Good Catholic Reads

[Jubilate Deo]

What books would you recommend?

Here are some of my suggestions:

 

1. A good Catholic Bible. I personally like the Douay-Rheims and the RSV-CE.

2. The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis.

3. The Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Lisieux.

4. The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis de Montfort.

5. A Right to Be Merry by Mother Mary Francis P.C.C.. I'm currently reading it and really enjoying it! It's about life in a Poor Clare monastery. There's a lot of humor and light-heartedness in the writing and you really get a feel for the sacred in their community. It's also great for anyone discerning a vocation to the religious life, especially a contemplative vocation.

[NadaTeTurbe]

Introduction to the Devout LIfe, by St Francis de Sales : easy read, and full of good, down-to-earth, advice 

Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Ratzinger 

Laudato Si by Pope Francis 

Deus Caritas Est by Pope Benedict XVI 

Pope Benedict interview with Peter Sewald (specially "LIght of the WOrld")

Mercy : the essence of christian life and key to the gospel by Cardinal Walter Kasper 

Diary of a country priest by George Bernanos (work of fiction, but full of teachings) 


 

[Jubilate Deo]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Mother Angelica's Little Book of Life Lessons and Everyday Spirituality by Raymond Arroyo

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, NadaTeTurbe said:

Introduction to the Devout LIfe, by St Francis de Sales : easy read, and full of good, down-to-earth, advice

"Abandonment to Divine Providence" (Jean Pierre de Caussade SJ).......available online at CCEL

Story of a Soul (Autobiography of St Therese of Lisieux)

"St Therese of Lisieux -Spirituality of Imperfection" (Parts I and II) http://carmelitesofeldridge.org/vilma5.html

[Jack4]

4 hours ago, NadaTeTurbe said:

Introduction to the Devout LIfe, by St Francis de Sales : easy read, and full of good, down-to-earth, advice 

Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Ratzinger 

Laudato Si by Pope Francis 

Deus Caritas Est by Pope Benedict XVI 

Pope Benedict interview with Peter Sewald (specially "LIght of the WOrld")

Mercy : the essence of christian life and key to the gospel by Cardinal Walter Kasper 

Diary of a country priest by George Bernanos (work of fiction, but full of teachings) 
 

That is a quite diverse group of authors...

[beatitude]

After the Bible, I'd recommend The Imitation of Christ. That is probably the spiritual text that I have turned to most often over the years, and along with my Bible, it's one of the few books I always carry with me when I stay abroad for any length of time. A contemporary book I love is The Ladder of the Beatitudes, by an Eastern Orthodox writer (Jim Forest). I can think of many other great ones, but these are my consistent big three.

[bardegaulois]

It depends on who you are and what your objective in reading is. Spiritual directors often say that recommendations of spiritual books are not to be taken lightly but must be related to the spiritual condition of the one who would be reading it. When in doubt, Scripture, The Imitation of Christ, de Sales' Introduction to the Devout Life, and Scupoli's The Spiritual Combat are always good standbys.

If one is looking to study and to learn, no better recommendation can be made than the Church Fathers. Often I've found that a reading in Matins will make me want to research somewhat more. In a more contemporary vein, anything by Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI is golden.

If one is looking for literature imbued with a Catholic imagination, the recent possibilities are many: Evelyn Waugh, Flannery O'Connor, Shusaku Endo, Sigrid Undset, Georges Bernanos, Graham Greene, Muriel Spark, Walker Percy, T.S. Eliot (an Anglican fellow-traveller) and the list goes on.

[CountrySteve21]

True devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort

The complete works of St. Elizabeth of the Trinity. 

The Confessions by St. Augustine 

Earthen Vessels by Gabriel Bunge

[dominicansoul]

The Fulfillment of All Desire by Ralph Martin

[Jubilate Deo]

Eucharistic Miracles by Joan Carroll Cruz

Miraculous Images of Our Lord by Joan Carroll Cruz

[Socrates]

Maybe not quite as spiritually deep as some of the previously mentioned works, but I'd highly recommend The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism, by John Zmirak.

He demolishes a number of very common lies and misconceptions about Catholic teaching (including a lot of stuff frequently debated on Phatmass).

[dUSt]

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

Maybe not quite as spiritually deep as some of the previously mentioned works, but I'd highly recommend The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism, by John Zmirak.

He demolishes a number of very common lies and misconceptions about Catholic teaching (including a lot of stuff frequently debated on Phatmass).

Love John Zmirak. Me and Lil Red ate a meal with him once.

[Socrates]

Now I'm jealous.

[Jack4]

St Alphonsus Liguori, Fulton J Sheen and Fr. Jacques Philippe prove to be good authors. 

[DominicanHeart]

Right now I'm reading Chicken Soup for the Soul Living the Catholic Faith. I love the Chicken Soup books. They're so inspiring 

[truthfinder]

I wanted to add to bardegaulois' list of fiction Rumer Godden - particularly In this House of Brede, and Five for Sorrow, Ten for Joy. Although both stories are about nuns, they're vastly different and delve into the human.

[Nihil Obstat]

Predestination by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.

[Amppax]

15 hours ago, Socrates said:

Maybe not quite as spiritually deep as some of the previously mentioned works, but I'd highly recommend The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism, by John Zmirak.

He demolishes a number of very common lies and misconceptions about Catholic teaching (including a lot of stuff frequently debated on Phatmass).

 

Meh. I'd lump Zmirak in with Shea, et. al. They're just reverse images in the same mirror. 

31 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Predestination by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.

Always a good choice. 

 

Though unfortunately, I can't find my hard copy of that at the moment. May have gotten lost in my most recent move.

[Nihil Obstat]

Just print it from online.

[Amppax]

13 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Just print it from online.

I have a pdf scan. But I'd rather not print it if I can hold out hope of finding it. 

I'm guessing I lent it to a friend, and it's somewhere in Steubenville. Or it's in my garage. 

[Socrates]

On 1/19/2017 at 10:24 AM, Amppax said:

Meh. I'd lump Zmirak in with Shea, et. al. They're just reverse images in the same mirror. 

I wouldn't.  About everything he says in that book is dead spot-on based on my own obervations.  No Shea-like slanders, obscenity, or distortion of Catholic teaching - whether you personally agree with his political leanings or not.  Next time, I'd suggest actually reading the book before trashing it.

Here's two good ones from Anthony Esolen, perhaps my favorite current Catholic writer (and acclaimed Dante scholar):

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching

Defending Marriage: Twelve Arguments for Sanity

 

[Jubilate Deo]

On 2017-01-17 at 1:57 AM, NadaTeTurbe said:

Mercy : the essence of christian life and key to the gospel by Cardinal Walter Kasper 

 

I'd be careful with Cardinal Kasper's writings.

[NadaTeTurbe]

Well, it was rcommended by Pope Francis, so you won't mind if I trust the Pope over someone on the internet  

[Nihil Obstat]

Heh.

[Jack4]

4 hours ago, NadaTeTurbe said:

Well, it was rcommended by Pope Francis, so you won't mind if I trust the Pope over someone on the internet  

I, for one, think we shouldn't be "obsessed" with some books recommended by the Pope. Most of what he says is "invalid".   

[Nihil Obstat]

17 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I, for one, think we shouldn't be "obsessed" with some books recommended by the Pope. Most of what he says is "invalid".   

Never know when that "God of surprises" is going to spring something new on us, after all.

[bardegaulois]

5 hours ago, NadaTeTurbe said:

Well, it was rcommended by Pope Francis, so you won't mind if I trust the Pope over someone on the internet  

And Pope Benedict, while Prefect of the CDF, was very critical of Kasper and his views: http://popebenedictxvi.blogspot.com/2008/08/special-compilation-ratzinger-kasper.html

Five years ago, would you have nay-said Kasper's books because it was known that the Pope cared little for his ideas? The doctrine of the faith is much bigger than whoever is sitting on the chair of St. Peter.

[Nihil Obstat]

21 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

And Pope Benedict, while Prefect of the CDF, was very critical of Kasper and his views: http://popebenedictxvi.blogspot.com/2008/08/special-compilation-ratzinger-kasper.html

Five years ago, would you have nay-said Kasper's books because it was known that the Pope cared little for his ideas? The doctrine of the faith is much bigger than whoever is sitting on the chair of St. Peter.

How about that.

[KnightofChrist]

So, if we can still discuss the OP lol, I like A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller Jr. 

I don't think any Pope has read and approved it yet. So I guess that's a con, but it's one of the few profoundly Catholic themed Sci-fi novels out there and is also one of the greatest sci-fi novels of all time, imho.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jubilate Deo]

7 hours ago, NadaTeTurbe said:

Well, it was rcommended by Pope Francis, so you won't mind if I trust the Pope over someone on the internet  

I understand your reasoning, but I just wanted to warn you about Kasper because some of his teachings are suspect.

I'll leave this here for you to consider. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-kasper-adultery-language-is-offensive-insulting-31791/

As for the topic, I got Mother Angelica: the Story of a Nun, Her Nerve, and a Network of Miracles for Christmas, so I'll be reading that once I get done with A Right to Be Merry.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Jubilate Deo

[dUSt]

On 1/22/2017 at 6:50 PM, Jack4 said:

...recommended by the Pope. Most of what he says is "invalid".   

Can you explain this?

On 1/22/2017 at 7:08 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

Never know when that "God of surprises" is going to spring something new on us, after all.

Can you explain this joke please?

[Nihil Obstat]

29 minutes ago, dUSt said:

Can you explain this joke please?

Yes. Catholic doctrine does not contain surprises, due to fact that revelation is closed. Therefore we are sure that our holy father means something different in his invocations of the God of Surprises.

[Amppax]

On 1/20/2017 at 10:48 PM, Socrates said:

I wouldn't.  About everything he says in that book is dead spot-on based on my own obervations.  No Shea-like slanders, obscenity, or distortion of Catholic teaching - whether you personally agree with his political leanings or not.  Next time, I'd suggest actually reading the book before trashing it.

1

I'll admit to not reading all the book, but my observation was based more on my familiarity with his writings on various websites. I do think he distorts Catholic teaching, particularly various social teachings, in the name of his politics. I think you do too.

Quote

Here's two good ones from Anthony Esolen, perhaps my favorite current Catholic writer (and acclaimed Dante scholar):

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching

Defending Marriage: Twelve Arguments for Sanity

 

 I've been meaning to pick up Esolen's Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching. 

[HopefulHeart]

I recently started Your Life Is Worth Living, by Ven. Fulton Sheen. I am trying to read a chapter each morning. It's a thought-provoking and uplifting book, just what I need at the start of a busy day.  

Last month, at the recommendation of a religious sister, I read God and You: Prayer As a Personal Relationship, by William A. Barry, S.J. It had some valuable insights, though it was a bit different from the more traditional works with which I'm familiar.

[Jack4]

3 hours ago, dUSt said:

Can you explain this?

Just a joke. Remember the Pope said that most marriages were invalid? EOTT had published a satire article then: Most words that come from my mouth are invalid: Pope Francis

[bardegaulois]

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

Just a joke. Remember the Pope said that most marriages were invalid? EOTT had published a satire article then: Most words that come from my mouth are invalid: Pope Francis

I remember that article well. For those who haven't read it: http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2016/06/17/most-of-the-words-that-come-out-of-my-mouth-are-invalid-pope-francis-suggests/

[Socrates]

On 1/24/2017 at 5:33 PM, Amppax said:

I'll admit to not reading all the book, but my observation was based more on my familiarity with his writings on various websites. I do think he distorts Catholic teaching, particularly various social teachings, in the name of his politics. I think you do too.

Perhaps you could give specific examples of where I "distort Catholic teaching" (or of Zmirak for that matter).  I don't think that one has to agree with my every political opinion to be a Catholic in good standing, but I don't believe I've said anything contrary to the Faith on here.  And I certainly don't believe that Catholic teaching dictates embracing leftist politics or economics.

Quote

 I've been meaning to pick up Esolen's Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching. 

Again, I'd highly recommend it.  It focuses on the writings of Pope Leo XIII (sometimes called the "father of Catholic social teaching").  Dr. Esolen makes a strong case against the modern Leviathon welfare state, and how it has usurped and destroyed the proper roles of the family, the Church, and voluntary civil organizations such as workman's guilds.  The book is more philosophical and spiritual in focus, though, and isn't a political tract.  But it does certainly challenge the mis-belief that Catholic social teaching demands a massive tax-and-spend welfare state.

I haven't read all his books, but so far I'd highly recommend all of Esolen's writings.  He's a profound thinker and eloquent writer.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Socrates

[Amppax]

16 hours ago, Socrates said:

Perhaps you could give specific examples of where I "distort Catholic teaching" (or of Zmirak for that matter).  I don't think that one has to agree with my every political opinion to be a Catholic in good standing, but I don't believe I've said anything contrary to the Faith on here.  And I certainly don't believe that Catholic teaching dictates embracing leftist politics or economics.

Again, I'd highly recommend it.  It focuses on the writings of Pope Leo XIII (sometimes called the "father of Catholic social teaching").  Dr. Esolen makes a strong case against the modern Leviathon welfare state, and how it has usurped and destroyed the proper roles of the family, the Church, and voluntary civil organizations such as workman's guilds.  The book is more philosophical and spiritual in focus, though, and isn't a political tract.  But it does certainly challenge the mis-belief that Catholic social teaching demands a massive tax-and-spend welfare state.

I haven't read all his books, but so far I'd highly recommend all of Esolen's writings.  He's a profound thinker and eloquent writer.

 

 

I don't think Catholic teaching dictates leftist politics or economics either, and I agree that it is a misapplication of Catholic social teaching to say that it demands a massive welfare state. I think that your definition of "leftist" is probably a tad bit more broad than mine (as far as I can tell it's "everything I disagree with"). That being said, I think a good example of Zmirak dissenting from Church teaching in the name of his political beliefs is clearly annunciated in this article: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/08/30/the-myth-of-catholic-social-teaching-2/. To the extent that you agree with his characterization of the various teachings of the magisterium on social matters, I'd say that you have a flawed understanding of Catholic teaching. However, I want to be overly confrontational in this, I want to be clear that I'm not accusing you or him of heresy, just misunderstanding. And I'm not equating your misunderstanding (as I see it) with liberal dissent on issues such as gay marriage or abortion. Morally, the liberal dissent is far more grave. 

But though the liberal dissent is far more grave, I don't think that means that it isn't problematic that some conservatives (such as Zmirak) disregard what the Church has taught because it doesn't agree with their preferred politics or economics. 

After reading your description, I'll definitely try to go and pick up a copy of Esolen's book. Thanks. 

[philothea]

Not technically Catholic, but I would highly recommend for all Catholics, especially if you debate aggressive atheists, or enjoy philosophy at all: The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, and Bliss by David Bentley Hart (an Orthodox philosopher). One of my favorite books of the past few years. Discusses the philosophical commonalities between all ancient religions about the nature of God, and how nonsensical naturalist atheism is. Hart is erudite, witty, and QUITE snarky. 

Edited February 2, 2017 by philothea

[Socrates]

On 1/31/2017 at 1:04 PM, Amppax said:

I don't think Catholic teaching dictates leftist politics or economics either, and I agree that it is a misapplication of Catholic social teaching to say that it demands a massive welfare state. I think that your definition of "leftist" is probably a tad bit more broad than mine (as far as I can tell it's "everything I disagree with"). That being said, I think a good example of Zmirak dissenting from Church teaching in the name of his political beliefs is clearly annunciated in this article: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/08/30/the-myth-of-catholic-social-teaching-2/. To the extent that you agree with his characterization of the various teachings of the magisterium on social matters, I'd say that you have a flawed understanding of Catholic teaching. However, I want to be overly confrontational in this, I want to be clear that I'm not accusing you or him of heresy, just misunderstanding. And I'm not equating your misunderstanding (as I see it) with liberal dissent on issues such as gay marriage or abortion. Morally, the liberal dissent is far more grave. 

But though the liberal dissent is far more grave, I don't think that means that it isn't problematic that some conservatives (such as Zmirak) disregard what the Church has taught because it doesn't agree with their preferred politics or economics. 

After reading your description, I'll definitely try to go and pick up a copy of Esolen's book. Thanks. 

I don't have time to go into a comprehensive explanation of leftist ideology, but let's just say your criticism of my so-called "dissent" doesn't come across as right-wing in flavor.  Honestly, I can't say much about your own beliefs.  Based on your various comments and such on here, it seems you have a general dislike of conservatism, but I really haven't seen you explain much positively what you yourself believe.

And, no, I don't really have an issue with the gist of what Zmirak says in that article.  (He has a whole chapter on the topic in the aforementioned book, which he elaborates on it a bit more.)  I agree with him that the Popes are not Delphic oracles, and their various scientific, economic, and prudential opinions are not in themselves infallible.  (For instance, whether he happens to be right or wrong, Pope Francis's beliefs on man-made global warming are not infallible dogma, but are a question of physical science.)  Papal teaching must be adhered to as part of the ordinary magisterium when it reiterates that constant teaching of the Church on Faith and Morals in union with all the bishops.

If you think that every single prudential opinion of  a Pope is infallible doctrine, then I'd say it's you that misunderstand Church teaching on this matter.

You still haven't explained exactly where you think Zmirak dissents from Catholic doctrine, and your charges are extremely vague.  I'll need something a bit more authoritative than "Ampax from Phatmass disagrees" to be convinced here.  (Though perhaps in another thread, as we've probably already hijacked this book thread enough.)

But do read Esolen when you get a chance; you'll probably like him, and he may even change your mind.

[Peace]

Here are my meager contributions.

1) Searching for and maintaining peace (Phillippe).

2) Life and Holiness (Merton).

3) The Latin Mass Explained (Moorman)

4) The Rite (Matt Baglio)

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Socrates said:

You still haven't explained exactly where you think Zmirak dissents from Catholic doctrine, and your charges are extremely vague.

I am not very familiar with the author but in "The Myth of Catholic Social Teaching" he seems to suggest that other than in instances of infallibly made statements, God does not act within or guide the Church, and that Jesus and the Church have nothing of substance to say concerning politics and economics (and presumably many other things as well). Or that in effect each individual Catholic becomes the ultimate judge of every issue that is not infallibly defined, and need not give the Pope's view or his Bishop's view any more deference than he would give to a random person on the street. His view strikes me as one whereby the Church sets forth certain "timeless principles" but beyond that each individual Catholic is free to decide the manner of it's application (in other words, that a Catholic has no duty to attempt to discern the mind of the Church concerning the manner in which revelation should be applied in a concrete sense, because in fact the Church has no mind concerning the concrete application of revelation to things like politics or economics). It strikes me as a somewhat protestant view of the nature of the Church and authority within it. It seems a bit like Protestantism-Lite, the only difference from Protestantism being that Catholics are bound to authority in the rare instance of an infallibly defined statement.

[Jack4]

56 minutes ago, Peace said:

1) Searching for and maintaining peace (Phillippe)

<3

5 hours ago, Socrates said:

If you think that every single prudential opinion of  a Pope is infallible doctrine, then I'd say it's you that misunderstand Church teaching on this matter.

I'd like to add that Popes have given contrary opinions. 

[DominicanHeart]

I just bought "The Ear of the Heart" about Mother Dolores. It's a big read but I can't wait to get it started after I finish rereading St. Teresa of the Andes once again....

[Amppax]

Christ, the Life of the Soul by Bl. Columba Marmion. Possibly one of the most profound and life-changing books I've ever read, and I'm less than a quarter of the way through. It's one of those books that you have to read very, very slowly and meditatively. 

[Socrates]

On 2/4/2017 at 10:03 PM, Peace said:

I am not very familiar with the author but in "The Myth of Catholic Social Teaching" he seems to suggest that other than in instances of infallibly made statements, God does not act within or guide the Church, and that Jesus and the Church have nothing of substance to say concerning politics and economics (and presumably many other things as well).  . . .

Actually, he does not, and if you read the book I recommended, he makes this quite clear and explicit.  In fact, he says that Catholics must hold to the Pope's teachings in the ordinary magisterium when he is teaching on faith and morals in union with all the bishops of the Church.  The article (taken from part of the book actually) is addressing one particular argument, and doesn't go into all his views in the broader topic.  You are putting words in his mouth and claiming he says things that he never actually does.

It is true that popes are not infallible when they speak on other matters such as the particular facts of economics, the physical sciences, politics, etc.  The idea that the Popes are some kind of divine oracle and that every thing a pope says about anything is divinely inspired and must be believed by all faithful Catholics was never taught by the Church, ever.  There's no point in pretending the Pope possesses magical powers he does not have.  Catholics must respect the authority of the Pope, but that doesn't mean we must shut off our brains and suspend our critical thinking abilities every time a Pope opens his mouth.

Methinks you're too quick to call any Catholic who doesn't agree with your own opinions "Protestant."

 

On 2/4/2017 at 10:27 PM, Jack4 said:

I'd like to add that Popes have given contrary opinions. 

Exactly, which was a point Zmirak made in the article.  (He gives a number of examples.)  To be consistent, if we follow the whole "Pope as infallible divine oracle" notion, we must conclude that God contradicts Himself or changes His mind, which is certainly not a Catholic idea.

[Amppax]

His whole argument that people think the Pope is an infallible divine oracle is such a strawman that it's really not worth engaging. 

[Socrates]

5 hours ago, Amppax said:

His whole argument that people think the Pope is an infallible divine oracle is such a strawman that it's really not worth engaging. 

Maybe a rhetorical exaggeration, but would refer to those who (for instance) insist that Catholics are bound by Faith to agree with Pope Francis's opinions on global warming or that "trickle-down economics" and lack of sufficient government interference in the market are to blame for poverty.

It's certainly no more a strawman than the following, none of which Zmirak actually argues:

On 2/4/2017 at 10:03 PM, Peace said:

I am not very familiar with the author but in "The Myth of Catholic Social Teaching" he seems to suggest that other than in instances of infallibly made statements, God does not act within or guide the Church, and that Jesus and the Church have nothing of substance to say concerning politics and economics (and presumably many other things as well). Or that in effect each individual Catholic becomes the ultimate judge of every issue that is not infallibly defined, and need not give the Pope's view or his Bishop's view any more deference than he would give to a random person on the street. 

 

You've still failed to show where either Zmirak or I dissent from Catholic doctrine, though perhaps it would be best to start another thread.  (My apologies for furthering the hijack.)

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

You've still failed to show where either Zmirak or I dissent from Catholic doctrine, though perhaps it would be best to start another thread.  (My apologies for furthering the hijack.)

OK. I think it should be fairly easy to do that, but perhaps I am wrong. I will get back to you and try to quote specific things that he writes, and how they are contradicted by specific documents of the Church.

[Spem in alium]

The Bible is top. After it I do quite like Carlo Carretto's books, particularly Love is for Living, and Fr Walter Ciszek's He Leadeth Me, which is a book I can read over and over again (read at least 4 times) and still find something new. His book With God in Russia is also good.

[Peace]

Quote

It's certainly no more a strawman than the following, none of which Zmirak actually argues:

@Socrates

Here is what I wrote:

On 2/4/2017 at 11:03 PM, Peace said:

He seems to suggest that other than in instances of infallibly made statements, God does not act within or guide the Church, and that Jesus and the Church have nothing of substance to say concerning politics and economics (and presumably many other things as well).

Here is where he suggests it:

Quote

But there are smart, sincere people out there who struggle seriously with the idea that the papacy is a 2,000-year-old Delphic oracle, that a “spirit-led Magisterium” inspires and guards from error the statements of popes about economics and politics. Even if such statements are not infallible, we are obliged to grant them a docile “religious submission,” as we are to other non- ex cathedra assertions of Catholic teaching. Or so people say.

Here, he refers to the ordinary magisterium of the Church by invoking the words "religious submission". He indicates that we are to give religious submission to "other non-ex cathedra" Catholic teaching (by these he refers to things other than economics and politics).  By writing "or so people say" he indicates that "religious submission" need not be given to statements of popes concerning economics and politics (as though there is such a sharp dichotomy between "faith and morals" and "economics and politics" that papal statements can be easily separated into one category or the other).

Now why wouldn't it be wrong to deny religious submission to statements by popes concerning economics or politics? The implication is that it would not be wrong to give assent to statements by popes concerning economics or politics, because these statements reflect merely the pope's personal opinions, and do not reflect anything that Jesus or the Church has to say about them.

He also suggests it here:

Quote

But is it true? Is there a “spirit-led” “social Magisterium” that works by accretion over the centuries, gradually building up a coherent, defensible program of economics and politics, which can be drawn by simply reading what popes have said and fitting those statements together like Lego blocks, to construct a Catholic city? Is that what Jesus intended to give us when He founded the papacy?

Here he mocks the very idea that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church toward a concrete teaching concerning economics or politics.

Here is what I wrote:

On 2/4/2017 at 11:03 PM, Peace said:

Or that in effect each individual Catholic becomes the ultimate judge of every issue that is not infallibly defined, and need not give the Pope's view or his Bishop's view any more deference than he would give to a random person on the street. 

And here is where he suggests it:

Quote

 

But those are not the only choices. A third way is to see Catholic social teaching not as analogous to Eucharistic doctrine and Marian dogmas, but as something much more akin to the Catholic literary tradition – a treasure trove of often-brilliant insights and deep investigations into the best ways for men to live which claims our respectful attention.

We could quote a papal encyclical where it is apropos as we might a piercing insight from Dante or Walker Percy, aware that when popes spoke on economics and politics, they claimed no divine authority, but instead addressed key implications of natural law as best as their intellects and advisors advised them.

 

Here he indicates that we should treat CST papal encyclicals in the same manner that we might treat a work from Dante or Walker Percy. He suggests that papal views on these subjects should be given no more weight than we would give to any other random person (in this case Dante or Walker Percy).

[Peace]

22 hours ago, Socrates said:

Actually, he does not, and if you read the book I recommended, he makes this quite clear and explicit.  

I have no interest in reading the book. From the small portions that are available for free on Amazon, and from what the author has written online, there does not seem to be anything of value in the book. If I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, there are far better sources.

But I will tell you what.  If you will paypal me the cost of the book, and an additional $400 (at a rate of $200 per hour) in lost opportunity cost for the 2 hours that it will take me to read the book, I will be happy to read it.

Otherwise, I will not. Thank you for the kind recommendation.

22 hours ago, Socrates said:

In fact, he says that Catholics must hold to the Pope's teachings in the ordinary magisterium when he is teaching on faith and morals in union with all the bishops of the Church.  The article (taken from part of the book actually) is addressing one particular argument, and doesn't go into all his views in the broader topic.  You are putting words in his mouth and claiming he says things that he never actually does.

I believe that I already substantiated my claims above. From the free portion of the book available on Amazon, he also writes the following:

Quote

No doubt you have read breathless accounts in the press of the exiting new changes allegedly impending Catholic teaching. Pope Francis has used his bully pulpit tirelessly to vent his private opinions on global warming, economics, immigration, and a long list of other issues on which he is less well-informed than the average American who watches Fox News. None of that matters. As you will learn, these subjects are outside of the pope’s scope of divinely appointed authority. He has no more claim to anyone’s deference on these subjects than a traffic cop who stops you to offer gynecological advice.

Besides being blatantly disrespectful, the above quote also substantiates my claim that the author suggested that the Pope's views on economics or politics should be given no more deference than a random person on the street.

You can continue to deny this if you want, but I doubt that you will convince anyone other than yourself.

22 hours ago, Socrates said:

It is true that popes are not infallible when they speak on other matters such as the particular facts of economics, the physical sciences, politics, etc.  The idea that the Popes are some kind of divine oracle and that every thing a pope says about anything is divinely inspired and must be believed by all faithful Catholics was never taught by the Church, ever.  There's no point in pretending the Pope possesses magical powers he does not have.  Catholics must respect the authority of the Pope, but that doesn't mean we must shut off our brains and suspend our critical thinking abilities every time a Pope opens his mouth.

This is a straw man, as @Amppax indicated above.

22 hours ago, Socrates said:

Methinks you're too quick to call any Catholic who doesn't agree with your own opinions "Protestant."

No. I call people Protestant when they "protest" against the authority of the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  And that is precisely what the author of the above article did. He attempts to limit the authority of the pope to a "faith and morals" box, the boundaries of which the author gets to define. Then, all too conveniently, any papal teaching that he disagrees with, he puts outside of the box that he himself has defined, as though the the Church's moral authority does not extend to practical implications for economics or politics. The author is essentially no different than a scientist who asserts that the Church has no moral authority to speak concerning abortion, contraception, or the "after-morning pill" because scientific questions concerning procreation and the beginning of life are outside of the Church's competence, or a psychologist who says that the Church has no moral authority to speak concerning transgender issues, because questions of physiology and psychology are outside of the scope of the Church's competence.  John Zmirak does exactly the same thing, when he suggests that the Church has no moral authority to speak concerning economics or politics, because these are outside of the realm of the Church's competence.

His view is directly contradicted by what the Popes themselves have to say about it.  As one example:

https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html

Quote

 

41. Yet before proceeding to explain these matters, that principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters.[27] Certainly the Church was not given the commission to guide men to an only fleeting and perishable happiness but to that which is eternal. Indeed" the Church holds that it is unlawful for her to mix without cause in these temporal concerns"[28]; however, she can in no wise renounce the duty God entrusted to her to interpose her authority, not of course in matters of technique for which she is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office, but in all things that are connected with the moral law. For as to these, the deposit of truth that God committed to Us and the grave duty of disseminating and interpreting the whole moral law, and of urging it in season and out of season, bring under and subject to Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves.

42. Even though economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere, it is, nevertheless, an error to say that the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter. Certainly the laws of economics, as they are termed, being based on the very nature of material things and on the capacities of the human body and mind, determine the limits of what productive human effort cannot, and of what it can attain in the economic field and by what means. Yet it is reason itself that clearly shows, on the basis of the individual and social nature of things and of men, the purpose which God ordained for all economic life.

43. But it is only the moral law which, just as it commands us to seek our supreme and last end in the whole scheme of our activity, so likewise commands us to seek directly in each kind of activity those purposes which we know that nature, or rather God the Author of nature, established for that kind of action, and in orderly relationship to subordinate such immediate purposes to our supreme and last end. If we faithfully observe this law, then it will follow that the particular purposes, both individual and social, that are sought in the economic field will fall in their proper place in the universal order of purposes, and We, in ascending through them, as it were by steps, shall attain the final end of all things, that is God, to Himself and to us, the supreme and inexhaustible Good.

44. But to come down to particular points, We shall begin with ownership or the right of property. . .

 

So his view (and your view to the extent that you disagree with it) is rightly termed a Protestant view, because it denies that the popes have the very authority that they claim for themselves.

What I find amusing is that the so-called "conservatives" will not hesitate to quote a pope as an authority when it comes to things such as private property rights and denunciation of socialism, but when a pope denounces pure capitalism, or the tyranny of free markets, or speaks concerning a just wage, their views are to be disregarded because they do not relate to faith and morals. 

There is nothing to call it but Cafeteria Catholicism.

[Jack4]

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Amppax said:

His whole argument that people think the Pope is an infallible divine oracle is such a strawman that it's really not worth engaging. 

With all due respect, I beg to differ. You haven't seen the hardcore ultramontane ones, have you?

[Amppax]

8 hours ago, Jack4 said:

With all due respect, I beg to differ. You haven't seen the hardcore ultramontane ones, have you?

That doesn't make it less of a strawman, as he collapses a whole range of people to that of a small minority. Plus, there's a wider context here, you have to take into account his interlocutors on this question. He is, in large part, accusing the likes of Thomas Storck and John Médaille at the Distributist Review of holding this position, that's the wider context of the piece that I earlier called into question, "The Myth of Catholic Social Teaching." That accusation, more specifically, is most definitely a strawman.

This article also helps to give more context. Zmirak falls squarely in the former camp, and decries the latter camp as "illiberal Catholicism." Somewhat of a generalization, but, I think, a helpful one. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Amppax

[Jack4]

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

That doesn't make it less of a strawman, as he collapses a whole range of people to that of a small minority. Plus, there's a wider context here, you have to take into account his interlocutors on this question. He is, in large part, accusing the likes of Thomas Storck and John Médaille at the Distributist Review of holding this position, that's the wider context of the piece that I earlier called into question, "The Myth of Catholic Social Teaching." That accusation, more specifically, is most definitely a strawman.

This article also helps to give more context. Zmirak falls squarely in the former camp, and decries the latter camp as "illiberal Catholicism." Somewhat of a generalization, but, I think, a helpful one. 

Ok then, I'm not familiar with his writings. I was just responding to your denial that "people" think the Pope is an infallible divine oracle. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Jack4

[Amppax]

2 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Ok then, I'm not familiar with his writings. I was just responding to your denial that "people" think the Pope is an infallible divine oracle. 

 

I didn't mean to deny that, just Zmirak's assertion that those who agree with the Church's social teachings fall into the general grouping of believers in the Pope as divine oracle. I suppose that wasn't quite clear in what I wrote, mea culpa. 

 

Sorry I'll try to stop sidetracking this thread. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Amppax

[Socrates]

On 2/25/2017 at 2:15 PM, Peace said:

I have no interest in reading the book.  . . .

Yet you've wasted plenty of time making lengthy denunciations of the author, whom you've admitted you are not familiar with.  If you can't be bothered to read the book, you cannot have anything of substance to say about it.

("I have no interest in this book, nor in reading anything the author might say which might contradict my own ignorant negative preconceptions about his ideas, yet I'll go on and on attacking his faith.")

Those who have actually read the book (and not just things cherry-picked off the interwebz) will know that your accusations against the author are nonsense, and he actually answers most of your objections in its pages. (You'll have to read it yourself though - I don't have time to manually copy large blocks of text.)

If you read it, you'd know that Zmirak certainly does not in fact believe that "God does not act within or guide the Church" nor does he claim that "Jesus and the Church have nothing of substance to say concerning politics and economics."

He says that we are bound to heed the moral principles taught by the Church and the Popes in encyclicals and such, and says that these moral teachings preclude Catholics from believing in certain ideologies that are based on false moral and philosophical premises, for including both socialism (based on envy and theft and false premises about the nature of man) and the Ayn Rand school of extreme libertarianism (which declares selfishness a virtue, and says the materially successful have no moral obligation to help the poor and suffering).

As John Paul II has pointed out, the Church does not, however, demand that Catholics must follow or particular political ideology, nor does it lay out a detailed political-economic program to follow.

However, opinions of individual popes on the particular facts of economics or science are not themselves infallible, nor are Catholics bound to agree with them.

As a Catholic I'm not required to agree with Pope Francis about so-called "trickle-down economics" and his thinking that more government control over markets is needed.  Neither must I agree with Benedict XVI's suggestion to put the international market on under the control of a single global economic authority.  Nor must I agree with Gregory I, etc. on slavery being acceptable, nor Urban VIII on astronomy.

And while the Holy Spirit may guide the Church and protect it from teaching error, that does not mean everything said or did by the Pope, Cardinals, bishops, etc. is guided by the Holy Spirit - unless you're really prepared to say the massive cover-up of priestly sexual abuse was guided by the Holy Spirit . . .

But I've probably wasted enough time arguing about a book with someone who refuses to read it.  Either read it, or else shut up about it.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

Yet you've wasted plenty of time making lengthy denunciations of the author, whom you've admitted you are not familiar with.  If you can't be bothered to read the book, you cannot have anything of substance to say about it.

("I have no interest in this book, nor in reading anything the author might say which might contradict my own ignorant negative preconceptions about his ideas, yet I'll go on and on attacking his faith.")

Those who have actually read the book (and not just things cherry-picked off the interwebz) will know that your accusations against the author are nonsense, and he actually answers most of your objections in its pages. (You'll have to read it yourself though - I don't have time to manually copy large blocks of text.)

Please. He published an article. I commented on the article. I made no mention of the book whatsoever until you attempted to bring it into the conversation. He wrote the words contained in the article and he is accountable for what he wrote, regardless of whatever else it is that he may have written elsewhere.

Anytime I comment on a specific article am I then required to go and read an entire book by the same author? I do not have time for all of that (nor does anyone else on this site) but again, if you think it is so important you can pay me for my time. My fee is $400 plus the cost of the book.

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

If you read it, you'd know that Zmirak certainly does not in fact believe that "God does not act within or guide the Church" nor does he claim that "Jesus and the Church have nothing of substance to say concerning politics and economics."

He says that we are bound to heed the moral principles taught by the Church and the Popes in encyclicals and such, and says that these moral teachings preclude Catholics from believing in certain ideologies that are based on false moral and philosophical premises, for including both socialism (based on envy and theft and false premises about the nature of man) and the Ayn Rand school of extreme libertarianism (which declares selfishness a virtue, and says the materially successful have no moral obligation to help the poor and suffering).

That may be all well and good, but I am not concerned with what he believes.  What he believes is between him and God. I am concerned with what he wrote. In particular, I am concerned with what he wrote in the specific article that I commented on.

How ridiculous would it be if you commented on a specific statement by Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and I said to you "Oh yeah, well even though she said X what she really means is Y.  But to understand that I want you to go out, spend your hard earned money, and read her entire book?" I am sorry. I know that you want me to read the book, but that is simply not the way that a discussion forum works. I do not have to read a person's entire body of work to comment on a specific article that was made publicly available. There is no precedent for such a thing on Phatmass whatsoever, nor does it follow from reason.

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

As John Paul II has pointed out, the Church does not, however, demand that Catholics must follow or particular political ideology, nor does it lay out a detailed political-economic program to follow.

However, opinions of individual popes on the particular facts of economics or science are not themselves infallible, nor are Catholics bound to agree with them.

As a Catholic I'm not required to agree with Pope Francis about so-called "trickle-down economics" and his thinking that more government control over markets is needed.  Neither must I agree with Benedict XVI's suggestion to put the international market on under the control of a single global economic authority.  Nor must I agree with Gregory I, etc. on slavery being acceptable, nor Urban VIII on astronomy.

That is all good but the author goes way beyond that in his article, as documented in detail above.

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

And while the Holy Spirit may guide the Church and protect it from teaching error, that does not mean everything said or did by the Pope, Cardinals, bishops, etc. is guided by the Holy Spirit - unless you're really prepared to say the massive cover-up of priestly sexual abuse was guided by the Holy Spirit . . .

 More straw man.

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

But I've probably wasted enough time arguing about a book with someone who refuses to read it.  Either read it, or else shut up about it.

Please.  My initial comments were directed to his article. You brought up the book. I decline to buy it unless you pay me for it.  And I can and will comment on the article without buying the book, as is my right.  If you do not like that then you can exit the conversation yourself.

Have a good night.

[Peace]

23 hours ago, Jack4 said:

With all due respect, I beg to differ. You haven't seen the hardcore ultramontane ones, have you?

Who is it that you are referring to here, by the way? Can you name any living person who is a "hardcore ultramontane" so that I can have an example of the type of person you are speaking of?

[Jack4]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

Who is it that you are referring to here, by the way? Can you name any living person who is a "hardcore ultramontane" so that I can have an example of the type of person you are speaking of?

Well, you wouldn't recognize them by their names, they are normal people ordinary crazy people. 

He acknowledges his support for the actions Medici Popes, Borgias, Honorius, Vigilus, Liberius; and his justification for that is "The Pope is the Vicar of Christ! Today Peter speaks through Francis! The Pope is my link to God!". 

This is what I'm referring to. 

I'm abstaining from teh interwebz for Lent; I'll come back to you then. 

 

[DominicanHeart]

How about good Lenten reads?

[Amppax]

On 2/27/2017 at 7:20 AM, DominicanHeart said:

How about good Lenten reads?

I was recently recommended Deep Conversion, Deep Prayer by Fr. Thomas Dubay, which I may read as something specifically Lenten. 

[Jack4]

19 hours ago, Amppax said:

I was recently recommended Deep Conversion, Deep Prayer by Fr. Thomas Dubay, which I may read as something specifically Lenten. 

If this is the same person who wrote The Fire Within, I've heard that he has a dense-but-good style of writing. Regards. 

[philothea]

Last Lent I read St. Faustina's Diary, and that... was an experience. Amazing stuff, but I always find books like that a little challenging for ordinary, mediocre me. 

A few years ago I read Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection and I think that was pretty perfect Lenten reading. 

[DominicanHeart]

9 hours ago, philothea said:

Last Lent I read St. Faustina's Diary, and that... was an experience. Amazing stuff, but I always find books like that a little challenging for ordinary, mediocre me. 

A few years ago I read Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection and I think that was pretty perfect Lenten reading. 

Yes i love that book!

I think I will read it again after I'm finished rereading A Right to be Merry 

[DominicanHeart]

Oh and I'm also reading A Lenten Journey with Jesus Christ and St. Elizabeth of the Trinity 

[Guest]

Lent this year:

"The Seven Sorrows of Our Lady" (Publisher: Australia Needs Fatima)

"40 Days with Paul" (Henry Wansbrough OSB)

[philothea]

On 2/28/2017 at 0:56 PM, Amppax said:

I was recently recommended Deep Conversion, Deep Prayer by Fr. Thomas Dubay, which I may read as something specifically Lenten. 

Got that. Read it. Liked it, but it was a little underwhelming. Lots of repeat from his other books, and maybe a little outdated (???). Like at one point he suggests that it's inconsiderate to go to confession weekly because the priests are so overworked. At my parish they specifically recommend weekly confession for Lent. But he was super insistent on how we need to completely avoid all venial sins (with examples of common ones) so that was nice.

BUT! Buying that got Amazon to recommend Peter Kreeft's How to be Holy: First Steps in Becoming a Saint which is completely amazing. The title rather undersells the contents. Strong recommendation if you're looking for something to read for Lent (or any time). 

Edited March 13, 2017 by philothea

[Jubilate Deo]

Some other good reads:

Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila

Uniformity with God's Will by St. Alphonsus Liguori

Read Me or Rue It by Fr. Paul O'Sullivan

An Easy Way to Become a Saint by Fr. Paul O'Sullivan

The Wonders of the Holy Name by Fr. Paul O'Sullivan

How to Be Happy, How to Be Holy by Fr. Paul O'Sullivan

Mother Angelica: Her Grand Silence by Raymond Arroyo

Flowers From the Garden of St. Francis For Every Day of the Year by an anonymous writer

 

[Jubilate Deo]

For those of you who have a devotion to the Sacred Heart, Haurietis Aquas by Pope Pius XII would likely interest you. I haven't read it all myself, but it sounds like a good read.

You can read it here:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas.html

 

 

[Jubilate Deo]

Casti Connubii (On Christian Marriage) by Pope Pius XI

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM

Edited May 3, 2017 by Jubilate Deo

[Jubilate Deo]

I'm 50 paragraphs into Veritatis Splendor by St. John Paul II and it's got a lot of good stuff in it about leading a moral life and how God, through the Church, gives us freedom.

[DominicanHeart]

I want to read more Marian books. Those are my favorite 

[Jubilate Deo]

11 minutes ago, DominicanHeart said:

I want to read more Marian books. Those are my favorite 

 

There are many here for you to consider:

http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/Marian/cid=29/page_no=1/get_all=/shop.axd/Category

Edited May 9, 2017 by Jubilate Deo

[Jubilate Deo]

Miserentissimus Redemptor (on reparation to the Sacred Heart) - Pope Pius XI

[Jubilate Deo]

I'm on Chapter 8 of this book and I'm really enjoying it.

 

[DominicanHeart]

6 hours ago, Jubilate Deo said:

I'm on Chapter 8 of this book and I'm really enjoying it.

 

Ooooo Id like to read this! Amazon?

[Jubilate Deo]

https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Father-Sacred-Heart-Greatest/dp/0824521471

 

[DominicanHeart]

How about Fatima? What's the best book on Fatima?

[Jubilate Deo]

16 minutes ago, DominicanHeart said:

How about Fatima? What's the best book on Fatima?

I can't really say, but if you look up 'Bookmark Fatima for Today' on YouTube, you can watch the EWTN Bookmark episode with Fr. Andrew Apostoli and see if that book interests you. I'd post it here, but it won't let me.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Jubilate Deo

[Charbel]

Is that about the book called Vision of Fatima ? I hear it's a great read, but it's about the priest sculptor who sculpted the Our Lady of Fatima Statue under Sr. Lucia's direction and supervision. He wrote the book though because as the description states:

"Fr. Tom emerged with far more than an exact replica of how Our Lady appeared; he came to understand and recounts here in these pages Sr. Lucia's intimate explanations of what happened in Fatima, the spiritual meanings of the apparitions, whether the Consecration to Russia occurred, why the secrets had to remain secrets for so long, and why Mary chose to appear to three young shepherd children in rural Portugal."

I think someone actually started a thread about this book a while back but it probably got lost in the pages somewhere

[Jubilate Deo]

19 hours ago, Charbel said:

Is that about the book called Vision of Fatima ? I hear it's a great read, but it's about the priest sculptor who sculpted the Our Lady of Fatima Statue under Sr. Lucia's direction and supervision.

It's the book called Fatima for Today.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Jubilate Deo

[Not The Philosopher]

Five pages in and no one's repped Chesterton? Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man are great reads. The Man Who Was Thursday is one of my favourite novels and an excellent theological thriller. His Father Brown mysteries are no slouch either.

I read Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity during Lent and thought it was pretty cool.

[Jubilate Deo]

The Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus. I'm only a few pages in, but this is really good. Some of it only applies to monastics, but there is definitely a lot in here for lay people as well.

The e-book can be found and read in its entirety here:

http://www.carmelitepriory.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/TheLadderofDivineAscent.pdf

[Jubilate Deo]

32 minutes ago, Jubilate Deo said:

The Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus. I'm only a few pages in, but this is really good. Some of it only applies to monastics, but there is definitely a lot in here for lay people as well.

The e-book can be found and read in its entirety here:

http://www.carmelitepriory.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/TheLadderofDivineAscent.pdf

I'd just like to add that some of it comes across as harsh when it comes to relations with others, but it's important to keep in mind that the author is a monastic and if he were to focus on others too much and/or for too long, it could negatively influence his vocation. This is very different than it would be for a married person or a single person in the world.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Jubilate Deo

[DominicanHeart]

I'm reading Champions of the Rosary

[Jubilate Deo]

21 hours ago, DominicanHeart said:

I'm reading Champions of the Rosary

How are you liking it? I've heard Fr. Calloway talk about it and it sounds like a great read!

[DominicanHeart]

17 minutes ago, Jubilate Deo said:

How are you liking it? I've heard Fr. Calloway talk about it and it sounds like a great read!

I really like it. I always knew about the Rosary but I never really KNEW much of its history aside from St. Dominic. And there's so many great Saints and Blesseds that loved it so much. Some of them I never knew about.

[Jubilate Deo]

Just now, DominicanHeart said:

I really like it. I always knew about the Rosary but I never really KNEW much of its history aside from St. Dominic. And there's so many great Saints and Blesseds that loved it so much. Some of them I never knew about.

Very nice! If you haven't already read it, I'm sure you'd love The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis de Montfort. It's very affordable on Amazon.

[Jubilate Deo]

I hope it's okay if I revive this thread.

Vision of Fatima by Fr. Thomas McGlynn has some great information on Our Lady of Fatima and how she appeared to the three shepherd children.  

G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man is also very good, although much of it goes completely over my head.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Jubilate Deo

[MaterDolorosa]

The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ by St. Alphonsus Liguori

[PhultonSheen]

On 3/4/2017 at 8:30 PM, philothea said:

Last Lent I read St. Faustina's Diary, and that... was an experience. Amazing stuff, but I always find books like that a little challenging for ordinary, mediocre me. 

A few years ago I read Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection and I think that was pretty perfect Lenten reading. 

Such an amazing book. Cannot believe I didn't fall into it until my late 30s.

 

That said, now as a father of two children, I much enjoy reading The Chronicles of Narnia to them. The allegory is so thick, they can't help but catch it... and the discussions afterwards are delightful.

[Era Might]

Just started a biography of the Catholic novelist Walker Percy (who was a convert, writer, and maybe can even call him a philosopher). "Pilgrim in the Ruins: A Life of Walker Percy" by Jay Tolson. I just started but it's really good, especially if you like history. Not specifically a Catholic book but the subject was a life-long convert.

[Seven77]

I just finished reading "To Light a Fire on the Earth,"  by John Allen and Bishop Robert Barron. Part bio, part strategy for winning souls by means of truth, goodness, and beauty.

Now I'm reading "Into Your Hands Father" by Fr. Wilfrid Stinissen on abandonment to the loving Providence of God.

[dUSt]

On 1/22/2017 at 9:28 PM, KnightofChrist said:

So, if we can still discuss the OP lol, I like A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller Jr. 

I don't think any Pope has read and approved it yet. So I guess that's a con, but it's one of the few profoundly Catholic themed Sci-fi novels out there and is also one of the greatest sci-fi novels of all time, imho.

I'm finally reading this book!