'>>23355589
>Christcuckery
lol, lmao even.';

'What are the best books on Fatima?
I have read Lucia's memoirs and they are great. But is there a more theological one?';

'>>23355627
I read William Thomas Walsh's "history" book about it. No fucking bibliography. It's a narrative history written in a novelistic style. Why aren't there any like hardcore academic investigations of it? Presumably it's an important fucking event. I hate this wishy-washy crap. Where's the RIGOUR??????';

'>>23355633
>academic
I think it is too close in time and there are living people who knew those who witnesses the miracle for atheist academics to claim that Sister Lucia and her cousins didn't exist and that it was all folklore written by a priest 100 years after it happened.';

'>>23355643
Self-pity is not an appropriate substitute for critical thinking, since practically everyone can appeal to it.';

'>>23355654
There is no rigour in claiming every source we have is to be ignored and writing a fanfic without any kind of evidence.

"This priest was actually very athletic and was able to jump higher than Olympic Athletes"';

'>>23355679
What are you even talking about? I don't see where we disagree.';

'>>23355686
My experience with "hardcore academics" writing about the subject is that they are Dawkins types who have as an assumption that miracles are impossible and to prove their point will create ridiculous theories without any kind of evidence, while ignoring whatever evidence there is.

So, some saint who levitated didn't actually levitate. But somehow, a monk from the middle ages would be able to jump higher than a modern Olympic athlete who has modern training, modern roids, modern nutrition and modern shoes.';

'Wrt miracles

I would suggest a read of They Flew

There is a burgeoning area of religious studies which admits miracles. This is one such book. Part of the weird studies sphere one may say...';

'>>23355589
Bump
OP PLEASE STOP RECOMMENDING PEOPLE C S LEWIS. HE IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A HERETIC!';

'holy bump';

'The protestant reformation and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.';

'Essential reading for understanding the church and it's relation to the contemporary world.';

'>>23357545
Idgi, why read that when you can read Papal Encyclicals, I'll say that is more essential.';

'Does anyone have something about what happened in the 1960s?
I'm more than fine with the New Mass, but my impression is that many of the problems we have come from poor education in that era.';

'>>23355589
Notice the lack of The Bible on list';

'>>23358748
Look at the OP image';

'undefined';

'>>23356560
Make me.';

'What do you guys think about the following:
>St. Edith Stein
>St. Therese of Lisieux
>possible mending of the Great Schism this century';

'>>23358972
>What do you guys think about the following:
>>St. Edith Stein
Didn't read her yet, but will do so soon. I'm interested in learning about St John of the Cross and she has a book about him.

>>St. Therese of Lisieux
She is a Doctor of the Church. Of course she is good.

>>possible mending of the Great Schism this century
Unlikely.';

'>>23358959';

'Thoughts on Thomism?';

'"To deviate from Aquinas, in metaphysics especially, is to run grave risk”
-Saint Pius X';

'>>23360808
How did Thomism come to be a dogma on its own?';

'>>23360803
It is very important, IMO.';

'>>23361489
It is kind of an accretion of what many consider the best aspects of various theologies that came beforehand. Personally, I prefer the church fathers for their originality and the more neoplatonic scholastics as opposed to his aristotelianism but Aquinas definitely is influential and worth reading about albeit the full summa is so long that few nowadays read it.';

'>>23361817
Do you think the reformation and Jansen to an extent cemented Thomism as the end-all be-all of Catholic Philosophy? Will it ever be challenged?';

'>>23361838
Nouvelle theologie?';

'>>23358748
Notice the lack of noticing
THIS>>23358812';

'>>23361838
Thomism was more or less replaced in practice in the 1960s. The impression I get is that results were not nice.
I say that as someone who is really not into Aristotelian philosophy and who strongly prefers Plato.';

'>>23361856
Whats that about';

'Why'd the last thread get nuked? Jannies leave up shitpost religion bait threads but nuke threads that are about literature that happens to be religiously motivated.';

'guys read "Wonderful Fool" By shusaku endo
it's like written perfectly for retarded catholic weebs its my favorite novel endo rules';

'>Idolatrous paganism
No thanks!';

'You guys read this article?

https://apnews.com/article/catholic-church-shift-orthodoxy-tradition-7638fa2013a593f8cb07483ffc8ed487

Huge whitepill for me. Slowly but surely, things are getting back to normal, within the context of the long history of the Church.';

'>>23363217
I'm somewhat optimistic about the state of the Church in my country too.';

'>>23363217
If you want the biggest whitepill re: this Church shit I used to care about it in like 2017 but have been totally removed from it for like 3 years now and it's great.
https://www.amazon.com/Medium-Light-Reflections-Religion-Media/dp/1606089927
Read this and maybe some of Mcluhan's other work
https://www.amazon.com/Medium-Massage-Marshall-McLuhan/dp/1584230703/r
Gabriel Marcel's Man against Mass Society (he's a Catholic existentialist) and maybe heidegger's work on technology (discourse on thinking, https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Discourse-on-Thinking.pdf what is called thinking, the related essays etc.)
also might be useful.

It's somewhat naive to think most of the things going on in the Church are understandable in the Church's terms (primarily theology and classical philosophy). There's been a huge radical shift in human society and our attitude towards reality since the telegraph in the 1850s and since then and people in the Church have basically failed to understand it. McLuhan was on some board of advisors for the Vatican and basically just said he was totally ignored. The Church moves very slow so it shouldn't be surprising but if you understand the impact of that + (maybe some of the social engineering stuff ala >>23357545 but I'd rec the tech stuff first) most of the actual disputes in the Church kind of just seem obvious people are missing the bigger picture.

One of my favorite points Mcluhan brings up in like on sentence as an aside, that clarified a ton of the traditionalist/normie arguments about the intensity of sermons is simply what when he talks about the impact of microphone technology. It radically shifts the relationship between the speaker and the audience, and is highly sensitive to dynamic volume changes. You can't have loud dynamic speaking when you are using microphones because you will run into audio issues. It's not some grand evil plot, it's literally just something in the technology no one pays any mind to. (he goes way more in depth and more abstract of course)';

'Im Catholic born and raised but I’m sympathetic towards the Orthodox and Old Churches(Syriac, Coptic, Armenian), I don’t see myself ever converting myself to Orthodoxy but I wanna know if there’s anyone else who feels the same way? Reading texts from the East is a fascinating exercise.';

'>>23363091
thanks, that looks interesting. i ordered a copy via my library.

i am slowly working my way through The Trinitarian Wisdom of God by Keith Lemma, pic related. it is very fine. concurrent with reading a few articles, including this gem:

Michael Heintz, "An Encounter with the Word made Flesh: Louis Bouyer on Eucharistic Communion," Gregorianum, Vol. 95, No. 4 (2014), pp. 677-698.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24433415';

'Is Catholic Hegelianism a thing?';

'>>23363966
https://www.amazon.com/Hegel-Charles-Taylor/dp/0521291992/
yeah there's lots of it. Charles Taylor is the biggest name in it afaik';

'>>23363679
We have Byzantine Catholicism which is in full communion with the Papacy but has much more of an Orthodox-style culture and liturgy (even having married priests). You should look into it if you haven't already, but it can be hard to find/inconvenient if you aren't in a large metropolitan area.
>Syriac, Coptic, Armenian
These all have their own Catholic rites as well but they're even rarer. We also have the Maronites who exist only in Catholicism and not in Orthodoxy. They're good people.';

'>Since Christianity appeared on earth, three species of enemies have constantly attacked it: the heresiarchs, the sophists, and those men, seemingly frivolous, who destroy everything while laughing.
>It is natural that schism leads to unbelief, and that atheism follows heresy. Bayle and Spinoza rose after Calvin; they found in Clarke and Leibniz two geniuses capable of refuting their sophisms.
>While the Church still triumphed, Voltaire was already reviving the persecution of Julian the Apostate. He had the fatal art, among a capricious and amiable people, of making unbelief fashionable. He enlisted all the strength of narcissism in this insane league; religion was attacked with every weapon, from pamphlet to folio, from epigram to sophism.
>the same fate that had seen the sophists triumph under Julian declared itself for them in our century. The defenders of Christians fell into a mistake that had already doomed them: they did not realize that it was no longer a question of discussing this or that dogma, since the foundations were being absolutely rejected.
>It was yet another mistake to engage seriously with sophists. It was forgotten that they never seek truth in good faith, and they are only attached to their system because of the noise it generates, ready to change it tomorrow with public opinion.
>There is nothing beautiful, sweet, or grand in life except mysterious things. The most marvelous feelings are those that stir us somewhat confusedly: modesty, chaste love, virtuous friendship, are all full of secrets. Innocence, in its turn, which is nothing but a simple ignorance, is it not the most ineffable of mysteries? Childhood is so happy only because it knows nothing, old age so miserable only because it knows everything; fortunately for it, when the mysteries of life end, those of death begin. If it is so with feelings, it is so with virtues: the most angelic are those which, flowing directly from God, such as charity, love to hide from our sight, like their divine source.

Read Chateaubriand, the father of Romanticism.';

'>>23364016
>>It was yet another mistake to engage seriously with sophists. It was forgotten that they never seek truth in good faith, and they are only attached to their system because of the noise it generates, ready to change it tomorrow with public opinion.
Calling out /lit/ 200 years in advance.';

'>>23364016
Is that really what Christianity is about? Feelings? That's supremely gay. Buddhism knows that both sublime and agonizing feelings are worthless. In fact you can't have one type without the other. More importantly, do Catholics really read this and think it's profound?';

'>>23364079
>do Catholics really read this and think it's profound?
Not really "profound." Just observational.';

'verily in your soul not only honey is lacking';

'>>23364079
>Feelings?

No, but Faith is neither feeling nor thought, really. As Newman teaches us, Faith is an entirely different mode of knowing than Reason; it is a different faculty of comprehension, which has some superficial similarities to mere feeling and sensation but goes quite a bit deeper.

I like to describe Faith as "knowing beyond knowing." A certainty that you, yes, feel, rather than being able to articulate. It is a kind of hard matter in the consciousness. A simple, clear, firm Knowing, as applied to things of religion. I have Faith that God is real. I have Faith that Christ is Risen. This, again, has some superficial similarity to feelings, but it goes beyond them.';

'>>23364126
More like Newbman';

'>>23364126
>A certainty that you, yes, feel, rather than being able to articulate. It is a kind of hard matter in the consciousness.
Bro, what if it is a tumor, bro??';

'Is there any good book about the decline caused by "Spirit of Vatican II" discourse? Not Vatican II itself.

Specially on seminaries.';

'>>23355589
Bumperino!';

'>>23363217
Thank you for the link, Anon. You're right, that is a wonderful much-needed whitepill';

'>Les Misérables is therefore a book of charity, a dazzling reminder to a society too in love with itself and too little concerned with the immortal law of brotherhood.
>Victor Hugo is for man, and yet he is not against God; he has faith in God, and yet he is not against Man.
>He rejects the madness of rebellious Atheism, and yet he does not approve of the bloodthirsty greed of Molochs and Teutates.
>He believes that Man is born good, and yet, even in the face of his permanent disasters, he does not accuse God's ferocity and malice.
>I believe that even for those who find in orthodox doctrine, in pure Catholic theory, an explanation, if not complete, at least more comprehensive of all the unsettling mysteries of life, Victor Hugo's new book must be welcome; the book to applaud, the book for which to be thankful. Is it not useful that from time to time the poet-philosopher, grabs selfish Happiness by the hair and tells it, shaking its snout in blood and filth: "See your work and drink it in."
>Alas! Of Original Sin, even after so much progress promised for so long, there will always remain more than enough traces to attest to its immemorial reality!

Baudelaire's closing remarks to Hugo's novel,';

'>>23363217
>the young man who quit his classics course because he refused to read the works of ancient Greek pagans.
lol what? Augustine's thought leaned on Plato in a lot of important aspects and the medieval Christians thought Virgil was literally a prophet.';