The best
Christian Popes books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Christian Popes books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Christian Popes books:
Yes. Almost every single Orthodox and Catholic bishop, priest and layman for the past 1000+ years believed it mattered a lot. The idea that it doesn't matter is a recent ecumenist invention, drawn from the school of thought that says things along the lines of "meh, all Christianity is the same". It's not the same.
I recommend this book for an overview of Orthodox arguments against Catholic claims, and there are lists of differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism that I could copy and paste for you, but the most important differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism aren't as neat or as easily explained as "on issue X, the Orthodox believe Y and the Catholics believe Z".
Orthodoxy and Catholicism come with two different theological worldviews. It's not just that we don't give the same answers - we don't even ask the same questions. Issues that are major in Catholicism are seen as minor or irrelevant in Orthodoxy, and vice versa.
Western Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism) largely revolves around the question: "What must I do to be saved?"
Eastern Christianity (including Orthodoxy) largely revolves around the question: "Who is Jesus Christ, and what is virtue?"
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.
> 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.
"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. "
That's rough. I'm praying for you.
I feel in my heart that everything can't have come from nothing. Evolution can't explain where the building blocks came from or why matter exists at all, which I personally think is a bigger and more interesting issue than how organisms developed. There are also the very important questions of meaning, etc., which humanity has been wrestling with since long before humans were interested in science, and which evolution can't give a satisfactory answer to.
I'm not Catholic, but I really liked the first full chapter of <em>Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?: . . . and Other Questions from the Astronomers' In-box at the Vatican</em>. I think most or all of that chapter is in the "look inside" on Amazon, at least in the US. But basically, it references that an impressionist or pointillist painting is a perfectly legitimate way to portray a scene, even though it's not the same as a photograph. I believe they argued that the Bible was never intended to be a science textbook, but was written to people who wouldn't have understood a scientific explanation. The authors also mention that science textbooks go out of date regularly, but the Bible stays the same. It's an interesting way to think about the situation that I hadn't quite considered before.
Agree - yall should take this as an opportunity to explore the early faith - what it was like in the first few centuries AD. (Hint it looks a lot more Catholic than Protestant)
Read Brant Petri’s “The Jewish Roots of Mary” - Im a protestant convert and this book got me over on Mary. There’s never going to be a slam dunk proof for Mary, but this book presents a well argued case from many angles - enough for someone to say, I may not agree but I understand why you believe this
I listened on audible
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Jewish-Roots-Mary-Unveiling/dp/0525572732
Jewish Roots of the Eucharist too
Read the early church fathers together like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian, Athanasius,
The early Church fathers - and I mean before Constantine - all talk about Mary. Martin Luther basically agreed with everything about Mary.
She only knows what everyone has always told her. I doubt shes read a Catholic book in her life (I never did). Tell her to ask her pastor about the early Church fathers and see what he says. We had no books on the early church fathers at my protestant church library. They didnt want to talk about it.
Mostly just be patient and trust God. Love finds a way of breaking down our walls.
So... the bible was written hundreds of years after Jesus. It's fan fic.
Most of this picture is pretty OK if you want to interpret it historically.
If you want to rage-type about fan fiction written 1800 years ago, then, go ahead. You're just as guilty of bullshit interpretations of the bible as mormons and evangelicals - note: they're all bullshit.
The Early Papacy is a good place to start
For a proper, book-length argument against the papacy, I recommend this book: Two Paths: Orthodoxy & Catholicism: Rome’s Claims of Papal Supremacy in the Light of Orthodox Christian Teaching. It is largely about the events of the first millennium and demonstrates how little power the Bishop of Rome had at the time.
I think the strongest argument against the papacy is that the early Christians simply did not act the way that modern Catholics act with regard to the Bishop of Rome. Practically everyone who had any disagreement with Rome in the first millennium ended up excommunicating the Pope (even if only for a few years). Can you imagine modern Catholic bishops excommunicating the Pope because they think he's wrong about something? The fact that this sort of thing happened all the time in the first millennium really proves that the Bishops of Rome were absolutely not regarded as the indispensable center of the Church.
I have heard that this is a good book showing the history of the early Papacy, and how it goes back to the beginning. Not too expensive either.
Here is some historical proof of the Papacy: the Epistle of Clement. Clement was one of the first popes, and he wrote this around 96 A.D., or possibly earlier. In this letter, we see the early authority of the Pope being wielded, as he, Bishop of Rome, intervenes in a situation in Corinth - which is in Greece. He makes no apology for this intervention, or gives any indication that it is outside the norm.
And St. John may very well have still been alive during this time. Yet they appeal to Clement.
What do you think of this evidence?
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is a big fan of ID. Wrote a book about his understanding of the issues. I don't believe it's a product of the Magisterium - you don't have to agree with it.
​
I am Orthodox and I think you should become Orthodox. But having said that...
The Catholic Church is the largest organization of any kind in human history. It has more members, more employees, and more departments, subsidiaries and affiliated institutions than any other human organization. As such, it is also going to end up with more skeletons in its closet simply by random chance. The Church with the highest number of church-run schools is also going to be the one where some of those schools have mass graves.
Bigger countries have more criminals than smaller countries, and bigger Churches have more criminals than smaller Churches. It's simple statistics. So I don't think this is a good reason to become Orthodox...
...but it is a good reason to get interested in Orthodoxy, talk to a priest, find out about the arguments for Orthodoxy from books like this one, and then later join the Orthodox Church because you have concluded that this is the true Church of Christ.
It’s all there. Just hidden in plain sight and misinterpreted over the millennia. Trust me I was skeptical about religion and psychs mixing together but after I read the book The secret history of hallucinogens in Christianity and did some various other scholarly articles on line, it just makes sense. The evidence is there. And is still practiced to this day. Look up ayahuasca, peyote, mushroom, and San Pedro shamans. It’s just interesting how religions were all about plants and then somehow they grew away from the practice. The religion I see these days is nothing but another way to fear and control the masses of people. I myself believe that you can have your own path to god that doesn’t include organized religion.
I've heard these are good resources on this question:
https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Catholic-Understanding-Ressourcement-Retrieval/dp/0802841066
https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Conference-Benedict-Gandolfo/dp/1586172344
This question reminds me that I want to read Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?: . . . and Other Questions from the Astronomers' In-box at the Vatican Observatory.
For all 4 of those groups there are differences in the number of books translated, this is only in the Old Testament though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Table
I can only speak for the English language but 'most' Christians generally use the same couple of bible translations which became the most popular, with Catholics/Orthodox adding their own books when printed. For example the NKJV which was originally made by Protestants for Protestants is also very popular with Orthodox Christians (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Orthodox-Study-Bible-OE-Some-NKJV/dp/0718003594). Likewise the RSV while being 70 years old is still used and updated by all groups of Christians, the Orthodox really like it because it was the first English translation with the whole Orthodox canon, there is also the RSV Catholic edition in print and the ESV revision for Protestants which is currently super popular.
I also think there are some traditional Catholics who would advocate only translating and reading the Latin Vulgate over the original Greek also but they are a pretty small minority today.
This is the Orthodox Study Bible. It was based on earlier English translations (mainly the NKJV) that were edited in places where they disagreed with the standard Orthodox Bible. So it's not perfect, but it's the best full Orthodox Bible available in English.
On the other hand, for the New Testament - not the entire Bible, just the New Testament - there is a better Orthodox translation available. You really should start reading with the New Testament anyway, not the Old, so I suggest buying this one first.
The best way to read the Bible is to start with the New Testament (minus the Book of Revelation; that will make no sense without extensive study), then read the Old Testament, then read the New Testament again.
The reason to do it this way is because the NT contains the core message of Christianity, so you need to read it first in order to get the main points first. The OT is important background information, so read that second. Then read the NT again because you will understand more of it after you've gone through the background information.
>The creation narrative in Genesis is written in the form of Hebrew poetry. In poetry, there may be figurative language. So the creation narrative should be read like a poem.
To quote Pope Benedict:
>The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are.
His homilies on Genesis really illuminate how a Catholic should read these narratives.
Check out <em>Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial? …And Other Questions from the Astronomers' In-box at the Vatican Observatory</em>. While the book is not exclusively about aliens, it does examine the Church doctrine in relation to them should they be discovered.
And by the way, the answer to the book's title question is yes. As Pope Francis said:
> If—for example—tomorrow an expedition of Martians came, and some of them came to us, here... Martians, right? Green, with that long nose and big ears, just like children paint them... And one says, ‘But I want to be baptized!’ What would happen? When the Lord shows us the way, who are we to say, ‘No, Lord, it is not prudent! No, let’s do it this way...’
The book examines it in more detail, including the theological rationale. I highly recommend it!
There is actually a pretty cool book that sort of addresses this called Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial written by two astronomers from the Vatican Observatory.
I'd check out The Early Papacy: to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451
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 use the Orthodox Study Bible, it's based on the NKJV, but with the Old Testament translated from the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic Text (The Hebrew bible written by the Jewish clan of Scribes known as the Masorets, it was probably translated between the 7th-10th century AD, That is the Most Common source for most Protestants' Bibles' Old Testament.
Wereas the Septuagint was written in 300 AD, when the King of Alexandria wanted a scripture in the common language of Greek. So, he has 70 Scholars (Septuagint is Latin for 70) each translate the entire Old Testament alone. And when they were complete and they compared their copies they were completely identical, this is why I said it was divinely inspired Greek translation.
This story is also repeated in the Jewish Talmud, which is why it used to be that you could read from either the Hebrew Tanack, or the Greek Tanack, both were fine. But when the Christians started using the Greek Tanach, they stopped that practice and only reading from the Hebrew Tanach was acceptable. Christians used the Septuagint explicitly, until St. Jerome, when he was writing the Vulgate, chose to translated the Vulgate's Old Testament from Hebrew.
Happy to hear it! It is less polemical!
Seems to a be a newer version out! https://www.amazon.com/Two-Paths-Orthodoxy-Catholicism-Supremacy/dp/1091371555/ref=m_pd_aw_sbs_sccl_1/144-0464154-6743839?pd_rd_w=JS6Zp&content-id=amzn1.sym.bc45384a-cf15-479c-b874-e31c5245d34e&pf_rd_p=bc45384a-cf15-479c-b874-e31c5245d34e&...
>I've recently been getting in to orthodoxy and I've been doing things that I have knowledge on like using my prayer rope and saying morning prayers
Glory be to God! It's always nice to hear of a new convert.
>I want to go to my local church for liturgy but my parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and they won't take me to church also I'm 17 and can't drive yet
Can you walk to the nearest Orthodox Church, there might be people willing to give you a ride. Alternatively, you could be able to take the bus. I also don't drive, it's way too expensive. So those are methods that I've used to get to Church.
>I don't know what kind of bible to use
There is a wonderful translation in English known as The Orthodox Study Bible. You can order it Here if you live in Canada like me, or Here if you live in America. If you don't have a credit card, no sweat, most Orthodox parishes will have a copy that you can buy.
"Two Paths" is a really good book on the subject of the papacy. While it's written by an Orthodox Christian, he uses primarily Catholic sources for his research. It's a pretty short work and well worth a read for anyone wrestling with these questions.
Two Paths: Orthodoxy & Catholicism: Rome’s Claims of Papal Supremacy in the Light of Orthodox Christian Teaching https://www.amazon.com/dp/1091371555/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_X4CXRR78V79GHMRBXJYW?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
First of all, it is very nice that you are interested in Christianity, even if you don't become a Christian. If you need to learn more about Christianity, you must do a lot of reading. I would recommend buying the Orthodox Study Bible which contains many notes about the biblical passages. You might also be interested in a book by Fr. Kallistos Ware titled The Orthodox Way, which explains much of the basic history and doctrines of Eastern Orthodoxy specifically.
Of course, as an Orthodox Christian, I have only recommended Orthodox books. You should also study other, non-Orthodox sources.