a Compendium and a Catechism for Adults if the regular Catechism is too long or too dense of a read right now. The parish you contacted might have a copy of the Catechism you can borrow/keep if you ask.
Other good "starter" books on Catholicism include:
Also be aware that the Catholic Bible has a few more books than the Protestant one, so also see if you can get ahold of one. Catholic Bible translations include the New American Bible, the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (also the NRSV-CE), the New Jerusalem Bible (less common here in America), and the traditional Douay-Rheims translation--the Douay Rheims is to Catholicism as the King James Version is to Protestant Christianity.
Catechism:
Web
Print
Get the USA edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's very cheap and it will give a complete picture of the Catholic teachings about everything, which are widely misrepresented. Not theology per se, but it will help you to understand exactly what is really being rejected (often unwittingly or at best clumsily) by many theologians, so you can make up your own mind.
You might enjoy this book. It describes the connections between Revelation and the Divine Liturgy (the Mass).
The Roman Catholic theologian Scott Hann deals with this concept in his book "The Lamb's Supper."
https://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591
I'm sure the book is well-written and theologically sound given Hann's reputation. There might be some ideas contained in his book that are not shared by Protestants, but Anglicans may find themselves agreeing more with Hann then our Protestant sisters and brothers.
I've not read the book, but this seems along the same lines you're talking about. I'm sure there are a plethora of ideas and books written about the Mass being an expectation or foretaste of things to come.
My first post on r/Anglicanism, I believe, was actually this picture which I think speaks to what my interpretation of Mass is when I go to church on Sundays.
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Traditional-Latin-Mass.jpg
I still love this picture.
The Lambs Supper is an awesome book about the mass and how heaven is on earth during mass, regardless of how shitty the choir is. I'm only a couple of chapters in and I'm loving it.
There are several good ones. As a Protestant, I am sure you would appreciate the biblical background, so here are some I recommend:
You really can’t go wrong with any of these titles. Just check out the descriptions and reviews and see which one you like best.
Books that tackle this topic: Tim Staples' Behold Your Mother, Scott Hahn's Hail, Holy Queen. I also found these two audiobooks very informative on Marian doctrines.
Those should all at least touch on this topic, though they are about Mary in general.
The super-short version is that Mary was given special graces by God because she agreed to be his Mother through Jesus. One of those graces was complete freedom from original sin (excluding even the concupiscence which we still bear as a result of that stain) and another was the free capacity not to sin (which was wrapped up in her "let it be so" and filled her entire life). This was accomplished not by her power, but by God's as a gift of grace.
The title of your post immediately reminded me of a Scott Hahn talk I heard last year, and then I saw your reference to him—so maybe you've already heard or read this story. If not, here it is from his talk, as I remember it: as a young Protestant minister gradually pulled into Catholicism, he was in much the same boat as you. His wife was dead-set against. She was very worried about him, and went behind his back to talk a mutual friend, a fellow minister, and urge him to do everything in his power to save Scott from Catholicism. So this friend started reading all the books that Scott had been reading. He and Scott's wife would look for the logical holes and plot how to undermine Scott's conversion. Much drama followed...but within two years, both Scott's wife and her co-conspirator had joined Scott in converting to Catholicism.
&#x200B;
You've said your vows to your wife, before God. You are committed to her, and she to you, until death do you part, whether you like it or not. If she won't go to Catholic church with you, that's ok. If she leaves you, that's ok too—you are committed to living chastely and honoring your marriage vows even if she leaves you, and doing everything you can (short of rejecting the Truth) to win her back.
But that's getting a bit melodramatic. You have concerns about Mary? Share those with your wife, instead of trying to poorly defend Marian doctrines you don't understand. It's ok not to have the answer, and if I know anything about marital communications (married seven years), saying "I don't know" is more likely than anything to get your wife on your side talking about the challenges with you more openly.
Your wife doesn't need to convert at the same time as you. But if you have converted in your heart, get yourself in RCIA and start going to Catholic church. If you want to really live your commitment both to God and to your marriage, go to your usual Sunday church with your family for the foreseeable future, and then go alone to a Catholic mass. That might take all Sunday morning, so you could perhaps go to Catholic mass on a Saturday afternoon if it fits your schedule better.
Anyway, that's a bunch of unsolicited advice. You asked for prayer and book recommendations. Let's pray together: Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."
&#x200B;
And here's a book recommendation, since you like Dr. Hahn, in case you haven't come across it yet: Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God.
u/TC1827 https://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-Second-U-S/dp/0385508190/
If God wasn't real, why would you be here? ;)
The Catholic Church is the biggest, most loving family on Earth. This book contains the summary of our beliefs, but you can learn a lot about Catholicism by lurking here on this sub.
There's a Catechism book for adults too, that covers pretty much all of what we believe, in case you didn't know about it. Every Catholic household should have a copy in my opinion.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385508190/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_EC.Yzb3MPNVJC
Edit: I think you can view this version for free online too: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
The Third Day by Arnold Lynn. https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/THRDAY.HTM
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483
https://www.amazon.com/Twelve-Lives-Apostles-After-Calvary/dp/0879739266
Warren Carroll has a wonderful 6 volume history of the church that is a blast to read.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0931888247/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=BKPBP3A0610NNSD39AJ2
Loved this book. He takes on a lot of Bart Ehrmans arguments. If you are going to read Ehrman, you need to read this to balance out your education.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=the+case+for+jesus&amp;qid=1574208876&amp;sr=8-1
Wishing you only the best!
Options:
Most Christians will think 1 or 2, some may think 3. The reason for why people may believe in the gospels is well covered material. As someone else suggested, The Case for Jesus is a good read.
These are some of the books that I've enjoyed for spiritual reading (but it's hard to separate the books I've enjoyed as theology from spiritual readings some times!):
Benedikt podrzava evoluciju, on je sam napisao jos osamdesetih da teorija evolucija je znastveno objasnjenje nastanka covika i da knjiga postanka nije znastveno niti povjesno djelo. Covik je napisa cilu knjigu o tome.
https://www.amazon.com/In-Beginning-Understanding-Ressourcement-Retrieval/dp/0802841066/?tag=ththve-20
U toj istoj knjizi napada kreacionizam koje podvalju uglavnom americki protestanti kao budalistinu.
I onda sad on meni dolazi tu i govori kako to nisu nikakva naklapanja, ma daj.
You can always try more "spiritual" Christian texts... For instance, you can slowly ease your way into those type of texts by reading more Pentecostal mystics. Here's an order to probably read texts in:
I hope this list helps you a little bit! It's not extensive nor anywhere complete. I tried to order the books from "easiest" for a Charismatic/Pentecostal believer (I was raised Assemblies of God, so I come from that background) to "hardest" for an Charismatic/Pentecostal believer. If you have any further questions, or what not, don't hesitate to ask!
I pray that God lights your path a little bit more each day.
I bought the alphabetical collection, and I re-read it every month or so. Fantastic book.
If you like philosophy I'd suggest Thomas Aquinas and a good interpreter of Aquinas like Peter Kreeft
https://www.amazon.com/Summa-Thomas-Aquinas/dp/089870300X
https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Scholar-Philosophy-Thomas-Aquinas/dp/B002QBNVAW
If you wanna learn the bible and the catechism at the same time, I can heartily suggest the Didache bible, which includes both, or rather it uses the catechism as commentary for the Bible.
http://www.ignatius.com/Products/DBIB-H/the-didache-bible-with-commentaries-based-on-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.aspx
If you are more into learning baby step by baby step, I'd recommend EWTN radio, which has shows like Open Line and Called to Communion. Called to communion is especially goo because Dr. Anders takes small issues and unpacks them into large theological catechises.
St Catherines Catholic church also has a nice video bible study
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3B6ihEAmqWIsQXE5tVob_w
Here's a handy 90-day reading plan, which takes you through the narrative books of the Bible. It's a good place to start when reading scripture, giving you a good look at the story of Scripture.
Aquinas is the premier Catholic thinker. I wouldn't recommend you start reading Aquinas unless you have firm grounding in Aristotelian philosophy. But that's not to say you can't learn about Aquinas' thought. You might find books like A Summa of the Summa, Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide, or The Dumb Ox useful introductory texts to his works. After you're comfortable reading him, you can jump in to some primary texts.
You can absolutely study theology and/or canon law formally. Just be aware that there aren't to many jobs you'll be able to get with a theology degree under your belt. Your options would be pretty much just professor, priest, or religion teacher.
Edit: Also, if you haven't done so already, read the Catechism or the Compendium of the Catechism.
Listen to Catholic Answers Live, they often have specific topics for the day "Why aren't you Catholic?" "Why are you a protestant?" etc. you can go back on the calendar and find those past shows as well.
Also would recommend The Protestant's Dilemma and Rome Sweet Home
Please read this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rome-Sweet-Home-Journey-Catholicism/dp/0898704782
I want to repeat what others have said in gratitude for your respectful approach to our faith and your position. It says very good things about you as a person, and it means a lot to us as a community.
I don't have much to recommend for your kids, but I can suggest a few things for you.
First, although it is a bit odd to recommend a Protestant to introduce you to Catholicism, I do recommend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. It is a very good introduction to some of the essential ideas of Christianity, and as a bonus it is written by C.S. Lewis, so it is very enjoyable to read.
Another thing I recommend is trying to make sense of the liturgical calendar. The big themes of Catholicism are given space on the calendar to help Catholics absorb them in a regular and balanced way. As a teacher, you will have opportunities to talk to the kids about what's currently going on last Sunday/the coming Sunday/this current season, and I imagine you can find ways to tie in the lessons you already had planned. If you can get your hands on a missal, it will give you relatively detailed information on the liturgical calendar and the scheduled scripture readings, and I'm guessing Catholicism for Dummies, which someone else mentioned, probably has a good summary for each liturgical season. Once you get a sense of what each season is, you might google reflections based on each Sunday's readings to see how different parts of the Bible fit into the season's broader themes.
You might also want to get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a reference book. If you have time, reading through the whole thing would teach you an enormous amount, but it would take some time to read. Each section has a little summary at the end, so you might start by just reading all of the summaries. Regardless of whether you get around to reading the whole thing, it can be very useful as a reference tool. If you don't want to buy a hard copy and/or you want to be able to search faster, you can find it online here. There's also a chance that there's a copy around the school somewhere.
The US Catholic Church uses the New American Bible, so that's the translation you'll be hearing at Mass if you're in the US. So, just search New American Bible and go with that. I would even recommend getting a study Bible to help you understand what's happening and how things relate to other parts of the Bible, because it can be confusing. Just as a recommendation, this one is fantastic.
There are quite a few sources on understanding the Mass. I would look up the Order of the Mass and maybe try reading through that and following along during Mass, so you understand what is being said and also know what to say.
The Catechism is fantastic. Here is a pretty safe bet on getting started with reading that and something to use as reference.
If you're interested in reading the Summa Theologica, there are shorter versions like Summa of the Summa, which, while still not too short, condense down the most important information and make it easier for somebody without as much time to at least get the general idea.
Good luck on your journey, as I am currently doing the same and am in RCIA, but I've been doing my research for quite a while and am very excited for the coming year!
If you have $10 to spare or $0.99 on kindle then you should pick up the CCC and try to read it cover to cover and see for yourself if the Anglican Church is more legalistic than Rome. Anyways I'm not set on anything I'm taking my making time making sure I join a true bible based church with no additions one that uses the KJV.
Well there are many in my experience in Catholicism that live a dry faith, meaning they don't feel fancy feelings rather they know through knowledge and study.
I cannot of course say that my feelings are more valid than another's we're all biased but that would be a terrible thing to say overall. As if someone else's personal feeling are less important than my own. However, I cannot also say that my feelings are no different from a muslim or mormon or any other religious because then it would seem that other religious feel the same as I do, so therefore something must be amiss as if there is a true religion in this world, feelings such as those should under reasoning only happen with that particular one.
I do not deny their feelings or doubt my own so what else do I have up my sleeve.
I'm a Catholic as you can probably tell from my username (also I hope you enjoy your time I reddit since I think you're new?). This means that along with feelings of ecstasy or not, how would I ever believe the Catholic Church to be the one correct religion.
Catholicism is easy to understand at a basic level, but going further reveals a large web of complicated reasoning dating back hundreds even over a thousand years ago.
Honestly I could ramble all day, verring off topic at the slightest thought, but I'll stop here and just give some resources if that may interest you.
The first is New Advent which is a completely free site where you can have access to church documents (in the library) access to the bible in both Greek, Latin and English, a full version of the Summa written by Thomas Aquinas and many other writing of some early Christian figures that helped define many of the beliefs of Christianity in the world of the 1st century and onward.
The second is r/Catholicism, assuming you don't spam (I believe the limit is 3 posts a week) you can ask all the questions you like from people who may correct misunderstandings or give additional resources.
For two book recommendations I recommend The Catechism of the Catholic Church which can found online for free on the Vatican's website keep in the mind it's a very small font or by buying it from Amazon which also offers a kindle version for very cheap and an audiobook if that is more your thing.
The other is (the less subtlety named) Answering Atheism which I've heard many good things about from some friends of mine and folks from r/Catholicism.
I thank you most of all for being polite and courteous and I hope our exchange was educational for both of us. Always feel free to DM me for anything else.
http://catholicproductionsblog.com/dr-brant-pitre-introduces-new-book-case-jesus/
> Dr. Pitre's The Case for Jesus Intro Video Transcript
>
> I've been teaching the Bible as a professor now for a long time, and over the years I've noticed that many of my students believe in Jesus, but they don't necessarily know why they believe in Jesus, they don’t know why they think he’s the Messiah, the son of God. Lots of other people I know don't believe in Jesus, but they don't necessarily realize who Jesus claimed to be. For example, lots of them will say “oh well Jesus was just a good moral teacher,” or “Jesus was just an ordinary Jewish rabbi,” or “Jesus was just a great prophet.” Still others will say, “well how do we even know what Jesus did and said, we can't really understand him, we can't really have access to him, it was so long ago.” Some of these people, for example, compare the Gospels to the end product of a game of telephone. Maybe you’ve played the telephone game when you were a kid, they’ll say, “well the Gospels are like the telephone game, you know ,where one child tells a story to the next child, who tells it the next child, and it gets changed over and over again, until, at the end of the game, the story that you end up with is nothing like what you heard in the beginning. Is that what the Gospels are like? Are they just a long chain of anonymous traditions about Jesus, which may or may not be accurate. And what about those documentaries that come on every year, around Easter and Christmas, that ask questions like: did Jesus really claim to be divine? What about the lost Gospels, like the Gospel Thomas? Or a so-called Gospel of Q?
>
> How does all this factor into the reliability of the accounts that we find in the New Testament? In my new book, The Case for Jesus, I look at these questions head on, and I want to ask ourselves, what exactly is the biblical and the historical evidence for Christ, for who He claimed to be? We’re gonna look at questions like:
>
> How did we get the Gospels? So were they really originally anonymous, or were they written by the apostles and their followers? What about the the genre of the Gospels, what kind of books are these? Are they like folklore or fairytales? Are they myths? Or are they history? Are they biographies? And also too, what about the identity of Jesus? Who Jesus really claim to be? Was he just a prophet, or a great teacher, or a rabbi? Or did he fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah? And, most of all, did he actually claim to be God? Did he claim to be divine? This is going to be one most important points we have to deal with, because, you may have heard this before, there are lots of scholars out there who say that Jesus only claims to be divine in the Gospel of John. That he doesn't claim to be divine in the three earlier Gospels, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. So what about that? Is the score 3 against 1? And when were these books written? Are they too late to actually be reliable? How do we know what we know about who Jesus was, and what he did and said, and that's what I’m going to be looking at in this book, The Case for Jesus.
>
> Now what’s unique about this book, is that, there are of course thousands and thousands of books out there on Jesus, and lots of them, especially the more skeptical ones, tend to give you just one side of the argument. They’re gonna tell you why you shouldn't trust the gospel, why Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah, or claim to be divine. In this book I’m gonna give you both sides of the argument. I'm gonna give you arguments for and against the reliability of the Gospels. I’m gonna give you the arguments for and against Jesus claiming to be the Messiah, and claiming to be divine, and I'll let you decide, what is the evidence for Christ? And there are also lots of books out there that claim that Jesus never said that he was Divine, never claimed to be God. Well one of the things I try to show in this book is, that when you look at the gospel evidence, when you look at the question of Jesus’ divinity, you’ve got to pay attention to his Jewish context. Over and over again I've noticed that books by skeptics often will ignore the Jewish roots of Jesus’ divinity. In other words, you only will be up to see how he is identifying himself as divine, if you read His words in the first century Jewish context. So if you've ever been interested in the question of the origin of the Gospels, of the divinity of Christ. If you've ever wondered who was Jesus, and how do we know. Whether you're a Christian or non-Christian, Protestant or Catholic, whether you’re Jewish, Muslim, atheist, or agnostic, believer or nonbeliever, or maybe a little bit of both. If you've ever wondered who was Jesus, then this book, The Case for Jesus: the Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ, is for you.
Video on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ1osU9nkJ4
For a beginning resource on the subject, look into Brant Pitre's The Case for Jesus
Here are good starts!
Horn's Answering Atheism
Horn's The Case for Catholicism
Pitre's The Case for Jesus
Spitzer's God So Loved the World
Tim O Neill (an honest atheist who puts good history first) on the Church and science, the Inquisition and the Galileo affair
You should read The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre
It's not a Catholic book, but if you want to go the 'not pushy' route, I would suggest something like C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce—something that gives a little bit of a taste of broader Christian theology, but that isn't itself overwhelmingly doctrinal (since I know that many non-believers tend to react quite forcefully against that kind of thing).
If you want to be more explicitly doctrinal but still just want to give a kind of inviting teaser into greater mysteries, I would recommend picking up a short topical work in theology. Something, perhaps, like Ratzinger's 'In the Beginning…': A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.
Otherwise there's always Bishop Barron's Catholicism.
Here’s the best treatment I know of from the theological side.
In the Beginning...': A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall
It discusses that the point of the Creation narrative is to tell us something about God and man, that we are to see it Christocentrically, and that the Bible itself sees it as a developing narrative not a literal account.
I’m still finishing it but I think he argues the first 11 chapters of Genesis are and were understood to tell us something about God rather than being literal history in the strict sense.
Two things missing from your description of the issue are trust and hope. From a Christian perspective, the battle has already been won at the resurrection (while we also look ahead for Jesus to come again in glory). Ultimately there is no way of proving to anyone that the life of the world as it is being lived out is "enough" for God, believing that we are loved takes faith. One non-blog source that's direct is if you are able to get your hands on a copy of This book by the Pope about Genesis and flip through to the part where he's addressing Hegel (the whole thing is good). Wikipedia or stanford encyclopedia of philosophy search Hegel to get a gist, in all likelihood you'll have come into contact with somebody who thinks along the lines that he does. Basically what the Pope says is that the movers and shakers of western thought for the last one hundred and fifty years or so have been enthralled with a way of thinking that makes it cool to take things for granted, and to not trust anything.
The way that people talk about it, trusting always leads to complacency and not having all of one's bases covered. The smartest people, it is said, don't trust anything and question all of the time. This is the way that "curiosity" is popularly conceived. Hundreds of years ago, "curiosity" in terms of a zeal for understanding would have been characterized as simply a love for studying this or that subject, growing out of the way that that subject is embodied in the world (i.e. someone's motivation for studying astronomy comes from the beauty of the night sky etc). Curiositas on the other hand, was about having a body of knowledge a mile wide and an inch deep; to use learning to avoid thinking about one's own life. In the time when this was vocabulary that people used to talk about scholarship, the smartest people weren't the least secure, checking over again all of the time, and constantly pointing out others mistakes, flipping out and thinking everybody thinks I'm stupid when I make a mistake.
I'm not dumping on academics, I think that the best professors and such nowadays approach learning the same way, but at the same time, I think there has been a slight shift in the way that learning is understood popularly, and I think that it involves being less secure than is necessary. This is the sort of thing that Benedict was talking about. You've got to trust that the way one's life proceeds normally, doing one's best to throw one's self into doing what makes sense for one's self and one's community is enough for God. Now, I mean that in a specific sense, what we offer to God doesn't have the faintest merest hope of off-setting what He does for us. On the other hand, as we see in the new testament with the tax collector and the pharisee in the temple, if we offer what we can to God, saying "only say the word and I shall be healed," we are doing what is right. I guess that is the meaning of existence to me.
Edit: have you ever met any Mennonites? I'm not Mennonite, but I think they're great, and I think if you ever spend time in Pennsylvania, USA or Alberta, Canada, you might be able to gain some confidence that when this stuff is lived out that it works.
I’d say you can’t really beat The Sayings of the Desert Fathers.
Honestly, I am not a scholar so I don't know what translation is best but to get you started. https://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Spiritual-Homilies-Macarius-Egyptian/dp/1785160346/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Pseudo+macarius&amp;qid=1557372832&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-3
https://www.amazon.com/Sayings-Desert-Fathers-Alphabetical-Collection/dp/0879079592/ref=sr_1_1?crid=YECJXX02GYIC&amp;keywords=sayings+of+the+desert+fathers&amp;qid=1557373438&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=sayings+o%2Cstripbooks%2C189&amp;sr=1-1
A word of warning. I don't feel Orthodox is preoccupied with the cross alone but it is there and especially Monastic texts of any Christian tradition will speak about his quite a bit.
This sub is small you might be better off asking at r/orthodoxchristianity
This version worked out great for me, as u/RWeGreatYet also linked.
Sure! Most of what I learned wasn't in a class. College/seminary is super overrated outside of something to put on a resume imo (unless you want to get ordained).
Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years REALLY good overview book.
The Early Church is really good. Might be a bit dry? But good information.
Christianizing the Roman Empire was pretty interesting and helpful.
Popular Religion in Late Saxon England is as cool as it sounds. My main complaint is that after chapter 3, she essentially just keeps repeating her thesis was more, similar, examples. Very good first 3 chapters tho!
Sayings of the Desert Fathers is good. Sometimes very odd, but at the least interesting.
Augustine's Confessions a must read for many reasons.
On the Holy Spirit can be dry and repetitive at points, but is really good.
Essentially any primary source (i.e. something an author actually wrote, not what someone wrote about them) is great to read. Look for stuff by Augustine, Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Maximus the Confessor, Aquinas, Lombard, Vermigli, Luther, Calvin, etc.
Actually, Peter Kreeft did! He wrote a Summa of the Summa and then A Shorter Summa, which is only like 150 pages.
Shout out to my professor, Thomist teacher and writer Peter Kreeft, who wrote A Summa of the Summa, for easier access to this great work by St. Thomas!
I don't know of a website, but Peter Kreeft's "Summa of the Summa" is very good.
Do you want modern personalities, too? Because I found Jennifer Fulwiler's Something Other Than God to be quite nice, and even Scott and Kimberly Hahn's Rome Sweet Home was pretty good.
These are the only Catholic memoirs by living persons I've read (not typically my genre), but each was enjoyable in its own way. (If you're only picking one, I vote Fulwiler.)
My prayers for your search! Enjoy the reading. :)
EDIT: Duh! GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy is not exactly a conversion story, but it kind of is, and it's pretty great, too.
Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn.
> Does this take into account history, if not, why? Furthermore, can you prove this to be true, if so I'd love a study.
You can actually show the opposite to what OP says is true
>Loads. Christians tried to destroy classical culture,
Again. Got any proof? On the contrary- countless monks worked in scriptoriums to preserve the knowledge.
>Muslims translated Aristotle and we got it from them.
It's true that the monks also took arabic translations of classic texts and translated them to latin and some of the ancient works reached us via muslims.
>Christians were murdning and tortuirng people for anthing resembeling science
Care to provide some proof perhaps?
>We got the basis for maths and science from them. You can see the geometric designes in their old archecture.
You mean there was no math or geometry in ancient Greece or Rome? If you're talking about our current numerical system then I'm sorry to inform you- it is actually Indian, no Arab.
>https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/28/the-darkening-age-the-christian-destruction-of-the-classical-world-by-catherine-nixey
And who is this Catherine Nixey that I should care to waste my time reading her book? Sorry, but I'd rather trust a real historiam historian Thomas Woods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods ( https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280 )
&#x200B;
All that being said: The OP is talking specifically about Scientific Method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), not math, geometry or philosophy. And the scientific method was only developed in 17th century - a few hundred years after an Islamic Golden Age.
> Catholicism has done society a lot of harm.
And even more good.
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9htVDONoFBg
Not a Catholic myself but the monks contributions to keeping society going during the middle ages are nothing short of legendary. Europe likely wouldn't exist anything like present day, the entire modern world might not even exist.
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
>Unlike your anthropomorphic sky creature.
Straw man, straw man, swimming through the ocean, causing a commotion, because it’s so fallacious...We don’t believe in a dude with a beard in the sky. You realize those depictions are just for ease of viewing, right? Otherwise we would literally not be able to depict the moment of creation, which would make for very unentertaining images.
>And some non spatial/temporal-ether (for lack of a better descriptive term) is an entirely possible, even likely explanation of observable facts.
Mmmmmhmmmm. It’s weird that you guys are all “hurr durr magic sky fairy,” and in order to keep any semblance of self-consistent philosophy you have to resort to untestable universes that spontaneously generated out of nothing. You literally read more like a caricature of Christian beliefs than I do. “It just happened! It popped out of space juice!”
Which one of us is high, again?
Also, note that God is also a perfectly consistent explanation. But sure, magic sky multiverses. Whatever.
>Please read ACTUAL theories and research.
Did you read the research behind the book you linked? I too read pop science. I’m reading an ancient Brian Greene book called Fabric of the Cosmos right now. I would encourage you to look up the critical reviews for the book you linked, as well. Here’s one I found (admittedly on Wikipedia), that I thought was interesting:
>Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could."
Weird.
>Sorry I won't read your bronze age myths anymore than I have.
Okay? We’ll see who’s right when we die, I guess.
>Equivocate if you wish.
Thank you for your generosity.
>Religion gave us sacrificial goats.
Science gave us Hiroshima and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, but I’m not railing at science, am I?
>Science (an actual, demonstrable understanding of reality) gave us engines, planes, computers...
Catholicism gave us the university system, Western civilization, the Big Bang Theory, tons of advances in modern medicine, a modern legal system, and, what do you know, according to this, modern science. Weird, huh?
>Probability is temporal, so even the most unlikely things are bound to happen in a multiverse, btw...
Who are you to decide how probability does or does not apply in a multiverse that you don’t even know exists?
>if you'll leave me to take advantage of the life I actually know I'll get.
Yes, please, continue leading your meaningful life trolling Catholic forums.
Read God and the Gay Christian.
You're welcome, I'm glad I could be of help! Same here, books and reading are extremely important to me, and have been a huge influence in my life. Also, if I can make another recommendation, I haven't read it, but I've heard good things about Rome Sweet Home. It might be worth reading as you explore Catholicism.
Also, if you have any questions about Catholicism or Christianity, you're more than welcome to ask them on this subreddit. God bless! :)
Edit:formatting
Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism by former protestants Scott Hahn and Kimberly Hahn.
I was raised Evangelical... converted to Catholic in adulthood. There are a number of books that I could recommend. Here are some of my favorites - in order of importance/preference.
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (only the NT though, they are currently working on OT)
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Catholicism and Fundamentalism (written in the 80's, but still very relevant and the best Catholic apologetics book to defend the faith that I've ever read)
Works of G.K. Chesterton Vol 3 (This volume explains why he converted from Anglican to Catholic)
Rome Sweet Home
The Fathers Know Best
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic
Surprised By Truth
Ages ago I read this book by a (the?) Vatican exorcist.
An Exorcist Tells His Story https://www.amazon.com/dp/0898707102/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_XSSgDbB849SGA
An Exorcist Tells His Story
http://www.amazon.com/Exorcist-Tells-His-Story/dp/0898707102
You need to know with certainty what's happening and how to deal with it. The logical next steps would be to discard any medical condition that could be producing these strange occurrences.
Also, try to get these books and read them:
http://www.amazon.com/An-Exorcist-Tells-His-Story/dp/0898707102
http://www.amazon.com/An-Exorcist-Stories-Gabriele-Amorth/dp/0898709172/
PM me if you want to talk about this.
Good luck...
Consider Introduction to Christianity by Pope Benedict XVI (written when he was Cardinal Ratzinger).
Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, was probably the smartest pope in history (he was a professor of theology for many years before becoming pope, and wrote 66 books), said creationism was "absurd" and there was "much scientific proof in favor of evolution."
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1xibyb/til_in_2007_the_pope_benedict_xvi_called/
His book "Introduction to Christianity" was one of my favorite books when I was an evangelical Christian (despite its name, it is quite deep, and very well written considering its depth).
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Christianity-2nd-Communio-Books/dp/1586170295
Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI)
This is a dense read and not nearly as "introductory" as the title would have you believe, but it's an extraordinary piece of work, taking the form of a 400-page commentary on the Apostles Creed and how it sums up all that's necessary for the Christian life.
Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales
A wonderful book about how ordinary people can seek and find holiness in their lives.
The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola
The Spiritual Exercises are one of the world's greatest systems for drawing into an intimate and personal relationship with God.
The Cloud of Unknowing
This anonymous book is written for someone very far advanced in the mystical and contemplative life, but it's tremendously beneficial for even the novice reader.
The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross
St. John is one of the greatest of all mystics, and his writings offer tremendous consolation to those going through periods of spiritual desolation. He shows us that the love of God is present even in darkest nights of our souls.
They didn't miss. Ex Cathedra isn't some magic phrase where you can say "I declare Ex Cathedra!" (Much like Michael Scott declaring Bankruptcy in the office). Ex Cathedra is more or less the rubric in which a statement can be declared infallible.
Considering that during the 1800s many people challenged the role of the Pope once again, and it seems as though the early church believed a lot of the same things that Vatican I said about the Pope (I have a great book recommendation for the early church and the Pope, it is The Early Papacy - By Adrian Fortescue). Consider that these councils tend to happen not as a way of saying "Here is a new belief" but "Here is a belief that most people have always believed but now people are challenging it, so we're gonna come confirm it real quick and make all of our beliefs on it super clear."
So until then the rules for papal infallibility may not have been strictly defined, and since it was historically not needing such a definition people may have been less concerned about it, but appeared to follow the dogma albeit not in a developed way.
Even in the New Testament (Acts), Paul understands he has to convince Peter of things, not the other way around.
Early Church writers speak highly of Bishops, esp. the Bishop of Rome as having a prime place. And at various moments but particularly Chalcedon, the Bishop of Rome exercises authority above the council.
I recommend reading The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Fr Fortesque. It is a fantastic historical account of how the papacy was regarded in the earliest years of the church, by accounts of those who lived in those times. The year 451 and the Synod of Chalcedon were chosen arbitrarily, due to the arguments of those he debated in the Anglican church who insisted that the church became corrupt after that synod and the papacy did not exist until after 451 AD. He proves very definitively that this is not the case. Give it a read!
1 There's heaps but a good example is Pope St. Celestine's deputization of St. Cyril (easterner) so he could judge Nestorius in his place. Check out Fortescue's The Early Papacy (pdf link) and Dom John Chapman's Studies on the Early Papacy for good discussions of the early papacy.
2 Strictly, no. You could make an argument that it was not prudent from a fraternal POV for Rome to follow certain other western churches and add it to the creed. You could definitely also make the arugment that Photius and Michael Cerularius (important Patriarchs of Constantinople) made their big fusses about it for political reasons rather than out of noble love for orthodoxy. Either way the filioque is true and it was legitimate for Rome to add it to the creed.
3/4 I don't think these questions are really relevant to the religious question but we definitely don't think it was "necessary" to sack Constantinople, just like EOs wouldn't think the Massacre of the Latins was necessary (I hope).
5 I actually don't know that much about this topic, sorry.
6 Yes, it bothers some but not all, especially now that many Catholics are not even familiar with the old liturgy (I prefer the old rite even though I'm a young guy and a convert). There has always been groups that have been opposed to the new liturgy and remained attached to the old rite, though. See Marcel Lefebvre , the Ottaviani Intervention, the Una Voce International Federation, etc. as examples. Thanks to Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum I'm hoping the usus antiquior will become increasingly popular as time goes on, enough so that perhaps eventually the Novus Ordo will become unnecessary.
7 I don't really know. Honestly, I converted after the scandals had already hit their hardest.
I suppose I should reply to you directly since I've referred to you several times in lower comments.
What you are suggesting is true; there are many examples of gay children driven to drugs or suicide on account of how their christian or catholic parents treated them. I apologize that some parents showed their kids rules before they showed them love. It appears that God made every difference - whether it be skin color, ability/disability, language/culture, etc., in order to give us challenges or obstacles to love. It is said that if you take one step to Jesus, He'll take 5 steps to you. Many gay catholics have come to know the peace of God and ways to live harmoniously with Him. If you google "gay and catholic", you'll find stories like this one. My point is that stories like those prove that it's possible to keep someone reminded of how they are loved while issues they may have are dealt with one step and day at a time. I don't know if your comment was about your own sexuality or someone else's. I do know that you would be welcome in my group if I was traveling like these happy seminarians. Your criticism is justified. You're talking to a catholic who wants to do better.
What would Eve Tushnet say?
I found this article very hard to read. Not the subject matter, but just the style of writing. It jumps all over the place and kept confusing me.
The Amazon reviews are much more helpful.
I'm reading 3 this lent (the first 3) but recommend everything.
Check out 33 Days to Morning Glory.
It's meant to be read in short blocks daily for 33 days to prepare for consecration to Mary...whether you do consecration or not, it's worth spending 5 minutes a day for a month to understand all the fuss about Mary.
My mom got me this book called "33 Days to Morning Glory", and its a easy to follow version of how to consecrate yourself to mary and what it means. You have to prepare 33 days before a Marian feast day (for Lent I was prepping for the Annunciation) and then you're closer to Mary in special ways and try to be more intentional in the way you live to honor her, and she brings you closer to Jesus. I'd recommend the book, my faith life was getting rather boring and repeptive and this was a nice refresher and good thing to read every morning.
Here's a link to amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Days-Morning-Glory-Do-Yourself/dp/1596142448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1522042462&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=33+days+to+morning+glory+book
> It may perhaps be a grand illusion, a trick played on us by our brain, but would that illusion be any more grand than to say that it all is an illusion and we shouldn't simple become skeptic solipsists?
Well, there's some new breakthroughs in neuroscience that seem to point towards us not having free will. But to me, the idea that given the exact same scenario with the exact same inputs could result in a different decision doesn't make any sense to me unless you just say that choices are random (which I wouldn't exactly call free will either).
> I mentioned this in another post, but I believe that one sins against the observer. If a man beats his wife in front of his child, he sins both against the wife and the child. Moreover, a guilty person forgiving fully another guilty person would not be the fullest expression of mercy.
This answers why you think you should also atone to god, but it doesn't answer why you believe it's moral for someone else to take your punishment for you.
> This discovery of an empty tomb, the visions of post mortem Jesus and the belief-to-the-death of early Christians of the veracity of his being risen from the dead.
Not sure what you mean by multiply attested, but none of these facts are corroborated outside the bible. There's also new literature out there that seems to point heavily towards the idea that early Christian persecution was a myth.
The Christians were not persecuted in the first century. They were a laughable little cult and not at all a threat to the ruling authorities, either Jewish or Roman. The notion that someone put a sword to their throat and said "renounce your belief in the resurrection or diiiiiiie" is complete nonsense.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
Interesting. I may have to get my hands on that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Persecution
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/the_myth_of_persecution_early_christians_werent_persecuted/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/candida-moss/the-myth-of-christian-persecution_b_2901880.html
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527
> Given what we know about the early church (many were martyred)
This is actually not true.
> As in, the early days when Christianity was illegal and Christians were frequently jailed or martyred
The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom, by Candida Moss
And those 'fed to the lions' stories were bullshit.
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Persecution-Christians-Invented-Martyrdom/dp/0062104551
> What are the sacraments? Where can I find them in scripture?
Catholicism isn't a sola scriptura religion (and, really, sola scriptura wasn't meant to eliminate other sources of knowledge such as Tradition, but that's how it's ended up for a lot of denominations). Sometimes, there are things that logic and reasoning bring you to.
That said, Baptism, Reconciliation (Confession), and the Eucharist are extremely clear from scripture [Matt 28:19] [John 20:22-23] [Luke 22:19].
Someone else already discussed confirmation but I'll add this: [ccc 1286-1289].
Jesus teaches about marriage very definitively to the point of referencing Genesis and the insoluble union of becoming one flesh. He also performed His first public miracle at a wedding. (Interesting side note: the sacrament of marriage is conferred upon one another by the bridge and groom. The Church merely witnesses.)
I'm going to refer you to the Catechism for Holy Orders since I don't have the skill to summarize it for you. Although that implies I'm doing a good job summarizing the others, which probably isn't the case.
Jesus publicly healed the sick, sometimes using sacramentals to anoint them even though He clearly didn't need to [John 9:6-7]. And Jesus' ministry was certainly a healing ministry for both body and soul.
> Do Catholics worship Mary?
No. We honor Mary as the mother of God. I think the biggest thing that causes so much confusion for many Christians is that they equate prayer with worship. To pray is to ask, as in "pray tell". So we ask Mary to intercede on our behalf with her Son, just as she did for the bride and groom at Cana [John 2:1-5].
>So do you pray to Saints? How do we know they are in heaven now? I always thought everyone was at rest waiting for judgement day.
The modern process for declaring that someone is in heaven requires authenticated miracles that could only be attributed to the intercession of someone who is dead (there's more to it than just that, but that's the logical basis for the declaration). There are most assuredly some that have been declared saints in the past that were done so more for political reasons than theological, so I don't really know what their exact standing would be. The Church has been given no knowledge about who isn't in heaven - only those that are. [Luke 23:43] [Mark 9:2-4]
> I'd always thought that meant making images of angels or the trinity was forbidden but correct me if I am wrong.
And yet, [Exodus 25:18-20].
> -Not that is particularly matter to me personally, but I am curious as to whether Catholics believe the images to be aesthetically accurate.
I don't actually know if there's an official Church teaching on that particular item, but I'm personally fairly certain the Jesus wasn't a white guy with blue eyes. Obviously I could be wrong. There are definitely people in the Middle East that vary a lot in complexion, hair color, and eye color. I suppose the various representations of Jesus are more about helping you to identify with Him on a more personal level; hence Him looking more like people in the region that the images were made: white Jesus in Europe, black Jesus in Africa, semetic Jesus in the Middle East. I haven't actually seen an Asian Jesus, but I'm sure He's out there.
---
Wow! A lot of great questions. I think you would benefit greatly by purchasing the Catechism of the Catholic Church - CCC for short. It's also available online. I would tell you to follow the links in the part that Catebot will provide from the bot callout I did, but those links aren't working correctly anymore and I haven't made it a priority to fix them. :(
I also checked your posting history and while I don't have experience with the turmoil you're going through, feel free to PM me if you just need to talk. I did go through a similar search as you are including Judaism and very seriously considered converting prior to returning to Catholicism (raised Catholic, never confirmed, drifted away but never completely stopped believing, various Christian denominations, mysticism, etc.). I will pray that your search for the Truth is fruitful: [Phil 1:4-6].
edit: Huh. My instance of versebot scanned my post but chose not to quote any verses. Weird. I'm going to put them all together in a separate comment and call out the official bot.
I would recommend watching masses on a Catholic TV Network such as EWTN and Catholictv so that you understand what the liturgy of The Church is , then go to a service in person.
I would also get a copy of the NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition) and a copy of The Catechism Of The Catholic Church.
You can read The Catechism online however
The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385496591/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_tnZYAbRXDH0DN
Depends on what section of the Church she wants to discover. Just off the top of my head:
The Lamb's supper is widely recommended, I haven't read it but any word of it highly praises the way it explains and appreciates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
I enjoyed Francis Cardinal Arinze's book on Mary, and how it relates perfectly to scripture.
Has she seen Bishop Barron's Catholicism series in general?
Hi there, and welcome to the biggest party on Earth.
As far as knowing "what to do" during Mass - your parish should have a missalette located either in your pew or at the back of the church to pick up with your hymnal and whatnot. They usually look like this or something similar. Say the black, do the red, the priest says the bold. But at the same time, don't worry - it's okay if you don't say everything just right; for many hundreds of years, the laity didn't have any verbal participation, and your spiritual participation (ie adding your prayers and intentions to that of the Holy Sacrifice) is plenty.
On a deeper note, if you want to learn about the history and the theology behind the Mass, I really strongly recommend Scott Hahn's excellent book, The Lamb's Supper as it goes into the Jewish roots of much of the Mass. It really helped me understand not only what was going on from a sensory perspective, but also from a theological perspective.
As far as kneeling: You are more than welcome to remain seated if you can't kneel without pain. You're also welcome to kneel anyway and offer that pain as a sacrifice, but sitting is okay, too!
If you're looking for a book, check out Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn. Dr. Hahn has an easy-reading writing style that should be a great introduction.
Congratulations on the conversion!
I'd recommend reading Scott Hahn's Hail, Holy Queen and, if you're really feeling up to it, try Scheeben's two-volume Mariology.
> James' death is recorded in acts
Oh, well if it was written in an ancient text, it must have happened. Like everything else written in ancient texts, right?
> it strikes the question of why Christians have had such a long history of persecution.
Yes it does.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527
> See myth of Christian persecution, Christian persecution complex. You seem to have it.
Since /u/PadreDieselPunk is doing a great job responding to your other points, I just want to focus on this comment you made in passing. This assertion, lately popularized by amateur authors such as Candida Moss, is demonstrably false. These bush-league studies come out every once in awhile for shock value, and to make a quick buck from people who don't know any better. But these works (like Candida Moss') are universally panned by professional historians and historiographers. Including atheistic ones. The professional book reviews of these types of books (the ones that appear in peer-reviewed journals of history and archaeology) are very, very fun to read. They tear them apart.
If you want to be taken seriously around these parts, you should do your homework a little better. Don't simply grasp at fallacious and absurd historical arguments because you think it will earn you some quick debate points. Stick with the facts.
>Suetonius was contemporary to Tacitus, and describes the fire as a great calamity. Nero is considerably more villainized in his account, described as having ordered the fire set. He makes no mention of Tacitus.
Suetonius was 13 years younger than Tacitus and most of what he wrote follows Tacitus' work. Yes, Suetonius is harder on Nero than Tacitus, but Tacitus is the one who made up the story about burning Christians.
Regarding the fire, Tacitus is the one who claims it destroyed most of Rome, while Suetonius claims that it was staged by Nero. My point is that Tacitus has been proven to exaggerate, and he was only 8 years old when all of this supposedly happened (Source: Just look up when he was born and when the fire took place).
Regarding the burning of Christians (again), we know that the Romans fed Prisoners to animals. But again, Tacitus is the only one who claimed that Nero was using them to light up his garden. This book about the Roman colloseum even states there's no evidence in their records that Christians were used in the fights. When you think about it, Rome had freedom of religion at that time, good record keepers, lots of historians. What they do record is imprisoning people for cannibalism, and things we would today call terrorism. At that point in Christian history, Martyrdom was a guaranteed ticket to heaven, so it was in their interests to cause trouble in the name of Jesus, and then get killed for it. But Romans weren't killing them for being Christians. Even if you consider Nero's actual historically verified act of blaming the fire on the Christians, they would be charged for arson and murder. Not being Christian.
There's actually a really good book that goes into some deep detail about why legends of 300 years of persecution are probably myths, and makes some other good points about why Tacitus is probably making stuff up (or misremembering). For example, during Nero's reign, Rome was actually trying to protect freedom of religion - one of the reasons why Nero's golden dome was so loudly protested (imagine if America was claiming you had the choice to practice whatever religion you wanted, while they erected a gigantic golden cross in the whitehouse front lawn.).
Need I remind you again, that Tacitus was just out of childhood when these things were going on, and then wrote about them much much later. He was 8-10 years old while these events happened, and 50 years later he was still writing the annals when he died. I really doubt he was huddled amongst charred buildings or hiding in the gardens as a child and writing these things down.
As a senator he did have access to the state records, and yes, a most of what Tacitus wrote can be verified by archaeology and other historians of his time. However, he recalls a much greater fire than what historians today found to have actually happened, and again, he is the only source of a story about Nero using Christians as candles.
They lied. Just like they lied about everything else.
Here
Have you read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? You should really check it out, the 1st century history you're talking about is the victim of significant revisionism by Christian historians. Here's a more modern source if you're interested.
>You’re making a lot of very big generalizations here. There were many concurrent systems of authority in Jerusalem at the time. To say “Look, I know that every source says the trial proceeded thusly, and that actually makes historically, but it fails my narrative so it didn’t happen” doesn’t make sense.
>Jesus could have been a tax collector rather than a carpenter. “Every source disagrees.” They disagree? Then they’re wrong.
>Right? If you’re going to blatantly contradict every account, there has to be a good reason. I’m not even entirely sure contradicting the traditional account here is even relevant to your case; it’s just there to be there.
Every account says Muhammad was God's final prophet. Every account says Joseph Smith found the book of Mormon inscribed on golden plates somewhere near Palmyra NY. Every account says the Buddha calmed a raging elephant merely by meditating. I'm saying the source material is not reliable history, it's not an account of facts but the amalgamated legends of a couple related cults.
> If only we had the Apostolic Fathers, who wrote within a few decades from the beginning of Christianity, who clearly disagree. Hmmmm...
The only reason you call them "apostolic fathers" and not "heretics" is because they were the political winners at the time. What I'm saying is that both "apostolic fathers" and "heretics" are the same in my eyes, they're all Christians. I have no reason to believe otherwise, unless I take your priests at their word...and we all know what I think of the value of their word.
> Tradition ordains we hold synods and councils when there’s massive disagreement. These are done regularly, from only a few decades after Christ’s death until the present day. It’s not a new thing and doesn’t disprove the Christian position that sometimes councils disagree with you.
I'm saying that your "truth" is the result of politics, not reason, not science, and certainly doesn't appear to be any kind of divine revelation. The councils disagree not only with me but with each other! Who is right, and how can anyone know?
> That is an entirely different discussion. This has no relevance. Peter was wrong about meat. Popes can be wrong. This is not the gotcha you think it is. The Pope should be listened to. Some Catholics don’t. If he’s formally rebuked, as Paul did Peter, that’s a different matter.
It's not a "gotcha," I'm merely pointing out that a person can rise through the ranks of the church and become appointed to the papacy while officially proclaiming doctrines that run contrary to prior papal and conciliar and even scriptural teachings.
If pope Francis himself posted some of his official encyclical statements on r/Catholicism under an anonymous pseudonym he would be called out for promoting heresy LOL. If your own pope can't get a grasp on your own teachings, how can you expect outsiders to think your priests are teaching anything valuable or even coherent?
> Listing all truths is kind of hard. If you can list all true statements about a topic, that’s pretty suggestive that either more work needs to be done on the topic, or the topic doesn’t really correspond to reality that well. You can’t list all the mathematical truths or all the scientific truths. And yet, you don’t shame either of those disciplines. Or maybe you do? IDK.
My wife has a PhD in mathematics. My best friend is a biologist. Of course one cannot list all possible mathematical and scientific truths, because our understanding of reality and truth are always changing based on new reasoning and new observations. But...you guys say "the fullness of truth" was handed on to your priests from God himself...so...where is it? Write all of this truth down so we can examine it. Clearly, the catechisms are trustworthy since they can apparently contain error, so go ahead, produce a book with all of the "truths" of Catholicism and then we can have a real debate. Until that time, it's all dodges and interpretations and hermeneutics and hand wringing.
> Can the blind know the shape of the moon by observation? No. Fact. They have to be told that by a person who can see, or have it otherwise communicated to them by an authority.
Epistemology is one of my favorite subjects and we can definitely discuss that, but maybe not right now in this particular thread.
The question of authority definitely IS relevant, however. OK, let me frame this differently. WHY do you listen to priests, if not "just 'cuz?"
This article briefly summarizes the evidence for the martyrdom of all twelve apostles:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/06/how-did-the-apostles-die-2/
For a deeper look at how such myths about persecution arose, check out the book by Candida Moss:
https://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104551
>I'm not jumping to conclusions on zero evidence.
Well then, I look forward to reviewing the evidence on which you are relying. I assume it will come from neutral, reliable sources, not Christian propaganda, right?
&#x200B;
> historical facts which no reputable historian denies.
Like Candida Moss, Paul Hertog, Laurie Guy, and Joseph Lynch, all of whom agree that
> Despite mountains of contrary evidence, many myths are so deeply embedded in consciousness that they are almost impossible to dislodge. Such is the case with the mountains of myths surrounding the topic of the persecution of the early church.
&#x200B;
> The fact is that Christians were told to recant on penalty of imprisonment, and other not so pleasant forms of punishment.
Do you have a neutral, reliable source to support this "fact"?
> The author of John's gospel was exiled to the island of Patmos.
We don't know who wrote the gospel of John.
&#x200B;
So you agree that Christians were not "persecuted" as Christians, but just the same as all the Jews?
I have used this version http://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-U-S/dp/0385479670/ref=pd_sim_b_2 since I was in 7th grade (Catholic school lifer here!) and it's the one from the USCCB. I love it, it's my go-to. The one you have is also in keeping with the Magesterium, though note that since 1994, some language may have changed. The teachings are always consistent, but their are some occasional "tweaks" to wording (as English is always changing!).
Fenelon is required reading in school for me (bachelors of the arts, theological studies) so we're pretty much BFFs now. I'd also recommend Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar, and not just because they've got cool names. :)
Don't worry, none of us are experts, really. There's always room to grow and learn.
You're asking for the Catechism.
"But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me."
If you get your hands on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-U-S/dp/0385479670/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411907813&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=catechism+of+the+catholic+church) you can find deep answers to most, if not all, of your questions. There's no better place to go to be nearer to Jesus than the Catholic Church (the 7 Sacraments are essential - especially the Eucharist).
http://johnpaulthewriter.com/2/post/2014/07/the-way-and-the-truth-and-the-life.html
Token Catholic chiming in with the suggestion that you have a look at the Catholic faith. I'm converting from Protestantism because I find Catholicism to be more consistent with historical Christianity and more intellectually satisfying. I almost became Anglican last year, but it just seemed so incomplete compared to the richness of Catholicism, no offense to Anglicans intended. The main things that drew me in were apostolic succession, the consistency and unity of the Church, and my rejection of sola scriptura as illogical and self-contradicting.
Catholic Answers has a lot of great resources. If this piques your interest, I also recommend you take a look at the Catechism online or buy your own hard copy. I also recommend you check out some of Scott Hahn's books; he is also a convert and his books are accessible, but thorough. And, if you aren't already completely overwhelmed with information, you may use this website to find a parish.
I wish you well on your spiritual journey. I hope you find a place where you feel welcome and comfortable, and get to know the Lord.
Edited to add: You can't get more personal in your relationship with Jesus than through the Eucharist.
We are not capable of comprehending some things.
"But here's an 846-page description of the things we know we're right about. Now available on Kindle and iPhone!"
Sickening.
Otherwise I suggest you rethink why you don't believe in God.
You don't need a reason not to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
I am also a Christian with mostly Baptist family who is considering entering the Catholic Church. I'll second (or third or fourth) Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn. I also enjoyed his Hail, Holy Queen. It really helped me to understand the Church's view of Mary. Just watch out for the puns. Hahn loves him some terrible puns.
I can tell you that reading the early Church Fathers was what really moved me away from Protestantism. I saw that the Church of the first millennium looked a lot more Catholic than I ever imagined. New Advent has an index of them here. New Advent is also the home of the online Catholic Encyclopedia. Lots of really good stuff there, although it is almost 100 years old.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and recommend the catholic.com Catholic Answers forum. I wouldn't visit unless you really enjoy debate and don't get frustrated easily, but I have had more questions answered by reading some of the debates there between Catholics and Protestants than almost anywhere else. Just be aware that it's a large forum and quality varies. I know there are people here who don't like Catholic Answers at all because of how rowdy it can get, but it has been a huge help to me.
Visit Word on Fire. Father Barron is awesome, and WOF's videos are really informative. If you have the chance, check out their Catholicism series. EWTN runs them occasionally. It's a really great show.
Good luck with your journey. It's a big transition, but it's so beautiful.
EDIT: I forgot to add that I have a copy of the catechism. I have this one. It's pretty dense in spots, but I have found it a HUGE help. I would also recommend a Catholic study Bible. I am actually using an Orthodox study Bible at the moment, and it's great to have the deuterocanonical books included.
I haven't read it, but The Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn is supposed to be a great book for would-be converts with the standard theological apprehensions for conversion. I think it addresses the Marian doctrines, but I'm not sure about the amount of depth it goes into.
Please, you can be more direct. I know what you're getting at in your passive-aggressiveness. You're insinuating that I'm an idolater. But, at any rate:
No, it never directly says that, although it can certainly be inferred through logic as a perfectly reasonable show of piety. As an example, also from the aforementioned book:
> Our good Master stooped to enclose himself in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, a captive but loving slave, and to make himself subject to her for thirty years. As I said earlier, the human mind is bewildered when it reflects seriously upon this conduct of Incarnate Wisdom. He did not choose to give himself in a direct manner to the human race though he could easily have done so. He chose to come through the Virgin Mary. Thus he did not come into the world independently of others in the flower of his manhood, but he came as a frail little child dependent on the care and attention of his Mother. Consumed with the desire to give glory to God, his Father, and save the human race, he saw no better or shorter way to do so than by submitting completely to Mary.
> He did this not just for the first eight, ten or fifteen years of his life like other children, but for thirty years. He gave more glory to God, his Father, during all those years of submission and dependence than he would have given by spending them working miracles, preaching far and wide, and converting all mankind. Otherwise he would have done all these things.
> What immeasurable glory then do we give to God when, following the example of Jesus, we submit to Mary! With such a convincing and well- known example before us, can we be so foolish as to believe that there is a better and shorter way of giving God glory than by submitting ourselves to Mary, as Jesus did?
And it's not like it detracts glory from God. It amplifies it toward Him.
> This devotion, when faithfully undertaken, is a perfect means of ensuring that the value of all our good works is being used for the greater glory of God. Scarcely anyone works for that noble end, in spite of the obligation to do so, either because men do not know where God's greatest glory is to be found or because they do not desire it. Now Mary, to whom we surrender the value and merit of our good actions, knows perfectly well where God's greatest glory lies and she works only to promote that glory. The devout servant of our Lady, having entirely consecrated himself to her as I have described above, can boldly claim that the value of all his actions, words and thoughts is used for the greatest glory of God, unless he has explicitly retracted his offering. For one who loves God with a pure and unselfish love and prizes God's glory and interests far above his own, could anything be more consoling?
Before bashing Catholic Mariology, I recommend reading de Montfort's book, or for a more modern read, 33 Days to Morning Glory. I promise you won't spontaneously combust for reading them.
For anyone who is interested in history...
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
Well, it would depend on what you feel your soul is looking for right now.
You say you're agnostic, there are books for people who want to get a sense of the existence of God, like Jacob's Ladder: Ten Steps to Truth. Peter Kreeft, the author of the book, has a handy section on his website going over various perspectives on the verification of God's existence.
There are books for people who want to get to know Catholic faith a little better before committing, like Waking Up Catholic: A Guide to Catholic Beliefs for Converts, Reverts, and Anyone Becoming Catholic.
There are books for people who want to get to know the Catholic faith more in depth, and have some hurdles to overcome, particularly from the protestant objections, like Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism, from an anti-Catholic Presbyterian minister whose battle against the faith pulled him into it.
There are people who come to the Church by reading on the lives of saints, others by reading on the history of the church and how it built western civilization, and others just by reading the news. It's not just a purely intelectual exercise, this is a spiritual quest and as such you have to give your soul what it yearns for.
Kann ich nicht zustimmen, das Buch erklärt es sehr gut.
I would lead you to the following book.
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
Actually, the Catholic church was the basis and foundation of Western civilization, and all of its accomplishments - ranging from scientific to artistic.
Read this book if you don't believe me: http://www.amazon.ca/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
Not all religions are created equal. If you take the time to examine the fruits of each religion, you will see what they have each contributed to the human race, and you can judge them from those results. "By their fruits you shall know them".
The attempt to create an atheistic regime yielded rotten, rotten fruit, in an astoundingly short time, so we know not to do that again.
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!
Here are your smile-ified links:
https://smile.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
---
^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly&nbsp;bot
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
Thomas Woods devoted a chapter to the issue in this book. Edward Grant has written multiple books about that subject alone.
I suggest checking out Tom Woods, author, Catholic, historian, economist's views on this:
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1426687460&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=how+the+catholic+church+built+western+civilization
You're not alone! I've deconstructed a lot of the ridiculous fundy beliefs that I was raised with but Jesus is far too compelling to let go of. It's amazing how much bad theology isn't clearly reflected in scripture (which is also plainly fully of errors). You may find some support and refuge in places like:
The Liturgists Podcast and community
Books like Shameless or Jesus Feminist or God and the Gay Christian
Progressive churches (which you might locate more easily using Church Clarity)
Subreddits like /r/openChristian or /r/gayChristians
I'm sorry for all the ways that the church and cultural Christianity has been confusing and hurtful. If you ever want to chat some time feel free to send me a message. <3
try testing the waters - mention gay people on they t.v. news ect. and if they're religious try this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Gay-Christian-Matthew-Vines/dp/160142518X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1LMEMKFQX4BKV&keywords=god+and+the+gay+christian&qid=1564563581&s=gateway&sprefix=god+an%2Caps%2C235&sr=8-1
This post has inspired me to make a YouTube video on this subject, so I’ll share that when it’s done. But in the meantime, here are some quick tips for dealing with conservative Christian parents (most of this should probably work with other religious parents as well, but my work has been with Christians, so I can’t say offhand how this might need to change for other faith groups):
Listen and let them talk as much as you’re able. This depends a lot on what you can handle; step away when it gets to be too much. But when they talk, you can learn a lot about misconceptions they hold about gay people that you’ll want to help correct. For example, many conservative Christian parents mistakenly believe that gay people choose to be gay or that it can be changed through prayer or therapy. As long as they believe these things, they’re not likely to be open to alternate ways of reading the Bible, so finding resources that address those issues first can be helpful.
Share your story and let them sit with it. As tempting as it can be to jump into arguing about the Bible with them, that almost never changes parents’ minds. Instead, what does change minds is having time to sit with their own children’s stories, realizing how much pain their child has been through. Let them know things like when you first knew you were different, fears you had about telling them, attempts you may have made to become straight (if that’s something you did), etc. You may be surprised how many of the things that seem obvious to you will be shocking to them. Give them time to sit with it; it will take a while for it to sink in.
Connect them with resources wherever you can, but make sure you’re getting support for yourself. Don’t wait for your parents to come around before you live your life. It may take them years to understand, and you can’t pin your own self-esteem to their approval, even if that’s hard to accept right now. Reaffirm your love for them, stay in conversation with them when you’re able to, but make sure you have your own support network that doesn’t require their approval.
Try to connect them with other parents:
If possible, one of the best things you can do is to connect them with other Christian parents who have been through similar situations (but who have become more accepting)—they can be a sounding board for them and allow them to have some much-needed peer support as they work through this. There are some private Facebook groups for parents that I can’t publicly link to, but a couple of good places to start are:
https://justbecausehebreathes.com
and
https://www.freedhearts.org
(The first one may appeal more to parents who are more conservative and/or just starting out, while the second one may be more geared to those a little further along.)
&#x200B;
When they’re ready to read something:
Many parents aren’t ready to read a book right away, but if/when they are, some books you could try include:
“My Son, Beloved Stranger” by Carrol Grady (written by an SDA mom; speaks to very conservative parents, but can be tough to find)
“Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate” by Justin Lee (disclaimer: this is my book, and it feels weird to recommend my own stuff, but it was written specifically for situations like this, and I’ve had SO MANY PARENTS tell me it was the thing that changed their minds and helped them accept their LGBTQ+ kids)
“Mom, I’m Gay” by Susan Cottrell (another book by a Christian mom of a gay child, not quite as conservative in its language but still helpful to many Christian parents)
For parents who are ready for more in-depth Bible analysis, Matthew Vines’ book God and the Gay Christian is a good introduction to the Bible arguments—but I recommend that you wait on this until your parents have already dealt with the emotions surrounding your coming out and are past the idea that orientation can change; otherwise, they’ll dismiss these arguments without giving them a chance. This is a more advanced book, not as much for parents just starting out.
&#x200B;
There are lots more resources available online:
My website includes lots of blog posts on things conservative Christians often say, Bible passages, and so on, including a video series I’m doing on the subject for my YouTube channel—and I’m working on another big resource that I’ll be linking to shortly, so feel free to watch that or message me for more specific resources.
So that's a start, but please still feel free to message me for any more specific details or resources.
It's difficult to get into the theological arguments for an affirming position over Reddit, but I've got a few resources that might help you learn more about the debate and implications of an affirming position. As a gay Christian, I can say they were also helpful to accepting and affirming myself and providing answers for some of the questions I was asking.
The book that gets recommended the most is [God and the Gay Christian.] (https://www.amazon.com/God-Gay-Christian-Biblical-Relationships/dp/160142518X) It's really good at laying out the basic theological arguments for affirming lgbt Christians and explores the type a-type b argument (the debate on whether lgbt Christians can marry or need to remain celibate).
If you're looking for an in depth theological discussing that discusses all of the reasons for and against affirming lgbt Christians, [Bible, Gender, and Sexuality] (https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Gender-Sexuality-Reframing-Relationships/dp/0802868630) is an incredible resource for looking at all of the arguments for and against affirming lgbt Christians, as well as the shortfalls of each position. It ultimately comes to an affirming conclusion, but it does the non-affirming side justice. A lot of the arguments in God and the Gay Christian can be traced to this book, but this is more in depth. The author, James Brownson, is a professor at Western Theological Seminary, and does his best to give everyone (even those who don't agree with him) something to think about.
For some perspective of what life as a gay Christian is like, I'd recommend checking out Blue Babies Pink. You can either read Brett Trapp's stories online or listen to his podcast, but he does a good job explaining what it was like to grow up and live as a gay Christian, and the struggles he faced coming out, accepting himself, and trying to live in accordance with his faith. It doesn't explore theology, but also is safe for work. It gives a good perspective to what many gay Christians go through.
If you're interested in ministering to the lgbt community, I'd recommend meeting and listening to people of faith who belong to the lgbt community (if you haven't done this already). Listen to their stories and the pain many of them go through. Listen to what their specific needs are. Many of them will be the same needs everyone else needs like community, support, and places to use their gifts. Listen to how their needs for these differ than what is being provided to them or they are allowed to participate in.
Ultimately your job as an ally (if you choose to be one) is to not use your own voice, but to amplify the voices of members of the lgbt community. Don't try to speak on behalf of us, but use your position to give us voices. Put members of the community on the podium instead of yourself whenever possible, because we're the most qualified to speak on our needs and our pain. Of course that doesn't mean you can't discuss lgbt issues with others without a member of the lgbt community present. There are many forums you can go to that we cannot. Just make sure when you do you do your best to articulate the experiences that we've had.
Most importantly make sure that any discussion of the lgbt community you have is discussing the fact that regardless of position, the discussion is about people. It's regarding the life lgbt Christians and non-believers experience every day. Nothing dehumanize us and turns us away from the church more than being treated as just an issue.
I hope this gives you some good places to start. As a gay Christian, I've got grace for people like you who are asking legitimate questions and are wrestling with what the bible says vs. what the Bible means and what God says. Even if you end up with a non-affirming position, I believe it doesn't have to be inherently hurtful to the community. As long as you recognize the pain the lgbt community as a whole has experienced, how most churches aren't equipped to satisfy our spiritual needs, and recognize what you're truely asking of gay Christians when you say they need to remain celibate, you can still help the church better minister to lgbt Christians. I wish you the best on your spiritual journey
In addition to the great suggestions you’ve already gotten, you might try giving him some books that help normalize his experiences - this article and this list might be good places to start. There’s also this book I just came across, which I don’t know anything about beyond the amazon reviews but might be helpful for him to hear from a religious authority.
I know what you mean. This book honestly helped me.
My experience was not an easy one. My relationship with God continues to be a big part of my life. But there was a period of time there that I turned away, afraid of what I was becoming. Afraid of not being accepted by God. It was a huge low point in my life. I realized I couldn’t accept myself as a gay woman and ignore my love for Christ. I also knew I would never be happy denying the feelings I have for women. At that point I slowly began to rebuild my relationship with Christ and accept my true self. There were definitely days that I took several leaps backwards. But I kept on, and I’m happier. I hope that some day I find someone with whom I can share not only my life but my faith with as well.
I also suggest following r/openchristian, maybe reposting there as well. There are plenty of people in our community who have gone through this. I’ll be praying for you 🤓. Feel free to pm me as well if you need to talk.
Check out Answering Atheism by Trent Horn Its a good short read that goes over the most common objections to theism. Written pretty recently by a good apologist.
Logical explanations: Answering Atheism by Trent Horn
http://answeringatheism.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Answering-Atheism-Make-Logic-Charity/dp/1938983432#
> The main reason why i accuse most religious people of not being able to think critically is because they just accept what is written in their book. The first thing that would need to be done is at least pose the question - hm can i trust this? Where is the basis? Who says that it's not just made up by someone?
>
no Catholics aren't bible alone and they do quite a bit of critical thinking with scripture.
>It is impossible to believe in a god with rational basis unless you say 'just believe, do not question' which obviously is irrational.
here's a good book from more recently: https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Atheism-Make-Logic-Charity/dp/1938983432
But as a beginner you could look at St. Thomas Aquinas's Five Proofs as one of many examples that contradict your preconceived notion of it being irrational.
>I said in another comment that the development of art and of scientific + industrial progress very closely correlated with how much power and influence the church had. You have not yet addressed that clearly the more that religion was enforced the less progress was made and vice versa.
that seems more just according to the secularist/enlignment type of biases that cast religion as the "dark age" and anti reason. Critical thinking as you pointed out does demand the question of looking at your own biases and questioning whether you could be looking at the dominant narrative.
>You can keep saying there are smart catholics that use reason and rationality, but as long as you cannot just answer the most basic questions i see no need to invest more of my time.
We're having a very big conversation via reddit posts, you're demanding me to prove that I am a rational and intelligent view point to justify you taking me seriously. That's really doesn't seem to show being very open to a conversation vs just wanting to support your already established bias. I only just joined in on this conversation and I simply proposed you look at how your own biases play a part in this. I'm not demanding you convert over reddit since it takes far more study and in person conversation is superior, but simply wanted to challenge your anti religious views that you're trying to push.
The Catholic view has been rather fairly in identifying which things in scripture are to be taken as literal vs allegorical. It recognizes that scripture should be approached by recognizing the nuances and genres of writing contained within.
>The part where i said 'the only determining factor in whether and what you believe is where/into what kind of family you are born' comes to mind.
From experience I'm gonna say that's not true. There's plenty of people who grow up without faith who come to the faith, and people who grow up raised Catholic who don't. Even from a secular perspective that seems really weak to assume a singular determining factor for something as complex as that.
>The goal of our species should be to constantly advance our ideas, our systems, to a more perfect state.
where do you get your standards of "progress" or "perfect" seems very much like that basically means "my version of perfection" which seems really arbitrary.
What if the popular narrative becomes something you find abhorrent or immoral? Does society determine what is progress or "outdated?" If a majority of society decides something to be good or "progress" which you find immoral or wrong would you decide you have to change your views in order to "stay relevant"?
I'm reading Trent Horn's recently published book on Atheism right now, and I'd really highly recommend it.
When I was searching for God I found Answering Atheism by Trent Horn to be a great resource. It provides logical arguments for the existence of God.
See the following books:
Ed Feser's: The last Superstition
Trent Horn's: Answering Atheism
Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker's: Answering the New Atheism
In addition to u/philosofik advice, here are two more books I'd recommend:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Introduction to the Devout Life - St Francis de Sales
If only the LDS church had a book like the Catholics do, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, perhaps a book of doctrine and covenants published by the LDS church ...
The existing Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS church just muddies the waters as it allows and promotes confusion by the members by not containing the doctrines of the church. Just as the leadership wants it.
I've always wondered, is there a Mormon equivalent of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where it's spelled out in clear terms exactly what Mormonism does and doesn't teach? I'd find it really useful, because there is so much conflicting information online. I've tried using Mormon Doctrine before, but I've heard from some Mormons that it isn't accurate.
God calls us all in different ways for sure. Thanks for sharing your background... If it helps at all, I was a very big Bill Maher fan and very much socially liberal prior to my conversion into Catholicism. My personal advice would be to start researching some teachings of the Catholic faith through a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church https://smile.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-Second-U-S/dp/0385508190/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=cathechism&qid=1572979421&sr=8-1 or a local RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) at a nearby parish. If you're into podcasts, please check out "Word on Fire" from Bishop Robert Barron... He's excellent at explaining the faith.
My recommendation would be to focus on the truth of some of the main teachings of the faith first instead of focusing on the "below the belt" sexual issues like abortion, LGBT, etc. I had similar concerns about some of those teachings until I really got my head around the Catholic concept of original sin, concupiscence, fallen/disordered natures for all of us, and that someone's same sex attraction is no different in the eyes of God than my attraction to drink too much, lust, or be selfish. Feel free to reach out to me at any point with any questions, book recommendations, etc.
Buying a good Catechism is a great place to start. This one I bought awhile back is small, well written and has a lot of scriptural references for you to look up
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385508190/
This youtube channel is also a really good source for a lot of traditional Catholic lectures and speeches. I can't sign off neccesarily on every single one but it was a big help for me and continues to feature very good content
https://www.youtube.com/user/onearmsteve4192
I'm not sure what causes you to love my username, it's just initials and a last name, but I'm curious what you took it to mean!
Strobel's The Case for Christ is good, but it's pretty simple.
For a better look at the Gospels and how Jesus is shown to be divine in them, I would recommend Dr. Brant Pitre's new book The Case for Jesus. I think it'd be a good next step for these questions.
I hope this helps :) Again, feel free to ask around and/or you can always PM me if you have any questions my friend :)
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | The Case for Jesus Course Introduction: Is Jesus Divine in the Synoptic Gospels? (Part 2 of 5)
Description | In part 2 of 5 of Dr. Brant Pitre's introductory videos to his forthcoming set on the Case for Jesus where he engages skeptical approaches to the Gospels (e.g., by Dr. Bart Ehrman and others), he discusses two miracles that, when read in context, help answer the question - is Jesus Divine?: First, Dr. Pitre discusses the famous stilling of the storm in the synoptic Gospels (in this instance, in Mark's account). This miracle of Jesus stilling the storm elicits from the Apostles to ask about J...
Length | 0:20:21
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | The Case For Jesus | Brant Pitre, PhD
Description | A presentation given be Brant Pitre as part of the Newman Lecture Series at Our Lady of Wisdom Church and Catholic Student Center on the campus of the University of Louisiana, Lafayette. Buy his book The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483
Length | 1:12:38
****
^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)
Thanks man I appreciate it. If you're looking to get one book, I highly recommend Brant Pitre's book "The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ". Strange Notions also has a list that includes a number of good books on the subject of Jesus (scroll down till you hit the "Jesus" section). The founder of the site, Brandon Vogt, is a well known Catholic personality who loves books. So you can trust the titles listed over there to be good.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483
http://www.strangenotions.com/books/
I admire your honesty and desire for truth, it's very rare these days.
To answer your question, you must pray. Prayer is necessary for faith, because it comes from above. You know how some people, even with all the evidence, reject what is reality because they want to be deluded? You need God to help you see reality and to live according to it. You should start praying the rosary, as it's a most beautiful prayer to the Mother of God, while meditating on the life of Christ. Prayer is humility in action, because by praying you recognize you are not strong enough on your own. You need God's help.
After that, I'd find a priest in a parish from here near where you live (https://www.latinmassdir.org/), these are traditional priests, and he can help you answer your questions. Online is one thing and in person is another.
And keep reading in the meantime, both sides, of the evidence for Jesus Christ as the Son of God (https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483), Lives of the Saint(Pope St Pius X, St Anthony the Great, St Anthony of Padua, St Padre Pio), the Gospels.
It's not easy and it will take time, but life in Christ is worth more than all that. The peace of God is worth more than the universe.
" Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. "
I haven't read it myself, but maybe In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and The Fall by Benedict XVI would be helpful for your questions?
>Though, FWIW, if you were previously aware of certain minority scholarly opinions on the matter, this does seem somewhat at odds with your earlier claim to be totally unfamiliar of any such opinions
You can find a mention of all sorts of theories on Catholic doctrine--particularly when it comes to Pius XII. To use programming vernacular: that's a feature, not a bug. In my own concentration I have found a few hundred bizarre opinions on Pius XII, but if they're held by a scant handful of relatively non-influential people I generally discard them.
>I actually have no real allegiance to one argument or another. Apparently I had forgot to send this reply, but at some point I had written
I don't remember seeing this before and I appreciate your sentiments. My goal was to be specific with word choice, as infallibility is a tricky yet specific circumstance for Catholic doctrine. Also, I'm not a theologian--I have a history degree, but no skill in Latin and no expertise in Canon law whatsoever. What I have is a grasp on Pius XII's papacy and a pretty decent understanding of how the historiography of the various acts in his papacy has evolved (if a bit of humor will be excused) over time. While I disagree with your interpretation of Humani Generis, yours is a fairly commonly held reading--my objection was over the usage of "infallibility."
>actually to seek a more precise definition of "infallibility" itself.
The aforementioned comments by Ratzinger might be as close as you'll get on the subject as far as a definitive statement from the Vatican. As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time, even Ratzinger doesn't spell out a definition in a paragraph. This goes back to the nature of infallibility, as well as the feature/bug discussion. An infallible teaching is a very big deal, as it does "silence dissent." That's a feature, not a bug. To use Pius XII's words, it's a monument.
So, let's consider that this is a good thing (there are plenty who disagree, both inside Catholicism and outside it). We can now point to a thing that all Catholics have to agree on. But in Ratzinger's article there isn't a complete list. Why? I mean, he was the head of the CDF for a couple decades, he led the creation of the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church, and he's one of the most influential Catholic theologians of the second half of the 20th century. Surely he could whip up a list in ten minutes, right? Well, the other side of the coin is that when such an infallible statement is defined there is a risk of alienating Catholics who aren't in full agreement with it. So there's a tension between definition and accommodation (to use a poor word, but I can't think of a better one). The question of what exactly is absolutely required as an article of faith is not fully defined--some articles are, and then there are varying degrees of just how much is required. Only a scant few--Ratzinger's paragraph is as long a list as you'll find and there's no mention of evolution--are required absolutely.
To introduce a complication that may possibly confuse the issue further, Ratzinger wrote a book on Genesis. I haven't read the whole thing, but I've read excerpts of his comments. His analysis doesn't flat-out reject Humani Generis, but it doesn't fully agree with it either. Ratzinger obviously felt he had enough wiggle room to voice his opinions on the subject despite the existance of Humani Generis section 37 (and the rest of the document). I would argue that Ratzinger saw wiggle room that you do not.
For an official definition of infallible statements I don't think you'll find anything more explicit than Ratzinger due to the Vatican's caution on this subject. For defined infallible statements you'll find the two Marian definitions and Ratzinger's list. The Catechism (particularly 888-892 for infallibility) is normally where you'd go for current official Vatican definitions, but that has Ratzinger's fingerprints all over it and it avoids a strict definition also.
-------------------
Evolution and religion (including the concept of infallibility) are often issues that can be veritable powder kegs, even with active moderation like this sub thankfully features. I am glad we have been able to have a civil discussion on these topics, and I hope we have not placed undue stress on the moderators in the process.
I got these:
The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware
The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware
The Mountain of Silence by Kyriacos C. Markides
The Sayings of the Desert Fathers
I'm still reading them but I hear that this selection will cover a lot of bases. Check eBay too, they can found pretty cheap.
http://www.amazon.com/Summa-Thomas-Aquinas/dp/089870300X
More Relevant
This one is supposed to be pretty good. I haven’t read it, but I believe it’s basically a shorter and more concise version of his previous book “Summa of the Summa”
Also, this post from this sub should also be helpful.
The Summa Theologica is not a good place to start. You're better off getting the Summa of the Summa.
http://www.amazon.com/A-Summa-Thomas-Aquinas/dp/089870300X
I haven't been lurking here long so I don't know the subreddit's general consensus on the book (or the author), but in my opinion you should check out Rome Sweet Home. It's a quick read and really hits on a lot of the issues you will probably face.
Rome Sweet Rome, by Scott & Kimberly Hahn http://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sweet-Home-Journey-Catholicism/dp/0898704782
I really liked it. Actually a book that was even closer for me was Rome Sweet Home as the writer was a Presbyterian pastor who graduated from Gordon-Conwell.
The common belief in ghosts—say an ill-fated woman who still appears at the site of her death—isn’t supported by Catholic teaching.
Angels (and demons) are spiritual beings, and they both can influence events on Earth. Saints are people in Heaven who can pray for our needs. The presence of angels and the intercessory prayer of the saints are both used in exorcisms, but Fr. Gabrielle Amorth, in his books on exorcism (check out the first one here), talks about how the image of the Crucifix, because it profoundly represents God’s love for us, is the single most effective tool for exorcism.
I’d suggest reading that book—it’s the book that convinced me of the importance of Mass, prayer, and resisting temptation. It also made me see the sacrifice of the Cross in a new, beautiful way.
Yes this exists
By Frs John Trigilio Jr. and Kenneth Brighenti
Bought it for my wife who is a cradle Catholic but never really read much about the church and was a bit of a cultural Catholic. She has really enjoyed it.
Also Why Do Catholics Do That?: A Guide to the Teachings and Practices of the Catholic Church
by Kevin Orlin Johnson
Someone I trust has recommended (for a similar request) the classic, The Spirit of Catholicism by Karl Adam, which I just found out is available online: http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/SPIRCATH.HTM
Another one to consider would be Introduction to Christianity by then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict)
I haven't read either of these though, so please weigh in, those that have.
How about a book? Introduction to Christianity
>We do not stand alone. We have the shared and consistent apostolic confession as passed down through the generations.
- exactly what our Lutheran friend said. So look at the early church fathers and read what they said from their own mouths. Just follow it from the ground up through the 21st century.
I would start here: Early Church Writings - 2nd Century Church
Go mid-way here: Church Fathers 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th Century,
6th century to 16th century here: Later Centuries / Renaissance + Not What Luther Thought of the Gospel
End here: Final Centuries - The Church's Designated Sr. Pastor Sums it Up for You
Just follow the Church's confessions, including its confessions through the Protestant heresies, and just make it to the end. Very simple. It's crisp when others don't throw in heresies in the middle to confuse you.
You may be interested in Rene Girard's mimetic theory, and how the sacrifice of Jesus satisfies the violence that mimetic desire ultimately brings to communities. In this way, Girard argues, Jesus is superior to the myths of conflict resolution that came before, because he invites us to imitate God, who is free from all desire. Through Jesus, we can end our attachment to desire, and bring about peace.
"I See Satan Fall Like Lightning" is a helpful resource here. It's in PDF here.
EDIT: You may also be interested in Introduction to Christianity. Ratzinger makes some very compelling arguments about Jesus, including the idea that Jesus is quite literally a Greek persona or a mask through which we can see and emulate God.
For 1-5, Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser.
For 6 and anything else related to the basics of the Christian life, Christian history, or the church, I would suggest Introduction to Christianity by Pope Benedict the XVI (Joseph Ratzinger)
Three of my favorite Catholic books:
Flannery O'Connor - The Complete Stories
Walker Percy - The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, and What One Has to Do With the Other
Joseph Ratzinger - Introduction to Christianity
edit--A fourth,
Thomas Merton - Seven Storey Mountain
He's not wrong. The first week or two is the hardest part by far.
Urges never entirely disappear -- they are a part of being human, and indeed a healthy one in many ways! -- and, when they do arise, they can always be a challenge to fend off... but they become less frequent and (for the most part) less intense as you practice.
So keep practicing! Be patient! Can take years! Grace comes in time!
>How could I ask for God's forgiveness through confession if I'm unsure of my own chances of not sinning again, and further, would I have even been forgiven in the first place if I sin again?
Good God, man!
>Then Peter came and said to him, “Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy times seven times."
("Seventy times seven" is Bible-speak for "infinity times."
Confession is one of the great gifts Christ gave the Church. The whole point is that it gives us a chance to have our sins forgiven -- permanently, irrevocably -- despite our inability as human beings to ever be fully contrite for our sins, plus our notorious habit of committing the same sins over and over again. That ability to confess our sins even when our confessions aren't perfect is one of the best parts of being Catholic. Avail yourself of it, and never ever worry that your sins have not been forgiven! Unless you deliberately lie in the confessional, absolution is complete and covers all your sins (even forgotten ones) the moment the priest finishes saying the words.
tldr: GO TO CONFESSION!
>I'm pretty much plagued with homosexuality
You mention at the start that you are homosexual and trying to figure that out at the same time. That can be tricky! My sister is gay and Catholic (and living the Church's teaching of chastity), and figuring out what that means for her life and vocation has been very tough on her. Plus, for some reason, the gay Catholics I know tend to beat themselves up over sins a lot more. I don't know why that happens, but it seems you're no exception. But know that the Lord has prepared a place for every one in His house, gays included, so have some peace in that. Christ loves you and looks forward to spending eternal life with you.
And then maybe go buy yourself a copy of the wonderful book by celibate gay Catholic Eve Tushnet, aptly titled, Gay and Catholic.
Yes! A GayCatholic, Eve Tushnet, even wrote a book about it.
http://www.amazon.com/Gay-Catholic-Accepting-Sexuality-Community/dp/1594715424
Here is the mobile version of your link
Sure! They're lots of different websites if you just google it, but if you want to learn even more, I recommend picking up [33 Days to Morning Glory] (https://www.amazon.com/Days-Morning-Glory-Do-Yourself/dp/1596142448) and just reading about it, even if you're not prepared to make your consecration now!
I recommend you read this book as well. I have read yours. here
A) No, if you don't agree with the pope, you're not catholic, per catholic dogma, but I wouldn't expect you to understand what that is, as you belong to a catholic-in-name-only church.
B) You're required, as a catholic, to follow all catholic dogma, the first and foremost teaching of that dogma being that the pope is infallible (always right/a representation of Jesus) during certain situations.
This is the most basic copy of the Catechism. A book that rivals the Bible in it's importance to Catholics. Essentially an outline of how to live your live. If you ever actually listened the Pope, you'd hear him reference it often.
I don't agree with any of this, mind you, but don't down vote me just because you're too lazy to understand your own religion.
Nope, you're just mocking Christianity by pretending we should take this silly little story seriously. If you truly think that Christianity is as silly as this, you should educate yourself. Why not start with this, it's pretty good.
https://www.amazon.com/Sayings-Desert-Fathers-Alphabetical-Collection/dp/0879079592 get this book. Not to mention all the stories of the saints and martyrs who didn't fight back!
Actually for a large part of the Roman Empire's existence, Christians weren't intensely persecuted. It's a pretty common myth that's been perpetuated since the 4th century. Scholar Candida Moss wrote a a book about it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1371062874&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+myth+of+persecution
Well yeah, of course I realize it's just my word. Also cameras are not permitted from what I know because you don't really want to advertise what takes place there. However, the best I can do for evidence for ya is the word of another person who happened to be the lead exorcist in Rome (he has since passed away) Fr Gabriel Amorth has written several books on the subject. Here's one if you're interested: https://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/0898707102/ref=mp_s_a_1_1/131-9489211-3380003?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1522465087&amp;sr=8-1&amp;pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&amp;keywords=an+exorcist+tells+his+story&amp;dpPl=1&amp;dpID=51G82%2Bnd3mL&amp;ref=plSrch