Best christian popes according to redditors
We found 564 Reddit comments discussing the best christian popes. We ranked the 184 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
6. Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
7 mentions
Used Book in Good Condition
There is also another layer to this, which is the denial of the Pauline letters and the synoptic Gospels as reliable sources do to their mentions of miracle workings, as well as the question as to why Jesus would not have been more famous had such signs of divinity truly been present.
The reality is that miracle workings were not an anomaly at the time. There were many miracle workers and magicians in the time of Jesus^1 and miracle workings were not a sign of divinity.^2 Josephus mentions several miracle workers in his works^3 and in the gospels themselves other miracle workers are presented.^4
---
Footnotes:
|^1 Sanders, E. The Historical Figure of Jesus (p. 135-143). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.
|^2 Sanders, E. (p. 157-168).
|^3 Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, trans. (1895). Antiquities of the Jews, (Auburn: John E. Beardsley, 1895), XIV, II, 1
|^4 Mark 6:7 & parr.⌂, Matt 12:27⌂
---
Further Readings:
The Historical Figure of Jesus by E. P. Sanders
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 can search for rehashes of the arguments before, but if you're in the USA you may want to also check out the Eastern Catholics.
The short form (which will probably piss of the Orthodox and the papists) is that the Orthodox and the Catholic are both the same Church, and there's a thousand year squabble on internal management thereof.
If you wanna feel all Aquinasy you can read this, and this out of print book is also very useful in the area.
OOOOH! MY TIME TO SHINE!
Ok, I'll calm down now. Check out Adrian Fortescue's The Early Papacy. It's about Papal supremacy until 451 AD, and its phenomenal. Additionally, anything by Vladmir Soloviev, but start [here] (https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298).
>but the Orthodox Church's opinion on the procession of the Holy Spirit existed before the Roman Catholic opinion now.
I don't believe that's the case. I found that I can't square the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone with a great deal of the pre-schism saints. A couple of examples from East and West
Obviously St. Augustine
>And just as for the Holy Spirit his being the gift of God means his proceeding from the Father, so his being sent means being known to proceed from him. Nor, by the way, can we say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as well; it is not without point that the same Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son
Pope St. Leo the Great in 447
>Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe
>hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit, who is the one Spirit ofthe Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. For, the Son says, 'when the spirit of Truth comes, who has proceeded from the Father,' where he taught that the Spirit was his since he is the truth
St. Gregory of Nyssa
>For both the Son came forth from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father. But just as being without cause pertains to the Father alone, and cannot be made to agree with the Son and the Spirit, so also, conversely, being from a cause, which is peculiar to the Son and the Spirit, is not of such a nature as to be contemplated in the Father. Now, as it is common to the Son and the Spirit to exist in a not-ungenerated way, in order that no confusion arise as to the underlying subject, one must again seek out the unconfused difference in their properties, so that both what is common may be preserved, and what is proper to each may not be confused. For the one is called by Holy Scripture ‘the Only-Begotten Son of the Father,’ and the word leaves his property at that; but the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, ‘if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his’ (Rom 8:9). Therefore the Spirit, who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, who is from God, neither is nor is said to be ‘of the Spirit,’ nor does this relative order become reversed
and elsewhere
>While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another; — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another through that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the mediation of the Son, while it guards his attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from his relation by way of nature to the Father.
and again
>Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution, or any variation with respect to nature. It is as if a man were to see a divided flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the cause of the third light is the first flame, kindling the end torch by transmission through the middle one), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?
St. Cyril of Alexandria
>The Spirit is assuredly in no way changeable; or even if some think Him to be so infirm as to change, the disgrace will be traced back to the divine nature itself, if in fact the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son.
So it seems Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria differentiate between an immediate origination from the Father, in the case of the Son, and a mediated origination from the Father, in the case of the Holy Spirit. This understanding helps to put the Eastern and Western Fathers in union instead of opposition, which, in my opinion, is what the Orthodox positions of Mark of Ephesus or Gregory Palamas necessarily do. The post schism Patriarch of Constantinople John Bekkos saw this, and hence through studying the eastern fathers he turned from an opponent of union to a proponent. Bessarion, Isidore and others also saw this during the debates at Florence.
>Why do you think that the Bishop of Rome is the direct successor of St. Peter? And further why do you think that means automatically the successor must be given ultimate authority and why does that mean the current Roman Church is THE Church?
Because I believe that is the patristic witness, and I think also the orthodoxy of Rome bears witness to this as well. If you are interested in an indepth look at this check out Dom John Chapman Studies on the Early Papacy or (though less indepth) Adrian Fortescue's The Early Papacy. Jerome has a letter to Pope Damasus that I think lays out my beliefs here quite well. Here's an excerpt:
>Therefore, though your greatness makes me fear, yet your kindness invites me. From the priest I ask the salvation of the victim; from the shepherd the safety of his sheep. Away with envy, away with all canvassing of the Roman power; it is but with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross that I speak. Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb outside that house if profane. If any be not with Noah in the Ark, he shall perish beneath the sway of the deluge.
Or the words of another Orthodox Pope, Zozimus
>Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter... For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat... Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time...and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision.
Or St. Cyrpian
>After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principal church, whence the unity of the priesthood [sacerdotal unity] took its rise [or has its source]. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those whose faith was publicly praised by the apostle, to whom unbelief [or error, heresy, perversion of faith] cannot have access.
>Not asking to be argumentative, just truly trying to understand the argument
Of course. Iron sharpens iron
Ever since Benedict stepped down and Francis was elected thanks to the prophecy of St. Malachy WIKI HERE
They've been calling him "Petrus Romanus". Here's a fun little book for you to read
EDIT: I guess since Im getting downvoted that I should say Im a Catholic convert and dont believe in any of this.
> It is harder to say positively what Jesus meant by 'kingdom of
God'. Intensive efforts over the last hundred years to define the
phrase have left the issue more confused rather than clearer. There
are, however, two meanings that would have been more or less self evident
given standard Jewish views. One is that God reigns in
heaven; the 'kingdom of God' or 'kingdom of heaven' exists
eternally there. God occasionally acts in history, but he completely
and consistently governs only heaven. The second is that in the
future God will rule the earth. He has chosen to allow human
history to run on with relatively little interference, but someday he
will bring normal history to an end and govern the world perfectly.
Briefly put: the kingdom of God always exists there; in the future it
will exist here. These two meanings are perfectly compatible with
each other. Anyone could maintain both at the same time, and in
fact millions still do.
If you want an actual Orthodox point of view on this, instead of a Catholic view of the Orthodox view, read The Primacy of Peter. It contains the referenced article by Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff. Further reading might include You are Peter, by Olivier Clement, and Eucharist, Bishop, Church by Metropolitan John Zizoulas.
There's also the excellent His Broken Body by Fr. Laurent A. Cleenewerck, which should basically be required reading for anyone remotely interested in the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
There's also Primacy in the Church (Volume 1), which will be coming out on Jan 31st. It contains the essay often recommended by /u/LeonceDeByzance, The Meaning and Exercise of “Primacies of Honor” in the Early Church by Fr. Brian Daley, SJ, which I haven't had access to until now, and am quite interested to read. The rest of this anthology looks similarly excellent.
These books are pretty solid: Studies on the Early Papacy by Dom John Chapman and The Early Papacy by Adrian Fortescue
In my opinion, the new testament clearly teaches that Peter had a unique divinely given role among the apostles. Matthew 16:17-19, John 21:17, Luke 22:32, etc.
The early pre-schism Orthodox popes (the ones celebrated as saints by the Orthodox) certainly viewed themselves as much more than first-among-equals, and they often justified it using the above passages. E.g. see this passage from Pope St. Gelasius I
>After (all these) prophetic and evangelical and apostolic writings (which we have set forth above), on which the Catholic Church by the grace of God is founded, we have thought this (fact) also ought to be published, namely that, although the universal Catholic Church spread throughout the world has the one marriage of Christ, nevertheless the holy Roman Church has not been preferred to the other churches by reason of synodical decrees, but she has held the primacy by the evangelical voice of the Lord and Savior saying: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven [Matt. 16: 18 f.]. There is added also the association of the most blessed Paul the Apostle, the vessel of election, who not at a different time, as the heretics say, but at the one time, on one and the same day, while contending for the prize together with Peter was crowned with a glorious death under Caesar Nero in the City of Rome; and equally have they consecrated the above-mentioned Church of Rome to Christ the Lord and have raised it above all other cities in the whole world by their presence and their venerable triumph.
I've always thought this argument by 9th century melchite bishop Theodore Abu Qurrah was pretty good
>You should understand that the head of the apostles was St. Peter, he to whom Christ said, "You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it." After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberias, "Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes." In another passage, he said to him, "Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them." Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ's words, "I prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them," we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself [and the rest of the apostles themselves]. Rather, he meant nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome [and the holder of the seats of the apostles]. Just as when he said to the apostles, "I am with you always, until the end of the age," he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flock; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, "Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost," he meant nothing other than the holders of his seat. Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by those words. Moreever, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself [and the apostles themselves], this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostle' death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean [them] by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles - Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabellis, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter [and the apostles themselves], then after [them] the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly "the gates of hell," which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.
>Do you not know that when Arius arose, by command of none other than the bishop of Rome, a council was summoned against him... (Theodore does the same thing for the rest of the six councils, creditting the bishop of Rome with responsibility for each council)...
*the translator of the text said that he thinks the parts in "[]" are possibly later aditions since they don't really go with the authors argument, among other things, IIRC
The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross: A study of the nature and origins of Christianity within the fertility cults of the ancient Near East https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982556276/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_-z4EDbWFEQT1P
The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620555026/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_SA4EDb1CJH5WS
Astrotheology & Shamanism: Christianity's Pagan Roots. A Revolutionary Reinterpretation of the Evidence (Black & White Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439222428/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_bB4EDbW0ZGGTT
Sacred Knowledge: Psychedelics and Religious Experiences https://www.amazon.com/dp/0231174063/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_rC4EDbZ2RWDBS
DMT and the Soul of Prophecy: A New Science of Spiritual Revelation in the Hebrew Bible https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594773424/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_9C4EDb46EFXG4
❤️
Church of Spies
"The Vatican's stance toward Nazism is fiercely debated. History has accused wartime pontiff Pius the Twelfth of complicity in the Holocaust and dubbed him "Hitler's Pope." But a key part of the story has remained untold.
Pius ran the world's largest church, smallest state, and oldest spy service. Saintly but secretive, he skimmed from church charities to pay covert couriers, and surreptitiously tape-recorded his meetings with top Nazis. When he learned of the Holocaust, Pius played his cards close to his chest. He sent birthday cards to Hitler--while plotting to overthrow him.
Church of Spies documents this cross-and-dagger intrigue in shocking detail. Gun-toting Jesuits stole blueprints to Hitler's homes. A Catholic book publisher flew a sports plane over the Alps with secrets filched from the head of Hitler's bodyguard. The keeper of the Vatican crypt ran a spy ring that betrayed German war plans and wounded Hitler in a briefcase bombing.
The plotters made history in ways they hardly expected. They inspired European unification, forged a U.S.-Vatican alliance that spanned the Cold War, and challenged Church teachings on Jews. Yet Pius' secret war muted his public response to Nazi crimes. Fearing that overt protest would impede his covert actions, he never spoke the "fiery words" he wanted.
Told with heart-pounding suspense, based on secret transcripts and unsealed files, Church of Spies throws open the Vatican's doors to reveal some of the most astonishing events in the history of the papacy. "
Nearly a 500 page colossus of information, presented academically. Not popular with the masses but maybe for you. I converted to Catholicism and this book played a large part, since I loved Orthodoxy (Oriental) more.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Peter-Keys-Scriptural-Handbook/dp/1882972546/ref=pd_sim_b_22?ie=UTF8&refRID=00D8Q477G181HWVT9B24
There is, however, a distinction. Pope Francis appears to be saying that gay people should be able to be priests, whereas his predecessor was explicitly not of that opinion. In an interview with Peter Seewald Benedict explained his view that homosexuality divorces a man from "a proper sense of paternity" essential to priestly work.Look, I love Pope Benedict XVI more than anyone else I know, but this is an area in which a substantiative distinction between the two pontiffs has been made. And I agree with Francis.Edit: Upon further research, I don't feel that the distinction is as strong as I implied above. According to the better-informed people over at this thread, the ban on priests with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" is a ban on men who struggle with same-sex attraction who are likely to give in/act on those attractions. The parallel is true of heterosexual men: if a heterosexual man's sexual urges are so strong that he is likely to lapse and act upon them as a priest, then he too ought not to be a priest.
We're right on the Pope being the Pope and head of Christ's Church on earth. Even the Orthodox will agree that he's the patriarch of the Western Church, and so Latins should follow him.
But we may actually be not as right about other aspects; part of the problem with discussing things like the Filioque is that the Latin tradition has a very strong emphasis on theology and philosophy, whereas the Eastern tradition is very strongly mystical and mystery - so discussions are not easy because the very language used to describe the question is so different. This is where lots of the dialogue is happening, in working out what we each are saying so that the other can understand. This is also why the Catholic Church doesn't require the Filioque of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
For a detailed discussion, you may want to read The Russian Church and the Papacy.
If anyone is interested in this topic, I have to suggest two books:
Rabbi David Dalin's The Myth of Hitler's Pope: Pope Pius XII and His Secret War Against Nazi Germany
Mark Riebling, Church of Spies: The Pope's Secret War Against Hitler.
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/
This is a very good video on the St Malachi prophecy of the popes and anti popes. It's very enlightening!
https://youtu.be/sLaSMLSgEmQ
Petrus Romanus
I've read this and it's a great book with the history of these popes mentioned in the prophecies.
https://www.amazon.com/Petrus-Romanus-Final-Pope-Here/dp/0984825614
Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?
I'd check out Rabbi David Dalin's The Myth of Hitler's Pope as well as Mark Riebling's Church of Spies. Also the Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge.
A real good book with tons of resources on the primacy of Peter is called Upon this Rock.
Here's my story:
Went to a Great Books college as an angsty atheist. Read St. Anselm's Proslogion and was convinced by his arguments for what's now known as the ontological argument for God.
Slowly acquired a logical belief in a supreme deity. Check.
The jump from "non-material power" to Jesus is pretty big, and this is often the largest gap that most of us need to find ourselves across. It's one thing to recognize that there's a higher power; but believing that the Christian's got it right in capturing this higher power is something entirely different.
I drew from a number of sources to arrive at Christianity.
Truthfully, I would have liked crossing the gap from god to God to be a bit more sound, but sometime during this crossing faith kicked in.
Slowly acquired belief in Christianity. Check.
Now I had to settle on which account of Christianity is correct.
This was a bit easier for me. If I was Jesus, and wanted to bring as much of my creation into communion with me as possible, how would I do that?
I wouldn't use just a book. If the entire deposit of faith is contained in a written account, it's up to the reader to come up with his or her own interpretation of that account (which has led to tens of thousands of Christian denominations in the last few hundred years). If I were Jesus, I'd ensure that there was an interpretative authority that safeguarded my teachings — and this is what the Catholic Church says she was, is, and will be.
Additionally, Catholicism had history on her side. She was the Church that Christ left. He setup an organizational structure that's still in place... and even with a lot of the nasty crap that the Church did when she was given political power, she survived. Which is itself a miracle.
But ultimately, Catholicism stood or fell on the papacy. If Apostolic succession is true, Catholicism is true. I read Jesus, Peter, and the Keys and walked away convinced that the Catholic church is the church that the ministry of Jesus established. Jesus promised that he'd never leave his Church, and he hasn't — this one organization has stayed open for business for two millennia!
Became a Catholic Christian. Check!
Christopher West’s book “Theology of the Body for Beginners” is an excellent place to begin to piece together the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality. In the book, he describes the creation of man in Genesis as a sort of divine analogy of the Holy Trinity. In the Trinity, the love between the Father and Son is so real, so tangible (if you will) that a third being exists—the Holy Spirit. Similarly, we were created in “the image and likeness of God.” When a husband and wife come together in the marital embrace (sex), the love between them is so real, and so tangible that a third being can be created (a baby)!
As other posters have mentioned, this is why sex is intended for marriage (between a man and a woman) and for the purpose of procreation AND unification (aka fun!).
With this view in mind, one can see where a violation of this intent (by homosexual or heterosexual means) is a “slap in the face” to Creation as God intended.
I intend this response with nothing but Charity and will pray for you. I will respond to this with a link to West’s book, a phenomenal read for any Christian!
Link to the book! Theology of the Body for Beginners: A Basic Introduction to Pope John Paul II's Sexual Revolution, Revised Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/1934217859/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_MwQiDbWKNXXVG
This is a long post, so I'm putting this up front; if you read nothing else I've said, read this: Not talking about this with him is the wrong response. You absolutely must talk to him about this. Clear communication is crucial to a healthy marriage, much less a good sexual relationship.
Now, from what you say, there are probably issues for both of you here. I can't talk too much about his motivations, because we haven't heard from him, only from you--but I'll make an effort from my perspective as a husband in a moment.
First, let's take a quick look at what you've said: you find sex with your husband tedious and dirty. "Dirty" is a problem--a significant one--because marital sex is anything but dirty. To live chastely within marriage is to have marital sex. Marital sex is a reflection of Christ's love for the Church, and the love within the Godhead. It's a sacramental act of unity and life. You absolutely must abandon this notion that sex with your husband is dirty, but it won't be easy. Labeling sex as "dirty" is an easy way we repel our sexual desire when embracing it is sinful (e.g., as teenagers and when we're engaged). Forget that label. Sex isn't dirty. Extramarital sex is sinful; sex within marriage is a gift from God to express love and intimacy with our entire selves (body and soul).
The tedium of sex may be tied to several different issues. I do want to ask about the frequency of your intercourse: from what you say, it sounds like you're having sex regularly (daily a few months ago, several times per week now). Does that mean that you are not practicing NFP and periodic abstinence? Are you instead trying to have children now, or are you using artificial contraceptives?
I ask because artificial contraceptives, aside from being sinful, are known to have detrimental side effects in your sex life. Condoms reduce sensation for both parties. Hormonal contraceptives reduce your sex drive and (based on studies in other primates) may reduce your natural desirability to your mate. If this is the situation, it could contribute to his disinterest and your boredom.
Are you experiencing painful intercourse? My wife struggled with intercourse for our first year of marriage because she had conditions called vaginismus and vestibulodynia, which caused the whole experience to be excruciating rather than pleasant. We made a joint, sincere effort using multiple methods to reduce those conditions and improve her experience for months before we saw any real progress. That can be another factor.
What is your general attitude toward sex? Have you ever found it remotely pleasurable? If not, have you spoken to your husband about your experience in the bedroom? Or are you treating sex like a solemn duty you must perform so that he feels fulfilled? The entire process of human marital sex is for both husband and wife to enjoy it. In a technical sense, neither one of you "must" enjoy it in order for the other to do so, but it is more enjoyable for both of you if you both enjoy it. If you have ever felt pleasure during intercourse, talk to your husband about that--ask him to pursue that before satisfying himself. Satisfying him sexually is easy; satisfying you sexually probably takes a little work, and that should be a worthwhile pursuit.
Now, on to him for a moment. My guess is that he loves you. If he was unchaste before dating you, then he didn't marry you just to have sex with you (because he didn't have to get married to have sex); from what you have said, he remained chaste while dating you and engaged to you, too. Which means he does love you, but he may not know quite what that means (or should mean). Again, talk to him about his actions, about how you feel, about how he feels. Talk to him about your marriage, about your future together.
On the pornography: it almost definitely predates your marriage and your relationship and is absolutely never your fault. That's on him. You didn't hold a gun to his head and force him to do it, and even if you had, he still shouldn't have done it. Never blame yourself for this. I know that's difficult to accept, but it's the truth. He, and only he, is responsible for his sins. If you're the coldest wife in the world who refuses sex for twenty years straight, watching pornography and masturbating would still be his sins.
The most important thing here is for both of you to come to a real, clear understanding of what married life within the Church is. You need to read about the Theology of the Body. Here is a short, relatively easy book on the subject. Here is the longer book behind that book. Here is a tome with the religious and philosophical underpinnings of it all. Here is a short video and here is a long one. Others will hopefully post other resources (podcasts, videos, books, etc.). This is critical. It sounds like you and your husband both are lacking important information about how marriage works in the Catholic Church.
The second most important thing is for you to improve your communication with your husband. Here is a box set of short books that can help with that (these significantly improved communication between my wife and I). I've also seen these at a local library.
Your husband needs to commit to improving your marriage as much as you do. You must talk to him as soon as possible. Don't put it off. He should know that something is wrong, especially if he's choosing pornography over you.
More details will enable us to help you more, but nothing will help as much as clear communication with your husband and a dedication to building the best marriage possible.
Some good books:
With all due respect and love for the Catechism as mentioned by digifork, perhaps it would be better to start off by reading something that specifically addresses misconceptions about the Church? I'm gonna recommend this one. A good informative read that I think you will enjoy even if you go no further afterwards! Here's the top review on Amazon:
>During the late 90's, I was investigating a number of Christian faiths. For many years I was bouncing around from Protestant church to Protestant church with no real clue as to what I was looking for. Becoming Catholic never entered my mind. Eventually I ran into a Catholic friend who explained a few of the basics of the Church to me. Intrigued, I began to study on my own and found "Why Do Catholics Do That?" The title seemed straightforward enough, so I picked up the book and read it from cover to cover. It was amazing. Kevin Orlin Johnson's book answered all of my major questions about the Church and most of my minor questions. I had read a number of other books up to that point and none of them gave me answers as honestly or inoffensively as this one. It didn't try to hammer anything down my throat. Instead, it gave me answers in plain English and with no intent to brush me off as "just another Protestant." After reading the book, I decided to enter the RCIA process, where I entered the Church at Easter in 2000.
I can honestly say that this book was the decision maker for me. It is written in a way that isn't too "bookish" or intellectual for the casual reader, yet has a good amount of information in it. The writing style used, which has a lot of humor in it, lessened the blows of what some consider "cocky Catholicism." Another reviewer felt that in her original review this book came across as too cocky. I understand what she is talking about. I've met quite a few people with that cocky attitude. That attitude was one of the major things that turned me off from the Church originally. This book to me, however, wasn't too cocky. I enjoyed it. It gave the reader information in a straight manner. I also found nothing anti-Semitic about this book, as another reviewer mentions.
With this book, I learned that a number of the things that I was taught as a child about the Catholic Church was mere propaganda or, in most cases, misinformation. A lot of what I thought I knew about the Church was actually a misunderstanding of practices and beliefs.
I believe this book, with its simplicity, could easily challenge some of the harder hitting Protestant theories about the Catholic faith. Although it doesn't really go into any major theological arguments, it openly explains why Catholics do the things they do. It's hard to argue with someone when they are straightforward and honest with their beliefs. Perhaps that's what we need a little more of in the world.
Yeah... no. No, Hitler wasn't endorsed by the Pope. Popes Piux XI and Pius XII were staunch opponents of Hitler and the Nazis. Read Pius XI's encyclical 'Mit brennender Sorge' for a strong condemnation of Nazism. Pius XII's encyclical 'Summi Pontificatus' is of a similar tone.
Might I suggest this book that explodes all those myths about the Vatican, the Catholic Church and World War II?
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.
I recommend the book Church of Spies: The Pope's Secret War Against Hitler.
Basically: the Pope appeared to cooperate because every time he said anything remotely critical, Hitler killed a whole bunch of people (mostly Catholics) in retaliation.
Meanwhile, he secretly had the church actively planning and coordinating quite a few assassination and coup attempts.
Brant Pitre has a book on Mary here
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary: Unveiling the Mother of the Messiah https://www.amazon.com/dp/0525572732/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_vdnpDb4JKEPR7
> "Hitler's pope"
I heard an interview with Rabbi David Dalin and he said that after researching the actual documents related to the Vatican and the Holocaust, the most honest things about that book ("Hitler's Pope") was the doctored picture on the front cover.
Free resources you should check out:
Peter and the Eastern Church by Fr. Ray Ryland
Infallability (especially the section titled 'The Pope')
Why I Didn't Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy by Fr. Brian Harrison O.S.
A Catholic (former Anglican) discusses Eastern Orthodox objections to Catholicism (there is a part 2 if you're interested)
 
Recommended books on the subject:
Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
20 Answers- The Papacy (20 Answers Series from Catholic Answers Book 10)
Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church
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.
> Peter was debated disagreed with and defeated when he supported the judaisers, and Paul and James often disagreed with him and were supported over his personal opinion.
It wasn't that Peter was rejected and Paul and Barnabas (James was presumably with the judaisers) were accepted, but that they changed Peter's mind (and presumably those of other apostles/bishops) on the issue.
> After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (Acts 15:7-11)
If you're interested in digging into the issue, I recommend The Russian Church and the Papacy, written by an Orthodox theologian who was very concerned with reuniting the Church.
In researching it, did you read the arguments of mainstream historians like Bart Ehrman and E. P. Sanders as well as mythicists like Carrier and Price, or the mythicists alone?
In a nutshell, Puritanism was a radical strain of the Reformation that thought the English Reformation hadn't gone far enough to cleanse Christianity of its medieval and Roman elements.
A great accessible, but scholarly, book on the subject is Diarmaid MacCulloch's "The Reformation: A History."
>Brother Guy Consolmagno is first religious brother to receive the prestigious science award.
>If you met an alien from outer space, would you welcome him into your RCIA program and baptize him at the Easter Vigil?
>That's the question posed by Michigan-born Brother Guy Consolmagno, Jesuit astronomer and planetary scientist, in his latest book, “Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?” The book, co-authored by Father Paul Meuller, S.J., looks at serious and humorous questions from the astronomers' in-box at the Vatican Observatory, and reveals how science and faith look at the same issues in different but complementary ways.
Has anyone read the book?
I've been meaning to read Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?
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.
Except there are better ones out there.
When I say Aslan's scholarship isn't there, the issue is he uses flawed scholarship and presents it as fact. Some of this scholarship has actively been discredited, others are widely criticized for methodological issues (using circular logic to back up their conclusions), and is very contentious on some fundamental problems. Aslan makes a lot of claims as if they're truth but which cannot be proven because we lack the evidence to make such conclusions.
I'll be upfront on my bias here: Aslan relies on 19th century German scholarship and the Jesus Seminar and I simply think these sources of the historical Jesus are not sound. I contend that the streams of scholarship he relies upon tends to present speculation as fact (and a lot of the speculation has been treated as fact). The Jesus Seminar in particular is roundly criticized for using circular logic to make conclusions. I think these critiques are fair and do suggest that the conclusions of the wider Jesus Seminar should be handled as suspect. I believe archeological evidence disproves assumptions made by the Jesus Seminar when it comes to aging texts. This matters because the Jesus Seminar went through texts and voted on each one's authenticity based on their unproven assumptions -- deeming passages inauthentic (and thus later additions) based on criteria that were unproven and perhaps even disproven.
Aslan is a bad starting point because he uses questionable scholarship, doesn't question it, and then presents this "historical" portrait of Jesus based on his reading of this scholarship. Scholarship which archeological evidence actively contradicts at times.
I haven't read this book, but I've read some of his articles, and E.P. Sanders is commonly seen as a good starting point who makes good use of archeological evidence to draw conclusions.
N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg co-author a book which goes through various aspects of the search for the historical Jesus. Wright and Borg are friends (and I think went to school together? They both had the same mentor, anyhow) but have very different views. Wright is highly critical of the Jesus Seminar, Borg was part of the Jesus Seminar but is also a bit of an outlier due to his more mystical understanding.
The point is that there's much better starting points. I think any of the links I've provided are good ones. But Aslan simply because if Aslan is your jumping off point, you're mostly going to get scholarship that he agreed with to make his point.
Sorry that this will sound patronizing, but how educated are you about the Bible as a historical document? I majored in religious studies with a focus on Christian origins. I know a good bit about it.
> Jesus claiming to be God IS the whole point of the new testament
This is basically true. But that's not the same as what Jesus, the historical figure, said or believed.
The Bible is inarguably a hodge-podge of different stories and accounts, many of which conflict with each other. The book of John was written much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke, or "Q" and reflects an advanced notion of Christian theology. It's no coincidence that Jesus says things in John that are much different than in the other three. The author of John wasn't somehow aware of Jesus-sayings that the other authors weren't.
> Most everything in the Gospels is proof of the fulfillment of the OT prophecy about the messiah.
Most everything in the Gospels is certainly written to be proof. The authors definitely had that goal in mind. But it doesn't mean that the actual historical events were proof.
> I don't know where you got this nonsense about later sources being less accurate, but there is simply no basis for that.
Yes, there is. I got it from my bachelor's degree (and, ya know, from common sense). I invite you to start your research here and continue with books like this and this (or even this). If you've never performed comparative study of the gospels, this is a neat resource too. (Note that the latter book doesn't even mention John, which is just that far removed from the other gospels.)
> to say Jesus never reliably claimed to be God is just insane
As wrong as you are about the historical facts, I will back off a little here: there is sufficient evidence that Jesus believed himself to be the "Son of Man," and probably even the Messiah. However the more historically reliable documents suggest that he was extremely cagey about saying this himself (Matthew 16 is a perfect example of this), whereas the less reliable documents have him declaring it quite explicitly.
All that being said, I think we left the primary point a little bit. Jesus most certainly was a moral inspiration (whether he called himself that or not), and it's that example—not literal salvation—that my mother (and I, for that matter) are inspired by.
I recommend Why Do Catholics Do That?, Catholic.com, Catholic.com's YouTube Channel, and especially CatholicBridge.com which is geared toward Protestants who are interested in the Catholic faith.
A fellow redditor recommended [Why Do Catholics Do That](Why Do Catholics Do That?: A Guide to the Teachings and Practices of the Catholic Church https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345397266/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_reiMzbDN8BE2K) a few years ago during an /r/Christianity denominational AMA. It's a great resource for people like me who grew up learning why Catholics were unbiblical (and un-Christian), but wanted an accessible resource from a Catholic source to learn more about them. After reading and having a better understanding of Catholicism, I highly recommend it.
Brant Pitre has got you covered, check out The "Brothers" of Jesus: A Fresh Look at the Evidence. He also goes into this in Chapter 5 of his great book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary: Unveiling the Mother of the Messiah.
Indeed, good thing that we don't, am I right?
Fundamentals of Catholid Dogma by Ludwig Ott might be the closest you'll get.
> a) is this an accurate, historical account of the controversy?,
Not in the slightest. For reference, this is the case of the priest Apiarius. The contention centered around the ability under contemporary canon law of a priest to appeal to Rome. The Pope was clearly in error (he had confused the Councils of Nicaea and Sardicia, but even the Council of Sardicia only dealt with appeals from bishops), and the Africans repeatedly pointed it out. They eventually got rather flustered (rightly so, IMO), because the Pope was repeatedly and flagrantly violating canon law + his legate was a jackass, for lack of a better term. However, they kept obeying the Pope each time he reinstated Apiarius, even when the Pope did so in violation of canon law. If that doesn't show Papal authority, I don't know what does. It's exactly the same thing we do nowadays if a Pope starts violating canon law: Obey him, but write (rather angrily, sometimes) to get him to reconsider.
Chapman gives a rather complete account of Apiarius's case in Studies on the Early Papacy, which I cannot recommend highly enough. It is a series of academic articles from a high-Church Anglican converted to Catholicism who is the best patristics scholar I've ever seen: Chapman had always read absolutely everything and carefully weighs every single piece of evidence in formulating his conclusions. He shows you the full situation with all the evidence, and then proves why he's right and why every other possible conclusion (including the ones you'll hear from Protestants/the EO) is wrong.
Whenever someone is arguing against Papal Authority on a topic on which I've read Chapman, I have always been able to point to precisely the pieces of evidence they are ignoring and which are blatantly contrary to their conclusions. I have literally never lost an argument with Chapman at my back.
> b) did Saint Augustine ever later recognize Papal authority in other contexts (or reverse his previous position?),
Yes, Augustine explicitly recognized the Pope's ability to settle questions of faith when the Pelagians were condemned. Chapman (in the same book above) has an excellent article addressing this. I believe someone linked a condensed HTML version above, under the name "Rome has spoken; the case is closed" or something of that sort. That's a quote from a sermon (IIRC) from Augustine explaining that the Pelagians are definitively condemned, and a central piece of evidence for Chapman.
> c) if he did not, and remained hostile to the exercise of Papal authority over local excommunications, etc, how should we interpret that in light of Papal supremacy as a doctrine, particularly in the early post-Nicean Church.
As Chapman will show you, Augustine certainly did not.
Evolution in nbd in the Catholic church so that's not an issue. The other two issues I'll try to address as best I can, but feel free to respond with more questions/clarifications if need be.
Confession - not sure what specifically you don't like about it so here we go
So that's what I got on Confession.
Ok so no premarital sex is complicated to explain, but very beautiful (in my opinion) once it is fully understood - but it's definitely not a sin you could ignore and be truly Catholic
Hope some of that was helpful! If you are interested in the Catholic faith you can always try contacting your local parish and setting up a meeting with a priest who could talk you through any questions you might have. Best of luck!
Hi there! Thanks for giving us a look!
The central "thing" about Catholicism is that we are the continuation of the Church that Christ founded on his Apostles/Peter. By looking at the history of Christianity, I think you'll find that statement is true (like I did).
I'm a cradle Catholic, but I never really looked into or practiced my faith that much. One day, I thought I'd have myself a go and try to disprove religion. Religion is just holding us back as a society right? So let me start at the top of the ladder. I tried to disprove theism in general.
Couldn't do it.
Ok, let me disprove Christianity then.
Couldn't do it.
Dang, can I at least prove that Catholicism isn't the true form of Christianity?
LOL, nope. I ended up having a much stronger connection to my faith. Presently, I am discerning the priesthood. I thank God every day that He allowed me to have such arrogance as to think "I can disprove God!" and travel down that rabbit hole. I came out with a profound love and trust for God. It was stressful and hair-pulling, but worth it!
I, for one, am a reader. Literature is what brought me back to the Church. There area many works which I would recommend:
Finally, Catholic Answers has a YouTube channel. They have a 2 hour show every weekday in which they answer questions from Catholics and non-Catholics, and upload these questions as short videos. Any question you have should be answered here.
There are many other books you could look into, but we don't want to scare you away! We have almost 2,000 years of material to read.
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.
Good catch lol
Reminds me of this book I've been wondering about for awhile:
https://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Gospels-History-Hallucinogens-Christianity/dp/1620555026/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520971821&sr=8-1&keywords=psychedelic+origins+of+christianity
Allegro’s legacy is an interesting one, but there’s a reason I didn’t mention him, as I know his reputation isn’t one that Sam or Bart would concern themselves with. Instead, I would push people towards this book: https://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Gospels-History-Hallucinogens-Christianity/dp/1620555026
I was more so referring to things like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/06/religion.israelandthepalestinians and psychedelic imagery in religious art: https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychonaut/comments/44dynv/psychedelic_symbols_in_religious_artwork_album/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list
Michael Pollan, in The Botany of Desire also references the “forbidden fruit” as possibly being an entheogenic substance:
> "...The content of the knowledge Adam and Eve could gain by tasting of the fruit does not matter nearly as much as its form - that is, the very fact that there was spiritual knowledge of any kind to be had from nature. The new faith sought to break the human bond with magic nature, to disenchant the world of plants and animals by directing our attention to a single God in the sky. Yet Jehovah couldn't very well pretend the tree of knowledge didn't exist, not when generations of plant-worshipping pagans knew better. So the pagan tree is allowed to grow even in Eden, though ringed around now with a strong taboo. Yes, there is spiritual knowledge in nature, the new God is acknowledging, and its temptations are fierce, but I am fiercer still. Yield to it, and you will be punished. So unfolds the drug war's first battle."
I realize that “pothead-intellectuals” are wrong about most things and like to equate everything to psychedelic use, but to think that religion/spirituality and entheogens don’t have any significance to one another is a bit foolish. It a lot of ways, it seems just the opposite: https://www.maps.org/news-letters/v12n1/12117stu.html & http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/psychedelics-and-the-religious-experience
Your questions are rather long and require lot of writing and knowledge. Rather too much for Internet forum.
I wish I had a chance to talk to you in private because I do not think that writing long text would be effective. And frankly I do not have will to do it for such complex topic. But I am going to recommend two books.
The Primitive Church and the See of Peter by Luke Rivington.
https://archive.org/details/primitivechurch00rivigoog
Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Peter-Keys-Scriptural-Handbook/dp/1882972546
I am also going to page /u/gregoiredenarek since he is our most active and most knowledgable redditor.
Hello happybadger,
I'm not a historical Jesus scholar, but you might find the following stuff useful:
Summary of some scholarship with suggested readings here.
Long video documentary from Frontline, 'From Jesus to Christ' here
I've read 'The Historical Figure of Jesus' by E.P. Sanders (listed in the summary above), but wasn't very pleased with it--mainly due to the problem with such scholarship pointed out by Luke Timothy Johnson and summarized by William Lane Craig here. Others reading in this vein like Geza Vermes' work.
You might also reread the canonical gospels and Acts with an outsider's perspective. As these are your most reliable source materials, any books or videos you study from will be constantly referencing them. In fact, that's probably the best place to start.
I hope that something there proves useful in your research.
>"Most historians would agree on"?? Lol!
That's pretty much what the majority of critical historians believe, yes. Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic ...
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium,
Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet,
The Historical Figure of Jesus are all very good books on the historical Jesus, easy accessible and mostly stick to the consensus of the historical community.
>What evidence is there for any of this outside of christian scripture? When topic like this arise there are always a few posters who don't seem to understand that a religion's own faith based holy books can't be used as evidence to support a religion's historical claims.
All written historical sources have some kind of bias. Historians are well aware of that. The job of the historian isn't to take everything written in the gospels, or in any other source, at face value. They have to approach it critically so they could find out what really happened in the past.
You are certainly free to attend the church! You could even talk to the presiding priest/pastor (if he's there) after Mass. If the church has a website, you could see who is in charge of something worded like "Adult Formation" or "Rite of Christian Imitation for Adults" and ask about feeling drawn to attend.
If you're super confused I cannot recommend this book enough.
That would depend a lot on what we mean by "Jewish tradition."
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/main-marian-documents-of-the-church/perpetual-virginity-catechism-of-the-catholic-church
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/more-reasons-for-marys-perpetual-virginity
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Jewish-Roots-Mary-Unveiling/dp/0525572732
Personally, I think one of the simplest and most convincing pieces of evidence for the fact that the authors of the gospels also believed in Mary's perpetual virginity is her response to the angel. "How can this be...?" Is not a question that makes much sense if it's a regular marriage which will be consummated.
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.
for #5, I'd definitely check out Scott Hahn's talk on Mary and Brant Pitre's book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary. I'd also read about some Saints and their writings on the Eucharist and try to see how they lived Sacramental lives. Here's a great website to have as a reference on the Eucharist, which also has a section at the bottom on Saints and the Eucharist + Miracles.
I'd also learn more about what the Mass is and how different parts of the Mass tie into Scripture. Even the responses and prayers that happen throughout the Mass tie back into Scripture (from the Sanctuary Lamp in Leviticus to Centurion's confession). It will really enrich your experience every week at Mass and help you learn to pray the Mass and prepare you more to receive the Eucharist every time. I'd give Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's The Spirit of the Liturgy a read one day too in the future. I always found it so beautiful how the "New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New". When you reflect on it, Christians across the centuries have always been drawn into this beautiful mystery in a very special way at every Mass and you can see their responses to God's love across the ages in the Saints. We're very fortunate to be a part of this communion and mystery. As was Christ's divinity hidden in the Cross, there he is also "hidden" in the Mass, within the Tabernacles across the world, and with us after every Holy Communion. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 has been one of my favorites to reflect along with this.
So, what you said isn't racist. It simply isn't. Claiming that all Muslims are the same race is far more racist (and inaccurate) than what you've stated.
All of that said, your argument is at best dishonest and should be reconsidered. Here's why.
Several years ago, the Vatican held a series of talks with prominent atheist philosophers. Famously, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitches were excluded. The reason given was that they "read religious texts like fundamentalists."
Why is this important? Well, for two reasons. First, no Catholic in his right mind takes a literal view of many of the passages of scripture. In fact, the literal interpretation of scripture is among the least useful ways to approach the religious texts (read the section on Genesis here). Second, many of their objections have been dealt with again, and again, and again by religious philosophers through the ages. It does no one any good to put someone into a debate who is ignorant of Augustinian thought on religious texts. At most Dawkins and Hitchens would have seemed idiot children trying to play dress up.
Similarly, there are many people who have discussed those very passages ad nauseam. And, unless you have significant evidence to the contrary, it is not normative (at least in most Islamic religious groups) to take those passages literally. What you've done is proof-text, taken a chunk of a text you disagree with ignoring context, and you've used it as the basis for an argument. That isn't honest.
That was actually one of the astronomers from the Vatican who were surprised by a question during a visit by Pope Francis to the UK. The whole story, plus a lot more, is told by Fr. Paul Mueller, SJ, and Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ in "Would you Baptize an Extraterrestrial?".
Perhaps we should add a good book on the schism to the suggested reading on the sidebar, such as His Broken Body or The Primacy of Peter.
>Where do I learn about all this stuff?
The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church
St. Symeon of Thessalonica and the Question of the Primacy of the Pope
I would recommend reading up on the French Revolution when the Catholic Church was persecuted by the nationalist French government.
There are plenty of books pointing out the adversarial relationship between the Catholic Church and the Nazis.
Lol you sound like my family.
Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History https://www.amazon.com/dp/1599475367/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_bfhNBb5VJRK76
Eusebius: The Church History https://www.amazon.com/dp/082543307X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_UfhNBb1P8XHR2
Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (Modern Apologetics Library) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0898707234/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fghNBbFWXATPK
That would be interesting to read. I bet it has heaps to do with Aquinas. I know Feser affirms a Natural Law Theory of Morality which is very Catholic and so might be a part of it. Generally, it's no surprise to me. I think any careful and rational inquirer who comes to believe the Nicene Creed will be lead to either the Orthodox or Catholic faith. And I think of those two the weight of the evidence is slightly but appreciably in favour of Catholicism.
It's catholicity better satisfies the Great Commission; I think a better case for continuity of aim and organisation back to the Apostolic Church (subject to certain qualifications) can be made; the Filoque is in my view needed to make sense of the Trinity; add to this good evidence for apparent miraculous confirmation in modern times by Marian apparitions at Fatima and Lordes etc.; and pretty good a priori arguments for the necessity of a living voice and so a papacy. To this last point one might add the historical argument for the primacy of Peter though that might be a bit controversial!
Oh they already have the explanations planned. I am an ex-fundie, already people like Tom Horn are telling the fundies, that aliens are the Nephilim warned of in the bible and they are all demons. Others basically teach aliens will equal demons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vCC_NHuTuc
https://www.amazon.com/Exo-Vaticana-L-U-C-I-F-R-Vaticans-Astonishing/dp/0984825630
If you don’t mind tin foil hats, you may want to peek at this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Exo-Vaticana-Romanus-Vaticans-astonishing-exo-theological/dp/0984825630
Me personally I think either we are alone or, if there is someone else on another planet someplace, we will never meet them. Let me put it this way. Just based on statistics, the universe is so big odds are we are not alone. But likewise the universe is so big odds are we will never meet.
When it comes to modern UFO sightings, I tend to agree with John Keel. (Check out Operation Trojan Horse) They are not ETs but EDs… extra-dimensional beings, potentially demonic for that reason. This is supported by some Christians like Chuck Missler.
Edit: OTH was an old book I knew of but never read. I just found out it has been rereleased!
http://www.amazon.com/OPERATION-TROJAN-HORSE-Breakthrough-ebook/dp/B00CYOW6ZW/
>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.
Sorry for the late reply.
Here's a good one - The Reformation by Diarmaid Macculloch
Two books that I can personally vouch for:
You may also enjoy the AskHistorians Book List
This volume by Owen Chadwick may fit your bill in terms of page range.
Hillerbrand's a big name in Reformation studies. He wrote this ~500p. volume on the 16th century. His anthology of writings from the era is also very useful.
Diarmaid MacCulloch's the Reformation exceeds your page range (~800) but is very entertaining and gives a good overview of the world leading up to it. I think it's conceptually ambitious because it discusses the Reformation's effects on early Modernity in the 18th century.
On the other extreme of the page range (< 200 p.) is this Oxford Very Short Introduction by Peter Marshall. I like this series quite a bit, and I liked Marshall's emphasis on placing the Reformation in its political and social context.
If you want to focus on doctrine and theology, Jaroslav Pelikan's volume (~500pp) is highly acclaimed (along with his entire Christian Tradition series.)
Church Of Spies
> (the church aided Hitler and he has wide support among the Christian German population
This is incorrect. He had support among many protestant denominations but not Catholics, and the pope most certainly did NOT support Hitler ( https://eppc.org/events/the-myth-of-hitlers-pope/ )
&#x200B;
Also, the Church of Spies is a good read on how the Catholic Church actively worked to undermine the Nazis.
I won't deny that Anti-semitism existed in Christian societies throughout history, but you are cherry-picking examples out of 2000 years of co-existence. I could just as easily argue the opposite by stating that more Jews were murdered in the secularized 20th century than in the previous few centuries combined. The historical persecution of the Jewish people transcend simple narratives about one religion being more welcoming than others.
Ben's point about Judeo-Christian values is that they are a combination of faith and reason. If you have faith without reason, you get a repressive theocracy like Iran. If you have reason without faith, you get Mao's Communist China and millions of citizens dead.
> The whole concept of judeo christian values seem to be made to intentionally exclude Muslim's
Not sure what the basis of this claim is, but I'd like to read your reasoning. It's also worth noting that both Judaism and Christianity pre-date Islam, so it's a bit odd to argue that their tenets were somehow purposefully crafted to exclude Muslims.
I just started reading this book you might find interesting.
There is! My bestie recommends his book.
Guy Consolmagno, SJ, the head of the Vatican Observatory, wrote a book called Would You Baptize An Extraterrestrial?
In general though, the Incarnation is a one-time thing. God could have revealed Himself to aliens in a different way, of course, but when the Son took on flesh and became Jesus Christ a unique mingling of human and divine natures took place. I'm also not sure that the Church would find acceptable the idea that the events of the Garden of Eden actually took place on some other planet billions of years ago and all life in the universe is decsended from there.
Personally, I think that if there are intelligent extraterrestrials they're Unfallen -- and they're staying away from us so we don't they're gods or something. Then again there might be very sophisticated biological machines the Devil has overseen the construction of.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Hitlers-Pope-Against/dp/0895260344/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1375040667&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+myth+of+hitler%27s+pope
Quite frankly, I don't know why this isn't more popular amongst more academically inclined Protestants/high Protestants/Catholics. Or perhaps it is, but I've only seen it mentioned here once, about a week ago. It's great if you're at a cross roads between Orthodoxy vs Catholicism, and contains a monolith if information and Early Church & biblical citations. It's between 300-400 pages, with I swear half of every page being footnotes. Not your typical bedtime read, I suppose.
http://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&amp;refRID=0GMBK4GZ7EFQC9653N6X
You might want to check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234
The youtuber LizziesAnswers here stated how it really helped her decide between orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. Hopefully it might help you too!
If you like to read, please check out
Upon this Rock This book is about the Papacy. & Crossing the Tiber, a Protestant conversion story, which includes a lot of Church history, and quotes from the early Church.
Hi. Your questions were exactly my questions, only 3+ years ago. I came from being raised in the Orthodox Church, and began to think about St. Peter's headship after listening to an Orthodox Podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko.
What I will say is that there is an abundance of Grace available in both Churches. That being said, I eventually decided that I needed to be in communion with the See of Peter and so converted to Roman Catholicism.
You might want to check out this book. I read it, among many other things, though I'll have to dig out my stuff to see what else there was.
I spent time reading information about the Great Schism. As well, I became aware of the Photian Schism as well.
I'd ask you to consider the position of each Church with regard to the reception of the Eucharist by members of the opposite confession. I found that the Roman position was much more charitable toward what they consider their sister Church (or the other lung of the Church), as opposed to the Orthodox position which essentially considers Rome heretical, without outright saying so.
There is no question that Apostolic Succession resides in both Churches, so for me the Orthodox position comes off a bit "protestant" if you will. Thus, I have come to view them as the first Protestants.
I'll be glad to have more discussion with you if you come up with some questions you want to talk about.
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!
I think you are a little off. Love, even sexual love, is a gift given to us that allows married couples to imitate (imperfectly) the perfect love of Christ for the church.
When you say that sex is a near occasion of sin I suppose you are right because it is (unfortunately) normal to be lustful. That is not what we were made for though! Our desire should always be to "will the good of the other" as Fr. Barron is fond of saying. That is a true love. What lust does is take something good (sexual love) and twist/pervert it for our own desires.
Take the time to read the "Theology of the Body for Beginners" book. It's an easy read, just over 200 pages. I think you will find that as a married person you are called to heroic virtue and you shouldn't shy away from it!
https://www.amazon.com/Theology-Body-Beginners-Introduction-Revolution/dp/1934217859/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=RJVE9RJP5688H71KRJVG
In addition to everything u/DionysiusExiguus I'd add The Russian Church and the Papacy by Vladimir Soloviev. It's written by an Orthodox Theologian and he concludes that there was primacy given to Rome in the early church, despite what many Orthodox historians claim.
I cannot speculate about this because I wasn't there with Jesus, to my knowledge, when all this was happening. I am, however, desperately curious to meet the being if it's at all possible, if for no other reason than just to say "thank you" in a more relaxed setting.
You may wish to check out the following books on what the final supper could have been:
The Psychedelic Gospels
The Effluents of Diety
Information stored through history is guaranteed to have been corrupted. It's possible that Jesus used bread and wine...but it's also possible that other widely-considered "forbidden fruit" was used for mind-expanding spiritual properties. I try to keep all possibilities in mind.
There's much more evidence of mushrooms being connected to ancient spiritual practices the world over than MJ. (That said obviously in some cultures like ancient India MJ was a huge part of it.)
Ancient Egypt, Aztec Civilization and Christianity are all steeped in mushrooms. (Along with MANY others. Of course, Santa Clause is also mushroom based :) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/opinion/santa-christmas-mushrooms.html )
https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/04/the-sacred-mushroom-and-cross-by-john.html
http://en.psilosophy.info/the_entheomycological_origin_of_egyptian_crowns_and_the_esoteric_underpinnings_of_egyptian_religion.html
https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Mushroom-Evidence-Mushrooms-Judeo-Christianity/dp/0982556209
https://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Gospels-History-Hallucinogens-Christianity/dp/1620555026/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=S850R5K6NZ18DKSJSHN8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_use_of_entheogens
http://www.amazon.com/Light-World-Church-Signs-Times/dp/1586176064
Read the Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger and the four interviews his biographer Peter Seewald did with him, both as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and later on as Pope Benedict XVI: Salt of the Earth, God and the World, Light of the World and Last Testament.
The interviews will give you an introduction to the Church from a very unique perspective.
Because the why of the law is still enforced. That is what Christ meant when He said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The precepts are still there. Don't worship other gods. Don't fornicate. Respect your elders. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't commit adultery. Follow God's intentions for you and trust Him.
For example, the wearing of mixed fabrics. Why were they not allowed to wear mixed fabrics? Because there were pagan gods which used mixed fabrics in ritual. That rule was to keep Israel from sacrificing to that pagan god by outlawing the ritual. The heart of that law was "don't worship pagan gods." Even though we don't have the prohibition on mixed fabrics anymore, we are still bound to not worship pagan gods.
With respect to homosexual acts, we not only have the Mosaic Law, but we have many other references in the OT that refer to God's plan for the family and sexuality. We also have passages in the NT which shed light on God's intentions for the sexual act. All of this points to a theology based in the natural moral law of how we are to conduct ourselves in these matters.
If you really want to understand how deep this goes, I would suggest that your read a book on the Theology of the Body. I wouldn't recommend diving straight into JPII opus as it is very deep. There are plenty of books which try to make it more accessible (such as this one). It isn't explicitly about homosexuality, but more about how God wants us to use our bodies.
I also want to mention something else. You didn't bring it up, but I wanted to mention it because it is a difficult concept for most people. Christian moral theology distinguishes between a person and their actions. Society today might think that a person that does evil things may be evil. However Christian's look at it differently. A person that does evil things simply does evil things and is not intrinsically evil themselves. All people have the potential for good and are good to the extent they have reached that potential. Therefore, all people are to be loved and treated with dignity and respect regardless of their actions.
This is how we can say the a person who simply have same sex attraction is not evil. That person is not damned. That person is an intrinsically good person. If that person chooses to sin, and we all do, that does not make them unworthy of love and respect. That just makes them a sinner. Christians are simply sinners who believe in the Lord and aspire to live by His example and to cooperate with his grace to build us up and take us away from our sinful tendencies.
All this is a long winded way of saying, contrary to what many non-Christians say about us, it is not our teaching to say homosexuals are evil or are going to hell. Homosexuals are just sinners like the rest of us and the only difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual is the type of sin they struggle with.
Edit: Spelling
I want to clarify, first off, that I don't necessarily agree with the points leading up to my key complaint, nor after.
And she didn't go after me, she went after the dignity of women and children everywhere with her apparently snide ignorance.
That being said, the piece on condoms and abortion was straight up disinformation which the author thought she could get away with based on it being buried within the otherwise much stronger critiques in the article. It's almost as if she thought, "I'll just sneak this in here because no one will notice."
I noticed.
Condoms in Africa - Ms. Article Author, who from henceforth will be referred to as Greta, because that's her name, apparently missed Humane Vitae. I don't find this excusable as this papal encyclical has been around for 43 years. Shortly after the legalization of contraception in the United States, the Church released this very elaborate, detailed critique of the use of condoms. Protip: it cannot be summarized with "condoms makes baby Jesus cry."
In a more modern reference, Benedict XVI recently was interviewed in what culminated as the released of a book addressing modern issues pertaining to the Church, including contraception. Most of the online world is only aware of how the media took an out-of-context excerpt about condom use and used it to claim the Pope was saying that condoms were okay sometimes.
This is not the case.
I wish Greta had even the slightest concern as to why the Church condemns condom use, especially in Africa. That being said, this is relevant
Abortion - I’m going to break up the post on this piece by piece.
>”I'm angry that women are having septic abortions”
I was reviewing the risk factors for septic abortion via Wikipedia. I found a few I wanted to highlight:
Now that the hypocrisy is out of the way, let’s look at the actual statistics for septic abortions: five hundred cases in 15 years, and a 1% mortality rate.
And this is supposed to be an argument for legalized abortion? Moving on.
>”[women] are being forced to have unwanted children …”
Greta is either arguing (A) women aren’t aware that sex can lead to pregnancy [even with birth control], or (B) all women who seek abortions were forced into sex. Unfortunately, the latter can be true, but it only accounts for 1% of abortions sought.
What about the other 99%? How can anyone say, “women are being forced to have unwanted children,” when it is only true 1% of the time?
>” … children who they resent and mistreat …”
I don’t believe I need to say how hard it is to prove that all unwanted children will be resented and mistreated. And yet this is a very common pro-choice talking point. Besides reminding Greta that adoption exists, I would also like to put forth a personal observation. You don’t have to look far to find a person or organization fully confident that your ‘uterine contents’ are your greatest burden that you cannot bear, that your only hope is by embracing you ‘reproductive freedom’ by ‘terminating your pregnancy.’ Under this toxic mindset, it’s not hard to see how so many women have been coerced into seeing their unborn child as something (and not someone) to resent. And while tragedies do occur pertaining to this, show me an organization who carries the same sentiments toward your child post birth. Where you can find an infinite resource of propaganda for resentment for the child in an unplanned pregnancy, you will notice it all disappears when the child is born. I don’t need to remind anyone of child abuse laws, welfare programs, and public and private organizations alike setup solely to assist mothers struggling with taking care of their children.
>”because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible.”
This is the cream of the crop. Of all the straw man arguments Greta has built, lo, she is trying to assemble a straw army. Besides every argument I’ve posted so far to demonstrate that abortion’s legality has no relevance to septic abortions, women being ‘forced’ to have children, or children being resented, it is nonsense to suggest this is a uniquely religious issue.
Let’s have a look around the Internet, shall we?
Now for some scientific, documented arguments that contradict pro-choice opinions on abortion.
I think this post is getting kind of long …
--
Okay, I’m going to comment on the comment about priests giving marriage advice, too.
Greta complains that religious leaders don’t have a legal obligation to go through “any sort of” training, counseling or therapy. I can only speak for Catholics. I guess Greta was simply not aware of the obligatory six to eight years Catholic priests spend in the seminary to become priests. I want to repeat here that the Church condemns artificial contraception for a reason.
In America, the divorce rate is approximately 50%. You could break it down to individual age demographics, but I think it is worthy of notice that couples who practice NFP, who do not use contraception, have a divorce rate of 0.2%. I could guess that Greta didn’t find that information important, but I know she wasn’t aware of it.
I think that's enough. That took a great deal of time to compose. Good luck, everyone.
>you imbecile
I can already tell this is going to be fun.
>Jesus has literally ZERO contemporary historical data.
That's not what you asked for. You asked for peer-reviewed arguments for the historical existence of Jesus, of which I said there are thousands, and to which I said you'd have a much more difficult time finding the opposite--- peer reviewed articles and books arguing that Jesus was entirely a myth.
>I’ll wait for those libraries of sources you have.
Where do you want to start?
Probably the best place for you to start is with Bart Ehrman, a leading scholar of on the development of Christianity, and he's also a popular skeptic speaker and writer. In addition to publishing he's written popular books about how many of the books of the Bible were forgeries, and how the belief that Jesus was divine developed in early Christianity, he also wrote an entire book laying out the widely accepted case that Jesus was likely a real historical person, written directly to skeptical lay people like yourself.
If you want a great introduction to the scholarly debate about the historical Jesus, you could start here or here. I also think Dale Allison's work is great critical look at some of the issues at work in the debate. There are lots of historical reconstructions of Jesus' life. Some of the more popular ones like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan tend to sell books to liberal Christian audiences, so I've always thought E.P. Sanders treatment was perferable. I'll spare you the links to scholars who identify as orthodox Christians, like Luke Timothy Johnson or N.T. Wright. It sounded like you specifically wanted more scholarly sources and not popular books, so you could just look at the scholarly journal dedicated to the study of the historical Jesus. Or the Jesus Seminar. Or either of the following Introductions to the New Testament textbooks which are used in secular universities throughout the english speaking world:
Introduction to the New Testament by Mark Allen Powell
Introduction to the New Testament by Bart Ehrman
These are the ones I'm personally most familiar with. There are tons more like Geza Vermes and Amy Jill Levine I haven't read and I'm not as familiar with.
But I'm not telling you anything you wouldn't learn in any basic 101 intro to New Testament Class. The academic consensus is that regardless of what you think about him as a religious figure, it is extremely likely that there was a first century Jew named Jesus who started a faith movement that led to him being crucified. Why do scholars think this? Because by the time Paul started writing his letters 20 years later there was a growing, spreading religious movement that worship a crucified Jew named Jesus as their messiah, and given critical analysis of the texts produced by this movement, some of which are now in the New Testament, there really doesn't exist a coherent argument for the development of this movement that doesn't include the existence of a first century Jew named Jesus who was crucified.
I highly recommend The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders.
http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Figure-Jesus-E-Sanders/dp/0140144994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1256229581&amp;sr=1-1
Bart has a "bad" reputation among Christian circles, even though most people have never even head his books.
I would suggest The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders.
Sanders is a very well respected scholar. He is humble, honest, and fairly "middle of the road". I've even seen The Historical Figure of Jesus on some bookshelves belonging to Christians, even though Sanders does not believe in miracles and discusses contradictions in the bible.
I'd recommend reading on the Reformation, specifically this book. It's long, but it covers the history of the Reformation, the Church's response to it, the (limited) role of Orthodoxy in it, and will give you an in depth look at the first Reformation beliefs.
Off the top of my head, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Also,
How the Irish Saved Civilization is a great read, though not about Rome.
If you're into church history, The Early Church by Chadwick and The Reformation by Macchulloch are well-written and interesting
Oooooh, I'm actually not all that familiar with Early Modern Germany, but I think I've found a few books that may help you with the religious, political and military aspects. Some of these books are pretty expensive, so I'd recommend finding a good library or seeing if your local library does inter-library loans with larger libraries. Usually you have to read the books pretty quick, but it saves paying $150 for a book if you're not in a position to do that. Just be sure to take plenty of notes!
I'd also be willing to look at what you've got but, like I said, I may not be as useful as I first thought.
The Reformation: A History
The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy
The Rise of Modern Warfare: 1618-1815
The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe
The Witchcraft Sourcebook
Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume I
Society and Economy in Germany, 1300-1600
Flesh and Spirit: Private Life in Early Modern Germany
Panaceia's Daughters: Noblewomen as Healers in Early Modern Germany
Ecology, Economy and State Formation in Early Modern Germany
Crime and Culture in Early Modern Germany
The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany: Civic Duty and the Right of Arms
He Is the Sun, She Is the Moon: Women in Early Modern Germany
The Realities of Witchcraft and Popular Magic in Early Modern Europe: Culture, Cognition and Everyday Life
The Lesser Key of Solomon
The Art of Combat: A German Martial Arts Treatise of 1570
Looking around for syllabus from this class. Guess I never saved it. There are many good ones out there. And it really depends on what angle you would like to approach it from.
As far as places to start with. It probably would help to start with secondary sources:
A former Professor and friend has written this biography on Luther: https://www.amazon.com/Luther-Christian-Life-Cross-Freedom/dp/143352502X
His approach is generally very balanced.
Diarmaid MacCulloch’s is the academic standard: https://www.amazon.com/Reformation-History-Diarmaid-MacCulloch/dp/014303538X?keywords=the+reformation&amp;qid=1537931698&amp;sr=8-2&amp;ref=mp_s_a_1_2
He is much more interested in the history than why it matters.
As far as checking out original sources, the big three are Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. My personal hero is Calvin. I’ve read most of his works.
The Reformation by Diarmaid MacCulloch. Regardless of his personal beliefs, he is a real historian and writes the most accessible and readable history books I've ever read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reformation:_A_History
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
Why Do Catholics Do That? is also a really great book for a ease-in to understanding various aspects of the faith. It's actually written for cradle Catholics (although I found it very helpful as a former Presbyterian), so it's one that might be great for you and your girlfriend to read together! Peace, brother!
I would not rely on "Catholic Answers." Others may differ, but I find it more chastening than illuminating.
There's an old book floating around called, "Why Do Catholics Do That"? which might serve as a starting point for the curious.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Do-Catholics-That/dp/0345397266
For people who are merely taunting and do not really want an answer, there's no harm in stating your observation, i.e., "It sounds like you already have made up your mind. If you want to understand more, let me know, and we can make time for a discussion." (In the interim, study up!)
I also find James Martin's book a gem, as he is so accessible and yet accurate at the same time:
https://www.amazon.com/Jesuit-Guide-Almost-Everything-Spirituality/dp/0061432695
Dude, you have a terribly twisted view of history and Chrisitianty. Here are a few books to start with:
http://a.co/fajAJ3F
Adolf was an Anti-theist who believed Religions were a problem as it interfered with the State. He went after Jewish and other religious minority groups. While he might have said he was "Catholic" in reality he hated Christianity thinking it as weak. He persecuted Christians and even went after Christian institutions. The local church undermined Hitler rescuing thousands of persecuted people. The Pope even had a "secret war" against Hitler.
https://www.amazon.com/Church-Spies-Secret-Against-Hitler/dp/0465094112
&#x200B;
Here are some other things he did:
https://www.businessinsider.com/4-of-the-weirdest-things-the-nazis-ever-did-2015-7
&#x200B;
" Once Hitler had figuratively substituted God for himself, he decided to take it a step further.
And since literally pulling Christ from the sky wasn't an option, he decided to take out the next best thing: the Pope. Did we mention this was part of a larger plan to abolish all religions and declare himself as God of Germany? Because that was also a thing. "
&#x200B;
It isn't a surprise. Throughout History Dictators have went after religion. USSR, North Korea, Communist China, and Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
\> First, is whether a theologian has at least, lain out a theory as to the interesting effects and implications of sapient alien life.
Yes. In fact Nicholas of Cusa, born in 1401 A.D. in Kues, Germany, was a Cardinal who theorized that alien life could exist on other planets or even the sun and that they would be made of "different matter" than us. Sounds almost like a Star Trek plot with energy aliens living on a star... but this was something that a Catholic cleric and theologian speculated about 600 years ago.
Now more recently Guy Consolmagno, a Gesiut and Director of the Vatican Observatory, and President of the Vatican Observatory Foundation, wrote recently a book called "Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?: . . . and Other Questions from the Astronomers' In-box at the Vatican Observatory" where he deals with this question (and yes he said he would baptize aliens).
I'm sure some other have also thought about it, but I can't recall any at the moment.
..
Another important point is that the Church has ALWAYS believe in aliens! What are angels if not aliens? Not made of matter like us, but still non-human intelligent creatures. So fundamentally there is no objection whether God could have created other - possibly material - intelligent beings.
Of course it does rise some questions regarding salvation (does each alien species get an alien Jesus? Are some species simply unfallen? Etc...)
...
\> Such as, the differnece and implications of another sapient species nature and soul.
In principle any material being with a rational soul is "**human"**. Not human in a biological sense, but in a metaphysical sense, i.e. created in the image of God.
While animal and plants have (vegetative and animal) souls which are not rational and also die at the death of the body, humans and intelligent aliens, are transcendent. We share also some other characteristics which are (analogously) present in God. That is why "man is in God image" and so would any intelligent alien.
So while the Church has never really thought too much about something that is mere speculation for now, its theology does not prohibit that aliens exist.
...
\> Second, is whether you all would like to see me write some amateurish theories on these.
Sure :)
You may really enjoy this book. It was written by Jesuit scientists, who discuss the reconciliation of faith and science.
Read these:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology/dp/0881411256
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565481895/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1535523722&amp;pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&amp;pf_rd_t=201&amp;pf_rd_i=0881411256&amp;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;pf_rd_r=0MJRMNA8C2ZTKSBS4W6T
Certainly the philosophies of the Pagan Greeks can be powerful tools, and the Church has always made use of them, but there is a danger that can come if we allow that philosophy to take prominence in our thought above what has been revealed to us by God. We find that Roman Catholicism can flirt rather dangerously with that line at times, and moreover, that at any rate there is no aspect of pagan philosophy that is at all necessary for us in comparison to what we have already been given in the Church. The best we can say about the old Greeks is that they are incomplete.
&#x200B;
As for a divergence of tradition, I think it is fairly apparent, looking at the Roman church today. Even if we set aside the total upheaval that occurred in the wake of Vatican II, almost all of what Rome considers "traditional" today is itself innovative. If we go back to Anselm's novel theory of atonement, propagated throughout the Roman Catholic world just a few decades after the Schism began, we can see the harbingers of a totally new spirituality for the West. Anselm promulgated the "satisfaction theory" of atonement, in which the primary method by which Mankind is saved is by the person Christ 'satisfying' the needs of God's wrath against the human race. This is a total divergence from what Church previously believed, and is foreign to the traditional understanding of atonement - the fundamental difference here being that it sets up a dichotomy between mankind and God, a wall between us.
Instead of God being our ever-loving Father who desires us to become truly His children and participants in Him, with the means of our salvation being a union of our nature to Christ's, God instead becomes a foreign agent to humanity. Our means of salvation becomes indirect - we are saved because Christ bestows upon us a surplus of merit, instead of because he bestows upon us actual participation in His nature. This foreignness immediately begins to permeate throughout Roman Catholic spirituality - we see it in the Scholastics, who begin to turn both to the Pagan philosphers, but even to Muslim and Jewish thinkers to find explanation for God. We see it in their developments of mariolatry, in which the Virgin Mary becomes an entirely different race of being than the rest of humanity in the Immaculate Conception. We see it supreme exaltation of the Pope of Rome above all others, and how the binding tie of Christian unity becomes submission to the pope in Rome, rather than in the chalice of Communion which all Christians share in equally. We see it in the highly-increased focus on physical suffering - in the flagellants, in the stigmata, in the Sacred Heart, in the focus on Christ as one who died instead of one who Lived.
All these practices are not the true inheritance of the West, but rather are institutions that began after the Schism. Even the beloved TLM of the "trads" is the "Tridentine Latin Mass" - Tridentium being the Latin name for the city of Trent - as in, the Council of Trent of the 1500s. The TLM is a liturgical overhaul that brushed away many of the older and local traditions that had stuck around.
It is a mindset, in short, in which we are not truly "Co-heirs with Christ", as St. Paul says, but truly subservient and bound to submission only. It is a spirituality based around the idea that the Prodigal Son's father really did hire him as a servant when the son returned home.
This is only the tip of the iceberg, really, but that outlines some of the issues as I see it.
&#x200B;
Inasmuch as intro-level material goes, I would suggest Fr. Andrew Damick's "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy." Therein he deals comparatively with many Christian groups against the Orthodox Church, although obviously the most relevant parts here are the sections which deal with Rome. He has it available both as a free podcast here https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy
or as a book https://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Heterodoxy-Complicated-Religious-Landscape/dp/1944967176/ref=pd_cp_14_1/146-8495025-5559228?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1944967176&pd_rd_r=1030f57d-ff08-469a-ba2d-1012747c7cf5&pd_rd_w=Giuwm&pd_rd_wg=nd9eH&pf_rd_p=0e5324e1-c848-4872-bbd5-5be6baedf80e&pf_rd_r=VHQ0WNVD83XCQNX37VZC&psc=1&refRID=VHQ0WNVD83XCQNX37VZC
There's a shorter collection of essays here specifically focused on St. Peter and how he was viewed in the early Church.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0881411256
&#x200B;
On the flip side, Dr. Joseph Farrell's "God, History and Dialectic" is a fantastic and very comprehensive 3-volume series about the development of the Church and the divergence of Rome and Western thought in general. Although the full 3-volume series is (somewhat) expensive, given the size of the books the price is really quite reasonable. My priest, coincidentally, was one of Dr. Farrell's students when Farrell was the Professor of Patristics at St. Tikhon's seminary.
https://www.amazon.com/God-History-Dialectic-Foundation-Europe/dp/B076YNRPTT
&#x200B;
Hope that mouthful wasn't too much for you. And sorry for taking a little while to get back to you - hope you're doing well.
Off the top of my head, these should be helpful to you, though I'm certain there are others. These are scholarly works, which is what it sounds like you're looking for, though I would strongly suggest simply reading various Church Fathers, starting with the "Apostolic Fathers" collection, then becoming familiar with the Cappadocians. I cannot overemphasize how helpful and illuminating simply reading various Fathers is.
His Broken Body
and The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology
Just happened to be listening to an interview about Father Malichi Martin who was in contact with Father Kunz exposing the same thing which killed them both along with Monsignor Corrado Balducci.
"In recent history, several Catholic priests--some deceased now--have been surprisingly outspoken on what they have seen as this inevitable danger rising from within the ranks of Catholicism as a result of secret satanic "Illuminati-Masonic" influences. These priests claim secret knowledge of an multinational power elite and occult hierarchy operating behind supranatural and global political machinations."
https://www.amazon.com/Petrus-Romanus-Final-Pope-Here/dp/0984825614
This is the interview that goes over Father Kunz and the luciferian connection which most people don't know about and they don't want you to know about. Father Kunz was going to expose this, and likely was silenced.
Very interesting to listen to:
Tom Horn Interview 2018 - Vatican Predictions Coming To Pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R5XzKPNMak
grabgoygunz: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link
Some great coverage of the subject via religious podcasts.
As well as: April 2012's
Petrus Romanus The Final Pope Is Here by Thomas Horn, Cris D. Putnam
&amp; April 2013's
Exo-Vaticana: Petrus Romanus, Project LUCIFER &amp; the Vatican's Astonishing Exo-Theological Plan
&gt; In Exo-Vaticana, internationally acclaimed authors Thomas Horn and Cris Putnam share their newest investigative research into what you can expect to unfold in the coming days, and, more importantly, what you can do to be prepared for the arrival of an alien savior and the kingdom of Antichrist.
A good book to read initially on this subject would be Adrian Fortescue's The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451. If you have access to a university library, Brian Daley, SJ, has an article on this in JTS from 1993 on the meaning of 'primacy of honor.' It shows that when the Council of Constantinople affirms the Roman Pontiff's "primacy", it was actually jurisdictional, not simply honorific.
Don't forget Josephus.
The Christ myth theory is a joke in academia. I'm inclined to have more faith in people who spend a good chunk of their lives looking through the evidence than people who have an ideological motive to claim he never existed coughSamHarriscough.
If you genuinely want to investigate arguments for his existence I recommend The Historical Figure of Jesus, written by a 'skeptic' and widely agreed to be the best starting point for any serious academic research on the subject.
This book I found was pretty good in summing up the political and social climate of Jesus http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Figure-Jesus-P-Sanders/dp/0140144994
Can someone say why this was downvoted, it seemed like a good book, the Straight Dope used (which is where I heard of it from) is the guy like a Nazi or something?
not sure if you mean i take dmt but check out book written by vatican chief astronomer(my dad actually went to jesuit high school with him). i bought the book for my dad as a kind of joke.
https://www.newsweek.com/god-and-et-vatican-astronomer-would-baptize-aliens-if-they-ask-757686?amp=1
Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?: . . . and Other Questions from the Astronomers' In-box at the Vatican Observatory https://www.amazon.com/dp/0804136955/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_bVnnDbY5WY89Z
Thanks for the tip, but I'm pretty familiar with 'Ut Unum Sint' and all that jazz. Christ matters more than 'division', and the Eucharist is Christ, and the Eucharist is in the tabernacles of the Old Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian Apostolics, and maybe even in those of the modern day Nestorians (i.e., Church of the East, etc.). For my own part, I'd recommend that you pick up a copy of Ott's The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma so that you can clear yourself up on what is or isn't a required belief. Happy Trinity Sunday. Have a good one.
Ah, a misrepresentation of a misrepresentation. Let's see how far this rabbit hole goes.
No no, my friend, what I presented was hardly a misrepresentation. What I presented is what you learn (and what I have taught) in Moral Theology 101.
You reference Crossing the Threshold of Hope, but you fail to mention that this is a non-doctrinal work (and weren't you just attempting to educate me on what is doctrinal and what is not? For shame.).
What you are referencing is a book of interviews that reflect John Paul's personal opinions on these matters, much like Pope Benedict's Light of the World.
>Yes, we must make a very serious effort to conform our conscience with the truth, and we must attempt to give a religious assent to the teaching of the Church.
Those who cannot do so, as in the case of invincible ignorance or in sheer obstinacy, must obey their consciences.
If you want to really understand why the crusader mentality is being pushed, you have to read Tom Horn's and Cris Putnam's book, Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope is Here. These guys predicted Pope Benedict's resignation almost a year in advance even though a pope hadn't resigned in over 600 years before that, basing their prediction on multiple Catholic prophecies.
Petrus Romanus is supposed to be the FINAL Roman Emperor who gathers Christendom together for an epic battle against Islam, subduing it and the world for the sake of the faith. The authors take the position that even if the prophecy isn't true, there are people who want it to become true and take actions to make it self-fulfilling. All this Deus Vult! memeing is pretty perfectly timed to help draw the masses into supporting a modern, 21st-century crusade.